Globalization has implied the transfer of industrial work to countries of the Global South, where labour rights are seldom effectively protected by legal frameworks. New forms of governance that go beyond state-centred legal regulation are presented as an alternative to fill in 'governance gaps'. This paper analyses 'new governance' from the perspective of Cambodian garment workers and labour movements' struggles. Drawing on the literature on governance and private regulation and research data from Cambodia, it argues that a technocratic approach makes governance initiatives ignore the economic conflict between labour and capital but also the possible political conflict between labour and government. By ignoring trade union rights, power-blind initiatives might end up weakening both the labour movement and democratic accountability, instead of complementing state's regulatory roles. This might serve the overlapping interests of the powerful actors both in Cambodia and internationally.

To increase understanding about the weak implementation of labour rights in global value chains, this paper examines processes of in-fact informalization that in Cambodia’s garment industry exclude workers from legal protection in a hidden yet effective manner. Informalization in contemporary global capitalism is often examined as driven by capital. This article broadens the analysis to how states and workers contribute to top-down and bottom-up processes of in-fact informalization, and emphasizes the role of workers’ collective organization. In Cambodia, subcontracting and temporary contracts prevent workers from collectively claiming their legal entitlements. In-fact informalization is promoted by the government as a strategy of indirect rule aimed at ensuring political power, and strengthened by the workers’ gendered needs and strategies of intergenerational wellbeing. Together, informal work and insecure lives discourage unionization, which further increases top-down and bottom-up informalization.

Motivation Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) expand the development agenda. While all major development actors support policy coherence for development (PCD), analysis has been lacking on how this can be achieved as the development agenda expands. We discuss the relationship between SDGs and PCD through a comprehensive case study from Finland. Purpose To examine the coherence of Finland’s foreign and development policy for achieving the SDGs, while leaving no one behind. Particular focus is given to policies related to the private sector’s role in development, and attention is also paid to ministries other than the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Approach and methods We carried out interviews with policy‐makers and other stakeholders, and analysed relevant documents. We reviewed governmental high‐level policy statements, sectoral alignments, and development aid documents. We also reviewed the position papers that the Finnish Government had issued on European Union (EU) processes, particularly regarding development relating to the private sector. Findings Finland has been uniquely positioned to advance PCD in its foreign policy, thanks to co‐ordination structures across government. Nonetheless, mainstreaming of the expanded development agenda has been largely limited to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and its development policy department. The breadth of the SDG agenda has enabled individual targets to be cherry‐picked, with less attention paid to advancing the Agenda 2030 as a whole and to implementing its Leave No One Behind (LNOB) principle. Despite an institutional framework seemingly ideal for policy coherence, traditional sectoral divisions between development policy as a separate field and sustainability as an environmental issue, remain. Five factors in particular hindered policy coherence: (a) Finland’s position papers to the EU on taxes and migration all but ignored Agenda 2030 commitments; (b) the Finnish emphasis on the private sector in development narrowed the considerations of development to economic growth; (c) sustainability was seen as green technology, with scant regard to social sustainability; (d) private firms interpreted the SDGs to mean that environmental sustainability could address human rights‐related concerns with corporate social responsibility initiatives; and (e) cuts to staffing in the Finnish Government stymied innovative thinking and working across departmental boundaries. Policy Implications Finland is generally seen as a front‐runner in mainstreaming development issues, which makes it an interesting case. We outline the key challenges that Finland has faced in tackling PCD, which should be relevant for other Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD) countries as well. Many challenges related to PCD are political and organizational. As such, they are highly dependent on the particular institutional settings in each country. Our methodological approach could be replicated in other similar countries.

No abstract

No abstract