性别和国籍同工同酬。瑞士不同时期不平等同工同酬政策制度的比较分析

R. Erne, Natalie Imboden
{"title":"性别和国籍同工同酬。瑞士不同时期不平等同工同酬政策制度的比较分析","authors":"R. Erne, Natalie Imboden","doi":"10.1093/CJE/BEV003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What explains the adoption of two different policies on equal pay by gender (EPG) and by nationality (EPN) in Switzerland? And why is the liberal, litigation-based, equal pay policy regime set up by the Gender Equality Act of 1996 much less effective than the neocorporatist ‘accompanying measures’ to the Bilateral European Union–Switzerland Agreement on Free Movement of Persons adopted in 1999 to ensure equal pay for workers of different national origins? The formation of two different policy regimes cannot be explained by different levels of political will. Equally, different ‘varieties of capitalism’ cannot explain the setup of the two different equal pay policy regimes within the very same country. Instead, our qualitative comparative analysis across time suggests that the differences can be best explained by a particular constellation of attributes, namely the use of different policy frames—i.e. ‘anti-discrimination’ in the EPG and ‘unfair competition’ in the EPN case—and the different setting of interest politics epitomised by the opposite stances adopted by Switzerland’s employer associations in the two cases.","PeriodicalId":177971,"journal":{"name":"Economic Perspectives on Employment & Labor Law eJournal","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Equal Pay by Gender and by Nationality. A Comparative Analysis of Switzerland's Unequal Equal Pay Policy Regimes Across Time\",\"authors\":\"R. Erne, Natalie Imboden\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/CJE/BEV003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"What explains the adoption of two different policies on equal pay by gender (EPG) and by nationality (EPN) in Switzerland? And why is the liberal, litigation-based, equal pay policy regime set up by the Gender Equality Act of 1996 much less effective than the neocorporatist ‘accompanying measures’ to the Bilateral European Union–Switzerland Agreement on Free Movement of Persons adopted in 1999 to ensure equal pay for workers of different national origins? The formation of two different policy regimes cannot be explained by different levels of political will. Equally, different ‘varieties of capitalism’ cannot explain the setup of the two different equal pay policy regimes within the very same country. Instead, our qualitative comparative analysis across time suggests that the differences can be best explained by a particular constellation of attributes, namely the use of different policy frames—i.e. ‘anti-discrimination’ in the EPG and ‘unfair competition’ in the EPN case—and the different setting of interest politics epitomised by the opposite stances adopted by Switzerland’s employer associations in the two cases.\",\"PeriodicalId\":177971,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Economic Perspectives on Employment & Labor Law eJournal\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"17\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Economic Perspectives on Employment & Labor Law eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/CJE/BEV003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Economic Perspectives on Employment & Labor Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/CJE/BEV003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

摘要

如何解释瑞士对男女同工同酬(EPG)和国籍同工同酬(EPN)采取两种不同的政策?为什么1996年《性别平等法》建立的自由的、基于诉讼的同工同酬政策制度,远不如1999年为确保不同国籍的工人同工同酬而通过的欧盟-瑞士双边人员自由流动协议的新公司主义“配套措施”有效?两种不同政策体制的形成不能用不同程度的政治意愿来解释。同样,不同的“资本主义变种”也不能解释在同一个国家内两种不同的同工同酬政策制度的建立。相反,我们跨时间的定性比较分析表明,这些差异可以用一系列特定的属性来最好地解释,即使用不同的政策框架。EPG案中的“反歧视”和EPN案中的“不公平竞争”,以及瑞士雇主协会在这两起案件中采取的相反立场所体现的不同的利益政治背景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Equal Pay by Gender and by Nationality. A Comparative Analysis of Switzerland's Unequal Equal Pay Policy Regimes Across Time
What explains the adoption of two different policies on equal pay by gender (EPG) and by nationality (EPN) in Switzerland? And why is the liberal, litigation-based, equal pay policy regime set up by the Gender Equality Act of 1996 much less effective than the neocorporatist ‘accompanying measures’ to the Bilateral European Union–Switzerland Agreement on Free Movement of Persons adopted in 1999 to ensure equal pay for workers of different national origins? The formation of two different policy regimes cannot be explained by different levels of political will. Equally, different ‘varieties of capitalism’ cannot explain the setup of the two different equal pay policy regimes within the very same country. Instead, our qualitative comparative analysis across time suggests that the differences can be best explained by a particular constellation of attributes, namely the use of different policy frames—i.e. ‘anti-discrimination’ in the EPG and ‘unfair competition’ in the EPN case—and the different setting of interest politics epitomised by the opposite stances adopted by Switzerland’s employer associations in the two cases.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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