Résumés
Résumé
Les nouvelles relations industrielles en Europe centrale sont en partie le résultat du rejet du système communiste et des structures qui lui étaient associées. Mais la trajectoire empruntée par ces pays est également la conséquence de l’influence exercée par les firmes multinationales. Pour continuer à attirer des flux significatifs d’investissements étrangers, les pays d’Europe centrale ont défini des législations sur la protection de l’emploi moins contraignantes pour les employeurs qu’en Europe de l’Ouest et ont favorisé l’émergence de relations du travail et d’un gouvernement d’entreprise marqués par la liberté contractuelle. Les firmes multinationales, acteurs centraux dans ces pays, privilégient des relations industrielles décentralisées et « désintermédiées ». Les firmes multinationales qui se sont implantées en Europe centrale contribuent à engager ces pays sur une trajectoire qui fait la part belle à la liberté de négociation entre acteurs individuels.
Summary
This article is based on an institutionalist approach. More exactly, the article is an extension of the “Varieties of Capitalism” analysis. The “Varieties of Capitalism” researchers distinguish two distinct economic and social systems which diverge in their institutional organization: the Coordinated Market Economies, with Germany as a reference, and the Liberal Market Economies, with the United States as prime example. The social protection, labour relations, corporate governance and skill training serve to organize an institutional architecture that is different in the two systems of capitalism. Different institutional matrixes will engage countries in original trajectories.
The ownership advantage of a multinational firm is directly linked to this institutional matrix. The organization, performances and even the behaviour of a multinational may change according to the institutional characteristics of its country of origin. Sometimes multinationals choose to invest in countries belonging to the same system of capitalism. But the internationalization of a firm can also sometimes be the occasion to take advantage of institutional characteristics which are different from those of the country of origin. The originality of the combination of different institutional characteristics will be decisive for its international competitiveness. Indeed, it is not in the multinational’s interest to escape totally from its country of origin and to adopt the same strategies as its rivals: this would eliminate the potential of differentiation of the firm, which is the basis of its competitive advantages.
Multinational firms coming from Coordinated Market Economies have massively invested in Central European countries. They have built their ownership advantages on the collective bargaining system of their countries of origin and have invested in the Central European countries to complete these advantages with the advantages that they will obtain from a place where they will have an “organizational freedom.”
The Central European countries have indeed inherited from the planned economy a firm culture lacking dialogue and participation. The politicization of labour unions combined with their inability to represent workers have lead to the collapse of unionization and prompted firms to engage in direct bargaining with the workers. The new private enterprises have not been interested in employers’ associations. The absence of any intermediate organization and the process of State withdrawal have led to new industrial relations: the bargaining takes place directly at company level, or even at plant level, between the employer and the employee. This means much more freedom for the Western European firms in the setting of wages and also in the discussion of working conditions.
This evolution of industrial relations in Central European countries has influenced the number, the strategy, and also the behaviour of foreign investors. But the behaviour of the multinationals also has a feedback effect. Multinational firms will put pressure on local and national authorities in order to obtain the definition of those laws and the rules of the game that reinforce their freedom of action in the management of the firm and in their relations with the labour factor. In order to continue to attract high levels of foreign investment and to root the foreign firms, the authorities of these countries have engaged in a reduction of employment protection legislation and promoted unconstrained practices of corporate governance.
Multinational firms play an important direct role in the economy of the Central European countries and also have a demonstration effect on local players. By privileging decentralized bargaining with their employees, the multinationals reinforce the weakness of the trade unions, the absence of centralization and the coordination of agreements. Multinational firms directly contribute to lock-in these countries in the trajectory that they have initially chosen: the Central European Countries’ industrial relations bear an increasing resemblance to those of the Liberal Market Economies.
Resumen
Las nuevas relaciones industriales en Europa Central son en parte el resultado del rechazo del sistema comunista y de las estructuras asociadas a este. Pero la trayectoria emprendida por esos países es igualmente consecuencia de la influencia ejercida por las firmas multinacionales. Para seguir atrayendo flujos significativos de inversiones extranjeras, los países de Europa Central han definido legislaciones sobre la protección del empleo menos coercitivas para los empleadores que en Europa del Oeste y han favorecido la emergencia de relaciones de trabajo y de un tipo de gobernanza empresarial marcada por la libertad contractual. Las firmas multinacionales, actores centrales en estos países, privilegian relaciones industriales descentralizadas y sin intermediación. Las firmas multinacionales implantadas en Europa Central contribuyen a involucrar esos países en una trayectoria que abre la vía a la libertad de negociación entre actores individuales.
Parties annexes
Bibliographie
- Aguilera, R. et A. Dabu. 2005. « The Transformation of Employment Relations Systems in Central and Eastern Europe ». Journal of Industrial Relations, 47 (1), 16–42.
- Amable, B. 2000. « Institutional Complementary and Diversity of Social Systems of Innovation and Production ». Review of International Political Economy, 7 (4), 645–687.
