Renorming Labour Law: Can We Escape Labour Law's Recurring Regulatory Dilemmas?

E. Tucker
{"title":"Renorming Labour Law: Can We Escape Labour Law's Recurring Regulatory Dilemmas?","authors":"E. Tucker","doi":"10.1093/INDLAW/DWQ001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Historically, protective labour law pushed back against capitalist labour markets by facilitating workers’ collective action and setting minimum employment standards based on social norms. Although the possibilities, limits and desirability of such a project were viewed differently in classical, Marxist and pluralist political economy, each perspective understood that the pursuit of protective labour law would produce recurring regulatory dilemmas requiring trade-offs between efficiency, equity and voice and/or between workers’ and employers’ interests. Recently, some scholars have argued that labour law needs to be renormed in ways that are market constituting rather than market constraining, and that this change would avoid regulatory dilemmas. This article reviews the concept of regulatory dilemmas as formulated in the three major traditions of labour law scholarship, critically assesses recent work by Deakin and Wilkinson and by Hyde that proposes to renorm labour law and overcome regulatory dilemmas, and proposes an alternative approach to understanding regulatory dilemmas based on the work of Wright.","PeriodicalId":397807,"journal":{"name":"Political Theory: History of Political Thought eJournal","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"23","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Theory: History of Political Thought eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/INDLAW/DWQ001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 23

Abstract

Historically, protective labour law pushed back against capitalist labour markets by facilitating workers’ collective action and setting minimum employment standards based on social norms. Although the possibilities, limits and desirability of such a project were viewed differently in classical, Marxist and pluralist political economy, each perspective understood that the pursuit of protective labour law would produce recurring regulatory dilemmas requiring trade-offs between efficiency, equity and voice and/or between workers’ and employers’ interests. Recently, some scholars have argued that labour law needs to be renormed in ways that are market constituting rather than market constraining, and that this change would avoid regulatory dilemmas. This article reviews the concept of regulatory dilemmas as formulated in the three major traditions of labour law scholarship, critically assesses recent work by Deakin and Wilkinson and by Hyde that proposes to renorm labour law and overcome regulatory dilemmas, and proposes an alternative approach to understanding regulatory dilemmas based on the work of Wright.
改革劳动法:能否摆脱劳动法反复出现的监管困境?
从历史上看,保护性劳动法通过促进工人的集体行动和设定基于社会规范的最低就业标准来抵制资本主义劳动力市场。尽管古典主义、马克思主义和多元主义政治经济学对这一项目的可能性、限制和可取性有不同的看法,但每一种观点都理解,追求保护性劳工法将产生反复出现的监管困境,需要在效率、公平和发言权和/或工人和雇主的利益之间进行权衡。最近,一些学者认为,劳动法需要以构成市场的方式进行改革,而不是以限制市场的方式进行改革,这种改革将避免监管困境。本文回顾了在劳动法学术的三大传统中形成的监管困境的概念,批判性地评估了迪肯和威尔金森以及海德最近提出的改革劳动法和克服监管困境的工作,并在赖特的工作基础上提出了一种理解监管困境的替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书