Constructing British Industrial Relations

Date01 June 2000
DOI10.1111/1467-856X.00034
Published date01 June 2000
Subject MatterArticle
British Journal of Politics and International Relations,
Vol. 2, No. 2, June 2000, pp. 205–236
Constructing British industrial relations1
CHRIS HOWELL
Abstract
One can identify the construction and transformation of three distinct systems of industrial
relations in Britain over the last century. In contrast to the view that the state has been
largely abstentionist in the sphere of industrial relations, or that, where intervention has
taken place, it has been ad hoc, incoherent and reactive, this article makes two arguments
in explaining this pattern of institutional construction. First, that the British state has been
a central actor in the construction and ‘embedding’ of industrial relations institutions.
Secondly, that broad processes of economic restructuring have created the context and
trigger for state action. It is the timing and character of economic restructuring which
explain the distinctive evolution of British industrial relations.
This article examines the construction of industrial relations institutions in
Britain over the last century in order to raise some theoretical and con-
ceptual issues for our understanding of the evolution of industrial relations
systems in capitalist democracies. A quick glance across western Europe
and North America in the past century suggests, as one might expect, both
similarities and divergences in the trajectory of industrial relations institu-
tions (Crouch 1993). Collective-bargaining institutions have tended to
become more embedded and encompassing over time, at least up until the
1980s. Moreover, one can identify a ‘bunching’ of reform efforts in several
countries at broadly similar times. Governments and industrial actors
(employers, their organisations, and trade unions) have often appeared to
be attempting to solve similar sets of problems in these reform efforts,
© Political Studies Association 2000. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF and
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA 205
suggesting that country-specific explanations are insufficient. At the same
time, one can identify quite distinct national trajectories and indications of
path dependence in the way in which a set of industrial relations institu-
tions, once constructed, closes off certain alternatives and encourages others.
The question, then, becomes how to explain the combination of conver-
gence and divergence in the development of industrial relations systems. In
addition, it should be said, the existing literature is much better at
explaining divergence than convergence. In this respect it reflects political
science more generally.
The examination of the British case will be used to make two theoretical
arguments. First, states are central actors when it comes to the construc-
tion and ‘embedding’ of industrial relations institutions. Employers, work-
ers and their organisations cannot alone create stable mechanisms for
regulating class conflict. States not only have unique resources for insti-
tutionalising industrial relations practices, they also play a crucial role in
the interpretation and narration of industrial crisis, which, potentially at
least, permits the long-term legitimacy and stability of a given industrial
relations ‘settlement.’ The British case is a particularly interesting one in
this regard because Britain has always been regarded as anchoring one end
of the spectrum of the state’s role in industrial relations, as the classic
example of the abstentionist state and the voluntarist industrial relations
system. Kahn-Freund’s characterisation of the British system as ‘collective
laissez-faire’ is still the best statement of this position (cited in McCarthy
1992). To be sure, the experience of the period since the end of the 1960s,
during which time state intervention has been much more direct and exten-
sive, and the emergence of a burgeoning literature on the role of the state
in encouraging union development in various industries, has chipped away
at the abstentionist position (Zeitlin 1985), but state intervention is still
seen as incoherent, ad hoc and reactive, rather than systemic. This article
will argue, to the contrary, that the British state has engaged in industrial rela-
tions institution-building in a coherent, systematic and purposeful manner.
The second theoretical argument in this article concerns the timing and
form of state intervention in the sphere of industrial relations. While a
focus upon the state would suggest a reading of industrial relations that
privileges political, nationally specific, explanations of change, this article
will argue that broad processes of economic restructuring, which, to a
certain extent, affect all capitalist economies, create the context and trigger
for state action. How state actors interpret the pressures on industrial
relations institutions caused by economic restructuring, and hence how
they choose to respond, are, however, by no means given. At the risk of
Chris Howell
206 © Political Studies Association 2000.
sounding trite, politics matters. However, so does economics, and it is
impossible to understand when, how and with what success reform of
industrial relations takes place without recognising the economic patterning
that underlies state intervention. It is the timing and character of economic
restructuring that explains the distinctive evolution of British industrial
relations. One can identify three distinct industrial relations systems over
the last century: the first lasting from the early part of the century until the
end of the 1950s; the second lasting a scant decade and a half and collaps-
ing at the end of the 1970s; and the third under construction since the start
of the 1980s. For all the variations across industries, and idiosyncratic
elements of industrial relations practice, each system formed a more-or-less
coherent approach to the regulation of relations between capital and labour
and each evolved in response to economic change (real and perceived).
Industrial relations institutions came under severe pressure as the basic
structure of the economy changed and the state then played a crucial role
in the construction of new institutions to manage, or regulate, the wage
relationship.
This article does not attempt a complete explanation of the evolution of
industrial relations institutions. The existing literature identifies a range of
factors—the structure and organisation of employers’ associations and trade
unions, the political complexion of particular governments, the impact of
war—that are clearly important. But explanations incorporating these
causal factors systematically underestimate the importance of state inter-
vention and the impact of economic restructuring. The result is that alter-
native accounts fail to recognise, let alone explain, the coherence and the
pattern of stability and change over the longue durée exhibited by British
industrial relations.
Theoretical considerations
Questions of structure and agency underlie every ambitious explanatory
project within political science, and this one is no exception. The under-
standing of how change takes place in industrial relations systems employed
here is one in which purposeful, strategic, actors operate within a set of
broad constraints given by the particular growth dynamic of the economy.
The resulting actions of states, employers and unions lead to the creation
of industrial relations institutions, which in turn shape interests, encourage
certain kinds of practice and set boundaries for future action. The prob-
lem, of course, is precisely how economic structures, political actors and
industrial relations institutions intersect.
Constructing British industrial relations
© Political Studies Association 2000. 207

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT