| Part B: Social Partnerships |
| |
| Section 1: Definitions of social partnership |
| |
| 'Social partnership' can be interpreted
in a number of different ways: from a loose sense of co-operation between
a wide variety of societal groups to a highly specific institutional structure
which brings together government, business and labour. As such the scope
of this report - given the 5 week time frame during the major European holiday
season - can-not attempt to provide an exhaustive study of social partnerships
in all their variety. These definitions are complicated by the ways in which
these partnerships are classified according to political science models. |
| |
| Liberal 'corporatist' models
- where the interest groups are closely integrated into the formal political
process - are frequently contrasted with 'pluralist' models - where groups
compete in a political marketplace outside the formal institutions in an
attempt to influence political decision-making. In pluralistic models, such
as that in Britain and the USA, groups exert pressure in a relatively disorganised
and competitive manner, in contrast to the well-ordered interaction of corporatist
structures that operate, for example, in Austria. The major flaw of the
pluralist approach is that, an apparently more fluid and open political
process, in practice excludes all those that do not have access to high
levels of power and resources. |
| |
| This weakness of pluralistic
social partnership arrangements means that such an approach would not facilitate
the Scottish Parliament's expressed principles of accessibility, participation
and equal opportunities. In this section of the report, therefore, we will
concentrate upon 'corporatist' models in the sense that we will look at
mechanisms that seek to formally include groups within the policy process. |
| |
However corporatist structures,
whilst they formalise and make more open the process of group participation
in government, have also tended to be rather exclusive. Most partnerships,
for example, do not have formal equal opportunities policies. The essential
features of corporatism have been defined as:25
- Groups are integrated in a formal way
into the political system and play a important role in both the formulation
and the implementation of major political decisions.
- Large and powerful interest groups monopolise
the representation of the interests of a particular sector of the population,
such as 'labour', 'farmers' or 'employers'.
- Interest groups are organised in a hierarchical
manner, typically with a powerful 'peak organisation' (such as a national
trade union or employers' federation) that co-ordinates strategy at
the apex of a pyramid of organisations.
|
| |
| Corporatist decision-making processes
rely upon interest groups who can claim to be fully representative of particular
sectors of society and who can guarantee the compliance of their membership
in relation to agreements made on their behalf. These traditional corporatist
structures are, therefore, only really applicable to those groups that are
highly organised and that have established mechanisms for ensuring representativeness,
most significantly trade unions and employers' federations. The first section
of this part - Labour I Capital models of Social Partnership
in Europe - outlines the information available on traditional
corporatist social partnership arrangements throughout Europe. |
| |
| Traditional definitions of social
partnership that tend to encompass only employers and employees have, however,
been subject to a significant degree of debate in recent years and it is
necessary to consider a wider interpretation of this term. There have been
sustained efforts, particularly from the European Union, to promote the
inclusion of more diverse groups within the process of government: from
pre-legislative consultations to service delivery. |
| |
| European Social and Economic Committee |
| |
| The development of this wider definition of social partnership
can be traced, for example, through the European Social and Economic Committee.
This Committee - which provides a formalised channel of communication between
social partners and other key social actors - initially reflected the post-war
conception of a partnership between capital, labour and the state. The 222
members of the Committee are now divided into three groups: Employers (Group
I); Workers (Group II); and Various Interests (Group III). The Committee
advises the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament. The Single
European Act (1986), the Maastricht Treaty (1992) and the draft Amsterdam
Treaty (1997) have reinforced the role of the ESC. |
| |
| The term 'partnership' has been
broadened and deepened within many areas of EU policy. This principle of
partnership was central to the Reform of the Structural Funds in 1988, where
it was linked to the idea of subsidiarity and a recognition of the advantages
of decentralisation. In particular, emphasis is laid on the need to involve
those most highly effected by the problems that are being addressed. These
groups tend to operate in a much less organised manner than the social partners
traditionally included within corporatist arrangements and so the mechanisms
for inclusion differ. |
| |
| Given the degree of interest
in promoting more inclusive partnerships the second section of this part
- Social partnership: the wider perspective - details the operation
of broader social partner arrangements. These arrangements utilise some
corporatist state structures, particularly in that they tend to centre upon
policy implementation partnerships. They also frequently involve the traditional
social partners but in renewed and more inclusive forms. The nature of the
other groups that are included within this process - in particular the 'third
sector' - are discussed and the experience of various European countries
are used as case studies. We have tried to highlight best practice where
possible, and it is evident that many of the most fruitful arrangements
have occurred at, or in close association with, the local level. At this
level social partners have come together to address social and economic
questions in close contact with those who understand the situation best,
namely those that suffer the problems. |
| |
| We conclude with a summary of
the nature and mechanisms of social partnership and key issues that need
to be considered when promoting these types of arrangement. |
| |
