Countries’ strengths and weaknesses

Countries’ strengths and weaknesses

Heaven is… where the chefs are French, the police are British, the lovers are Italian, and the car mechanics are German; and it is all organised by the Swiss.

Connect with a professional writer in 5 simple steps

Please provide as many details about your writing struggle as possible

Academic level of your paper

Type of Paper

When is it due?

How many pages is this assigment?

Source: Easterly, W. (2006) The White Man’s Burden. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 64.

Hell is… where the chefs are British, the police are German, the lovers are Swiss, and the car mechanics are French; and it is all organised by the Italians.

0

 

Overview

Course introduction

Why does employment matter?

Why study employment from an international perspective?

Trends of globalisation & the impact on employment

Country variety in employment patterns

How to study employment from an international perspective?

Three important perspectives

‘Varieties of Capitalism’

 

1

Date Lecture & Seminar
1 September 27 Globalisation and varieties of employment systems
2 October 4 How corporate governance shapes employment relations
3 October 11 International comparison of training systems
4 October 18 How welfare state systems shape employment patterns
5 October 25 Flexibility and labour market regulation
6 November 1 READING WEEK
7 November 8 ? Multinationals, business strategy and international staffing
8 November 15 ? The transfer of HR practices in multinational companies
9 November 22 ? Offshoring, global value chains and the production of labour markets
10 November 29 ? Pan-national employment regulation
11 December 6 ? Review of course and exam preparation

Course overview: weekly sessions

 

 

Understanding employment systems

Understanding international forces and their impact

 

2

Embeddedness of employment practices

 

Training

(Week 3)

 

Regulation (week 5)

 

Production

(R&G, Ch. 3)

 

Welfare

(Week 4)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Corporate governance

(Week 2)

National Employment Practices

3

 

How about the ‘globalisation’?

National Employment Practices

 

Training

(Week 3)

 

Regulation (week 5)

 

Production (R&G, Ch. 3)

 

Welfare

(Week 4)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Corporate governance

(Week 2)

Multinational Corporation (MNC)

(Weeks 6-7)

??

Pan-national employment regulation

(Week 9)

??

Offshoring & global value chains (Week 8)

??

4

 

Each week will include a mix of presentations, group-work and debates organised in two seminar groups

The group work concerns a specific readings or a selection of readings and a specific assignment or a set of questions

16 presentations cover the following topics:

Week 2: Approaches to understanding employment systems (2)

Week 3: Corporate governance systems (2)

Week 4: Models of education and training (2)

Week 5: Welfare states and women’s employment (2)

Week 7: Employment flexibility and security (2)

Week 8: Multinationals and staffing (2)

Week 9: Transfer of HR practices (2)

Week 10: Offshoring and global value chains (2)

Details are listed in the course description

Course overview: weekly seminars

 

5

Readings

Textbooks

Rubery, J. and Grimshaw, D. (2003) The Organisation of Employment: An International Perspective, London: Palgrave.

Harzing, A.-W. & Pinnington, A.H. (eds.) (2011) International Human Resource Management (3rd Edition), London: Sage.

Edwards, T. & Rees, C. (eds.) (2011) International HRM: Globalization, National Systems and Multinational Companies (2nd Edition), Harlow: Prentice Hall.

6

 

Why does employment matter…

to individuals (employees)?

to firms (employers)?

to trade unions?

to the state (governments)?

7

 

Pressures towards high skill/high wage economy Pressures towards low skill/low wage economy
Employees Seek job which provides opportunities to utilise talents and offers a challenging work environment Restrict efforts to minimum levels to deploy energies on other activities and to maintain rights to leisure time
Employers Develop skills for high quality production and problem solving abilities to promote innovation Reduce costs through work intensification and low wages; monitor performance to reduce risk
Trade unions Bargain for wages to maintain or improve standard of living and as a fair reward for effort and skill Productivity bargaining in return for higher rewards Make wage concessions to avoid redundancies or closure Failure to organise low skilled/part-timers etc.
States / governments Develop comparative advantage in high value added sectors Foster a cooperative approach based on employment rights, co-determination, etc. Attract capital by offering low wages/regulation; reduce unemployment by creating low quality jobs Limited legal employment rights; reinforce power of employer in employment contract

Contradictory employment objectives

Source: Rubery & Grimshaw (2003: 4)

 

8

Why study employment from a comparative perspective?

Opens up debate by showing there is more than one way of doing things

Reveals need for complementary policies between employment and other areas of economic and social organisation

Comparison is at the heart of identity: we understand the specifics of something through comparison

Globalisation has led to an important integration of economies

Competitive strength of nations depends on employment

Multinationals need knowledge of local circumstances

Careers (studies) often extend over more than one country

International influence

Can we learn from firms in other countries?

