Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:16:55.591Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The State and Coordinated Capitalism: Contributions of the Public Sector to Social Solidarity in Postindustrial Societies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

Cathie Jo Martin  and
Kathleen Thelen
Cathie Jo Martin
Affiliation:
Boston University, [email protected].
Kathleen Thelen
Affiliation:
Northwestern University, cjmartin@ bu.edu.
Get access

Abstract

This article investigates the politics of change in coordinated market econo\mies, and explores why some countries (well known for their highly cooperative arrangements) manage to sustain coordination when adjusting to economic transformation, while others fail. The authors argue that the broad category of “coordinated market economies” subsumes different types of cooperative engagement: macrocorporatut forms of coordination are characterized by national-level institutions for fostering cooperation and feature a strong role for the state, while forms of coordination associated with enterprise cooperation more typically occur at the level of sector or regional institutions and are often privately controlled. Although these diverse forms of coordination once appeared quite similar and functioned as structural equivalents, they now have radically different capacities for self-adjustment.

The role of the state is at the heart of the divergence among European coordinated countries. A large public sector affects the political dynamics behind collective outcomes, through its impact both on the state's construction of its own policy interests and on private actors' goals. Although a large public sector has typically been written off as an inevitable drag on the economy, it can provide state actors with a crucial political tool for shoring up coordination in a postindustrial economy. The authors use the cases of Denmark and Germany to illustrate how uncontroversially coordinated market economies have evolved along two sharply divergent paths in the past two decades and to reflect on broader questions of stability and change in coordinated market economies. The two countries diverge most acutely with respect to the balance of power between state and society; indeed, the Danish state—far from being a constraint on adjustment (a central truism in neoliberal thought)—plays the role of facilitator in economic adjustment, policy change, and continued coordination.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 60 , Issue 1 , October 2007 , pp. 1 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 2007

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 Pontusson, Jonas, Inequality and Prosperity: Social Europe vs. LiberalAmerica (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2005Google Scholar); Rueda, David, ”Insider-Outsider Politics in Industrialized Democracies,” American Political Science Review 99 (February 2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

2 See, for example, Streeck, Wolfgang, ”On the Institutional Conditions of Diversified Quality Production,” in Matzner, Egon and Streeck, Wolfgang, eds., Beyond Keynesianistn (Aldershot, U.K. Edward Elgar, 1991Google Scholar).

3 Hall, Peter A. and Soskice, David, Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Com parative Advantage (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001CrossRefGoogle Scholar); see also Pontusson (fn. 1). For more recent extensions and elaborations of the original varieties of capitalism framework, see Iversen, Torben and Soskice, David, ”Electoral Institutions and the Politics of Coalitions: Why Some Democracies Redistribute More Than Others,” American Political Science Review 100 (May 2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar); and Cusack, Thomas R, Iversen, Torben, and Soskice, David, ”Economic Interests and the Origins of Electoral Systems,” American Political Science Review 101 (August 2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar). For a recent critique, see Korpi, Walter, ”Power Resources and Employer-Centered Approaches in Explanations of Welfare States and Varieties of Capitalism: Protagonists, Consenters, and Antagonists,” WorldPolitics 58 (January 2006Google Scholar).

4 See, for example, Swank, Duane, Global Capital, PoliticalInstitutions, and Policy Change in Devel oped Welfare States (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

5 Campbell, John, Hall, John, and Pedersen, Ove Kaj, eds., National Identity and a Variety ofCapital-ism: The Danish Case (Montreal: McGill University Press, 2006Google Scholar).

6 Hopner, Martin, ”Coordination and Organization: The Two Dimensions of Nonliberal Capitalism,” Discussion Paper no. 07/12 (Cologne: Max Planck Institut fur Gesellschaftsforschung, December 2007Google Scholar).

7 Hassel, Anke, ”The Erosion of the German System of Industrial Relations,” British Journal of Industrial Relations 37 (September 1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar); and Schnabel, Claus, ”Gewerkschaften und Arbeitgeberver-bande: Organisationsgrade, Tarifbindung und Einfliisse auf Lohne und Beschaftigung,” Discussion Paper no. 34 (Erlangen-Nuremberg: Friedrich-Alexander Universitat, May 2005Google Scholar).

