The presence, role and economic impact of Employers’ Associations in Europe

IF 1.3 2区 管理学 Q3 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR British Journal of Industrial Relations Pub Date : 2024-03-14 DOI:10.1111/bjir.12806
Dieter Sadowski
{"title":"The presence, role and economic impact of Employers’ Associations in Europe","authors":"Dieter Sadowski","doi":"10.1111/bjir.12806","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Employers’ Associations (EAs), a major pillar of Western industrial relations and corporatist political systems, are notoriously under-researched compared to their counterparts, the unions. Beginning with Mancur Olson, their theoretical analysis has been further developed by Philip Schmitter and Wolfgang Streeck in particular. Beyond some descriptive studies of mainly aggregate developments, with Franz Traxler at the forefront, there has been, however, a lack of empirical studies based on microdata. This situation has recently changed for the better with the availability of new databases − often country-specific, but some also suited for international comparisons − and with the accompanying development of micro-econometric methods.</p><p>There is no need for a detailed account of these developments in my introduction, because the following papers quote the theoretical milestones and the empirical and methodical advancements on which they build. Despite their small number and differing focus, the five selected papers present the current state of our knowledge − and our ignorance − on the role and the impact of EAs in Europe.</p><p>Even pure EAs may pursue various activities beyond collective bargaining to favour their members’ interests, such as offering legal services directly or via preferential group contracts, lobbying, information sharing and training. Where an EA not only deals with employment matters, but cares also for other member interests, like marketing or financing issues, in so-called mixed EAs, the variety of activities is obviously even greater.</p><p><i>Bryson and Willman</i> assert in their conceptual keynote that EAs, as colluding collectives, face a multi-issue mission drift, whether pure or mixed. The selection of specific activities depends on the industry's collusion climate, which includes labour, product, financial and political market considerations, according to Bryson and Willman's strategic collusion approach. The authors effectively demonstrate the productivity of their contingency perspective in two ways. Firstly, they assert the significance of ‘no poaching’ and ‘no solicitation’ agreements in the absence of collective bargaining in the United States. Secondly, they confidently explain the decline of collective bargaining in the UK and Germany, where attempts to influence minimum wage legislation and occupational licensing can be seen as a substitute for collective bargaining.</p><p>In a novel 27-country comparison of approximately 30,000 establishments, <i>Lehr, Jansen and Brandl</i> examine the determinants of membership in pure EAs and whether these associations provide preferential treatment to their larger members. The analysis uses the European Company Survey (ECS) microdata, which expresses membership as a proportion of companies/establishments rather than as a proportion of the relevant labour force. At the establishment level, the independent variables considered are the presence and strength of employee representation, workplace unionization and size. At the country level, the variables include the coordination of wage setting, the existence of tripartite councils and trade union density. The data from two waves of the ECS, 2013 and 2019, are combined and analysed using a multi-level bivariate logit regression with maximum likelihood methods. Lehr, Jansen and Brandl find that despite the widespread suspicion of a decline in collective bargaining, variables indicative of collective bargaining remain positively correlated with EA membership. They also discover that approximately 70 per cent of the total variation in EA membership is company-level variation within countries, with only 30 per cent variation between countries (or survey waves). The expected positive correlation between establishment size and EA membership obviously poses representativeness issues. The authors articulate caveats given certain weaknesses of their ECS database.</p><p><i>Fanfani, Lucifora and Vigani's</i> study on the representativeness of Italian EAs also use disaggregated firm-level data. They base their analysis of the characteristics of members and changes in membership rates over time on cross-sectional surveys of some 20,000 enterprises with a rich set of information on their characteristics. The descriptive results are similar to those of the previous study: Members tend to be larger, older, in manufacturing, more likely to have collective agreements, to have decentralized bargaining and to have a union presence at company level. Affiliated companies are also more export-oriented, more likely to provide training and more innovative. The authors make an original use of the Oaxaca decomposition technique to compare union membership rates in 2005 and 2015, which declined by 19 percentage points, using a linear probability model. For observationally similar firms, 43 per cent of the decline is related to differences in the propensity to be affiliated. Larger firms were more likely to leave EAs; firms that used a firm or local collective agreement, provided more training or were export-oriented, were significantly less likely to leave EAs. Fanfani, Lucifora and Vigani enrich their study by asking whether the representativeness of an EA has an impact on negotiated minimum wages. Using their disaggregated data, they find that the share of affiliated firms within a collective agreement is <i>positively</i> correlated with contractual wages.