Is there hope for social solidarity and income equality in LMEs? An analysis of labour market divergence in Ireland, the UK, Australia and New Zealand. Colm McLaughlin University College Dublin Chris F. Wright University of Sydney

Overview Consolidation of labour market liberalisation (Baccaro & Howell, 2011; Avdagic & Baccaro, 2014) Revitalization of ER unlikely – Presupposes the nation state has capacity to act – Assumes that partisan actors would wish to strengthen union influence and collective bargaining Convergence-divergence: – Focus mainly on CMEs – Colvin & Darbishire, 2013 Deterministic and overly pessimistic

Research questions How significant are observed differences in ‘non- market coordination’ between LMEs? To what extent do politics and ideology account for these differences? Analysis of IR change in 4 LMEs: – Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, United Kingdom – Drawing on 110 interviews with government, union and employer representatives

What are we trying to explain? The importance of small differences Australia – Restoration of the award system, collective bargaining – Regulatory innovation at the industry level Ireland – 20 years of social partnership, well documented – The ‘social turn’ 2004ff (Roche, 2012) – Aspects of coordinated bargaining reinstated: e.g. JLCs, 'right to bargain’, SEOs New Zealand & UK – bargaining remains highly decentralised and individualised

The role of politics and ideology in institutional change Thelen (2001, 2014): institutions survive because they are flexible not static Hauptmeier (2012): “institutions are what actors make of them” Culpepper & Regan (2008): union legitimacy Hamann & Kelly (2003): electoral politics Deeg & Jackson (2008): ideas Hall (1993): policy paradigms

Australia “We had no influence. They were hell bent on listening to business. No one else mattered” (senior ACTU official) Unions “are doing something that people organically want and they use the institutions of power, including government, to deliver it for people” (senior Rudd/Gillard government minister)

Ireland Social Partnership = Thatcherism delayed (McDonough & Dundon, 2010) or 'competitive corporatism’ (Roche, 2007, 2012) Post crash, 2 factors at play in IR gains: – Politics: Union policy influence under the Fine-Gael Labour coalition government…. Albeit limited by “ideological” troika – Ideology: Unions retain public legitimacy → Base upon which to build post-troika

The UK and New Zealand UK – “There was a neoliberal consensus which the Labour government was part of and unions weren’t very successful in shifting them away from it” (senior TUC official) NZ – ECA “didn’t favour employers, it didn’t favour unions…. Whereas the ERA tilts the pendulum way over the fulcrum” (Business NZ official) – “We’ve used up quite a lot of capital to get relatively moderate changes, though at the time it did not seem politically advisable to aim much higher” (NZCTU official)

Conclusion IR actors have some agency to change institutional arrangements to their own advantage - they aren’t simply determined by them, nor bound by globalisation pressures The legitimacy of actors and ideas and the role of politics (broadly defined) helps to explain the contrasting ability of IR actors to challenge dominant paradigms Concept of ‘fairness’ for a new policy paradigm? – Comparative research agenda that focuses on bargaining mechanisms for low-pay