Class Conflict or Consensus? Understanding Social Partner Positions on Social Policy Reforms

IF 1.9 3区社会学 Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Journal of Social Policy Pub Date : 2023-03-17 DOI:10.1017/s0047279422000873

Benedikt Bender

{"title":"Class Conflict or Consensus? Understanding Social Partner Positions on Social Policy Reforms","authors":"Benedikt Bender","doi":"10.1017/s0047279422000873","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This paper addresses the positions of unions and employer associations towards the level of unemployment benefits and active labour market policy (ALMP). These are prominent examples of social compensation and social investment policies respectively. The new dataset ‘Reform Monitor on Political Conflict’ (ReMoPo) is based on expert interviews and a systematic text analysis of all relevant press releases. Over a time-span of 14 years (2000-2014) the data clearly shows conflict between social partners on the level of unemployment benefits whilst there is consensus towards ALMP. I show that, for unemployment benefits, different motivations do lead to different positions. However, for ALMP, different motivations combine with overlapping interests, resulting in a common positive stance. The main theoretical implications of these findings were two-fold: firstly, the type of organisation does not predict positioning on welfare state issues, whereas pragmatic considerations do. Secondly, I suspect that the divergence of motivational factors combined with a consensus towards particular measures is specific to the concept of social investment. This is because social investments (training and qualification measures in this case) were expected to have the most far-reaching and long-lasting positive effects on both individuals and companies and were therefore supported by unions and employer associations.","PeriodicalId":51438,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Social Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047279422000873","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper addresses the positions of unions and employer associations towards the level of unemployment benefits and active labour market policy (ALMP). These are prominent examples of social compensation and social investment policies respectively. The new dataset ‘Reform Monitor on Political Conflict’ (ReMoPo) is based on expert interviews and a systematic text analysis of all relevant press releases. Over a time-span of 14 years (2000-2014) the data clearly shows conflict between social partners on the level of unemployment benefits whilst there is consensus towards ALMP. I show that, for unemployment benefits, different motivations do lead to different positions. However, for ALMP, different motivations combine with overlapping interests, resulting in a common positive stance. The main theoretical implications of these findings were two-fold: firstly, the type of organisation does not predict positioning on welfare state issues, whereas pragmatic considerations do. Secondly, I suspect that the divergence of motivational factors combined with a consensus towards particular measures is specific to the concept of social investment. This is because social investments (training and qualification measures in this case) were expected to have the most far-reaching and long-lasting positive effects on both individuals and companies and were therefore supported by unions and employer associations.

查看原文本刊更多论文

阶级冲突还是共识？理解社会伙伴在社会政策改革中的立场

本文阐述了工会和雇主协会对失业救济金水平和积极劳动力市场政策的立场。这些分别是社会补偿和社会投资政策的突出例子。新的数据集“政治冲突改革监测”（ReMoPo）基于专家访谈和对所有相关新闻稿的系统文本分析。在14年（2000-2014年）的时间跨度内，数据清楚地显示了社会伙伴之间在失业救济金水平上的冲突，同时对ALMP达成了共识。我表明，对于失业救济金，不同的动机确实会导致不同的职位。然而，对于ALMP来说，不同的动机与重叠的利益相结合，导致了共同的积极立场。这些发现的主要理论含义有两个方面：首先，组织类型不能预测福利国家问题的定位，而务实的考虑可以预测。其次，我怀疑动机因素的差异与对特定措施的共识相结合，是社会投资概念特有的。这是因为社会投资（在这种情况下是培训和资格认证措施）预计将对个人和公司产生最深远和最持久的积极影响，因此得到工会和雇主协会的支持。

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

Journal of Social Policy Multiple-

CiteScore

4.40

自引率

20.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Social Policy carries high quality articles on all aspects of social policy in an international context. It places particular emphasis upon articles which seek to contribute to debates on the future direction of social policy, to present new empirical data, to advance theories, or to analyse issues in the making and implementation of social policies. The Journal of Social Policy is part of the "Social Policy Package", which also includes Social Policy and Society and the Social Policy Digest. An online resource, the Social Policy Digest, was launched in 2003. The Digest provides a regularly up-dated, fully searchable, summary of policy developments and research findings across the whole range of social policy.