</p><p>The quality of empirical work depends primarily on data quality. <i>Breda</i> undertakes the painstaking task of comparing five membership statistics for French EAs. The statistics are based either on representative surveys of companies, or on independent surveys using questionnaires, or finally on fiscal data, that is observations of the contributions paid by companies to their associations. Breda considers France to be an ideal country in which to compare these data sources, as the legal requirements and the interests of the EAs to be recognized as representative should guarantee the validity of the data. However, a comparison of these sources reveals major discrepancies in terms of the proportion of firms and the proportion of employees represented by EAs. He identifies different sampling criteria, ignorance and disinterest as possible reasons for the discrepancies. Breda, therefore, proposes a purpose-dependent selection of databases, but in general, he argues in favour of REPONSE, a regular, detailed establishment-level survey of industrial relations conducted by a government agency, which he considers more reliable than the ECS. He outlines strategies for inferring membership rates for non-covered small enterprises and for estimating measurement error − practical recommendations indeed. Unfortunately, the data sources currently available in France are not yet suitable for panel studies.</p><p>The final selected paper is again conceptual in nature. <i>Sheldon, Carollo, della Torre and Nacamulli</i> start with remarkable examples of EAs that are active presumably beyond their membership interests and strategically foster product or process innovations in their communities or territories. The study identifies several adaptive innovations in territorial entrepreneurship by EAs. These initiatives include vocational training in France, eco-industrial parks in the United States and the Netherlands, networks and alliances to promote the growth of technologically enabled start-ups in Greece and participation in the EU Digitizing European Industry initiative to establish regional Innovation Hubs. The authors focus on countries with mixed EAs that handle labour market and trade issues. Their core hypothesis is that EAs are willing to participate in collective community development, which accounts for community or territory-wide initiatives. The authors assert that this assumption cannot be explained by the dominant Olson approach. They assert instead that Eleonore Ostrom's conditions for successful collective actions hold, which rely on the nature of shared resources and the social context in which actors interact, conditionally making community investments a viable option. This may explain the seemingly irrational endeavours of EAs to develop open and cooperative organizational structures in a community or territory. The article provides an in-depth illustration of the engagements of the Italian EA Confindustria Bergamo and offers some cautious predictions about the growing significance of such activities in general.</p><p>The bibliographies of the five papers collect both classic and recent literature on EAs. The papers demonstrate the state-of-the-art, which has been significantly improved since the early 90s, see, for example Sadowski and Jacobi (<span>1991</span>). The articles benefitted greatly from the constructive comments by the BJIR reviewers and from the discussions at the workshops of the network of researchers ‘EmRep’, a European Commission co-funded Action (01.04.2020–31.03.2022, Grant Number: [VS/2020/0122], which investigated the structure and conduct of Employers’ Associations, as well as their impact on bargaining and labour market outcomes. Their Homepage, www.emprep.eu, stated on 22-02-2024: ‘The range and content of such collective interests, as compared with an employer's individual interests, are neither objectively given nor self-evident, but a matter of interpretation. Hence, the structure, membership basis and tasks of employers’ organisations differ widely across countries’.</p><p>The focus of the project was meant to be on four countries, among them France and Italy, that share features pertinent to the issues under investigation and to the corresponding social dialogue. One such feature is the prevalence of Small and Medium Sized Companies (SMEs), which makes the issue of social partner representativeness more pressing. For these four countries, detailed microdata − Quadros de Pessoal (Portugal), REPONSE (France), INAPP-Ril (Italy), WDN Survey (Greece) − together, with new information from interviews with firms and/or members of EAs, were used. The aim was to document measures of EA representativeness, to study the determining factors of EA membership and the impact of EAs on the effectiveness of collective bargaining and labour market performance.</p><p>The principal coordinator of the network was Daphne Nicolitsas from the University of Crete, who served with great expertise and organizational skill as well as charming patience. Uwe Jirjahn, University of Trier, served as External Adviser, he felt it appropriate to publish his contribution on German EAs elsewhere (Jirjahn, <span>2023</span>).</p><p>I sincerely thank all authors not only for their contribution, but also for their willingness to take critical suggestions seriously. I would also like to thank the staff at the publishing house and especially John Heywood for his constructive and sympathetic support throughout the whole process.</p><p>I have no conflict of interest to disclose.</p>","PeriodicalId":47846,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bjir.12806","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Industrial Relations","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjir.12806","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Employers’ Associations (EAs), a major pillar of Western industrial relations and corporatist political systems, are notoriously under-researched compared to their counterparts, the unions. Beginning with Mancur Olson, their theoretical analysis has been further developed by Philip Schmitter and Wolfgang Streeck in particular. Beyond some descriptive studies of mainly aggregate developments, with Franz Traxler at the forefront, there has been, however, a lack of empirical studies based on microdata. This situation has recently changed for the better with the availability of new databases − often country-specific, but some also suited for international comparisons − and with the accompanying development of micro-econometric methods.

