The European Sectoral Social Dialogue: Actors, Developments and Challenges, Edited by Anne Dufresne, Christophe Degryse and Philippe Pochet, Brussels: P.I.E. Peter Lang, 2006, 340 pp., ISBN 90-5201-052-8.

The book is comprised of three sections. The first contextualizes the social dialogue; the second considers sector-specific case studies; and the third contemplates the future. For this review, and only for the purposes of brevity, I will engage the first and third sections of the collection. A question which pervades consideration of this book is whether or not sectoral social dialogue is a realistic goal given the relative paucity of its dominant use amongst the Member States and those seeking admission. The collection’s first section establishes the circumstances in which EU social dialogue has arisen and is currently conducted. Degryse’s historical overview seeks to highlight the factors which “determine the quality of this dialogue: the general political context . . ., the protagonists’ political will, organizations’ strategies, shifting alliances and power politics” (p. 45). He posits social dialogue has floundered to the point that “the very purpose of European social dialogue as a means of defining and enforcing a set of Community-wide social standards has been cast into doubt” (p. 45). Dufresne continues the exploration of social dialogue. She provides a “simple” definition which appears to be more a functional interpretation than an effort to codify an understanding of the term: “a set of frameworks (joint committees, informal working parties and then SSDCs) and functions (joint action, consultation and negotiation) serving to involve the social partners in European-level decision-making” (p. 71). Her intriguing overview of joint consultation and action between the European Commission with employers’ and employees’ representatives highlights the dearth of autonomous dialogue (the ultimate aim of the process) between employers and employees. Sadly, the Commission must remain present during the negotiation of agreements. Noting three strands of cross-industry social dialogue (1. involvement in a range of general European policy areas; 2. reinforcement of social dialogue; 3. construction of an independent agenda, p. 104), Pochet suggests the products of social dialogue resemble “codes of conduct or optional guidelines.” Implementation of these end results is then left with “decentralized stakeholders, perhaps with moral pressure exerted on those who fail in their duty” (p. 106). Finally, Pochet, Degryse and Dufresne answer the question, “what are the impediments to sectoral social dialogue?” After a series of case studies in the middle section, the final set of essays in this collection focus on the challenges faced by the European Community. Here considerations take the reader deeper into the area and yet one gets a sense that the rhisomatic nature of the issues suggest not just an unwieldy character, but also some level of inherent (perhaps indiscernible) complexity which prevents comprehensive engagement. For example, Léonard, Rochet and Vandenbussche question the “relevance and feasibility of sector-level industrial relations as a key level of bargaining within the countries” (p. 331). The dilemma does not cease there for “sectoral social dialogue is hampered by the characteristics of the actors themselves . . .” (p. 331). The collection’s “Conclusion” attempts to shape the preceding contributions by dissecting the issues under a common set of headings (pp. 335-340). Procedural issues concern: methods of approving joints texts; clarification of the scope of these texts; follow-up; verification of national-level implementation (p. 336). With particular emphasis, the authors call upon the European Commission to play the “key role” (p. 337). Degryse and Pochet rely on the Commission’s role as facilitator for discussion between management and labour. One wonders how much the Commission may do, for a facilitative role empowers to a limited extent. It relies very heavily on the parties to want to build on common ground which the Commission may outline. Furthermore, the authors refer to Article 138 which mandates the …