Social capital, ‘Ghent’ and workplace contexts matter: Comparing union membership in Europe

Abstract

Union density still varies considerably across Europe. This cross-national diversity has inspired multiple explanations ranging from institutional to workplace or socio-demographic factors. In this comparative multilevel analysis, we combine personal, workplace and macro-institutional explanations of union membership using the European Social Survey. By controlling for individual factors, we test the cross-national effect of meso- and macro-level variables, in particular workplace representation, establishment size, Ghent unemployment insurance and a society’s social capital. We conclude that all these institutional and social contextual factors matter in explaining differences in union membership.

Union membership and density: Some (not so) stylized facts and challenges

“…Ebbinghaus (2006) and Visser (2006) provide descriptive evidence for several countries that there is a considerable gap in unionization between full-time and part-time (or other atypically employed) workers. In a cross-sectional analysis pooling data for individuals from 19 European countries, Ebbinghaus et al (2011) obtain a highly significant negative relationship between atypical employment and the probability of being unionized whereas Schnabel and Wagner (2007) find very few significant correlations between working full-time and being a union member when using the same data but analyzing countries separately. There are, however, some country studies showing that part-time employment significantly lowers (or full-time employment increases) the probability of union membership (Blanchflower, 2007 for Canada, the USA and the UK).…”

“…2 Studies focusing on the actual presence of a union at the workplace rather than on its institutionalized access point in the same direction. In a cross-sectional analysis pooling data for individuals from 19 European countries, Ebbinghaus et al (2011) obtain a highly significant positive relationship between the presence of a union at the workplace and the probability of being unionized. When using the same data but analysing countries separately, Schnabel and Wagner (2007) find union presence to be a strong predictor of union membership in almost all countries.…”

“…Further studies for individual countries that find a concave relationship include Goerke and Pannenberg (2007) for West Germany and Van Rie et al (2011) for Denmark and Sweden. Pooling data across countries, Ebbinghaus et al (2011) and Kirmanoğlu and Başlevent (2012) also obtain a concave age-unionization pattern, whereas Brady (2007) only tests and finds a linear relationship.…”

“…It is striking that among the 25 countries listed in Table 1, density is indeed highest in Finland, Sweden and Denmark, with Belgium ranked fifth in 2010. A number of multivariate cross-sectional studies show that Ghent system countries enjoy a substantial advantage in unionization (Brandl, 2009;Ebbinghaus and Visser, 1999;Wallerstein and Western, 2000) and that individual employees in these countries are much more likely to be unionized, ceteris paribus (Brady, 2007;Ebbinghaus et al, 2011).…”

Income Inequality from 1960–2012: A Brief Time-Series History of Capital and Labour

“…Similarly the capacities of unions to effect economy-wide redistribution since the 1970's have been limited by falling membership, and the concentration of agreements in specific sectors under social partnership. This contrasts with bargaining systems such as Denmark's where centralised wage agreements enjoy broader sectoral coverage (Ebbinghaus, Gobel and Koos 2011). In light of the weight of cross-national evidence demonstrating the downward effect of these institutions on top incomes, and the comparatively weaker impact of these variables relative to financialisation and trade in the above models, it seems that any further weakening will merely enhance top income growth.…”