There is no need for a detailed account of these developments in my introduction, because the following papers quote the theoretical milestones and the empirical and methodical advancements on which they build. Despite their small number and differing focus, the five selected papers present the current state of our knowledge − and our ignorance − on the role and the impact of EAs in Europe.

Even pure EAs may pursue various activities beyond collective bargaining to favour their members’ interests, such as offering legal services directly or via preferential group contracts, lobbying, information sharing and training. Where an EA not only deals with employment matters, but cares also for other member interests, like marketing or financing issues, in so-called mixed EAs, the variety of activities is obviously even greater.

Bryson and Willman assert in their conceptual keynote that EAs, as colluding collectives, face a multi-issue mission drift, whether pure or mixed. The selection of specific activities depends on the industry's collusion climate, which includes labour, product, financial and political market considerations, according to Bryson and Willman's strategic collusion approach. The authors effectively demonstrate the productivity of their contingency perspective in two ways. Firstly, they assert the significance of ‘no poaching’ and ‘no solicitation’ agreements in the absence of collective bargaining in the United States. Secondly, they confidently explain the decline of collective bargaining in the UK and Germany, where attempts to influence minimum wage legislation and occupational licensing can be seen as a substitute for collective bargaining.

In a novel 27-country comparison of approximately 30,000 establishments, Lehr, Jansen and Brandl examine the determinants of membership in pure EAs and whether these associations provide preferential treatment to their larger members. The analysis uses the European Company Survey (ECS) microdata, which expresses membership as a proportion of companies/establishments rather than as a proportion of the relevant labour force. At the establishment level, the independent variables considered are the presence and strength of employee representation, workplace unionization and size. At the country level, the variables include the coordination of wage setting, the existence of tripartite councils and trade union density. The data from two waves of the ECS, 2013 and 2019, are combined and analysed using a multi-level bivariate logit regression with maximum likelihood methods. Lehr, Jansen and Brandl find that despite the widespread suspicion of a decline in collective bargaining, variables indicative of collective bargaining remain positively correlated with EA membership. They also discover that approximately 70 per cent of the total variation in EA membership is company-level variation within countries, with only 30 per cent variation between countries (or survey waves). The expected positive correlation between establishment size and EA membership obviously poses representativeness issues. The authors articulate caveats given certain weaknesses of their ECS database.

Fanfani, Lucifora and Vigani's study on the representativeness of Italian EAs also use disaggregated firm-level data. They base their analysis of the characteristics of members and changes in membership rates over time on cross-sectional surveys of some 20,000 enterprises with a rich set of information on their characteristics. The descriptive results are similar to those of the previous study: Members tend to be larger, older, in manufacturing, more likely to have collective agreements, to have decentralized bargaining and to have a union presence at company level. Affiliated companies are also more export-oriented, more likely to provide training and more innovative. The authors make an original use of the Oaxaca decomposition technique to compare union membership rates in 2005 and 2015, which declined by 19 percentage points, using a linear probability model. For observationally similar firms, 43 per cent of the decline is related to differences in the propensity to be affiliated. Larger firms were more likely to leave EAs; firms that used a firm or local collective agreement, provided more training or were export-oriented, were significantly less likely to leave EAs. Fanfani, Lucifora and Vigani enrich their study by asking whether the representativeness of an EA has an impact on negotiated minimum wages. Using their disaggregated data, they find that the share of affiliated firms within a collective agreement is positively correlated with contractual wages.

