European social dialogue as multi-level governance : towards more autonomy and new dependencies
Marginson, Paul and Keune, Maarten, 1966-. (2012) European social dialogue as multi-level governance : towards more autonomy and new dependencies. European Integration Online Papers, Vol.16 (Sp. Iss. No.1). ISSN 1027-5193
WRAP_Marginson_298-1496-1-PB.pdf - Published Version - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Official URL: http://eiop.or.at/eiop/index.php/eiop/article/view...
Almost twenty years ago the Maastricht Treaty introduced procedures for European Social Dialogue, as part of a larger package of measures to strengthen the social dimension of European integration. Through the Treaty provisions (articles 154-155 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), the European social partners received the competence to become, in principle, co-regulators of the European labour market. The conventional reading of the evolution of European social dialogue since its inception is that it has evolved from a relationship of dependency of the European social partners on the European institutions for the implementation of their framework agreements, towards a more autonomous position in which the social partners themselves take charge of implementation. Since the early 2000s, the argument continues, the social partners have taken a more proactive and independent stance and opted to focus on autonomous framework agreements, and other ‘new generation texts’, including joint reports, recommendations, compendia of good practices, etc., which are not directed at the European institutions in order to secure implementation. In this paper we want to challenge and move beyond this rather linear and one-dimensional conceptualisation of the evolution of European social dialogue. Empirically, we will show that there has not been a straightforward move away from the ‘implementation through Directive’ mode in favour of autonomous agreements. Whereas this may seem the case if we take a view of the cross-sector dialogue only, the picture changes when we have a closer look and include developments in the European sector social dialogue in the analysis. Analytically, we will argue that framing the issue in terms of dependency or autonomy does not do justice to the complexity of relationships that are involved in the European social dialogue and the European sector social dialogue, and in the implementation of framework agreements and other new generation texts. Also it accords little attention to the role of power in the relationships involved. We draw on a multi-governance perspective to analyse the dynamics of European social dialogue, which allows us to capture the relevant multiple horizontal and vertical relationships, or interdependencies, between the European and national, and public and private, actors involved. Interdependency implies the presence of both autonomy and dependence in a relationship, and our central proposition is that these interdependencies simultaneously enhance and limit the capacity of the European social partners to make and implement agreements.
|Item Type:||Journal Article|
|Subjects:||J Political Science > JN Political institutions (Europe)
J Political Science > JZ International relations
|Divisions:||Faculty of Social Sciences > Warwick Business School > Industrial Relations Research Unit
Faculty of Social Sciences > Warwick Business School
|Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):||Social integration -- Europe, International cooperation|
|Journal or Publication Title:||European Integration Online Papers|
|Number:||Sp. Iss. No.1|
|Access rights to Published version:||Open Access|
|References:||Barbier, Jean-Claude & Fabrice Colomb (2012): ‘EU Law as Janus bifrons, a sociological approach to “Social Europe”’, in: Barbier, Jean-Claude (ed.) EU Law, Governance and Social Policy, European Integration online Papers (EIoP), Special Mini-Issue 1, Vol. 16, Article 2 http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2012-002a.htm. Branch A. (2005) ‘The evolution of the European social dialogue towards greater autonomy’ International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations 21(2): 321-47. Clauwaert S. (2011) ‘2011: 20 years of European interprofessional social dialogue’ Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research 17(2): 169-79. Crouch, C. (2005) Capitalist Diversity and Change. Recombinant Governance and Institutional Entrepreneurs, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Deakin S. and Koukiadaki A. (2010) ‘Diffusion of EU-level norms through reflexive governance mechanisms? Implementation of the EU framework agreement on telework in five European countries’ in ‘The Capability Approach and the Implementation of Directives and Agreements resulting from European Social