286 _ Participants non-intervention in favour of capital", From this standpoint, it is the capitalist economic system which, by inhibiting the Ability of Labour governments to represent properly the ‘non-capital’ sectiona| interests within society, created the semblance of a governmental consensus of the ‘national interest’ in respect of economic and industrial relations matters for most of the postwar period. However, Beaumont argues that the government neither ‘a neutral representative of the public of social interest nor ‘a captive of class forces, economic forces or the capitalist mode of production’”* but rather i particularly, as in the case of has some degree of relative autonomy ~ l Thatcherism in the early 1980s, at times of economic crisis. non-intervention of the state ws Liberalism and corporatism Both Crouch" and Strinati!® have put forward an analytical framework of government approaches to industrial relations which relates the nature ofthe dominant political ideology to the relative power and autonomy of trade unions (sce Figure 8.1), This framework can be useful in distinguishing not only different national approaches but also shifts in national approaches over time “Market individualism/s characterised by an apparent balancing of compe tive interests through a ‘market system’ which legitimises the concepts of prop- erty rights and an objective basis to income inequalities. Labour is weak, unorganised and subordinate to the employer through the indirect control of the ‘market’ and the relationship between them is, at best, paternalism or, at worst, exploitation; labour is simply a commodity which only has a value in so 4 Strong 7 Liberal collectivism Forms of (eutonomous) (pluralism) industrial relations (voluntarism) (free collective bargaining) ‘Market individualism (exploitation) (paternalism) (human resource management) Power position of trade union: Weak (regulated) Liberalist or tis periets Dominant political ideo jcomoreas laissez-faire p logy interventionist Figure 8.1 Governmental approaches to industrial relations a veainicu wir Gefar as it is bo s itis bought a Th Crouch argued it Papen sold. Although le government _ 287, eae pe : cry rights against the highly coe i the ok of gover be lil legislation to countervailing pow ets verment is largely passive formal i he Protect empl Power of subordinstes™ ipholds prop: his ‘market individ ee ees and, e ates", There is lil divide ene function of | even where the is likely tor employment aoe sm mao OF unions may re the righ vo organise Viduals, when ie ae a ermatily an iefcere inst aiet clieaes be restricted. vidio when tis usually bern economic et fra it assumes thatthe a elat . indi lationship betweet authority and cot tionship in whi an individual ai ip between two indi Gneapit ntrol of the Which the indivi ind an organisati om capital for his or ber rganisation, Cen ta subord poate him or her (a single uni Wvelihood is nor the individ linated to the tions has bee Tee not reciprocated by capita rape ions ‘sociated Pour commodity). This ital’s dependence reer comnil with th ‘odity). Thi pendence on ries and may the early is form of industrial rel TicapaieT Gree ee stages of indus dustrial rela- ee inevidence in newiy ind alee getias ne alance and, c trade unions i vly industrialising _ Lal aprreiapaser Pieris er nis is a necessary ng countries 22-faire ide ly, its develo, sary element in redressit Specie ae ee Aolonaandae eee eas dominant liber The result of such an a 7 lig acca wae form of industrial rek iccommodation can be closely al relations, which has dominated UK ii the liber: iy bound up with the i approach has been esmned titceal shrskacs by iis geek TS seve tare which oe pluralism? awa Svoluntarism’. This state regulation. }olds the principle of 1 arden and defined as ‘ i nis confined ple of oe-interve ed asa eee cation? and in whi which private individual to creating a (modest) | tion’ and in which this model als and businesses legal framework withi this move, Crouch argued, the sane a couse setae ania remains diner, and separation of fal ecu crooner sions continues to exse but “author ws |, economic and id sine indulgence a sxist? but ‘authority usually ideological dimen- Beare ater aierctaia ly comes to accept eee ets sorbing subordinate accept a strategy of ; lation is characterised by : pressure’, The indulge unions, whick y a limired acceptance indulgency "which represent, negotiate ‘acceptance of autonomous trade eee ae negotiate and reconcile conflict Se gh the collective bargaini licting interests with ; : sts with man- rocess, the dominant i argaining process. Howe 5 minant interests of wever, by the s: through the mai ‘of management cont : oe maintenance of a bou mnt continue to be protected and iecues for of a boundary between issues for collect eo Serica bY ; or collective bargaini issues for det cl popu. Tus Coch srg, government ‘ion £0 enhance Sime looele eee seed, eae coercive measures which ensure the eed eS Ie noe incompasbe for government, through its eae re exesion ofboth ir fpidual and collective employee rights eee me constraining collective employee Powe i ile) eam cae ployee power (ie. as expressed thr acids Se sions) under the guise of maintaining 2 a ough the bere she pares aio ie operation ofthe industrial rations ee such apparent areal eins info ee mage of he goverment ea 1¢ national interest. acting in However, the existence or development of 5s likely to result in a different motel of indust His common among other European count! Pore emerial_ relations (also referred 60 SS 4 corporatist political ideology Tar inall Which , corporatisny’ or vuainicu with CeParticipants suntries such as Sweden, Germany ang 160 oTranih sm) has been ap} eer interference, but usually in consuls» ron active support for their organiz: ver andl based on ‘active support for their ra tation with the social partners’ and ‘as Poole points out, firmly founded oy tion: nal snihy (stuch as Catholicism, Conservatism, x heir mal relations Tis cl ideological philosophy ic c “types of cultural and ideology ye harmony andl the identity of interest Scrial Democracy) which emphi ; and Social Democr i Crouch described the model as one jn By F interdependent functional groups ‘ | cee ea sore tones itself becween the unions and their normal which ‘the