8 This difference corresponds roughly to the distinction drawn by Katzenstein, between social and liberal corporatism, and by Soskice, between centrally and sectorally coordinated systems. See Katzenstein, Peter J., Small States in World Markets (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1985Google Scholar); and Soskice, David, ”Wage Determination: The Changing Role of Institutions in Advanced Industrial Countries,” Oxford Review ofEconomic Policy 6, no. 4 (1990Google Scholar).

9 Thelen, Kathleen, Union of Parts: Labor Politics in Postwar Germany (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Uni versity Press, 1991Google Scholar).

10 Iversen, Torben and Pontusson, Jonas, ”Comparative Political Economy: A Northern European Perspective,” in Iversen, Torben, Pontusson, Jonas, and Soskice, David, eds., Unions, Employers, and Central Banks (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000Google Scholar).

11 See, for example, Thelen, Kathleen, How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain, the United States andJapan (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

12 Crouch, Colin, ”Trade Unionism in the Exposed Sector,” in Brunetta, Renato and Dell'Aringa, Carlo, eds., Labor Relations and Economic Performance (New York: New York University Press, 1990Google Scholar); and Geoffrey Garrett and Christopher Way, ”Public Sector Unions, Corporatism, and Wage Determination,” in Iversen, Pontusson, and Soskice (fn. 10).

13 Streeck, Wolfgang, ”Industrial Relations: From State Weakness as Strength to State Weakness as Weakness: Welfare Corporatism and the Private Use of the Public Interest,” in Green, Simon and Paterson, William E., eds., Semi-sovereignty Revisited: Governance, Institutions, and Policies in Germany (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005Google Scholar).

14 Hopner (fn. 6). For Hopner, disorganized capitalism is characterized by cooperative relations organized according to a relatively narrow microeconomic logic (for example, cooperative relations between firms and their local labor representatives and with suppliers), whereas organized capitalism is characterized by the ”embedding” of such microeconomic rationality in the service of broader collective interests.

15 Hicks, Alexander and Kenworthy, Lane, ”Cooperation and Political Economic Performance in Affluent Democratic Capitalism,” American Journal of Sociology 103 (May 1998CrossRefGoogle Scholar); see also Martin, Cathie Jo and Swank, Duane, ”Does the Organization of Capital Matter?” American Political Science Review 98 (November 2004), 599Google Scholar.

16 Crouch, Colin, Industrial Relations and European State Traditions (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993Google Scholar); Traxler, Franz, Blaschke, Sabine, and Kittel, Bernhard, National Labour Relations in Internationalized Markets (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2001CrossRefGoogle Scholar); Hicks and Kenworthy (fn. 15); Martin and Swank (fn. 15).

17 Martin and Swank (fn. 15).

18 Behrens, Martin and Traxler, Franz, ”Employers' Organisations in Europe,” EIROnline (April 2004Google Scholar).

19 Martin and Swank (fn. 15).

20 Hicks and Kenworthy (fn. 15).

21 OECD observer, 2005.

22 Culpepper, Pepper and Thelen, Kathleen, ”Institutions and Collective Actors in the Provision of Training: Historical and Cross-National Comparisons,” in Mayer, Karl Ulrich and Solga, Heike, eds., SkillFormation: Interdisciplinary andCross-NationalPerspectives (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007Google Scholar).

23 Iversen, Torben, ContestedEconomic Institutions (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999Google Scholar).

24 Ibid., chap. 4.

25 Iversen (fn. 23), 199; Iversen and Pontusson (fn. 10); Pontusson, Jonas, ”Between Neo-Liberalism and the German Model: Swedish Capitalism in Transition,” in Crouch, Colin and Streeck, Wolfgang, eds., Political Economy of Modern Capitalism (London: Sage, 1997Google Scholar).

