The Sectoral Social Dialogue and European Social Policy: More Fantasy, Fewer Facts

Abstract

The Social Protocol of the Maastricht Treaty on European Union promoted new forms of social dialogue. These could be considered on the one hand as instruments of European social policy; on the other, it could be argued, they mirror the range and degree of the Europeanization of industrial relations. In contrast to the most recent literature, this article focuses not on the `interprofessional' but on the sectoral variant of social dialogue. The empirical analysis of its constraints and potential is based on qualitative case studies of selected sectors (engineering, construction, transport and the public sector). Our results reveal significant differences between sectors. The sectoral application of the Social Protocol confronts such problems as the organizational prerequisites of the social partners, implementation procedures and the future role and function of the Commission. In the conclusion, different future scenarios are discussed.

Broadening without Intensification: The Added Value of the European Social and Sectoral Dialogue

“…If either is unwilling, there will be no favourable prospect for the development of a fruitful dialogue. It has been observed that problems are often found in the representation of employers' interests (Keller and Sörries, 1998a). In the words of Streeck (1994: 170), European employers, like employers generally, prefer markets to institutions, and free markets to regulated markets.…”

Sectors or countries? Typologies and levels of analysis in comparative industrial relations

“…From an institutionalist perspective, however, important scepticism has been raised, for instance by Streeck (1998), due to the persistence of major differences and even incompatibilities between national institutions. It is apparent that such an issue is particularly relevant at the sector level, given that the impact of the European single market and of EU regulations vary by sector, and that a specific effort has been made to develop sector-level European social dialogue, but in a rather uneven way (Keller and Sörries, 1998;Marginson, 2005;Pochet et al, 2009). For instance, the steel sector has been 'Europeanised' since the European Coal and Steel Community came into effect in 1952, whereas some service sectors, such as hairdressing, have remained localised with little or no transnational influences until recently.…”

The Impact of Expansion on European Union Institutions

“…From its very outset, it has been questioned whether the ESD could really create tripartite structures similar to those known from national settings (Goetschy 1999;Keller and Sörries 1999;Streeck 1994;Turner 1996). This early skepticism has been confirmed by empirical evidence (Keller and Sörries 1998;Leisink 2002). More so, viewed through the lens of policy-type specific interaction modes, it is striking that rather than establishing a platform for broad class conflict the social dialogue has evolved as an instrument to advance patronage interests.…”