Is there going to be a ‘convergence’ to international best practices?

9

 

Trends of globalisation*

Growing levels of international trade in good and services (1);

Convergence of information and communication technologies (2);

Increasing volume of international financial transactions and the transformation of world financial markets (3);

Growing levels of foreign direct investment (FDI) flows and mergers and acquisitions (M&A), particularly between developed countries (4);

The rise in globally integrated production and distribution systems through information and communication technologies (5);

The increased presence and power of multinationals, often as a major source of FDI (6);

An increase in migration by workers (students) around the world.

 

(* An increasing international integration of the world economy)

10

 

(1) World trade by value and volume (Index numbers, 2000 = 100)

Source: UNCTAD, TDR 2010

 

11

(2) Exponential growth of the internet

Source: Dicken, P. (2007) Global Shift (5th Edition), London: Sage, Figure 3.7, p. 87.

 

12

(3) Disparity foreign exchange trading & world trade

Source: Dicken, P. (2007) Global Shift (5th Edition), London: Sage, Figure 13.1, p. 380.

 

13

(4) FDI Inflows (1980-2010)

Source: UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2011

 

14

(5/6) Nike’s global supplier network

Source: Dicken, P. (2007) Global Shift (5th Edition), London: Sage, Figure 5.11, p. 160.

 

15

Globalisation and employment

Acquisitions by foreign firms and cross-national mergers and joint ventures bring new ideas on HRM and employee relations;

Organisations ‘benchmark’ against international ‘best practice’;

Globalisation can translate into an international ‘race to the bottom’ in wages and employment conditions;

Governments and labour unions lose their ability to influence national systems of employment relations;

Jobs may be lost to low-wage economies or skilled workers may leave for more developed economies (‘brain drain’).

16

 

Diversity of employment (practices)

In spite of globalisation (rhetoric?), we see important diversity between countries in employment (practices). For example, in:

Employment participation

Unemployment

Type of employment contracts

Working time

Pay (dispersion)

Importance labour unions

Employment protection

Vocational training

Etc.

 

17

Employment rates (%)

Source: OECD Factbook 2010 & 2014, www.oecd.org

 

18

1995 Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States OECD total 67.7 68.7 56.3 67.3 69.4 73.9 61.9 59.1 64.6 54.5 52.9 80.5 54.1 51.2 69.2 63.5 58.5 57.2 65.1 70.1 73.5 58.1 63.2 60.2 48.3 72.2 76.4 52.4 69.2 72.5 64.2 2008 Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States OECD total 72.4 71.7 62.0 71.5 65.0 73.3 68.3 63.9 71.2 59.6 55.4 78.9 60.0 57.7 70.1 63.3 65.2 60.3 74.7 72.3 75.4 58.9 65.6 58.8 59.4 72.1 78.6 46.3 70.3 66.7 66.7 2011 Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States OECD total 72.3 72.5 61.8 72.2 66.5 72.6 69.5 63.9 72.8 51.3 57.2 80.2 58.8 57.6 70.6 64.2 65.8 61.3 75.1 72.1 75.8 59.7 61.8 59.7 56.2 73.8 79.4 48.9 70.9 67.1 65.1 

 

Employment rates (women, %)

Source: OECD Factbook 2010 & 2014, www.oecd.org

 

19

1995 Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States OECD total 59.0 58.9 45.4 61.6 61.0 67.0 59.0 51.6 55.3 38.0 45.9 76.8 41.5 35.4 56.4 50.5 42.2 36.0 53.9 61.7 68.8 51.8 54.8 53.0 32.5 70.9 65.6 30.2 62.5 65.8 53.2 2008 Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States OECD total 66.7 66.4 56.5 68.8 56.3 71.1 66.9 59.7 66.1 48.1 50.6 77.0 56.0 46.8 60.1 52.6 57.2 43.8 69.4 66.7 73.3 52.6 61.1 52.3 62.6 69.7 72.5 26.2 65.3 62.4 56.7 2011 Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States OECD total 66.6 67.3 56.8 69.2 58.2 70.0 68.2 60.0 68.0 41.9 52.1 78.5 55.2 47.8 60.7 53.5 59.0 45.3 70.4 67.0 73.8 53.1 58.7 52.7 60.5 71.8 73.6 28.7 65.7 62.2 57.2 

 

Youth employment rates (15-24 years, %)

Source: OECD, Economic Outlook 2014, p. 133 www.oecd.org

 

20

Unemployment (%)

Source: OECD Factbook 2010 & 2014, www.oecd.org

 