26 Katzenstein (fn. 8);Thelen (fn. 9).

27 See also Streeck (fn. 13).

28 Reliable data on firm membership in employers associations is notoriously difficult to obtain, but what evidence does exist suggests a greater drop-off in Germany than in Denmark. This includes significant declines even in manufacturing since the 1980s; see Behrens, Martin, ”New Study Analyses Development of Employers' Associations,” EIROnline (December 2002Google Scholar). We acknowledge that the Ghent system also sustains union density but emphasize here an additional factor that has an independent impact on increasing unionization rates: the growth of the public sector. The growth of the public sector has been important in sustaining union density because public sector workers have been an important proportional source of recent union growth in many countries, whether or not they are on the Ghent system. Thus with the decline of unionization among manufacturing workers (and the decline of the manufacturing workforce), the expansion of the public sector also props up unionization.

29 Thelen, Kathleen and Kume, Ikuo, ”Coordination as a Political Problem in Coordinated Market Economies,” Governance 19 (January 2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

30 On this, see especially Torben Iversen and John D. Stephens, ”Partisan Politics, the Welfare State and Three Worlds of Human Capital Formation,” Comparative Political Studies (forthcoming).

31 Our argument here resonates with an older literature on the role and interests of state bureaucrats as an autonomous influence on public policy and on state capacities vis-a-vis private sector interests. See especially Skocpol, Theda, ”Bringing the State Back In,” in Evans, Peter, Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, and Skocpol, Theda, eds., Bringing the State Back In (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985Google Scholar).

32 Spiker, Paul, ”The Welfare State and Social Protection in the United Kingdom,” in Mullard, Maurice and Lee, Simon, eds., The Politics ofSocial Policy in Europe (Lyme, N.H.: Edward Elgar, 1997Google Scholar).

33 Partisan leadership is again obviously important to the construction of new political coalitions around policy initiatives, such as those to expand employment for the long-term unemployed. See Iversen and Stephens (fn. 30); and Martin and Swank (fn. IS). What we are emphasizing here, however, is that a large public sector has an impact on the capacities of these party leaders to construct such coalitions.

34 And here we are inspired by Iversen's insightful work on the impact of state policies on private actors' strategic interests (fn. 23).

35 Mares, Isabela, Taxation, Wage Bargaining and Unemployment (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

36 Carlin, Wendy and Soskice, David, ”European Unemployment: The Role of Aggregate Demand and Institutions” (Manuscript, 2006Google Scholar).

37 Huber, Evelyne and Stephens, John, ”Welfare State and Production Regimes in the Era of Retrenchment,” in Pierson, Paul, ed., The New Politics of the Welfare State (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001Google Scholar).

38 Iversen (fn. 23).

39 Esping-Anderson, Gosta, Welfare States in Transition (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1996Google Scholar).

40 Crouch (fn. 12); Garrett and Way (fn. 12).

41 Kenworthy, Lane, Egalitarian Capitalism (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2004Google Scholar); Mares (fn. 35); Rueda (fn. 1). Scholars differ, however, on whether high levels of public sector employment lead to low unemployment or just produce higher levels of labor-force participation.

42 Soskice, David, ”Macroeconomics and Varieties of Capitalism,” in Rhodes, Martin, Hancke, Bob, and Thatcher, Mark, eds., Beyond Varieties of Capitalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006Google Scholar); Hu-ber and Stephens (fn. 37).

43 Garrett, Geoffrey, Partisan Politics in the Global Economy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998CrossRefGoogle Scholar); Iversen, Torben, Capitalism, Democracy, and Welfare (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

44 For example, real GDP grew at an average annual rate of about 2.5 percent between 1993 and 2005 in Denmark, but at an average rate of below 2 percent in Germany (Paris: OECD, 2006).

45 Cusack, Thomas, Notermans, Ton, and Rein, Martain, ”Political-Economic Aspects of Public Employment,” European Journal of Political Research 17 (July 1989CrossRefGoogle Scholar). Data to 1995 from Thomas Cu-sack database.

46 Scharpf, Fritz, ”Economic Changes, Vulnerabilities and Institutional Capabilities,” in Scharpf, Fritz and Schmidt, Vivien, eds., Welfare and Work in the Open Economy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 46–47Google Scholar.