- Amable, B. 2005. Les cinq capitalismes : diversité des systèmes économiques et sociaux dans la mondialisation. Paris : Seuil.
- Amable, B. et Y. Lung. 2003. « The European Socio-Economic Models of Knowledge-based Society : The Objectives of the ESEMK Project ». La Lettre du Gerpisa, 171.
- Anastasakos, K. 2004. « Labor Aspects of Internationalization : Multinational Corporations and Employment Relations in U.S. and Germany ». Annual Conference of the Society for the Advanced of Socio-Economics (SASE), 9–11 juillet, George Washington University, Washington D.C.
- Aoki, M. 1988. Information, Incentives and Bargaining in the Japanese Economy. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
- Berger, S., C. Kurz, T. Sturgeon, U. Voskamp et W. Volker. 2001. « Globalization, Production Networks, and National Models of Capitalism : On the Possibilities of New Productive Systems and Institutional Diversity in an Enlarging Europe ». SOFI-Mitteilungen, 29, 59–72.
- Bevan, A., S. Estrin et K. Meyer. 2001. « Institution Building and the Integration of Eastern Europe in International Production ». Working Paper, 16, London Business School.
- Bilger, F. et E. Rugraff. 2003. « Les trois chocs de l’économie allemande ». Revue d’Allemagne, 35 (4), 471–490 (repris dans Problèmes économiques, 2004, 2.853, 7–16).
- Bluhm, K. 2001. « Exporting or Abandoning the ‘German Model’? Labour Policies of German Manufacturing Firms in Central Europe ». European Journal of Industrial Relations, 7 (2), 153–173.
- Boyer, R. 2004. Une théorie du capitalisme est-elle possible ? Paris : Odile Jacob.
- Buchen, C. 2004. « What Kind of Capitalism is Emerging in Eastern Europe? Varieties of Capitalism in Estonia and Slovenia ». 13th Research Seminar on « Managing the Economic Transition », 12 mars, Cambridge : University of Cambridge.
- Carley, M. 2003. Les relations industrielles dans l’UE, au Japon et aux États-Unis.www.eiro.eurofound.ie
- Commission européenne. 2002. Les relations du travail en Europe. Bruxelles : Direction générale de l’emploi et des affaires sociales.
- Coriat, B. et O. Weinstein. 1995. Les nouvelles théories de l’entreprise. Paris : Le Livre de Poche.
- Crouch, C. et W. Streeck, dir. 1995. Modern Capitalism or Modern Capitalisms ? London : Francis Printer (trad. : Y a-t-il plusieurs formes de capitalisme ? Paris : La Découverte, 1995).
- DeutscheBundesbank. 1997. « Development and Determinants of International Direct Investment ». Monthly Report, août, 63–81.
- DIHK (Deutscher Industrie und Handelskammertag). 2000. Investitionen im Ausland, Ergebnisse eine DIHT-Umfrage. Herbst, Berlin-Bonn.
- DIHK (Deutscher Industrie und Handelskammertag). 2003. Produktion-verlagerung als Element der Globalisierungsstrategie von Unternehmen, Ergebnisse einer Unternemensbefragung. Mai, Berlin-Bonn.
- Dörr, G. et T. Kessel. 1999. « Restructuring Via Internationalization. The Auto Industry’s Direct Investment Projects in Eastern Central Europe ». Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB) Discussion Paper, mai, Berlin.
- Dörrenbächer, C. 2002. « National Business Systems and the International Transfer of Industrial Models in Multinational Corporations: Some Remarks on Heterogeneity ». WZB Discussion Paper, mars, Berlin.
- Dutraive, V. 1993. « La firme entre transaction et contrat : Williamson épigone ou dissident de la pensée institutionnaliste ? ». Revue d’économie politique, 103 (1), 83–105.
- ECE (European Commission for Europe). 2001. Economic Survey of Europe. United Nations.
- Edwards, T., C. Rees et X. Coller. 1999. « Structure, Politics and the Diffusion of Employment Practices in Multinationals ». European Journal of Industrial Relations, 5 (3), 286–306.
- EIRO (European Industrial Relations Observatory) et EUROFOUND (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions). 2002. Relations industrielles dans les États membres de l’UE et les pays candidats. Dublin, www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int
- Estevez-Abe, M., T. Iversen et D. Soskice. 2001. « Social Protection and the Formation of Skills : A Reinterpretation of the Welfare State ». Varieties of Capitalism : The Institutional Foundation of Comparative Advantages. P. Hall et D. Soskice, dir. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 104–145.
- Fretwell, D. et A. Wheeler. 2001. « Hungary : Secondary Education and Training ». Secondary Education Series, août, World Bank.
- Galgoczi, B. 2003. « The Impact of Multinational Enterprises on the Corporate Culture and on Industrial Relations in Hungary ». South-East Europe Review, 6 (1-2), 27–44.
- Greskovits, B. 1998. The Political Economy of Protest and Patience. Budapest : Central European University Press.
