Change and Transformation in Asian Industrial Relations

Abstract

We argue that industrial relations (IR) systems change due to shifts in the constraints facing those systems and that the most salient constraints facing IR systems in Asia have shifted from those of maintaining labor peace and stability in the early stages of industrialization to those of increasing both numerical and functional flexibility in the 1980s and 1990s. The evidence to sustain this argument is drawn from seven ''representative'' Asian IR systems: Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, India, and China. We also distinguish between systems that have smoothly adapted (Singapore, Malaysia, and the Philippines) and systems that have fundamentally transformed (China and South Korea) and hypothesize about the reasons for this difference.Judging from the attention paid by researchers, it would seem that the 1980s and 1990s were a period of change, turmoil, and even transformation in industrial relations (IR) systems all over the world. Much of this literature has been based on evidence from the advanced industrial

Trade Union Growth and Decline in Asia

“…To describe these contexts, we rely on the logics of action framework suggested by Frenkel and Kuruvilla (2002), and on prior research on change and transformation in Asian industrial relations (Kuruvilla and Erickson 2002) in which the institutional context is of prime importance.…”

“…The salient features of the Japanese industrial relations system are well known, and have included enterprise unions, lifetime employment systems, broad-based training, and seniority based wages (see Berggren, 1993, Jacoby, 1985, Kuruvilla and Erickson 2002 descriptions of the Japanese system). Thus, it was both bargaining structures and the internal labour markets developed by Japanese firms that are reflective of underlying logics.…”

“…These included the system of production organisation, subcontracting, and the Keiretsu system that permitted the "shukko" practice (the transfer of workers from one company in the keiretsu to another) resulting in flexible use of human resources, but also helping to sustain the lifetime employment promise). Several authors have suggested that from the 1960s to the early 1990s, the key outcome of the Japanese IR system was the simultaneous achievement of both stability and flexibility (Dore 1986;Kuruvilla and Erickson, 2002), suggesting that the relative strengths of the different logics were roughly in balance. As industrialization grew, Japanese unions flourished reaching a high of 35% density in the 1970s.…”

“…By the late 1990s, all aspects of the Japanese system have been undergoing transformation (Kuruvilla and Erickson, 2002). Large firms have broken and continue to break the lifetime employment norm and have changed hiring practices (with more mid career hires and short-term employment contracts), and there are changes in organizational structure towards flatter organisations, eliminating the dual hierarchy system that has existed for decades.…”

“…Singapore's industrial relations system has not experienced rapid or fundamental change (Kuruvilla and Erickson 2002). The basic contours of the system remained quite stable since the 1970s, characterized by a tripartite industrial relations structure with joint decisions by representatives of labour, employersandgovemment on a number of subjects, notably wages through the tripartite national wages council.…”