Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:43:07.564Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tripartism: Reality or Myth?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

David Marsh  and
Wyn Grant
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

IT IS INCREASINGLY COMMON TO FIND ANALYSES OF BRITAIN AS A corporate state, or more circumspectly as developing a tripartite system of economic and industrial policy-making. Unfortunately, such work is often marked by a lack of definitional rigour and an inadequate consideration of relevant empirical material. In view of these limitations in the literature our article has two aims. Initially it examines the relationship between corporatism and tripartism, showing that in many ways tripartism can be viewed as a variation on one strand of corporatist thought, and what is more that it is the strand which appears most relevant to discussions of Britain. Subsequently, against this background, we examine empirical evidence to establish how far Britain can be described as having a tripartite system of economic and industrial policy-making.

Type
Original Article
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , 01 April 1977 , pp. 194 - 211
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 R. Pahl and J. Winkler are prodigious writers on the subject: for example, ‘The Coming Corporatism’, Challenge, March/April 1975, pp. 35–35. Corporatism in Britain, The Times, 26 March 1976. A conference held in London in 1976 on ‘The Corporate State - Reality or Myth?’ produced an interesting collection of papers on the subject: A. Fox, The Corporate State: Reality or Myth? An Industrial Perspective; D. Johnson, ‘The Corporate State: Reality or Myth? A Historical Perspective’; R. Leaf, ‘The Corporatist Threat to British Industry’; R. E. Pahl and J. T. Winkler, ‘Corporatism in Britain’; T. Raison, ‘The Corporate State: Myth or Reality? A Conservative view.’ See also C. Crouch, ‘The Corporate State: Crisis or Compromise?’, paper delivered at the conference of the Contemporary British Politics Workshop of the Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom, Sheffield 1976; G. Lehmbruch, ‘Liberal Corporatism and Party Government’, paper delivered to the International Political Science Association Congress, Edinburgh 1976; L. Panitch, ‘The Development of Corporatism in Liberal Democracies’, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago 1976.

2 Schmitter, P., ‘Still the Century of Corporatism?’, Review of Politics, Vol. 36, 1974, pp. 85–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Pahl and Winkler, ‘Corporatism in Britain’, op. cit., p. 7.

4 Schmitter, op. cit., p. 102.

5 G. Lehmbruch, ‘Consociational Democracy, Class Conflict and the New Corporatism’, paper presented to the IPSA Round Table on Political Integration, Jerusalem 1974, pp. 1–2.

6 Panitch, op. cit., p. 5.

7 Pahl and Winkler, ‘Corporatism in Britain’, p. 3.

8 Ibid., p. 4. One of the difficulties in discussing Pahl and Winkler’s work is their use of a number of alternative definitions of corporatism.

9 Grant, W. P. and Marsh, D., The Confederation of British Industry, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1977, p. 25.Google Scholar

10 See Jenkins, P., The Battle of Downing Street, Charles Knight, London, 1970.Google Scholar

11 Grant and Marsh, op. cit., pp. 156–168.

12 Although this policy met increasing resistance from the organization’s membership.

13 Grant and Marsh, op. cit., pp. 156–168.

14 Watkinson, Viscount, Blueprint for Industrial Survival, Allen and Unwin, London, 1976, p. 85.Google Scholar

15 The role of the trade unions is discussed more fully in D. Marsh and A. Smith, The Trade Unions Rule, O. K.?, Research Paper No. 4 of the Polytechnic of Central London School of Social Science and Business Studies

16 CBI Annual Report, 1975, p. 7.

17 Their origins, structure and role are discussed more fully in Grant and Marsh, op. cit., Chapter 7

18 Watkinson, op. cit., p. 85.

19 Crossman, R., The Diaries of a Cabinet Minister, Vol. 2, Hamish Hamilton and Jonathan Cape, London, 1976, p. 709.Google Scholar

20 The joint CBI-TUC statement on import controls issued in 1976 amounted to little more than agreement on the necessity for a somewhat wider range of ‘anti-dumping’ measures than were being undertaken at the time.

21 The Guardian, 4 September 1976.

22 Ibid.

23 Smith, G., Politics in Western Europe, Methuen, London, 1972, p. 326.Google Scholar

24 The Road to Recovery, CBI, London, 1976, p. 7.

25 Watkinson, op. cit., p. 146.

26 Grant, W. P. and Marsh, D., ‘The Politics of the CBI: 1974 and After’, Government and Opposition, Vol. 10, 1975, pp. 104–104, p. 103CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 Groups like the Retail Consortium have enjoyed access at this level, but their access has been less continuous.

28 A. Fox, ‘The Corporate State - Reality or Myth’, op. cit., p. 13.

29 For example, in 1976 the TUC was able to forestall the threatened seamens strike

30 Grant and Marsh, in Government and Opposition, op. cit.

31 For a discussion of these developments see Bruce-Gardyne, J., ‘Who Speaks for British Business?’, The Director, 09 1975, pp. 269–271.Google Scholar

32 Grant and Marsh, in Government and Opposition, op. cit., pp. 91–2

33 Watkinson, op. cit., p. 146.

34 CBI Annual Report, 1975, p. 6.

35 Watkinson, op. cit., p. 147.

36 May, T. and Moran, M., ‘Trade Unions as Pressure Groups’, New Society, 6 09 1973, pp. 573–573, p. 573.Google Scholar

37 Grant and Marsh, Confederation of British Industry, op. cit., p. 217.

38 See Minkin, L., ‘The British Labour Party and the Trade Unions: Crisis and Compact’, Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 10 1974, pp. 7–37.Google Scholar

39 CBI Annual Report, 1972, p. 11.

40 CBI Annual Report, 1975, p. 13.

41 See, for example Varley, E., ‘The Enactment of the Industry Bill’, Trade and Industry, 21 11 1975, p. 474.Google Scholar

42 For an apposite comment on this point see Crossman, R. H. S., The Diaries of a Cabinet Minister, Vol. 1, Hamish Hamilton and Jonathan Cape, London, 1975, p. 155.Google Scholar

43 Watkinson, op. cit., p. 88.

44 CBI Annual Report, 1974, p. 4.

45 CBI Annual Report, 1975, p. 5.

46 Watkinson, op. cit., p. 148.

47 CBI, Road to Recovery, op. cit

48 Ibid., p. 6.

49 Politics Today, 8 November 1976, p. 363.

50 The Right Approach, Conservative Central Office, London, 1976, p. 38.

51 Road to Recovery, op. cit., p. 72.

52 Ibid., p. 19.

53 This is not to say, of course, that the notion of ‘tripartism’ first emerged in 1964. However, this article has been concerned with the period since 1964.

54 Pahl and Winkler, in Challenge, op. cit., p. 28