21

1995 Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States OECD total 8.200000000000001 3.9 9.700000000000001 9.5 4.1 6.8 15.1 11.0 8.0 9.0 10.4 4.9 12.3 11.2 3.1 2.1 2.9 6.2 6.6 6.5 5.5 13.3 7.2 13.1 18.4 8.8 3.5 8.5 5.6 7.3 2008 Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States OECD total 4.2 3.9 7.0 6.1 4.4 3.4 6.4 7.9 7.5 7.7 7.8 3.0 6.4 6.7 4.0 3.2 4.9 4.0 3.1 4.2 2.6 7.0 7.7 9.6 11.3 6.2 3.5 9.700000000000001 5.7 5.8 5.9 2012 Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States OECD total 5.2 4.3 7.5 7.2 7.0 7.5 7.7 9.8 5.5 24.3 10.9 6.0 14.7 10.7 4.4 3.2 5.1 5.0 5.3 6.9 3.2 10.1 15.9 14.0 25.1 8.0 4.2 8.200000000000001 7.9 8.1 7.9 

 

Part-time employment (%)

Source: OECD Factbook 2010 & 2014, www.oecd.org

 

22

1995 Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States OECD total 11.1 14.6 18.8 3.4 16.9 8.700000000000001 14.2 14.2 7.8 2.8 22.5 14.3 10.5 4.3 11.3 16.6 29.4 20.9 21.4 8.6 2.3 7.0 15.1 22.9 6.4 22.3 14.0 11.6 2008 Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States OECD total 23.8 17.6 18.7 18.4 3.5 18.0 11.5 13.4 22.1 7.8 3.1 15.1 21.0 16.3 19.6 9.3 12.7 17.6 36.1 22.4 20.3 9.3 9.700000000000001 2.7 11.1 14.4 25.9 8.4 22.9 12.8 15.6 2012 Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States OECD total 24.6 19.2 18.7 18.8 4.3 19.4 13.0 13.8 22.1 9.700000000000001 4.7 17.3 25.0 17.8 20.5 10.2 15.5 19.5 37.8 22.2 19.8 8.0 12.2 3.8 13.8 14.3 26.0 11.8 24.9 13.4 16.9 

 

Annual hours worked

Source: OECD Factbook 2010 & 2014, www.oecd.org

 

23

1995 Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States OECD total 1793.0 1654.0 1580.0 1761.0 2064.0 1499.0 1776.0 1651.0 1534.0 2123.0 2039.0 1832.0 1875.0 1859.0 1884.0 2658.0 1719.0 1394.0 1842.0 1488.0 1897.0 1878.0 1733.0 1640.0 1704.0 1876.0 1743.0 1845.0 1838.0 2008 Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States OECD total 1708.0 1648.0 1577.0 1733.0 1800.0 1431.0 1688.0 1492.0 1422.0 1950.0 1982.0 1783.0 1600.0 1803.0 1771.0 2246.0 1580.0 2260.0 1392.0 1750.0 1429.0 1969.0 1771.0 1793.0 1662.0 1617.0 1623.0 1900.0 1659.0 1792.0 1788.0 2012 Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States OECD total 1685.0 1576.0 1572.0 1711.0 1784.0 1430.0 1679.0 1479.0 1393.0 2034.0 1886.0 1706.0 1529.0 1752.0 1745.0 2163.0 1509.0 2226.0 1384.0 1739.0 1418.0 1929.0 1691.0 1785.0 1666.0 1621.0 1619.0 1855.0 1654.0 1790.0 1769.0 

 

Gender wage gap (%)

Source: OECD, Economic Outlook 2010, www.oecd.org; the gender wage gap is unadjusted and is calculated as the difference between median earnings of men and women relative to medium earnings of men

 

24

1998 Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Korea Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom United States OECD 26 13.0 23.0 15.0 25.0 25.0 15.0 21.0 9.0 22.0 16.0 22.0 35.0 41.0 22.0 11.0 10.0 17.0 22.0 26.0 24.0 21.0 2008 Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Korea Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom United States OECD 26 12.0 21.0 10.0 20.0 21.0 12.0 21.0 12.0 25.0 10.0 2.0 13.0 16.0 1.0 31.0 39.0 17.0 8.0 9.0 14.0 16.0 12.0 15.0 20.0 21.0 20.0 16.0 

 

Earnings dispersion (9th/1st deciles)

Source: OECD, Economic Outlook 2010, www.oecd.org

 

25

1998 Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Korea Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom United States OECD 26 2.91 2.39 3.59 2.9 2.48 2.42 3.05 3.07 4.21 3.93 2.98 3.829999999999999 2.88 2.64 1.950000000000003 2.24 2.53 3.47 4.51 3.05 2008 Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Korea Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom United States OECD 26 3.34 3.32 2.329999999999999 3.75 3.15 2.73 2.57 2.91 3.32 3.24 4.109999999999999 3.21 3.79 2.69 3.02 4.78 2.91 2.92 2.28 3.55 4.26 3.28 2.28 2.69 3.63 4.89 3.27 

 

Perspectives on comparative employment relations

‘Universalists’. They stress the general applicability of common models of social and economic organization (‘best practices’).

