Résumés
Summary
Prominent writers in industrial relations (IR) have concluded the field is in significant decline, partly because of a failed theory base. The theory problem is deepened because other writers conclude developing a theory foundation for industrial relations is neither possible nor desirable. We believe advancing IR theory is both needed and possible, and take up the challenge in this paper.
A long-standing problem in theorizing industrial relations has been the lack of agreement on the field’s core analytical construct. However, in the last two decades writers have increasingly agreed the field is centred on the employment relationship. Another long-standing problem is that writers have theorized industrial relations using different theoretical frames of reference, including pluralist and radical-Marxist; different disciplinary perspectives, such as economics, sociology, history, and politics; and from different national traditions, such as British, French, and American.
In this paper, we seek to advance IR theory and better integrate paradigms and national traditions. We do this by developing an analytical explanation for four core features of the employment relationship—generation of an economic surplus, cooperation-conflict dialectic, indeterminate nature of the employment contract, and asymmetric authority and power in the firm—using an integrative mix of ideas and concepts from the pluralist and radical-Marxist streams presented in a multi-part diagram constructed with marginalist tools from conventional economics. The diagram includes central IR system components, such as labour market, hierarchical firm, macro-economy, and nation state government. The model is used to explain the four features of the employment relationship and derive implications for IR theory and practice. Examples include the diagrammatic representation of the size and distribution of the economic surplus, a new analytical representation of labour exploitation, identification of labour supply conditions that encourage, respectively, cooperation versus conflict, and demonstration of how inequality of bargaining power in labour markets contributes to macroeconomic stagnation and unemployment.
Keywords:
- industrial relations theory,
- British-American industrial relations,
- pluralist-radical,
- employment relationship,
- cooperation and conflict,
- exploitation
Résumé
Certains auteurs de premier plan en relations industrielles (RI) en sont arrivés à la conclusion que notre champ d’étude est en sérieux déclin, en partie à cause du manque d’une théorie de base unificatrice. Le problème de la théorie est accentué du fait que d’autres auteurs considèrent le développement d’une théorie fondatrice des relations industrielles soit impossible, soit non souhaitable. Nous croyons que la production d’une théorie des RI est nécessaire et possible et nous nous proposons de relever ce défi dans cet article.
Un problème qui persiste depuis longtemps dans la théorisation des relations industrielles est celui d’un manque de consensus sur ce qui serait le coeur d’un construit analytique de ce champ d’étude. Toutefois, durant les deux dernières décennies, la plupart des auteurs se sont entendus sur l’idée que ce champ d’étude est centré sur la relation d’emploi. Un autre problème persistant est le fait que les divers spécialistes qui ont cherché à théoriser les relations industrielles ont utilisé différents cadres de référence théoriques — incluant le pluralisme et le marxisme radical — ; différentes perspectives — notamment, l’économie, la sociologie, l’histoire et la science politique —; et, enfin, ils sont de différentes traditions nationales — dont l’anglaise, la française et l’américaine.
Dans cet article, nous cherchons à faire progresser la théorie des RI et à mieux intégrer les paradigmes et les traditions nationales. Pour ce faire, nous développons une explication analytique concernant quatre caractéristiques centrales de la relation d’emploi — production d’un surplus économique, dialectique coopération-conflit, nature indéterminée du contrat d’emploi, et asymétrie de l’autorité et du pouvoir dans l’entreprise — en utilisant un mélange intégrateur d’idées et de concepts émanant des courants pluraliste et marxiste-radical présentés dans un schéma à parties multiples construit avec des outils marginalistes de la théorie économique des conventions. Le schéma inclut les composantes centrales des RI, soit le marché du travail, l’entreprise hiérarchique, la macro-économie et le gouvernement de niveau national. Ce modèle est utilisé pour expliquer les quatre caractéristiques de la relation d’emploi et en tirer les implications pour une théorie des RI et la pratique. Les thèmes abordés sont les suivants : la représentation schématique de la taille et de la distribution du surplus économique; une nouvelle représentation analytique de l’exploitation du travail ; l’identification des conditions de l’offre de travail qui favorisent la coopération ou le conflit ; et, enfin, une démonstration de la manière dont l’inégalité dans le pouvoir de négociation sur les marchés du travail contribue à la stagnation macroéconomique et au chômage.
