treatment. Nevertheless, there is some basis for speaking of national ‘models’
of work organisation. For example, property regimes which facilitate a long-term
perspective are likely to be linked to greater investment in skill development
than where short-termism prevails; or legal systems which make it difficult to
dismiss workers thereby obstruct ‘low-road’ competitive strategies. Hence the
societal characteristics under discussion here link closely to the elements of
national business systems examined in Chapter 5.
The welfare regimeThe welfare regime is the link between the situation of workers as employees
and as citizens. In no society is labour simply a commodity to be bought and
sold. Not only do workers, to a greater or lesser extent, acquire a statuswhich
establishes them as stakeholders within the employing organisation or at the
very least restricts the employer’s ability to dispose of them at will; there are
also important processes of what Esping-Andersen (1990) has called the
‘de-commodification’ of life-chances. So, for example, to varying degrees all
governments assume some of the responsibility for the education and training
which contribute to an individual’s ‘human capital’; provide health care which
maintains workers’ productive capacity; manage systems of social protection
which sustain income in case of accident, ill-health or unemployment; and
allocate pensions after the end of the working life. All these extra-employment
resources have an impact on an individual’s situation withinthe labour market.
To take a simple (and today politically contentious) example, the availability of
relatively generous unemployment benefits strengthens the individual
worker’s position when deciding whether to accept an offer of employment on
terms which appear uncongenial.
There are many different types of welfare regime – indeed each national
system is distinctive – but Esping-Andersen suggests that these cluster around
three ideal types. The first, the social-democratic model, is highly redistribu-
tive, financed largely from general taxation, and provides generous universal
entitlements. The second, the conservative model, is also state-provided,
largely financed by payments from employees and employers, and with a floor
of support which is below that of the social-democratic model but still rela-
tively high; contributions and entitlements are both earnings-related. Finally,
the liberal model is insurance-based (often with private providers rather than a
public system), offering earnings-related entitlements and a minimal ‘safety
net’ for those who are outside the normal coverage of the system. These differ-
ent models have contrasting implications for the balance of power in labour
markets: it is hardly accidental that the liberal welfare system in the USA is
associated with a large volume of employment in low-paid, insecure jobs. A fur-
ther point to be noted is the varying extent to which the industrial relations
actors (or ‘social partners’) are implicated in the administration of the welfare
state. In much of Europe, certainly, unions and employers’ organisations have
National industrial relations and transnational challenges 415