Employment Regimes and the Quality of Work, Edited by Duncan Gallie, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007, xvi + 277 pp., ISBN 978-0-199230-10-5.

This is an odd and disappointing volume. In the introduction we are told that quality of work issues have assumed “an increasingly central place in the social agenda of many European societies in the last decade of the twentieth Century” (p. 1). Moreover, various organs within the European Commission, plus national bodies within Europe, have produced data sets “measuring” different aspects of quality of work. An issue, data sets; a marriage made in heaven for academics. Or, maybe not! The introduction states that there is little empirical evidence “about how key aspects of the quality of work actually changed in different countries over the last decade” (the bibliography suggests that this statement is a straw man). It then says, “The objective of this book is to examine how far the available national and cross-national evidence for some of the major European societies enables us to address these questions and to begin to explore a range of arguments about the major determinants of work quality and their relative importance” (p. 3). It might be useful to see this volume having a low and a high level object. The low object is that of reporting on what has happened; the high level being that of explaining such changes, and their relative importance, via a comparative method. The volume succeeds in its low level quest-it marshals and provides a commentary on the data which has become available – but fails, or rather gives up on its high level object. The volume has three theoretical paradigms that it ostensibly seeks to explore. The first is universalistic theories associated with the rise of industrialization and the increasing use of technology. The optimistic approach of Kerr et al.'s Industrialism and Industrial Man is contrasted with the pessimism of Braverman's Labor and Monopoly Capital. The second is to compare different production regimes. This is essentially a rerun of debates concerning “corporatist” and market based regimes in their ability to bring about better macroeconomic results. This has morphed into discussions concerning the efficacy of coordinated and market based economies in enhancing the quality of work. The third paradigm is designated as employment regimes and centres on “the role attributed to organized labour in employment policy and employment regulation” (p. 17). For those who can remember the heyday of debates about corporatism the role of unions in decision making was an essential ingredient of what is now called “production regimes”. The theoretical constructs, particularly the distinction between production and employment regimes, lack robustness. The dimensions of work quality examined are job skills, job related training, task discretion, work and family life balance and job insecurity. Job skills and job related training are biased towards formal training, which can occur at different locations – national, industry and firm. A major problem here is not taking account of informal on the job training. Human capital theory posits that we acquire skills via both formal and on the job training (learning by doing). It is hard to impossible to know how to measure or proxy the latter. The problem is that because that part of training that we cannot measure has been excluded from the analysis, it is difficult to obtain a complete picture of and know how to respond to various statements made by different contributors concerning skills and training. The major nations examined are the Scandinavian countries, the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Spain. Various chapters draw on other European countries where it is thought to be useful to enhance the discussion. The usual approach of the chapters is to examine previous research and theoretical/conceptual issues, data availability and …