gover scomes itself their bargai z employer, but in so doing becomes it argain. bargaining, partner, the employer, but o eee ee ery and the government js able to offer several things aan cannot be ig partner; and the g s, workers’ rights, changes, chiewe gaining... such as soc 7 i ang ecacrel Derese wey 1, Taylor? further distin. n ec 3 auishes between those countri re rated? within a consensus approach to government policy formulation and have the status of quasi-governmental institutions (for example, the adminis on of tinemployment funds) and those countries, such as Germany, where unions are ‘included’ in frequent consultations with government bur are not an institution alised part of government decision making. : Poole differentiates ‘societal’ or ‘bargained’ corporatism from the more extreme form of ‘state corporatism” where the different functional interests, subordinated or incorporated into the politi- particularly labour, are suppressed, : cal system (often based on a single political party or a dominant party which is able to marginalise any opposition). Such an approach has, in the past, been asso- ciated with the former Communist countries of eastern Europe and, at the oppo- site end of the political spectrum, Spain under the Franco regime. However, as, Bean has pointed out, the subordination of the union movement to the needs of economic development has also been a central part of government strategy in some newly industrialised countries such as Malaysia, Singapore and Korea; to the extent that ‘the primary actor in the industrial relations scene is the govern- ment itself”, Similarly, van Waarden differentiates the , Where the unions’ weak industrial organisation has resulted not only in their marginali- sation in the political processes but also a more active and direct state interven- tion in establishing terms and conditions of employment. In a later variant of the model, which relates the extent of co-ordinating capacity of both labour and capital with the strength of organised labour, Crouch argues that a stable industrial relations system only exists at the extremes of cither ‘a pure labour market in which workers have no organizations at all ... [or] organization is very weak [and] workers cannot disrupt effectively’, or where there is ‘a highly organized system in which a central organization has authority on behalf of the mass of employed persons’. It could be argued that the UK moved away from the ‘pure labour marker’ in the latter half of the nine- teenth century but has never really ever approached the alternative stable model. UK industrial relations has developed through a number of distinct stages (see Figure 8.1). 1 poli 2. Within this model i is such as Sweden, where trade unions are “inte. 1. The market individuation of the nineteenth century, based on a dominant lib- cralist ideology and weak trade unions, gradually gave way to collective liber alism over the first half of the twentieth century, as the dominant liberalist vueainicu with Ceight to accom log 1 tO accommodate increasing power and auton Terrenchment duing the dere’, some advances to am ‘i amore the grec ae a ai he effort). The strengthening orPetION of labour in maintaining the war br ths erect % of liberal collectivism after 1945 was supported which precluded a direct oP OY™eNt for a significant part of the period, . ect contro interests within society. "tation between dominant and subordinate 2. However, fiom the 1960s on tive of the politcal party in poor the economy if the twin objertives Subordinate ideole by ted by the of trade uni Fepres m (with perhaps some Dn of the late 1920s and early 1930s and *Poratist approa wards there was an increasing need, irrespec- + fOr more government ‘management’ of ice ie ‘economic policy (full employment and ae re to be achieved. This Prodidced an spacant rioenieke Labour goverment ‘erporation model by both Conservative and where the inherent par nought most evident under Labour government, by tripartite dices po eelogy favoured such an approach) characterised y : n economic and social issues and union acceptance of wage restraint through both voluntary and statutory incomes policies. 3. After 1979 there was a significane shift in the dominant political ideology away from corporatism and toward neo-liberalism |laisezfuire based on the removal, or at least significant reduction, of direct government economic Planning and a reliance on free market forces’, monetarism and acceptance of high unemployment as the means of maintaining international economic competitiveness and stability. At the same time, trade union power became weakened by economic conditions and management strategies and more regulated by legislation. However, while the government sought a return to ‘market individualism’, ‘collectivism’ remained, albeit in modified forms, in those areas where trade unions were able to maintain some presence and. management was prepared to continue some form of collective relationship. 4. The election of ‘new? Labour in 1997 has produced another shift in govern- ment approach to industrial relations. In order to become clectable, the Labour Party felt it necessary to distance itself from the trade union move- ment (unions becoming simply ‘one of many pressure groups seeking to influence the government, rather than ‘the senior partners as of old”) and, like social democrat or labour parties in other countries, to move ‘away from Keynesian based state intervention, full employment and welfarism, towards greater support for market competition, deregulation and peivatiza tion, I projected a ‘third way” berween the Conservative deregulated indi- vidualism of the free market and previous attempts a 4 more corporatist regulation, This third way’ has inladed 2 numer of themes = including ‘stakeholder economy’, ‘welfare to work, ‘socal partnership’ and fairness at i although, significantly, the government's approach to partnership is, FOr ath ty eee ee work at the level of the organisation, rather primarily one of ‘partnership a ; » than ‘social partnership’ at the macro society level?” i < government strategy towards industrial is importa -oanise that UK government strategy towa st Ie is important co recoSh™ constrained by the different dominant politica relations is, to some extent, isu wiui Cé vuul