5 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1 Why do you think most EU member states insisted on the principle of sub-
sidiarity in matters of social policy, and were they correct to do so?
2 What would you say were the main strengths and weaknesses of legal enact-
ment, collective bargaining and benchmarking-type activities such as the ‘open
co-ordination method’ in developing international industrial relations systems?
3 What do you see as the most likely trajectory for industrial relations in Europe –
‘Europeanization’ or ‘Americanization’ – and why?
6 FURTHER READING
- Ferner, A. and Hyman, R. (eds) (1998) Changing Industrial Relations in Europe.
Oxford: Blackwell.
The most authoritative overview of European industrial relations departments and the national
systems of EU member states. - European Commission (2000b) Industrial Relations in Europe 2000, Luxembourg:
Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities.
Very useful in its dealing of EU institutions and the relationships between them. It also offers
an ‘official’ view of the significance of many of the developments discussed in this chapter. - Fajertag, G. and Pochet, P. (eds) (2000) Social Pacts in Europe: New Dynamics
Brussels: ETUI.
The ‘social pacts’ phenomenon, along with the debates it has given rise to, is dealt with most
thoroughly here. - Sisson, K. and Marginson, P. (2000a) The Impact of Economic and Monetary Union
on Industrial Relations. A Sectoral and Company View. Luxembourg: Office for the
Official Publications of the European Communities.
Here is a review of the impact of EMU on industrial relations that adopts a ‘bottom-up’ as
opposed to the usual ‘top-down’ approach.
REFERENCES
Commons, J. (1909) ‘American shoemakers 1648–1895: A sketch of industrial evolution’.
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 24, 38–83.
Industrial Relations in Europe 453