Abstract
The title of this book certainly draws the reader’s attention. If there were a more appropriate time in the last 40 years for a consideration of social dialogue within the European Union, it is hard to think when it might have been. On the other hand, conducting that consideration through the lens of autopoietic systems theory 1 could appear to some to risk an undue complexification, whilst seeking to draw lessons from a rather specific sector of the global economy might seem to risk a forced and thus unconvincing comparison. It is much to the credit of the author that far from either of these concerns ever materialising, the reader is from the outset persuaded, not only of the urgency of the need to reinvigorate the European Social Dialogue (ESD), but also of the appropriateness of the analytical framework and the relevance of the comparator. In short, this is a book that repays close reading, as it is rich with observations and ideas, the significance of which has never been greater within the history of the European project.
Hartzén’s starting point is the observation that whilst the EU possesses forms and mechanisms that give the appearance of a concern for industrial relations, the reality is a series of institutions and agendas which prioritise economic integration. To the extent that the social dimension is acknowledged, it is by way of benefits to consumers and otherwise through spillover effects. The question then is whether the European Social Dialogue can ever make an effective contribution to social developments within the Member States.
Noting the challenges that exist for progress in industrial relations across borders in the context of the ESD, Hartzén’s attention is attracted by the relative success enjoyed by the International Transport Workers’ Federation Flag of Convenience (ITF FOC) strategy. Despite the fact that this is focused on one economic sector – shipping – it is nevertheless striking that it involves the sort of cross-border interaction that appears to hamstring the ESD – and that on a much larger scale. Hartzén is, therefore, inspired to ‘mirror’ the two initiatives with a view to understanding what makes the one so notably more effective than the other. It is here that the attraction of employing systems theory becomes apparent. Conceptualising the ESD and the ITF FOC as autopoietic systems allows their distinctive approaches to minimising the complexity they confront to be exposed as well as their relationships with law, economy and policy to be understood in terms of structural coupling.
The first insight this analytical approach provides is at the level of the foundational binary code in play in each system. Whilst in the case of the ITF FOC this turns out to be negotiable/non-negotiable (between the collective actors), in the case of the ESD it is discussable/non-discussable (between the collective actors). In short, whereas firm decisions with practical implications are expected in the first case, they are very much the exception in the second, due to the fact that the ESD turns out to be structurally organised to, as it were, absorb issues rather than processing them with a view to an outcome with relevance to the field of industrial relations.
The second insight comes at the level of programmes within the respective systems. Recognising that nothing at the level of the code excludes consideration of wages from either the ESD or the ITF FOC, Hartzén finds that the explanation lies in the differential programming. This is not to say that the ITF FOC is able to produce wage effects directly; rather it is the fact that its communications are more readily reconstructed within the economic system in such a way as to produce such effects. The reason for this is that what Hartzén refers to as the hermeneutic values underpinning the programmes in each system are distinctively different: those in the case of the ESD are focused on support for economic interests, whereas those in the ITF FOC are focused on social values – specifically, protecting the most vulnerable workers. The former is thus more inclined to produce outcomes which do not challenge the economic system, whilst the converse is true in the case of the latter.
The last insight, however, cannot by itself explain the relative success of the ITF FOC; it would be just as likely, one might imagine, for such a situation to generate conflict and impasse. That this has not been the case may be explained by the next level of analysis that Hartzén brings to bear on the two systems, namely the role of organisations. The ITF FOC is simply better set up in this regard to ensure: effective communication between international and national levels; effective enforcement of decisions; and the generation of loyalty at the national level to the international objectives. The ESD, by contrast, lacks these advantages as a consequence, for example, of the declining role of collective bargaining generally in the Member States.
Hartzén enriches this analysis by considering the extent to which, from a theoretical perspective, the two systems manage to increase the probability of communication to a point where acceptance is more likely than rejection. Here again the ITF FOC demonstrates its superiority, insofar as it moves beyond the threat of industrial action as a means of ensuring reconstruction of its communications within the economic system to an effective message related to the economic advantages of a secure, well-qualified and contented workforce.
Moving on to consider in greater detail the nature of the structural coupling of the two systems under review with the broader systems of law and politics, Hartzén makes what at first sight looks like a paradoxical observation. The relative strength of the legal and political systems within the EU make it harder for the ESD to fulfil expectations in relation to the contribution it could make to social issues. By contrast, the relative weakness of those systems at the global level makes it easier for the ITF FOC to produce positive social outcomes. The explanation for this lies also in the strength of structural coupling that exists between the economic system on one hand and the legal and political systems on the other, at both the EU and the global levels.
Given the rhetoric that exists within the EU in relation to the social dimension (without, of course, forgetting the undoubted historical successes in this sphere), these findings make for uncomfortable reading. But they are the persuasive outcome of what we might call the thoroughgoing second-order observation that characterises Hartzén’s work; that is, the concern to focus the attention of the research on observing how other systems observe. There is no claim of a privileged access to reality, no denial of the inevitable division of the unmarked space according to the binary code of the research project. But there is the production of a different and, this reviewer would contend, a more adequately complex map of the landscape, which reveals different features as being more important than might otherwise have been appreciated.
At various points in this book, it is clear that Hartzén situates her work squarely in a post-financial crisis world, with all that that extraordinary event appeared to imply for the economic and the social in the still-new century. In the relatively short period since the book was published, it is surely fair to say that the financial crisis as an overarching concern has given way to a new set of worries (some, of course, no doubt generated by or further enhanced by it). Not least in Europe we now worry, with good cause, about fracture, the crisis of traditional politics and the re-emergence of populism. In this setting, far from being overtaken by events, Hartzén’s book has only become even more relevant. If the European project is to survive, it is surely going to have to demonstrate its relevance to every citizen more clearly than it has heretofore managed to do. In this regard, a counterbalance to the economic imperatives in the shape of a functioning social institution would play an important role.
The European Social Dialogue in Perspective does not, of course, have all the answers, but it is an important and richly argued contribution to the wider and now urgent conversation. If all the participants in that effort display the rigour, insight and balance of Hartzén, then there is every reason to be hopeful.