The quality of empirical work depends primarily on data quality. Breda undertakes the painstaking task of comparing five membership statistics for French EAs. The statistics are based either on representative surveys of companies, or on independent surveys using questionnaires, or finally on fiscal data, that is observations of the contributions paid by companies to their associations. Breda considers France to be an ideal country in which to compare these data sources, as the legal requirements and the interests of the EAs to be recognized as representative should guarantee the validity of the data. However, a comparison of these sources reveals major discrepancies in terms of the proportion of firms and the proportion of employees represented by EAs. He identifies different sampling criteria, ignorance and disinterest as possible reasons for the discrepancies. Breda, therefore, proposes a purpose-dependent selection of databases, but in general, he argues in favour of REPONSE, a regular, detailed establishment-level survey of industrial relations conducted by a government agency, which he considers more reliable than the ECS. He outlines strategies for inferring membership rates for non-covered small enterprises and for estimating measurement error − practical recommendations indeed. Unfortunately, the data sources currently available in France are not yet suitable for panel studies.

The final selected paper is again conceptual in nature. Sheldon, Carollo, della Torre and Nacamulli start with remarkable examples of EAs that are active presumably beyond their membership interests and strategically foster product or process innovations in their communities or territories. The study identifies several adaptive innovations in territorial entrepreneurship by EAs. These initiatives include vocational training in France, eco-industrial parks in the United States and the Netherlands, networks and alliances to promote the growth of technologically enabled start-ups in Greece and participation in the EU Digitizing European Industry initiative to establish regional Innovation Hubs. The authors focus on countries with mixed EAs that handle labour market and trade issues. Their core hypothesis is that EAs are willing to participate in collective community development, which accounts for community or territory-wide initiatives. The authors assert that this assumption cannot be explained by the dominant Olson approach. They assert instead that Eleonore Ostrom's conditions for successful collective actions hold, which rely on the nature of shared resources and the social context in which actors interact, conditionally making community investments a viable option. This may explain the seemingly irrational endeavours of EAs to develop open and cooperative organizational structures in a community or territory. The article provides an in-depth illustration of the engagements of the Italian EA Confindustria Bergamo and offers some cautious predictions about the growing significance of such activities in general.

The bibliographies of the five papers collect both classic and recent literature on EAs. The papers demonstrate the state-of-the-art, which has been significantly improved since the early 90s, see, for example Sadowski and Jacobi (1991). The articles benefitted greatly from the constructive comments by the BJIR reviewers and from the discussions at the workshops of the network of researchers ‘EmRep’, a European Commission co-funded Action (01.04.2020–31.03.2022, Grant Number: [VS/2020/0122], which investigated the structure and conduct of Employers’ Associations, as well as their impact on bargaining and labour market outcomes. Their Homepage, www.emprep.eu, stated on 22-02-2024: ‘The range and content of such collective interests, as compared with an employer's individual interests, are neither objectively given nor self-evident, but a matter of interpretation. Hence, the structure, membership basis and tasks of employers’ organisations differ widely across countries’.

The focus of the project was meant to be on four countries, among them France and Italy, that share features pertinent to the issues under investigation and to the corresponding social dialogue. One such feature is the prevalence of Small and Medium Sized Companies (SMEs), which makes the issue of social partner representativeness more pressing. For these four countries, detailed microdata − Quadros de Pessoal (Portugal), REPONSE (France), INAPP-Ril (Italy), WDN Survey (Greece) − together, with new information from interviews with firms and/or members of EAs, were used. The aim was to document measures of EA representativeness, to study the determining factors of EA membership and the impact of EAs on the effectiveness of collective bargaining and labour market performance.

The principal coordinator of the network was Daphne Nicolitsas from the University of Crete, who served with great expertise and organizational skill as well as charming patience. Uwe Jirjahn, University of Trier, served as External Adviser, he felt it appropriate to publish his contribution on German EAs elsewhere (Jirjahn, 2023).

I sincerely thank all authors not only for their contribution, but also for their willingness to take critical suggestions seriously. I would also like to thank the staff at the publishing house and especially John Heywood for his constructive and sympathetic support throughout the whole process.

