Round TableGrowth strategies, employment and job quality in a globalized

world

« Capital-Labour relations at the dawn of 21st century » : 25 years later

Alain LipietzFondation de l'écologie politique

http://lipietz.netalain@lipietz.net

Introduction

Around 1990, a UNU/Wider project (Stephen Marglin, Ahmid Badhuri, Juliet Schor coord., Helsinky) scrutinized Capital/Labour relations across the world.

Published as : Juliet Schor, Jong-Il You, Capital, the State and Labour. A Global Perspective, Edward Elgar publisher

My concluding chapter : « Capital-Labour relations at the dawn of 21st century » http://lipietz.net/spip.php?article521

25 years later : where are we ?

The starting point : Fordism (1945-1975)

Fordism = taylorism + rigidity in K/L relations Taylorism = separation, in labour process,

between conception (engeneering) and execution (unskilled workers), direct control on the second.

Rigidity = collective bargaining,strong social legislation and welfare state, at national level

Crisis of Fordism (1975-1980)

Crisis in productivity fonts (more and more investments needed to increase productivity)

Crisis in welfare state and collective bargaining at national level, due to globalization.

The Battle of Post-Fordisms

Since Taylorism + Rigidity jeopardized, two solutions :

1. Away from Taylorism : skilling and involvement of workers

2. Away from rigidity in K/L relations : flexibility of workers' situation, reductions in welfare.

Negotiating Involvement

But bosses can't get both (flexibility and involvement) from the same (group of) workers !

Negotiation is thus required at individual level, or at firm, sector or society level.

National (or regional) Post-Fordisms differ along a trade-off between flexibility and involvement/skilling

Situation in 1990

Présentez des alternatives de stratégies

Décrivez les avantages et inconvénients de chaque stratégie

Faîtes une prévision de coûts

Basic diagnostic

My bet (1990) :

• « Negotiated involvement » would be more competitive than neo-Taylorism...

• … but only in some (dominant) industrial sectors, or even segments of these sectors

• Countries could specialize and /or benefit from segmented labour markets (typically M/F or national/immigrants) and compete either through high flexibility or high skill, according to sectors.

• That would favour F-Level and Sector-Level negotiation within industrial relations, hence crisis of social democracy (= Society-Level agreement K-L)

At the World Level There were (in 1990) other models of K/L

relations and growth patterns at the periphery of Fordist model :

- Primitive Taylorization : low cost labour, external technological domination, export-led model of growth.

- Peripheral Fordism : combination of inner market and export-led, local investment in education to catch-up on technological lader

- Tenure (« socialist » models with high rigidity)

I attempted to forecast their future evolution :

At World Level

Where are we ?

25 years later, a new regime has succeeded to Fordism at world level and, in turn, is in crisis.

This new model « liberal-productivism » (1980-2007) is globaly liberal, with islands of negotiated involvement in an ocean of flexible less skilled labour

Its crisis (2007) does not stem only from its liberal caracter à la 1930, but also from ecological problems : crisis energy-climate, crisis food-health.

See analysis in my book Green Deal (http://lipietz.net/spip.php?article2712) (in french) or : Fears and Hopes http://lipietz.net/spip.php?article2669 (various languages)

Correctives to forecasts

As predicted : UK, France, eastern and southern Europe moved downstream, Germany and Japan became over-competitive, Scandinavia defends its social model through skilling.

Germany accepted more flexibility because of a « poisoned gift » : its eastern periphery.

US maintained its position through laxist monetary and budgetary policy, permitting heavy investments in high tech, yet remains under-competitive.

China and India turned into giant « Peripheral Fordisms », technologically dominating in some sectors. China is coming back to its antique central position in the world economy, after the late Qing dynasty parenthesis.

A huge mass of peasantry at world level is turning into Primitive Taylorization.

Conclusion

« Lisbon Stategy » was focusing on helping all Europe to « climb-up » to competitiveness through skilling (towards the « top-right » of our graph)

It was NEVER implemented, and Merkel macropolicy just made situation worsen. See : http://lipietz.net/spip.php?article2964

Hence gloomy perspectives for southern and eastern Europe : too under-skilled by comparison to Northern EU, too « rigid » by comparison to newly industrializing countries.

But History is open... Some « niches » may be developped, through political will.

But do not forget :

• (1990) « The global ecological situation is now imposing strong constraints on most models. This does not mean that, at the dawn of 21st century, these constraints will be accepted. If they are not, the middle of the century may be out of control.»

• No model is an island. Therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls...