International Human Resource Management-MJ Version

to establish and operate consultation or co-determination arrangements,
which impact on a range of organisational matters (Jacobi et al., 1998; Thelen,
2001). Thus, HR specialists in Europe are likely to have to deal with a much
wider range of legislative requirements than their US equivalents. This legal
framework in Europe is not necessarily seen as a ‘constraint’ but also as a source
of comparative advantage (Hall and Soskice, 2001).
For HR specialists in Europe, state involvement is not restricted to legisla-
tion. Indeed, EU member states tend to seek to regulate the labour market from
which organisations draw their pool of employees. The state may do so
through various interventions in the area of education, life-long learning and
tax incentives for organisations. OECD figures show public expenditure on
labour market programmes to be substantially higher in Europe than in the
USA (see Table 7.2). Other ways in which EU member states, compared to the
US, impact on HRM include: the high involvement in social security provision,
the provision of more personnel and industrial relations services and a more
directly interventionist role in the economy.

The antagonism of US management to trade unionism
The antagonism to trade unionism found in US management is much less
common in Europe. Studies of HRM in the USA have tended to take place in
the non-union sector. A constant thread in research programmes in the USA
has been the link between HRM practices and non-unionism (Beaumont,
1991).

176 International Human Resource Management

Public expenditure in labour market programmes in OECD countries

2001 Public expenditure as a percentage of GDP

Denmark 4.56

Belgium 3.48

Netherlands 3.44

Germany 3.13

France 2.96

Finland 2.96

Sweden 2.28

Spain 2.06

Austria 1.60

Portugal 1.52

Norway 1.23

Greece 0.93

UK 0.92

USA 0.45

Source: OECD, Employment Outlook(2002), Statistical annexe, pp. 325–332.

TABLE 7.2