‘Culturalists’. They see culture as the dominant explanation of observed differences between societies.

‘Institutionalists’. They see institutions as an essential part of social and economic life and the differences therein as an explanation of differences in employment relations.

Source: Rubery & Grimshaw (2003) Chapter 2.

26

 

(1) Universalists

Economists. ‘The market creates the most efficient outcomes’

Marxists. ‘The tension between the needs of capital and workers and the subsequent struggle are a worldwide phenomenon; especially under globalisation’.

Contingency theorists. ‘Employment practices depend on specific characteristics of the organisation or its environment’.

Proponents Lean production (e.g. Womack et al. 1990). ‘Certain (Japanese) production techniques define a universal best practice’.

Proponents ‘Best practices’ in HRM (e.g. Pfeffer 1994, 1998). ‘All firms will be better off if they identify and adopt “best practices” in human resource management’

Sources: Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. & Roos, D. (1990) The Machine that Changed the World; Pfeffer, J. (1994) Competitive Advantage through People; Pfeffer, J. (1998) The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First.

NOTE: these perspectives are very different!!

27

 

(2) Culturalists: Hofstede example

Power distance Uncertainty avoidance Individualism / Collectivism Masculinity / Femininity Long-/short-term orientat.
Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank
Argentina 49 35-36 86 10-15 46 22-23 56 20-21
Australia 36 41 51 37 90 2 61 16 31 22-24
Belgium 65 20 94 5-6 75 8 54 22 38 18
Brazil 69 14 76 21-22 38 26-27 49 27 65 6
China 80 30 20 66 118
France 68 15-16 86 10-15 71 10-11 43 35-36 39 17
Germany 35 42-44 65 29 67 15 66 9-10 31 22-24
Hong Kong 68 15-16 29 49-50 25 37 57 18-19 96 2
Iran 58 29-30 59 31-32 41 24 43 35-36
Japan 54 33 92 7 46 22-23 95 1 80 4
Netherlands 38 40 53 35 80 4-5 14 51 44 11-12
UK 35 42-44 35 47-48 89 3 66 9-10 25 28-29
US 40 38 46 43 91 1 62 15 29 27

Source: Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture’s Consequences (2nd edition), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

28

 

 

 

 

(3) ‘Institutionalists’

Source: Bosch, G., Lehndorf, S. & Rubery, J. (2009) European Employment Models in Flux: Pressures for Change and Prospects for Survival and Revitalization, p. 1.

‘Institutions are building blocks of social order; they shape, govern and legitimize behaviour. Not only do they embody social values but they also reflect historical compromises between social groups negotiated by key actors. It thus comes as no surprise to find major differences in the institutional arrangements of today’s capitalist societies.

These differences apply especially to employment institutions… Employment contracts are necessarily incomplete contracts, since the actual performance required and rewards offered are constantly subject to new decisions after the contract has been initiated. To put some limits on this uncertainty, institutions, both formal and informal, have been established to influence not only the contractual conditions but also the rights of employees or their representatives… and the organization of the work process.’

29

 

 

 

 

(3) Institutional complementarities

Lifetime Employment

 

Strong firm responsibility for training

Strong firm responsibility for welfare

 

No well-developed external labour market

 

 

30

 

‘Varieties of Capitalism’: Two ideal types

Liberal market economies (LMEs). Firms coordinate their activities primarily via hierarchies and competitive market arrangements. Flexible labour markets, general education and short-run profit targets dominate and encourage market growth in fast-changing sectors, radical forms of innovation and job mobility.

Coordinated market economies (CMEs). Firms depend more heavily on non-market relationships to coordinate their endeavours with other actors and to construct their core competencies. This entails more extensive relational or incomplete contracting, the exchange of private information inside networks, and more reliance on collaborative relationships. Relatively stable employment relations and long-term investments contribute to skill development, incremental innovation and stable growth.

Source: Hall, P.A. & Soskice, D. (2001) (eds.) Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Institutional Advantage, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

31

 

Provisional ‘findings’

Why employment is a topic of key importance in both a national and international context

Globalisation and its (perceived) impact on employment

The international variety in major aspects of employment

Three major perspectives for the international study of employment practices

The Varieties of Capitalism approach

32