Quiet Politics of Employment Protection Legislation? Partisan Politics, Electoral Competition, and the Regulatory Welfare State

2020 ◽  
Vol 691 (1) ◽  
pp. 206-222
Author(s):  
Linda Voigt ◽  
Reimut Zohlnhöfer

Political parties and party competition have been important factors in the expansion and retrenchment of the fiscal welfare state, but researchers have argued that regulatory welfare is not part of political debate among parties. We explore this claim theoretically, and then empirically examine it in the case of employment protection legislation (EPL) in twenty-one established democracies since 1985. EPL is a mature and potentially salient instrument of the regulatory welfare state that has experienced substantial retrenchment. We test three prominent mechanisms of how electoral competition conditions partisan effects: the composition of Left parties’ electorates, the strength of pro-EPL parties, and the emphasis put on social justice by pro-EPL parties. We find that the partisan politics of EPL is conditioned by electoral competition under only very specific circumstances, namely when blame sharing becomes possible in coalitions between EPL supporters.

Author(s):  
Reimut Zohlnhöfer ◽  
Linda Voigt

Abstract Political parties are likely to hold differing views about employment protection legislation (EPL). While pro-welfare parties could support EPL, pro-market parties might focus on labour market deregulation. In this paper, we investigate empirically whether partisan politics, especially the government participation of Social democrats and Christian democrats, matter for EPL in 21 established OECD countries from 1985 to 2019. We show that during the golden age of the welfare state, the level of EPL was much higher where Social and Christian democrats dominated the government than elsewhere. After the golden age and under conditions of high unemployment, these unconditional effects mostly disappeared. Instead, the level of unemployment conditions partisan differences. Christian democrats liberalize EPL for regular employment significantly less than other parties under high levels of unemployment. In contrast, Social democrats defend high levels of EPL for regular and temporary employment when unemployment is low. Against expectations, they even liberalize employment protection for labour market insiders more than other parties at very high levels of unemployment.


Author(s):  
Samir Amine ◽  
Wilner Predelus

The merit of employment regulations in a market economy is often measured by their effectiveness in facilitating job creation without jeopardizing the notion of “decent work,” as defined by the International Labor Organization (ILO). Consequently, the recent literature on employment legislation has extensively focused on the flexibility of the labor market, as a fair middle ground is always necessary to avoid undue distortions that can negatively impact the economy and worker's wellbeing. This chapter analyzes the provisions of the labor law in Haiti and how it affects job security and flexibility to observe a flexible structure that rather benefits employers. Notably, labor law in Haiti may have in fact rendered workers more vulnerable because these labor legislations were enacted on the assumption that employers and workers are on the same footing when it comes to industrial relations, while historic facts do not support such an assumption.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document