Mots-clés:
- théories des relations industrielles,
- relations industrielles anglo-américaines,
- courant pluraliste-radical,
- relation d’emploi,
- coopération et conflit,
- exploitation
Resumen
Importantes autores en el campo de las relaciones industriales (RI) han concluido que este campo está declinando en gran parte debido a sus carencias teóricas. El problema teórico se agrava pues otros autores avanzan que el desarrollo de fundaciones teóricas en el campo de las relaciones industriales no es posible ni deseable. Nosotros proponemos que la teoría de las relaciones industriales es necesaria y posible y asumimos dicho reto en este artículo.
Un obstáculo de larga data a la teorización de las relaciones industriales ha sido la falta de consenso sobre el aspecto central de la construcción analítica del campo. Sin embargo, en las dos últimas décadas muchos autores han manifestado su acuerdo con la idea que las relaciones laborales constituyen el aspecto central del campo de las RI, y ello, desde diferentes perspectivas teóricas, incluyendo el marxismo radical y pluralista, y desde diferentes tradiciones nacionales (británica, francesa y americana).
En este artículo, nos proponemos contribuir al avance de la teoría de las relaciones industriales y a una mejor integración de paradigmas y de tradiciones nacionales. Para ello, elaboramos una explicación analítica de cuatro componentes centrales de la relación de empleo: generación de un excedente económico, dialéctica cooperación-conflicto, naturaleza indeterminada del contrato de empleo y asimetría de la autoridad y del poder en el seno de la empresa. Dicha explicación constituye una mixtura integrativa de ideas y de conceptos provenientes de las corrientes marxista radical y pluralista que es presentada en un diagrama a componentes múltiples cuya construcción utiliza instrumentos marginalistas provenientes de la economía convencional. El diagrama incluye los componentes centrales del sistema de relaciones industriales, tales como el mercado laboral, la jerarquía empresarial, la macro-economía y el gobierno estatal nacional. El modelo explica las cuatro características de la relación de empleo y permite deducir implicaciones para la teoría y la práctica de las relaciones industriales. Los ejemplos incluyen diagramas de representación de la talla y de la distribución del excedente económico, una nueva representación analítica de la explotación del trabajo, la identificación de las condiciones de la oferta de trabajo que fomentan la cooperación o el conflicto y, por último, la demostración de cómo la desigualdad de poder de negociación en el mercado laboral contribuye a la estagnación macroeconómica y al desempleo.
Palabras claves:
- teoría de las relaciones industriales,
- relaciones industriales británico-americanas,
- pluralismo radical,
- relaciones de empleo,
- cooperación y conflicto,
- explotación
Parties annexes
References
- Ackers, Peter and Adrian Wilkinson. 2008. “Industrial Relations and the Social Sciences.” In Paul Blyton, Nicolas Bacon, Jack Fiorito and Edmund Heery (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Industrial Relations. London: Sage, 53-68.
- Adams, Roy and Noah Meltz. 1993. Industrial Relations Theory: Its Scope and Pedagogy. Metuchen, NK: Scarecrow Press.
- Albelda, Randy. 1997. Economics and Feminism: Disturbances in the Field. New York: Twayne.
- Arthurs, Harry. 2014. “From Theory and Research to Policy and Practice in Work and Employment – and Beyond?” Relations industrielles/Industrial Relations, 69 (2), 423-433.
- Baran, Paul and Paul Sweezy. 1966. Monopoly Capital: An Essay on the American Economic and Social Order. New York: Monthly Review.
- Bélanger, Jacques, Paul Edwards and Larry Haivens. 1994. Workplace Regulations and the Global Challenge. Ithaca: ILR Press.
- Bélanger, Jacques and Paul Edwards. 2007. “Conditions Promoting Compromise in the Workplace.” British Journal of Industrial Relations, 45 (4), 713-734.