- Hall, P. et D. Soskice, dir. 2001. Varieties of Capitalism : The Institutional Foundation of Comparative Advantage. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
- Hall, P. et D. Gingerich. 2004. « Varieties of Capitalism and Institutional Complementaries in the Macroeconomy : An Empirical Analysis ». Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung Discussion Paper, 04/05, Köln.
- Hewko, J. 2002. « Foreign Direct Investments in Transitional Economies : Does the Rule of Law Matter? ». East European Constitutional Review, 11/12 (4/1), 71–79.
- Hunya, G. et I. Geishecker. 2005. « Employment Effects of Foreign Direct Investment in Central and Eastern Europe ». Research Report, 321, Wiener Institut für internationale Wirtschaftsvergleische (WIIW), Vienna.
- Iversen, T. 2005. Capitalism, Democracy and Welfare. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
- Lado, M. 2002. Industrial Relations in the Candidate Countries. EIRO et EUROFOUND, www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int
- Lung, Y. 2005. « The Link between the Diversity of Productive Models and the Variety of Capitalism : A Review of the Literature and Contextualisation Using the Car Industry As a Study ». Cahiers du GRES, 17 (juillet), www.gres.so.org.
- Marin, D., A. Lorentowicz et A. Raubold. 2002. « Ownership, Capital or Outsourcing : What Drives German Investment to Eastern Europe? ». Discussion Paper, 02–03 (mai), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München.
- McDonald, F., H.-J. Tuselmann et A. Heise. 2003. « Employee Relations in German Multinationals in a Anglo-Saxon Setting : Toward a Germanic Version of the Anglo-Saxon Approach? ». European Journal of Industrial Relations, 9 (3), 327–349.
- Meardi, G. 2004. « The Role of Labour in a Enlarged Europe : Worker Responses to Multinational Companies in Central Europe ». European Conference at the University College Dublin, 30 octobre, Dublin.
- OCDE. 2004a. Tour d’horizon des évolutions en matière de gouvernement d’entreprise dans les pays de l’OCDE. Paris : OCDE.
- OECD. 1999, 2004b. Employment Outlook. Paris : OCDE.
- Ohmae, K. 1990. The Borderless World : Power and Strategy in the Interlinked Economy. London : HarperCollins.
- Pellegrin, J. 1999. « German Production Networks in Central/Eastern Europe : Between Dependency and Globalisation ». Discussion paper, 304, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung, Berlin.
- Pollert, A. 1999. « Trade Unionism in Transition in Central and Eastern Europe ». European Journal of Industrial Relation, 5 (2), 209–234.
- Riboud, M., C. Sanchez-Paramo et C. Silva-Jauregui. 2001. « Does Eurosclerosis Matter? Institutional Reform and Labor Market Performances in Central and Eastern European Countries in the 1990s ». Social Protection Discussion Paper, 202 (26), World Bank.
- Rugraff, E. 2004a. « L’intégration économique entre l’Allemagne et les pays d’Europe centrale ». Revue d’Allemagne, 36 (3), 1–24.
- Rugraff, E. 2004b. « La politique européenne de l’élargissement et ses effets ». Les politiques économiques européennes : enjeux et défis. M. Dévoluy, dir. Paris : Seuil, 315–347.
- Rugraff, E. 2006. « Droit, réglementation et investissements directs étrangers en Europe centrale ». XXVIe Journées de l’Association d’économie sociale, 7–8 septembre, Nancy.
- Ruigrok, W. et R. van Tulder. 1995. The Logic of International Restructuring. London/New-York : Routledge.
- Ruigrok, W. et R. van Tulder. 1998. « European Cross-national Production Networks in the Auto Industry : Eastern Europe as the Low End of European Car Complex ». Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy, 121, University of California.
- Schmitter, Ph. et G. Lehmbruch. 1979. Trends toward Corporatist Intermediation. Beverly Hills : Sage.
- Shonfield, A. 1965. Modern Capitalism. The Changing Balance of Public and Private Power. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
- Szanyi, M. 2001. Policy Consequences of FDI, Linkage Promotion Opportunities in Hungary. UNECE/EBRD Expert Meeting, 3 décembre, Genève.
- Traxler, F. et B. Woitech. 2000. « Transnational Investment and National Labour Market Regimes : A Case of ‘Regime Shopping’? ». European Journal of Industrial Relations, 6 (2), 141–159.
- UNCTAD. 1993. World Investment Report: Transnational Corporations and Integrated International Production. New-York : ONU.
- UNCTAD. 2004. World Investment Report : The Shift toward Service. New-York : ONU.
- UNESCO. 2004. Recueil de données mondiales sur l’éducation. Institut de statistiques, Montréal.
- Westney, D. 1993. « Institutionalization Theory and the Multinational Corporation ». S. Ghoshal, et D. Westney, dir. Organization Theory and the Multinational Corporation. New York : St. Martin’s Press.