Precarity and No Resistance? Towards an Explanation of an Apparent Paradox in Western Societies
The economic literature considers different explanations for this observation. Fitzenberger, Kohn and Wang (2011) discuss factors like higher worker mobility or flexibilization on labour markets. Related to this, the conflict between regular staff and an increasing body of temporary or subcontract workers is another aspect, as well as free-riding (Goerke & Pannenberg, 2011). Yet, such explanations do not seem to be quite complete. For example, Groh-Samberg (Groh-Samberg, 2006) discusses a collective feeling of betrayal and frustration among working class members as well as the strategy of adaptation to precarious living conditions which, at the same time, thwarts protest.
This paper addresses the topic from an institutional and interdisciplinary perspective in order to provide a more comprehensive and embedded understanding of the described developments in their societal context. Undisputedly the environment for employees on the labour market has changed significantly - for instance, in Germany, with liberalisations of the labour market in the context of the Agenda 2010 and an increase of precarious part-time employments, or in Denmark with a reduction of social welfare spending and liberalising policies in the context of flexicurity (Kvist & Greve, 2011). Employee representing institutions such as labour unions, which are considered to provide structure to their employees and their possible responses (Klages, 2009) suffer from decreasing membership (Godard & Frege, 2014; Phelan, 2007; Pontusson, 2013). In this regard, the pressing question is: how do employees conceive of their changing institutional environment and how does it shape their responses and actions?
In order to make sense of the above mentioned dynamics, we benefit from a broad variety of theories from different disciplines. Approaches which broach the issue of individualization and generalization propose mechanisms which dissolve peoples’ sense of belongingness to a socio-economic group (Bennett, 2012; Jones, 2011; Michaels, 2006). Other theories state that individual and group interests may be contradicting and thus undermine group action effectiveness (Apolte, 2012; Olson 1965). Specifically psychological theories identify mechanisms which can either foster or repress modes of engagement and action (i.e. reactance, learned helplessness, attribution, control beliefs, and perceived self-efficacy) (Bandura, 1977, 1997; Herkner, 2004).
Thus, in our conceptual investigation we approach the paradox dynamics of precarious working conditions, fewer protests and decreasing unionization twofold: At the individual level, we ask how employees conceive of their situation in their institutional context and if and why employees (do not) organize as a group. At the collective action level, we inquire if there are institutional dynamics that prevent workers from organizing, even though this would meet their interests.
References
Antonczyk, D., Fitzenberger, B., & Sommerfeld, K. (2010). Rising wage inequality, the decline of collective bargaining, and the gender wage gap. Labour Economics, 17(5), 835-847.
Apolte, T. (2012). Why is there no revolution in North Korea? Public Choice, 150(3-4), 561-578.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bennett, J. (2012). Chav-spotting in Britain: the representation of social class as private choice. Social Semiotics, 1-17. doi: 10.1080/10350330.2012.708158
Butterwegge, C. (2009). Armut in einem reichen Land. Wie das Problem verharmlost und verdrängt wird. Frankfurt a.M./New York: campus Verlag.
Fitzenberger, B., Kohn, K., & Wang, Q. (2011). The erosion of union membership in Germany: determinants, densities, decompositions. Journal of Population Economics, 24(1), 141-165.
Godard, J., & Frege, C. (2014). Worker perceptions of representation and rights in Germany and the USA. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 20(1), 73-89. doi: 10.1177/0959680113516846
Goerke, L., & Pannenberg, M. (2011). Trade union membership and dismissals. Labour Economics, 18(6), 810-821.
Groh-Samberg, O. (2006). Arbeitermilieus in der Ära der Deindustrialisierung. Soziale Milieus und Wandel der Sozialstruktur (pp. 237-261): Springer.
Hanappi, H., & Hanappi-Egger, E. (2013). Gramsci Meets Veblen: On the Search for a New Revolutionary Class. Journal of Economic Issues, 47(2), 375-381. doi: 10.2753/JEI0021-3624470210
Herkner, W. (2004). Lehrbuch Sozialpsychologie. Bern: Verlag Hans Huber.
Jones, O. (2011). Chavs: The demonization of the working class. London; New York: Verso.
Klages, J. (2009). Meinung, Macht, Gegenmacht : die Akteure im politischen Feld. Hamburg: VSA-Verlag.
Kvist. J. & Greve, B. (2011): Has the Nordic Welfare Model been Transformed? Social Policy and Administration, 45(2), 146-160. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9515.2010.00761.x.
Michaels, W. B. (2006). The trouble with diversity: How we learned to love identity and ignore inequality. New York: Metropolitan Books.
OECD (2004). OECD Employment Outlook, Chapter 3, Wage Setting Institutions and Outcomes. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Paris.
Ollman, B. (1972). Toward class consciousness next time: Marx and the working class. Politics and Society, 3(1), 24. doi: 10.1177/003232927200300101
Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Phelan, C. (2007). Trade union revitalisation trends and prospects in 34 countries. Bern: Peter Lang.
Pontusson, J. (2013). Unionization, Inequality and Redistribution. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 51(4), 797-825. doi: 10.1111/bjir.12045