- Blyton, Paul and Peter Turnbull. 2004. The Dynamics of Employee Relations. 3rd ed., Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Blyton, Paul, Nicolas Bacon, Jack Fiorito and Edmund Heery. (2008). The Sage Handbook of Industrial Relations. London: Sage.
- Boddy, Raford and James Crotty. 1975. “Class Conflict and Macro Policy: The Political Business Cycle.” Review of Radical Political Economy, 7, 1-19.
- Botwinick, Howard. 1993. Persistent Inequalities: Wage Disparity under Capitalist Competition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Bowles, Samuel. 2004. Microeconomics. New York: Sage.
- Bowles, Samuel and Herbert Gintis. 1990. “Contested Exchange: New Microfoundations of the Political Economy of Capitalism,” Politics and Society, 18, 165-222.
- Boxall, Peter and John Purcell. 2011. Strategy and Human Resource Management. 3rd ed., London: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Boyer, Robert and Yves Saillard. 2002. Régulation Theory: The State of the Art. London: Routledge.
- Braverman, Harry. 1974. Labour and Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review.
- Budd, John. 2004. Employment with a Human Face. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
- Budd, John and Devasheesh Bhave. 2008. “Values, Ideologies, and Frames of Reference in Industrial Relations.” In Paul Blyton, Nicolas Bacon, Jack Fiorito and Edmund Heery (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Industrial Relations. London: Sage, 92-112.
- Clarke, Simon. 1994. Marx’s Theory of Crisis. London: St. Martin’s.
- Cole, George Douglas Howard. 1935. Economic Planning. London: Kennikat Press.
- Commons, John. 1893. The Distribution of Wealth. New York: Kelly.
- Commons, John. 1919. Industrial Goodwill. New York: McGraw Hill.
- Commons, John. 1934. Institutional Economics: Its Place in Political Economy. New York: Macmillan.
- Davis, John 1992. The Economic Surplus in Advanced Economies. Brookfield: Elgar.
- Da Costa, Isabel. 2005. “The Industrial Relations Field in France: Complex Past and Challenging Prospects.” In David Lewin and Bruce Kaufman (eds.), Advances in Industrial and Labour Relations, Vol. 14, New York: Elsevier, 211-237.
- Deakin, Simon and Frank Wilkinson. 2005. Law of the Labour Market: Industrialization, Employment, and Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Doeringer, Peter and Michael Piore. 1971. Internal Labour Markets and Manpower Analysis. Lexington: Lexington Books.
- Douglas, Paul. 1935. Controlling Industrial Depressions. New York: Norton.
- Dunlop, John 1958. Industrial Relations Systems. New York: Holt.
- Edwards, Paul. 1986. Conflict at Work: A Materialist Analysis of Workplace Relations: Oxford: Blackwell.
- Edwards, Paul. 1990. “The Politics of Conflict and Consent: How the Labour Contract Really Works.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 13, 41-61.
- Edwards, Paul. 2003. “The Employment Relationship and the Field of Industrial Relations.” In Paul Edwards (ed.), Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice. 2nd ed. London: Blackwell, 1-36.
- Edwards, Paul, Jacques Bélanger and Martyn Wright. 2006. “The Bases of Compromise in the Workplace: A Theoretical Analysis.” British Journal of Industrial Relations, 44, 125-145.
- Edwards, Richard, Michael Reich and David Gordon. 1975. Labour Market Segmentation. Lexington: Lexington Books.
- Elster, Jon (1985). Making Sense of Marx. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Fine, Ben and Alfredo Saad-Filho. 2010. Marx’s Economics. 5th ed., London: Pluto Press.
- Fleetwood, Steve. 2006. “Rethinking Labour Markets: A Critical Realist-Socioeconomic Perspective.” Capital and Class, 89, 59-89.
- Fox, Alan. 1974. Beyond Contract: Work, Power, and Trust Relations. London: Allen & Unwin.
