Firm Hand on the Tiller

##Forfatter## ##Tittel## Tord Flatland Firm hand on the tiller A comparative case-study of industrial relations, bargaining models and organised employers’ roles in change in Sweden and Norway Master’s thesis, Sociology Fafo Tord Flatland Firm hand on the tiller A comparative case-study of industrial relations, bargaining models and organised employers’ roles in change in Sweden and Norway Master’s thesis, Sociology, Department of Sociology and Human Geography Faculty of Social Sciences University of Oslo Fafo © Fafo 2021 ISBN 978-82-324-0589-3 Summary This thesis is a comparative case-study of development trajectories of industrial relations and collective wage bargaining models in Sweden and Norway since around the turn of the millennium up until the present. I compare development trajectories in the two countries’ institutional frameworks in relevant areas in order to address three research questions: i) Are Swedish and Norwegian industrial relations and collective bargaining models displaying converging or diverging trajectories in the two first decades of the 21st century? ii) What roles have organised employers in different sectors played in industrial relations and bargaining model change in Sweden and Norway since 2000, and can properties in the countries’ organised actors explain outcomes in IR and bargaining model change? iii) Does change in one or both countries’ industrial relations and bargaining models conform to a description of ‘neoliberal’ transformations or trajectories in industrial relations, or is this concept unfit to describe the overall trajectory of Swedish and/or Norwegian industrial relations and bargaining models since 2000? The thesis relates to the research fields of comparative political economy and industrial relations studies. The conceptual framework applied for investigating and comparing the substantive areas of Swedish and Norwegian industrial relations is adopted from contributions and discussions within these fields. Of particular relevance are discussions of organised employers’ role in industrial relations change. Further, recent discussions in comparative political economy and industrial relations studies about trajectories of liberalisation provide an important conceptual backdrop. These discussions revolve around whether liberalising development trajectories in Western and European political economies and industrial relations best can be conceptualised as ‘varied liberalisation’ of sustained divergence in political- economical and industrial relations institutions, or if a common ‘neoliberal trajectory’ pointing towards convergence can be observed across most or all countries. In my substantive case treatment of Sweden and Norway, I outline how industrial relations and bargaining models have evolved since the turn of the millennium. These decades were a period in which both countries had recently reconstructed models for coordinated bargaining and adjoining industrial relations frameworks, following a period of turbulence, partial break-down and major revisions of post-war models of centralised bargaining. I map how landscapes of organisational and collective agreement coverage and agreement types have evolved, and also consider developments in employment forms. In addition, I look at main characteristics of tripartite institutions and state-involvement in industrial relations and VI bargaining, and how these have fared in responding to new pressures as a result of EU and single market integration. In mapping such characteristics and developments across my two cases, I am particularly attentive to different groups of private sector organised employers. The cases are investigated through a variety of data sources. Most important is existing scholarly secondary literature within the fields of comparative political economy and industrial relations studies dealing concretely with Sweden and Norway in relevant areas. Reports and statistics databases related to labour market characteristics are also applied. In much of the general conceptual and theory-generating literature, Norway is ‘under-theorised’ in comparison to the Swedish case, which is often treated as a paragon case of ‘Nordic’ industrial relations. Therefore, primary data collection is limited to Norway, and consists of interviews with central actors in employer organisations and institutions within the industrial relations sphere. After mapping case-properties in relevant areas, the thesis concludes with a comparative analysis. Here, I discuss and compare findings with the aid of conceptual frameworks from comparative political economy and industrial relations studies to address the three research questions of diverging/converging national trajectories, employer influence on industrial relations change and whether or not ‘neoliberalism’ is a useful concept for describing development trajectories. I argue that procedures for manufacturing-leadership in bargaining models point towards convergence, but that the cases diverge in regard to other important industrial relations characteristics such as state-involvement in wage regulation. I find that cross-class alliances in manufacturing are still dominant in both countries, but has faced more opposition in Sweden than in Norway. Lastly, I conclude that both countries are experiencing liberalising pressures, but that states and labour market parties have acted to ensure a continuation of IR and bargaining routines that preserves coordination and social solidarity. This makes neoliberalisation a poor overall characterisation of Swedish and Norwegian industrial relations and bargaining models’ development trajectories in the early 21st century. VII Acknowledgements I feel particularly lucky to have enjoyed the supervision of Lars Mjøset when writing my thesis. Thank you, Lars, for long discussions on- and off-topic that have taught me more than any course. This comes on top of your detailed and critical feedback, that has pulled this student (according to Lars’s own description ‘philosophically inclined in Western Marxism’) down a few levels of abstraction and convinced him to write a grounded comparison of phenomena in national capitalisms, rather than his natural inclination to write theoretically about capitalism as such. This doubtlessly made research harder initially, but I am convinced that it ultimately made it more rewarding. I am very grateful. I am also grateful for all the informants that enthusiastically shared their knowledge with me, often in the midst of overfilled schedules. Tore Li at NHO deserves my gratitude for pointing me towards informants at an early stage of the project. I want to thank the people at Fafo for taking an interest in my research project, granting me a scholarship, a study location and free lunches, but most of all for giving me access to Fafo’s excellent research community on industrial relations. In this regard, I am particularly indebted to Jon Erik Dølvik, who found the time for long talks indispensable for guiding research and improving interview questions, as well as reading and commenting on chapter drafts while being occupied with other projects. I also want to thank Kristine Nergaard for commenting on material, providing valuable feedback and pointing me towards literature. I have been blessed with relatives and friends who are also able readers. Eirik Swensen, Jo Forbord Stavdal and Sigurd Eid Jacobsen have commented on drafts and given superb feedback. I appreciate it! The friendship of Sigurd M. Nordli Oppegaard has elevated my last two years on UiO. Thank you for mentoring me, discussing with me, pushing me to write, inviting me to conferences and for providing feedback at every stage of thesis writing. VIII Siri, you’re my ideal Nordic model. Bargaining with you always ends up producing optimal outcomes. You’ve made me look forward to coming home from Blindern in the evening. Thank you for your patience and understanding. My gratitude also extends to my family. I would like to thank them for supporting me in all my endeavours in life. All errors and shortcomings are of course my own. Tord Flatland Oslo, November 2nd, 2020 IX Table of contents 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Arriving at research questions ................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Some preliminary specifications and analytic frames ............................................................ 3 1.3. Outline of the thesis ............................................................................................................... 7 2. Methodology and data ....................................................................................................... 9 2.1. Comparative case-study research ........................................................................................... 9 2.1.1. Grounded theory and contextualist approach .................................................................................. 9 2.1.2. Identifying local research frontiers, selecting cases and considering comparability .................... 10 2.2. Considerations on data selection and source material .......................................................... 13 2.2.1. Secondary literature and case asymmetries ................................................................................... 13 2.2.2. Interviews .....................................................................................................................................

Load more