I have no conflict of interest to disclose.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
欧洲雇主协会的存在、作用和经济影响
1 引言雇主协会(EA)是西方劳资关系和公司政治体制的主要支柱,与工会相比,对其研究不足是众所周知的。从曼库尔-奥尔森(Mancur Olson)开始,菲利普-施密特(Philip Schmitter)和沃尔夫冈-施特克(Wolfgang Streeck)对其进行了进一步的理论分析。除了以弗朗茨-特拉克斯勒(Franz Traxler)为代表的一些主要针对总体发展的描述性研究外,一直缺乏基于微观数据的实证研究。随着新数据库的出现--通常是针对具体国家的,但有些也适合进行国际比较--以及微观计量经济学方法的相应发展,这种情况最近有所改观。即使是纯粹的就业中介机构,也可能在集体谈判之外开展各种有利于其成员利益的活动,如直接或通过优惠团体合同提供法律服务、游说、信息共享和培训。布赖森和威尔曼在他们的概念基调中断言,无论是纯粹的还是混合的就业机构,作为勾结的集体,都面临着多重问题的使命漂移。根据布赖森和威尔曼的战略合谋方法,具体活动的选择取决于行业的合谋氛围,其中包括劳动力、产品、金融和政治市场因素。作者从两个方面有效地证明了他们的权变观点的有效性。首先,他们断言,在美国没有集体谈判的情况下,"禁止挖角 "和 "禁止招揽 "协议具有重要意义。其次,他们自信地解释了集体谈判在英国和德国的衰落,在这两个国家,试图影响最低工资立法和职业许可的做法可被视为集体谈判的替代品。Lehr、Jansen 和 Brandl 对 27 个国家约 30,000 家企业进行了新颖的比较,研究了加入纯粹企业协会的决定因素,以及这些协会是否为其大型成员提供优惠待遇。分析使用了欧洲公司调查(ECS)的微观数据,该数据以公司/机构的比例而非相关劳动力的比例来表示成员资格。在机构层面,考虑的自变量包括雇员代表的存在和强度、工作场所工会化和规模。在国家层面,变量包括工资制定的协调、三方理事会的存在和工会密度。我们将 2013 年和 2019 年两波经济统计调查的数据进行了合并,并使用最大似然法进行了多层次双变量对数回归分析。Lehr、Jansen 和 Brandl 发现,尽管人们普遍怀疑集体谈判在减少,但表明集体谈判的变量仍然与 EA 成员呈正相关。他们还发现,在各国内部,EA 成员的总变化中约有 70% 是公司层面的变化,只有 30% 是国家之间(或调查波次之间)的变化。机构规模与经济机构成员资格之间的预期正相关性显然会带来代表性问题。Fanfani、Lucifora 和 Vigani 关于意大利经济活动区代表性的研究也使用了公司层面的分类数据。他们根据对约 20,000 家企业进行的横截面调查,分析了会员的特征和会员率随时间的变化,并提供了丰富的企业特征信息。描述性结果与前一项研究相似:会员往往规模较大、年龄较长、从事制造业、更有可能签订集体协议、进行分散谈判以及在公司层面有工会存在。附属公司也更以出口为导向,更有可能提供培训和更具创新性。作者独创性地使用了瓦哈卡分解技术,利用线性概率模型对 2005 年和 2015 年的工会会员率进行了比较,结果发现工会会员率下降了 19 个百分点。对于观察相似的企业,43%的下降与加入工会的倾向差异有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
British Journal of Industrial Relations
British Journal of Industrial Relations INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR-
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
11.50%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: BJIR (British Journal of Industrial Relations) is an influential and authoritative journal which is essential reading for all academics and practitioners interested in work and employment relations. It is the highest ranked European journal in the Industrial Relations & Labour category of the Social Sciences Citation Index. BJIR aims to present the latest research on developments on employment and work from across the globe that appeal to an international readership. Contributions are drawn from all of the main social science disciplines, deal with a broad range of employment topics and express a range of viewpoints.
期刊最新文献
The price is wrong: Why capitalism won't save the planet by BrettChristophers. 2024, 432 pp., ISBN: 9781804292303, Price £17.60, h/b Social dialogue in the gig economy: A comparative empirical analysis By Bonvin, J., Cianferoni, N. & Mexi, M. ISBN: 9781800372368, £80.00 Recasting workers’ power: Work and inequality in the shadow of the digital ageEdwardWebster and LynfordDor. Bristol University Press, 2023, pp. The politics of the minimum wage: Explaining introduction and levels A technological construction of society: Comparing GPT‐4 and human respondents for occupational evaluation in the UK
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1