From gradual erosion to revitalization: National Social Dialogue Institutions and policy effectiveness

Abstract

We explore the factors behind the long-term erosion of National Social Dialogue Institutions (NSDIs) to provide insights about the conditions for their revitalization. By applying policy analysis insights into the industrial relations field, we argue that limited policy effectiveness goes a long way towards explaining the erosion experienced by many NSDIs worldwide in recent years. Drawing on a global survey and on case studies of NSDIs in Brazil, Italy and South Korea, we show that these institutions’ policy effectiveness crucially depends on combinations of their problem-solving capacity, an encompassing mandate to deal with relevant socioeconomic issues and an enabling environment that grants the inclusion of social dialogue into decision making. With regard to rekindling their role, the article provides substantial evidence that two sub-dimensions of effectiveness are key: enjoying political support and having an ‘effective mandate’ as opposed to relying on just a formal remit to deal with socioeconomic issues of interest.

A literature review on the Economic and Social Council’s effectiveness and evaluation

“…The articles that analyse ESCs in Europe (Guardiancich & Molina, 2021;Hassel, 2009;Regan, 2010), Turkey (Çelik, 2020) and South Korea (Kim & Van Der Westhuizen, 2017;Yang, 2010) coincide in indicating a tipping point in the analysis after the economic crisis of 2008, thereby confirming the appropriate choice of year to start the review. From this viewpoint, the institutions associated with competitive neo-corporatism were in good health until the crisis.…”

“…However, there are few articles that tackle the theoretical discussion on the institution. Guardiancich and Ghellab (2020) and Guardiancich and Molina (2021) try to draw generalisations from a wide sample of cases, and Regan (2010) also seeks to overcome the theoretical dichotomy between macro-exogenous and micro-endogenous factors that affect the consolidation of ESCs. However, it is perhaps Hassel (2009) who goes furthest in this respect, by classifying ESCs (and other NSDIs) according to categories of corporatism.…”

“…In conceptual terms, ESCs are traditionally characterised as neo-corporatist institutions (Guardiancich & Molina, 2021), in which the state shares the design and implementation of public policies with civil society organisations that are considered relevant due to their capacity for intermediation, mobilisation and representation of a specific socio-economic base (Lehmbruch, 1977;Panitch, 1977;Schmitter, 1989, p. 86).…”

“…Evidently, the countries that have developed NSDIs with greater profusion are the European social democratic and continental "social partnership" countries. In countries with integrated corporatist structures, such as Austria or Finland, with strong and institutionalised participation of the social actors, ESCs are important forums where the strategies of collective action are defined (Guardiancich & Molina, 2021). Meanwhile, in the Netherlands, it has even been affirmed that the Sociaal-Economische Raad (SER) co-determines governmental policy (Hemerijck & Vail, 2006) and is the main guarantor of the successful polder model (Banck, 2007;Dekker, Bekker, & Cremers, 2017).…”

Social dialogue report 2022

“…The role of the social partners in shaping policy through peak-level social dialogue, also referred to as "policy concertation", has been shown to enhance the effectiveness of governance during crises (Avdagic, Rhodes and Visser 2011;Lee 1998;Ebbinghaus and Weishaupt 2021). Policy concertation contributes to both the effectiveness and legitimacy of policy measures, which in turn facilitates their rapid implementation (Guardiancich and Molina 2021). It can also prevent disputes and costly delays in policy implementation that may otherwise result from protests and social instability (Rodrik 1997).…”