Dialogue’ Final Report, IDHE, ENS-Cachan, Paris: 102-25. European Commission (2004) ‘Partnership for change in an enlarged Europe’ Communication from the Commission, COM (2004) 557. European Commission (2009) Industrial Relations in Europe 2008 Brussels: European Commission. European Commission (2011a) Industrial Relations in Europe 2010 Brussels: European Commission. European Commission (2011b) ‘Report on the implementation of the European social partners’ framework agreement on work-related stress’ Commission Staff Working Paper, SEC(2011) 241 final. Giddens, A. (1979) Central problems in social theory: action, structure and contradiction in social analysis, London: Macmillan. Hartlapp, M. (2012) ‘Deconstructing EU old age policy: Assessing the potential of soft OMCs and hard EU law’, in: Barbier, J-C (ed.) EU Law, Governance and Social Policy, European Integration online Papers (EIoP), Volume 16(3). Available online at: http://eiop.or.at/ eiop/texte/ 2012-003a.htm. Hollingsworth, J. R., Schmitter, P.C. and Streeck, W. (eds) (1994) Governing Capitalist Economies: Performance and Control of Economic Sectors. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hollingsworth, J. R. and Boyer, R. (eds) (1997) Contemporary Capitalism: the Embeddedness of Institutions, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Hooghe L. and Marks G. (2001) Multi-level Governance and European Integration Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Jachtenfuchs M. (2001) ‘The governance approach to European integration’ Journal of Common Market Studies 39(2): 245-64. Jessop B. (2004) ‘Multi-level governance and multi-level metagovernance’ in Bache I. and Flinders M. (eds) Multi-Level Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 49-74. Keune, M. and Warneck, W. (2006) ‘An EU framework for transnational collective bargaining: an opportunity for European trade unions?’ Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 12(4): 637-641. Larsen T. and Andersen S. (2007) ‘A new mode of European regulation?’ European Journal of Industrial Relations 13(2):181-98. Leisink P. and Hyman R. (2005) ‘Introduction: The dual evolution of Europeanisation and varieties of governance’ European Journal of Industrial Relations 11(3): 277-86. Léonard E., Erne R., Marginson P. and Smismans S. (2007) New Structures, Forms and Processes of Governance in European Industrial Relations Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Léonard E. (2008) ‘European Sectoral Social Dialogue’ European Journal of Industrial Relations 14(4), 401-19. Marginson P. and Sisson K. (2004) European Integration and Industrial Relations, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Marks G. and Hooghe L. (2004) ‘Contrasting visions of multi-level governance’ in Bache I. and Flinders M. (eds) Multi-Level Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press:15-30. Pochet P., Peeters A., Léonard E and Perin E. (2009) Dynamics of European Sectoral Social Dialogue Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living & Working Conditions. Prosser T. (2007) ‘Europeanisation through procedures and practices? The implementations of the Framework Agreement on Telework and Work-related Stress in Denmark and UK.’ Employment Relations Research Center (FAOS) Discussion Paper No. 77, available at http://faos.ku.dk/ pdf/ forskningsnotater/forskningsnotater_2007/fnotat77.pdf/. Prosser T. (2011) ‘European social dialogue through ‘soft’ law?’ European Journal of Industrial Relations 17(3): 245-260. Regalia I. (2007) ‘Towards multi-level governance in industrial relations: mapping the field’ Plenary paper to the International Industrial Relations Association (IIRA) European Congress, Manchester, September. Rhodes R. (ed) (2000) Transforming British Government London: Macmillan. Sisson K. (2007) ‘Revitalising industrial relations: making the most of the institutional turn’ Warwick Papers in Industrial Relations, 2007(85), available at http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/ fac/soc/wbs/research/irru/wpir/wpir_85.pdf. Smismans, S. (2008) The European Social Dialogue in the Shadow of Hierarchy. Journal of Public Policy, 28(1): 161-180. Traxler F. (1995) 'Farewell to labour market associations? Organised versus disorganised decentralization as a map for industrial relations' in Crouch, C. and Traxler, F. (eds) Organised Industrial Relations in Europe Aldershot: Avebury: 1-17. Visser, J. and Ramos M. N. (2008) A more ‘autonomous’ European social dialogue: The implementation of the Framework Agreement On Telework. International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 24(4): 511-548. Weber, S. (2010) Sectoral social dialogue at EU level - recent results and implementation challenges. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 16(4): 489-507.|
Actions (login required)