- Frege, Carola, John Kelly and Patrick McGovern. 2011. “Richard Hyman: Marxism, Trade Unionism and Comparative Employment Relations.” British Journal of Industrial Relations, 49 (2), 209-30.
- Gall, Gregor. 2003. “Marxism and Industrial Relations.” In Peter Ackers and Adrian Wilkinson (eds.), Understanding Work and Employment. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 316-324.
- Gall, Gregor and Robert Hebdon. 2008. “Conflict at Work.” In Paul Blyton, Nicolas Bacon, Jack Fiorito and Edmund Heery (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Industrial Relations. London: Sage, 588-605.
- Gintis, Herbert. 1976. “The Nature of Labour Exchange and the Theory of Capitalist Production.” Review of Radical Political Economics, 8 (2), 36-54.
- Godard, John. 2004. “The New Institutionalism, Capitalist Diversity, and Industrial Relations.” In Bruce E. Kaufman (ed.), Theoretical Perspectives on Work and the Employment Relationship. Champaign: Industrial Relations Research Association, 229-264.
- Godard, John. 2011. Industrial Relations, the Economy, and Society. 4th ed. Toronto: Captus Press.
- Gordon, David, Richard Edwards and Michael Reich. 1982. Segmented Work, Divided Workers: The Historical Transformation of Work in the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Grimshaw, Damien and Jill Rubery. 2003. “Economics and Industrial Relations.” In Peter Ackers and Adrian Wilkinson (eds.), Understanding Work and Employment. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 43-70.
- Hahnel, Robin. 2007. “Exploitation: A Modern Approach.” Review of Radical Political Economics, 38 (2), 175-92.
- Hillard, Michael and Richard McInytre. 2009. “A Radical Critique and Alternative to U.S. Industrial Relations Theory and Practice.” In Fred Lee and Jon Bekkan (eds.), Radical Economics and the Labour Movement. London: Routledge, 113-142.
- Hobson, John. 1909. The Industrial System. London: Longmans.
- Huselid, Mark. 1995. “The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover, Productivity, and Corporate Financial Performance.” Academy of Management Journal, 38 (3): 635-672.
- Hyman, Richard. 1975. Industrial Relations: A Marxist Introduction. London: Macmillan.
- Hyman, Richard. 2004. “Is Industrial Relations Theory always Ethnocentric?” In Bruce E. Kaufman (ed.), Theoretical Perspective on Work and the Employment Relationship. Madison: IRRA, 265-292.
- Hyman, Richard. 2008. “The State in Industrial Relations.” In Paul Blyton, Nicolas Bacon, Jack Fiorito and Edmund Heery (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Industrial Relations. London: Sage, 258-283.
- Jaros, Stephen. 2010. “The Core Theory: Critiques, Defences and Advances.” In Paul Thompson and Chris Smith (eds.), Working Life: Renewing Labour Process Analysis. London: Palgrave/Macmillan, 70-88.
- Kaufman, Bruce E. 2004a. The Global Evolution of Industrial Relations: Events, Ideas and the IIRA. Geneva: ILO.
- Kaufman, Bruce E. 2004b. “Employment Relations and the Employment Relations System: A Guide to Theorizing.” In Bruce E. Kaufman (ed.), Theoretical Perspectives on Work and the Employment Relationship. Champaign-Urbana: Industrial Relations Research Association, 141-176.
- Kaufman, Bruce E. 2008. “Paradigms in Industrial Relations: Original, Modern, and Versions In-Between.” British Journal of Industrial Relations, 46, 314-339.
- Kaufman, Bruce E. 2010. “The Theoretical Foundation of Industrial Relations and Its Implications for Labour Economics and Human Resource Management.” Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 64 (1), 74-108.
- Kaufman, Bruce E. 2012a. “Wage Theory, New Deal Labour Policy, and the Great Depression: Were Government and Unions to Blame?” ILR Review, 65 (3): 501-532.
- Kaufman, Bruce E. 2012b. “An Institutional Economic Analysis of Labour Unions.” Industrial Relations, 51 (S1), 438-471.