47 Hagen, Kare, ”The Interaction of Welfare States and Labor Markets,” in Kolberg, Jon Eivind ed., The Study oj'Welfare State Regimes (Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe, 1992), 153Google Scholar–63; Scheuer, Steen, ”Denmark: Return to Decentralization,” in Ferner, Anthony and Hyman, Richard, eds., Industrial Relations in the New Europe (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992), 180Google Scholar.

48 Campbell, Hall, and Pedersen (fn. 5); Iversen and Pontusson (fn. 10).

49 Scheuer (fn. 47); Due, Jesper, Madsen, Joergen Steen, Jensen, Carsten Stroeby, and Petersen, Lars Kjerulf, The Survival of the Danish Model (Copenhagen:DJOEF Publishing, 1994Google Scholar).

50 Due et al. (fn. 49); Scheuer (fn. 47); Carsten Straby Jensen, Jergen Steen Madsen, and Jesper Due, ”Arbejdsgiverorganisering I Danmark—et institutionssociologisk perspektiv pa arbejdsgiveror-ganiseringens betydning for den danske arbejdsmarkedsmodel,” provided by Jensen, Carsten Straby; Gill, Colin, Knudsen, Herman, and Lind, Jens, ”Are There Cracks in the Danish Model of Industrial Relations?” Industrial Relations Journal 29 (March 1998Google Scholar).

51 Kare, F. and Petersen, V., ”Parliament Intervenes to End Major Conflict,” EIROnline (May 1998Google Scholar); Jensen, Madsen, and Due (fn. 50); Ugebrevet Mandag Morgen, ”Arbejdsmarked: Markant aftale bringer LO or DA tilbage paa scenen” 32, no. 20 (September 9, 1999).

52 Stre by Jensen, Madsen, and Due (fn. 50); Ugebrevet Mandag Morgen, September 1999.

53 Author interview with industry respondent, Copenhagen, February 2001.

54 Jorgensen, Carsten, ”Complicated Negotiations Start in Public Sector,” EIROnline (December 2004Google Scholar).

55 Jorgensen, Carsten, ”New Agreement Concluded in Local Public Sector,” EIR Online (February 2005Google Scholar).

56 Jørgensen (fn. 54).

57 ”Danmarks Nationale Handlingsplan for Beskaeftigelse 1999” (Copenhagen: Arbejdesminis-teriet, May 1999Google Scholar).

58 Institut, Teknologisk, Fleksjob pa jremtidens arbejdsmarked (Aarhus, Denmark: Teknologisk In-stitut, May 2000), 11Google Scholar

59 Mailand, Mikkel. Den danske model lokalt og regionalt (Copenhagen: Copenhagen University FAOS, 2000), 127Google Scholar–29.

60 Author interview with KL, Copenhagen, March 2001.

61 Schou, Bent, ”Udgiftsstyring eller fornyelse?” in Bentsen, Karl Henrik, ed., Fra Vakst til Omstill-ing (Copenhagen: Frederiksberg Bogtrykkeri, 1998Google Scholar).

62 Author interview with Jergan S0nnergard, Copenhagen, May 2001.

63 Author interview with Kommunernes Landsforeningen, KL, Copenhagen, March 2001.

64 Ministry, Social, ”Det angaar os alle” (Copenhagen: Social Ministry, January 1999Google Scholar).

65 Author interview with organizational representative, Copenhagen, November 2000.

66 Ibid., 23–24.

67 Martin, Cathie Jo, ”Reinventing Welfare Regimes: Employers and the Implementation of Active Social Policy,” World Politics 57 (October 2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

68 OECD Statistical Extracts (stats.oecd.org) (accessed December 20, 2007).

69 Scharpf, Fritz, ”Beschaftigungsorientierte Skrukturpolitik,” IIM-LMP Discussion Paper no. 80–92 (Berlin: Wissenschaftzentrum Berlin fur Sozialforschung, 1980Google Scholar).

70 Streeck, Wolfgang, ”No Longer the Century of Corporatism: Das Ende des 'Biindnisses fur Arbeit,'” Working Paper no. 03/4 (Cologne: Max Planck Institut fur Gesellschaftsforschung, 2003Google Scholar); Streeck, Wolfgang and Trampusch, Christine, ”Economic Reform and the Political Economy of the German Welfare State,” German Politics 14, no. 2 (2005), 183CrossRefGoogle Scholar–86.

