Institutions Matter: Union Solidarity in Hungary and East Germany
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8543.00121 |
| Date | 01 March 1999 |
| Author | Carola M. Frege,Andra´s To´th |
| Published date | 01 March 1999 |
Institutions Matter: Union Solidarity in
Hungary and East Germany
Carola M. Frege and Andra
ÂsTo
Âth
Abstract
This study examines the extent of union solidarity in two post-communist
countries, Hungary and east Germany. It tests the hypothesis that post-
communist union members are sceptical and unsupportive of their new
interest representation owing to a legacy of disappointing experiences with
their former communist unions. A survey of the union members, the ®rst of
its kind, in the Hungarian and east German clothing industry revealed strong
differences between members' attitudes in both countries: east Germans were
highly committed and supportive of their new union and works councils,
whereas Hungarians lacked support for their institutions. The study points to
the complexities of former and current attitudes and rejects the generic use of
a communist legacy thesis. Instead, it links members' attitudes to the different
institutional context of interest representation in the two countries. It argues
that the dual system of interest representation in Germany facilitates
members' trust in their new institutions, whereas the decentralized, over-
lapping institutions on Hungarian shop-¯oors impede union solidarity.
1. Introduction
This paper analyses the relationship between institutional change and
actors' reactions to such change in two former communist societies.
Utilizing survey data of union members in the Hungarian and east
German clothing industry, it compares members' reactions to unions'
efforts to transform themselves into viable and representative institutions
in two different institutional settings.
When discussing transformation of societal institutions, including trade
unions, it is sensible to distinguish between formal (legal) and normative
(substantial) institutionalization. Formal institutionalization describes the
process of setting up new institutional structures, whereas normative
institutionalization refers to the establishment of a `supportive culture'
Carola M. Frege is a lecturer in the Industrial Relations Department at the LSE. Andra
ÂsTo
Âth
is a Research Fellow in the Institute for Political Science of the Hungarian Academy of
Sciences.
British Journal of Industrial Relations
37:1 March 1999 0007±1080 pp. 117±140
#Blackwell Publishers Ltd/London School of Economics 1999. Published by Blackwell Publishers Ltd,
108 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
whereby certain values, attitudinal orientations and behavioural disposi-
tions are congruent with the institutional structure (Roller 1992: 1). In the
context of labour institutions, one might refer to union members who share
the values of trade unions and trust their unions, who have solidaristic
feelings towards their co-members and who can be mobilized to participate
in collective action.
There is widespread evidence in the social sciences of the necessity of a
supportive culture for the successful establishment and effective function-
ing of societal institutions (e.g. Almond and Verba 1963; Fuchs and Roller
1994). More speci®cally, studies have pointed to the importance of cultural
conditions for the successful stabilization and persistence of new demo-
cratic institutions (see Grew 1978; Jacoby 1994: 2; Lipset 1981). This should
be especially evident for the development of trade unions in east central
Europe. Thus, union members' commitment and support seems to be
essential for the establishment and functioning of unions in post-communist
societies as a result of the dramatic changes in union±membership relations
(from `obligatory' membership of a communist `service station' to member-
ship of a modern-interest institution).
There is, however, a widespread argument that an abiding cynicism and
distrust among citizens is both a predictable legacy of communist rule and
the immediate problem to be overcome in east central Europe (e.g. Mishler
and Rose 1997: 419). For example, the `New Democracies Barometer'
1
found in 1994 that only 16 per cent of citizens in nine east central European
countries trusted their societal institutions; 84 per cent were sceptical or
distrusted them completely. Unions were among the institutions least
trusted (91 per cent were sceptical or distrusted them completely).
Various authors explain this with reference to a continuing `legacy of
communist labour relations' in workers' attitudes (Blanch¯ower and
Freeman 1993: 13), to a continuing `socialist mentality' (Sztompka 1993:
243) or the attitudinal `path dependencies' (Stark 1992). However, speci®c
studies of union members in transitional economies do not exist, rendering
empirical validation dif®cult. There are a few surveys on workers' general
attitudes towards the market economy (e.g. Shiller et al. 1991, 1992) and
more speci®cally towards the labour market (e.g. Blanch¯ower and
Freeman 1993, 1997). Yet in both instances their focus is on examining
differences between communist and capitalist worker attitudes (the data
are from the very early years of the transformation
2
) and they consist of
very broad questions.
3
This study begins to ®ll this gap by providing a comparative quantitative
study, the ®rst of its kind, of union members in one industry in two post-
communist societies. There are two interrelated aims. First, it evaluates the
extent of the supportive culture of unions after the main transitional period
in two different institutional settings. Thus, it tests a major hypothesis in the
literature that civil institutions in east central Europe are not yet culturally
embedded, and that this de®ciency impedes these countries' successful
institutionalization (e.g. Fuchs and Roller 1994; Mishler and Rose 1997).
#Blackwell Publishers Ltd/London School of Economics 1999.
118 British Journal of Industrial Relations
To continue reading
Request your trial