- Kaufman, Bruce E. 2013. “Sidney and Beatrice Webbs’ Institutional Theory of Labour Markets and Wage Determination.” Industrial Relations, 52 (3), 765-790.
- Kaufman, Bruce E. 2014. “The History of the British Industrial Relations Field Reconsidered: Getting from the Webbs to the New Employment Relation Paradigm.” British Journal of Industrial Relations, 52, 1-31.
- Kaufman, Bruce E. and Michael Barry. (2014). “IR Theory Built on the Founders’ Principles with Empirical Application to Australia.” Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 67, 1203-1234.
- Kelly, John. 1998. Rethinking Industrial Relations: Mobilization, Collectivism, and Long-Waves. London: Routledge.
- Kochan, Thomas. 1982. “Reply.” Industrial Relations, 21, 115-122.
- Kochan, Thomas. 1998. “What is Distinctive about Industrial Relations Research?” In Keith Whitfield and George Strauss (eds.), Researching the World of Work. Ithaca: ILR Press, 31-50.
- Kochan, Thomas and Paul Osterman. 1994. The Mutual Gains Enterprise. Boston: Harvard University Business School Press.
- Lester, Richard. 1952. “A Range Theory of Wage Differentials.” Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 5, 483-500.
- Marsden, David. 1999. A Theory of Employment Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Marx, Karl. 1849/1935. Wage Labour and Capital. New York: International Publishers.
- Marx, Karl. 1852/1935. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. New York: International Publishers.
- Marx, Karl. 1867/1906. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Vol. 1, 4th ed., New York: Random House.
- Mayer, Tom. 1994. Analytical Marxism. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
- McGovern, Patrick, Stephen Hill, Colin Mills and Michael White. 2007. Market, Class, and Employment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Murray, Gregor, Marie Laure Morin and Isabel da Costa. 1996. L’État des relations professionnelles: traditions et perspectives de recherche. St. Nicolas: Octares.
- Neumark, David and William Wascher. 2008. Minimum Wages. Cambridge: MIT Press.
- Ohanian, Lee. 2009. “What – or Who – Started the Great Depression?” Journal of Economic Theory, 144, 2310-2335.
- Perlman, Selig. 1928. A Theory of the Labour Movement. New York: Macmillan.
- Piore, Michael. 2011. “Whither Industrial Relations: Does It Have a Future in Post-Industrial Society?” British Journal of Industrial Relations, 49 (4), 792-801.
- Resnick, Stephen and Richard Wolff. 2006. New Departures in Marxian Theory. London: Routledge.
- Robinson, Joan. 1966. An Essay on Marxian Economics. 2nd ed., London: Macmillan.
- Roemer, John. 1982. A General Theory of Exploitation and Class. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- Smith, Adam. 1776-1937. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. New York: Modern Library.
- Stiglitz, Joseph. 2000. Economics of the Public Sector. 3rd ed., New York: Norton.
- Streeck, Wolfgang. 2011. “Taking Capitalism Seriously: Towards an Institutional Approach to Contemporary Political Economy.” Socio-Economic Review, 9 (1), 137-167.
- Thompson, Paul. 2003. “Disconnected Capitalism: or Why Employers Can’t Keep their Side of the Bargain.” Work, Employment and Society, 17 (2), 359-378.
- Thompson, Paul and Kristie Newsome. 2004. “Labour Process Theory, Work, and the Employment Relation.” In Bruce E. Kaufman (Ed.), Theoretical Perspectives on Work and the Employment Relationship. Champaign-Urbana: Industrial Relations Research Association, 133-162.
- Wachter, Michael. 2003. “Judging Unions Future Using an Historical Perspective: The Public Policy Choice between Competition and Unionization.” Journal of Labour Research, 24, 339-357.
- Walton, Richard and Robert McKersie. 1965. A Behavioral Theory of Labour Negotiations. New York: McGraw Hill.
- Webb, Sidney and Beatrice Webb. 1897. Industrial Democracy. London: Longmans, Green.
- Webb, Sidney and Beatrice Webb. 1902. Problems of Modern Industry. London: Longmans, Green.