71 Public sector employmentfiguresfrom OECD, ”Highlights of Public Sector Pay and Employment Trends: 2002 Update” (Paris: OECD, 2002), 15Google Scholar; Wollmann, Hellmut, ”Germany's Trajectory of Public Sector Modernization: Continuities and Discontinuities,” Policy and Politics 29, no. 2 (2001CrossRefGoogle Scholar); Bordogna, Lorenzo, ”Industrial Relations in the Public Sector,” EIROnline (July 2007Google Scholar); Dribbusch, Heiner, ”Public Sector Employers' Bargaining Association Collapses,” EIROnline (June 2003Google Scholar).

72 Manow, Philip and Seils, Eric, ”Adjusting Badly: The German Welfare State, Structural Change and the Open Economy,” in Scharpf, Fritz W. and Schmidt, Vivien A., eds., Welfare and Work in the Open Economy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001Google Scholar).

73 Dribbusch (fn. 71).

74 With the partial exception of the Geiverbesteuer, a trade tax levied on business profits, cities rely on tax policies decided at higher levels (state and federal) to raise the money they need to operate.

75 We thank Wolfgang Streeckforemphasizing the importance of this to us.

76 See also Streeck, Wolfgang, ”Endgame? The Fiscal Crisis of the German State,” Discussion Paper 07/7 (Cologne: Max Planck Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung, 2007Google Scholar).

77 This is of course in addition to several high-profile national-level privatizations, for example, notably in telecommunications and postal services in 1994 and in preparations at about the same time (mostly workforce reductions) for the later privatization of a significant part of German railway service. See Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, July 11,1994; International Herald Tribune, April 21, 1993.

78 Trampusch, Christine, ”Die Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit und das Zusammenwirken von Staat und Verbanden in der Arbeitsmarktpolitik von 1952 bis 2001,” MPIfG working paper 02/5 (Cologne: Max Planck Institut fur Gesellschaftsforschung, May 2002Google Scholar); see also Trampusch, Christine, ”Arbeitsmarktpolitik, Gewerkschaften, und Arbeitgeber” (Ph.D. diss., University of Gottingen, 2000), 383Google Scholar.

79 According to Visser, union density in the German public sector is 56 percent, which puts Germany in eleventh place among the seventeen countries for which he has data (mid- to late 1990s). While this level of unionization is above the average for all employees in Germany, it is below the organization rates for public sector workers in many other nations, particularly the Nordic countries. See Visser, Jelle, ”Trends in Unionisation and Collective Bargaining” (Geneva:ILO, September 2000Google Scholar).

80 Bordogna (fn. 71). A large number of these Beamten are employed at higher levels (federal and state), contributing to a disconnect with municipal leaders, who are more likely to be dealing with lower-skill, lower-status workers.

81 Hopner, Martin, ”Der organisierte Kapitalismus in Deutschland und sein Niedergang,” in Czada, Roland and Zintl, Reinhard, eds., Politik und Markt 34 (2003Google Scholar).

82 Trampusch (fn. 78), passim.

83 Dribbusch (fn. 71). There has been a partial reconsolidation as local governments try to avoid competition among themselves and seek shelter behind the federal government, but states still bargain separately, and in the meantime privatization has resulted in growing number of workers outside the public deals. See Dribbusch, Heiner, ”New General Framework Agreement Signed in Public Services.” EIROnline (2005Google Scholar).

84 Streeck (fn. 70).

85 Streeck (fn. 13); Streeck (fn. 70).

86 Trampusch(fn. 78).

87 Not even from organized industry, but rather from the handicraft sector. See Streeck and Tram-pusch (fn. 70), 184.

88 Streeck (fn. 70).

89 Streeck (fn. 70); Trampusch, Christine, ”Sozialpolitik in Post-Hartz Germany,” Welttrends 13, no. 47 (2005Google Scholar).

90 Martin and Swank (fn. 15).

91 Kenworthy (fn. 41).

92 Huber and Stephens (fn. 37).

93 Carlin and Soskice (fn. 36).

94 For example, Kenworthy (fn. 41).