QuestionRubery and Grimshaw (2003) distinguish three perspectiv.docx

Question:
Rubery and Grimshaw (2003) distinguish three perspectives for
the comparative study of employment relations. Introduce these
perspectives and discuss how successful each of these
perspectives is in explaining (1) international differences in
employment relations and (2) the changes in employment
relations within countries. (3) Discuss the changes associated
with globalization and critically evaluate how and to what
extent globalization has affected international differences in
employment practices. Give examples.
Resources:
*Rubery, J. & Grimshaw, D. (2003) The Organization of
Employment: An International
Perspective, Basingstoke: Palgrave, Chapters 1 & 2.
*Bosch, G., Lehndorf, S. & Rubery, J. (2009) ‘European
employment models in flux: Pressures
for change and prospects for survival and revitalization’, in G.
Bosch, S. Lehndorf & J.
Rubery (eds.) European Employment Models in Flux: A
Comparison of Institutional Change
in Nine European Countries, Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 1-56.
*Dicken, P. (2007, 2011) Global Shift: Mapping the Changing
Contours of the Global
Economy, London: Sage, Chapter 1.

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.
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
DateLecture & Seminar1September 27Globalisation and
varieties of employment systems2October 4How corporate
governance shapes employment relations3October

11International comparison of training systems 4October
18How welfare state systems shape employment patterns
5October 25Flexibility and labour market regulation6November
1READING WEEK7November 8 ?Multinationals, business
strategy and international staffing8November 15 ?The transfer
of HR practices in multinational companies9November 22
?Offshoring, global value chains and the production of labour
markets10November 29 ?Pan-national employment
regulation11December 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 economyPressures
towards low skill/low wage economy
EmployeesSeek job which provides opportunities to utilise
talents and offers a challenging work environmentRestrict
efforts to minimum levels to deploy energies on other activities
and to maintain rights to leisure timeEmployersDevelop skills
for high quality production and problem solving abilities to
promote innovationReduce costs through work intensification
and low wages; monitor performance to reduce riskTrade
unionsBargain for wages to maintain or improve standard of
living and as a fair reward for effort and skill
Productivity bargaining in return for higher rewardsMake wage
concessions to avoid redundancies or closure
Failure to organise low skilled/part-timers etc.
States / governmentsDevelop 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
13
(4) FDI Inflows (1980-2010)
Source: UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2011
14
(5/6) Nike’s global supplier network
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, %)
19

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
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
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 (%)
21
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
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
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 (%)
22
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
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

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
23
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 Den mark Finland France
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

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
Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland United
Kingdom United Sta tes 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
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
Kingdom United Sta tes 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
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 examplePower distanceUncertainty
avoidanceIndividualism / CollectivismMasculinity /

FemininityLong-/short-term
orientat.IndexRankIndexRankIndexRankIndex RankIndex
RankArgentina4935-368610-154622-235620-
21Australia3641513790261163122-24Belgium6520945-
675854223818Brazil69147621-223826-
274927656China80302066118France6815-168610-157110-
114335-363917Germany3542-4465296715669-103122-24Hong
Kong6815-162949-5025375718-19962Iran5829-305931-
3241244335-36Japan54339274622-
23951804Netherlands38405335804-514514411-12UK3542-
443547-48893669-102528-29US4038464391162152927
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.’
Click to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level
29
(3) Institutional complementarities
Lifetime Employment
Strong firm responsibility for training
Strong firm responsibility for welfare
No well-developed external labour market
Click to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level
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

QuestionRubery and Grimshaw (2003) distinguish three perspectiv.docx

QuestionRubery and Grimshaw (2003) distinguish three perspectiv.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to QuestionRubery and Grimshaw (2003) distinguish three perspectiv.docx

Similar to QuestionRubery and Grimshaw (2003) distinguish three perspectiv.docx (20)

More from makdul

More from makdul (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

QuestionRubery and Grimshaw (2003) distinguish three perspectiv.docx