Social Partnership in Ireland and New Social Pacts

Abstract

Social partnership in Ireland has attracted considerable international attention. This paper examines the origins, focus, and institutional architecture of the Irish social partnership model. The paper also examines social partnership in the context of the theory of social pacts and suggests that the institutionalization of social partnership can be attributed to the continuing significance of compensatory political exchange, the influences of partnership networks, and the effects of new mechanisms for conflict resolution.

It must have been love ... but it’s over now: the crisis and collapse of social partnership in Ireland

“…Given the absence of many of the 'institutional preconditions' (Baccaro, 2002) for corporatist deals and Ireland's Anglo-Saxon IR tradition, much attention in the literature has been focused on 'accounting' for the Irish case (Roche, 2007). One of the most influential perspectives centres on the idea of 'deliberative governance' .…”

“…Others have argued that the Irish partnership process, rather than being analysed in terms of (non/) democratic outcomes can best be understood in terms of 'competitive corporatism' and the need, acknowledged by all the social partners, to improve the competitiveness of the national economy, without the traditional corporatist concern for re-distributional policies or social safety nets (Roche, 2007). More recently, Teague and Donaghy (2009) have characterised the process as an 'unorthodox system of institutional complementarities', where a bundle of institutions and practices combine so that each increases the efficiency of the others.…”

“…A comprehensive account of the Irish social partnership process is beyond the scope of this article; in any case, many accounts by eminently more erudite authors are readily available (Hardiman, 2000;Roche, 2007;Teague and Donaghy, 2004). Seven tripartite social pacts were concluded between 1987 and 2009: The Programme for National Recovery (PNR, 1987(PNR, -1990; The Program for Social andEconomic Progress (PESP, 1990-1993); The Program for Competitiveness andWork (PCW, 1993-1996) From 1997, the partnership process expanded to include a wide spectrum of civil society groups (the 'Community and Voluntary Pillar' or CVP).…”

“…ii Roche (2007: 421) has argued that the institutionalisation of Irish social partnership involved a refashioning of hierarchical control mechanisms (which, under classical corporatist arrangements, were commonly viewed in terms of the formal internal governance structures of union and employer peak organisations) so that the core participants were able, and prepared, to isolate groups of workers or employers whose activities were seen to be threatening the process. This was done through applying moral or social pressure on non-compliant groups, through the intervention of the National Implementation Body (NIB-the bodyestablished under the PPF-charged with 'policing' the agreements and IR stability generally and made up senior Government, employer and union representatives) and through copper-fastening the role of the 'older' public institutions for IR conflict resolution, the Labour Relations Commission and Labour Court.…”

The durability of coordinated bargaining: Crisis, recovery and pay fixing in Ireland

“…economy as well as a national minimum wage and a range of fiscal, economic, industrial and social policy commitments (Baccaro and Simoni, 2007;McDonagh and Dundon, 2010;Roche, 2007;Teague and Donaghey, 2009 firms and unions were also enjoined to resolve disputes through established procedures (ICTU and IBEC, 2010). The protocol provided a framework for a highly orderly decentralization of collective bargaining across the private sector and state-owned commercial utilities.…”