Difference between revisions of "Parteibuchwirtschaft (Austria and Germany)"

This practice has its origins in the early days of the Austrian Second Republic of the 1950s. At that time, identifying with a political party was not only an expression of a person’s political standpoint, but often the only way to be granted access to employment in public administration or in the important sector of state enterprises (Sickinger 2011)<ref>Sickinger, H. 2011. ‘Politische Parteien in Österreich’, historisch-politische bildung. Themendossiers zur Didaktik von Geschichte, sozialkunde und Politischer Bildung, 4: 9-19 Stuttgarter Nachrichten. 2012. ‘Opposition wirft Grün-Rot Parteibuchwirtschaft vor’, 28 November</ref>. Allegedly, the practice of Parteibuchwirtschaft was deemed so important that teachers were said to have routinely possessed not one, but two membership books – one for the conservative party (ÖVP) and one for the socialist party (SPÖ) (Parsons 2014). The practice of boosting one’s chances of access to relatively cheap co-operative or council flats by becoming a member of a certain party was well established in Austria up until the 1980s. This informal practice was not only restricted to economic or administrative managerial positions (in which it still plays a vital role today), but also encompassed subordinated elements such as the distribution of housing space. Consequently, not being a member of or associated with one of the major Austrian parties resulted in severely diminished social prospects, and limited career opportunities in the public sector and in state-owned companies. In the late 1980s Parteibuchwirtschaft attracted considerable public criticism and as a result was partly abandoned by the nationalised industries (Sickinger 2011)<ref>Sickinger, H. 2011. ‘Politische Parteien in Österreich’, historisch-politische bildung. Themendossiers zur Didaktik von Geschichte, sozialkunde und Politischer Bildung, 4: 9-19 Stuttgarter Nachrichten. 2012. ‘Opposition wirft Grün-Rot Parteibuchwirtschaft vor’, 28 November</ref>.

This practice has its origins in the early days of the Austrian Second Republic of the 1950s. At that time, identifying with a political party was not only an expression of a person’s political standpoint, but often the only way to be granted access to employment in public administration or in the important sector of state enterprises (Sickinger 2011)<ref>Sickinger, H. 2011. ‘Politische Parteien in Österreich’, historisch-politische bildung. Themendossiers zur Didaktik von Geschichte, sozialkunde und Politischer Bildung, 4: 9-19 Stuttgarter Nachrichten. 2012. ‘Opposition wirft Grün-Rot Parteibuchwirtschaft vor’, 28 November</ref>. Allegedly, the practice of Parteibuchwirtschaft was deemed so important that teachers were said to have routinely possessed not one, but two membership books – one for the conservative party (ÖVP) and one for the socialist party (SPÖ) (Parsons 2014). The practice of boosting one’s chances of access to relatively cheap co-operative or council flats by becoming a member of a certain party was well established in Austria up until the 1980s. This informal practice was not only restricted to economic or administrative managerial positions (in which it still plays a vital role today), but also encompassed subordinated elements such as the distribution of housing space. Consequently, not being a member of or associated with one of the major Austrian parties resulted in severely diminished social prospects, and limited career opportunities in the public sector and in state-owned companies. In the late 1980s Parteibuchwirtschaft attracted considerable public criticism and as a result was partly abandoned by the nationalised industries (Sickinger 2011)<ref>Sickinger, H. 2011. ‘Politische Parteien in Österreich’, historisch-politische bildung. Themendossiers zur Didaktik von Geschichte, sozialkunde und Politischer Bildung, 4: 9-19 Stuttgarter Nachrichten. 2012. ‘Opposition wirft Grün-Rot Parteibuchwirtschaft vor’, 28 November</ref>.

All of the above terms are frequently used synonymously in the media as well as in public and private discussions, even though most of them have slightly different connotations. What these terms have in common however, is the tendency to place interpersonal over performance criteria when it comes to human resource decisions and the granting of other benefits.

All of the above terms are frequently used synonymously in the media as well as in public and private discussions, even though most of them have slightly different connotations. What these terms have in common however, is the tendency to place interpersonal over performance criteria when it comes to human resource decisions and the granting of other benefits.