Studying work in theory and practice: insights for a globalising academia from the IR trajectory in Italy

Abstract

This article investigates the relevance of context to the study of industrial relations by analysing the trajectory of an under‐researched case outside the Anglo‐Saxon hotspots, Italy. Three phases are put under the spotlight revealing a trajectory anchored to the pluralist fulcrum, but with influence first from radical perspectives and then from unitarist ones.

Framing work and welfare: Insights from the growing relevance of company welfare in Italy

“…On the basis of Heery’s application of FoR to IR intellectuals (2016a: 69), we identify in mainstream contributions a ‘merchant elite’ primarily engaged with corporate managers and inspired by unitarism (Massagli et al., 2018), and a ‘sage elite’ of ‘would-be institution-builders’ aligned with a collaborative pluralism (Ferrera and Maino, 2014; Leonardi, 2018). Looking instead at IR as a subject of study, this analysis substantiates recent developments of IR in Italy (Gasparri, 2017), where leading institutions moved, albeit in different manner, the pluralist fulcrum towards the unitarist frame. As far as the IR think-tanks are concerned, we urge them to address ‘questions of the conditions under which co-funding is appropriate, and of the problems of retaining complete independence from interest groups’ (Edwards, 1995: 57); in this case, welfare providers and the financial sector.…”

“…Third, by using FoR to shed light on the role of intellectuals in shaping the policy agenda, we clarify how policy discourses contribute to the creation of institutional opportunities for employment and welfare reform (Schmidt, 2002). In this sense, our study demonstrates that the IR conversation on company welfare evolves, albeit under unitarist pressure, around the pluralist fulcrum (Gasparri, 2017), but only those intellectuals in-between the pluralist and unitarist frame -respectively, the 'sage' and 'merchant elite' (Heery, 2016a: 65) -have an influence on the policymaking.…”

“…As a result, in order to understand it, one is required to look at different areas and levels of interventions and revisit established theories. For instance, three contributions – ‘political exchange’ (Pizzorno, 1978), ‘micro-corporatism’ (Regini, 1995) and ‘new social pacts’/‘democratic corporatism’ (Baccaro, 2002) – have both advanced corporatist theory and the application of FoR, expressing the influence of, respectively, ‘progressive pluralism’, ‘political pluralism’ and ‘neo-pluralism’ among Italian scholars (Gasparri, 2017: 322).…”

“…The task has two challenges. First, the pluralist fulcrum is questioned with scholars detecting signs of unitarist drift (Meardi, 2014; Gasparri, 2017 for the Italian case), but also signs of polarisation, to the advantage of not just unitarists but also the radical frame (Tapia et al., 2015). Second, IR as an academic field is shrinking and universities are an increasingly indifferent, if not hostile context for the subject (Whalen, 2008).…”

Old frames and new lenses: Frames of reference revisited

“…Some explicit attempts have been made to do so, such as Cradden (2011) who argued for as many as nine frames. Godard (2000) argued for five frames, dividing both the unitarist and pluralist frames in two, being respectively, neo-classical and managerialist and orthodox pluralist and liberal reformist. More recently and influentially, Budd and Bhave (2008) extended the traditional frames by adding a fourth (the Egoist frame) to account for the trend toward marketised, neo-liberal regulation of employment.…”