Unconstrained Capital? Multinational companies, structural power, and collective goods provision in dual VET

Abstract

Collective goods provision, most prominent in coordinated market economies, depends on certain institutional conditions that constrain employer behavior and trigger cooperation. Increased capital mobility, characterized by new exit opportunities for business and an influx of multinational companies not anchored in their new home-countries’ institutional environment, loosens those ‘beneficial constraints’. I argue that these challenges do not lead to convergence between globalized locations as the structural power of business depends on the type of firms attracted by local institutional comparative advantages. Comparing collective skill formation in two heavily globalized cantons of Switzerland, I show that a region fundamentally relying on low-tax policies sees its hands increasingly tied in the face of globalization. It must accordingly reshape collective goods provision around policies favored by business. In contrast, a location with more diverse comparative advantages is able to implement more compelling policy elements that punish uncooperative firms.

Setting the terms of state intervention: employers, unions and the politics of inclusiveness in Austrian and Danish vocational education institutions

“…The likely consequence of de-collectivization is not that the market instead provides training, since creating a market for VET would require deep institutional and economic commitment on part of the state. Rather, the state is likely to intervene in the provision of training (Bonoli and Wilson, 2019;Unterweger, 2020;Busemeyer et al, 2022;Durazzi and Geyer, 2021;Graf et al, 2021). A prominent example are state-led apprenticeships, which are measures to compensate for decreasing training participation of firms in dual VET systems (Durazzi and Geyer, 2020).…”

“…Characterized by heavy involvement of employers to provide, fund and monitor dual apprenticeship training (Busemeyer and Trampusch, 2012), such systems have long been considered the poster child of how employer coordination can produce egalitarian outcomes and increase labour market inclusiveness (Streeck, 1992;Hall and Soskice, 2001;Thelen, 2014). However, the employer coordination that long shaped and upheld collective skill formation has come under pressure from globalization, deindustrialization processes and the rise of the knowledge economy (Martin and Knudsen, 2010;Unterweger, 2020;Busemeyer et al, 2022). Declining levels of employer coordination have opened space for the state to take on a more proactive role as training provider.…”

Globalization Impact on Multinational Enterprises

“…Mees-Buss et al [57], Mossolly [2], Narula [120], Narula and Dunning [121], Narula and Dunning [22], Olivié and Gracia [122], Tiemstra [26], Unterweger [123],…”

The Political Economy of Active Labour Market Policy for Young People : A comparative analysis of the effects of employers, employers’ organisations and collective training systems on the use of youth ALMPs in European countries between 1998 and 2014

“…Strong coordination among employers is seen as a prerequisite for the existence of collective training systems (Acemoglu and Pischke 1998; P. D. Culpepper 2001;Finegold and Soskice 1988;Hall and Soskice 2001), and the organisation and preferences of employers are regarded as a major factor influencing their development (Busemeyer 2012;Busemeyer and Trampusch 2013;P. D. Culpepper 2007;Di Maio, Gräf, and Wilson 2020;Katheleen Thelen 2004, 2014Katheleen Thelen and Busemeyer 2008;Trampusch 2010;Unterweger 2020). The different roles attributed to employers by the two literatures are relevant because active labour market policies for young people and firm-based apprenticeships can be very similar, especially in countries were both exist.…”

“…Employers and employers' organisations also have been found to use their power to influence the governance of training systems and the skills taught within them. For instance, different reform trajectories of the German, Austrian and Swiss training systems have been attributed to variations in the skill needs of the politically dominant employers in the respective countries (P. D. Culpepper 2007;Di Maio, Gräf, and Wilson 2020;Emmenegger and Seitzl 2018;Trampusch 2010;Unterweger 2020). Moreover, some research shows that employers do not need to take a proactive role to exert influence.…”