Is Good Work Good for Democracy? Work, Change at Work and Political Participation in Canada and England
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2007.00648.x |
| Date | 01 December 2007 |
| Author | John Godard |
| Published date | 01 December 2007 |
Is Good Work Good for Democracy?
Work, Change at Work and Political
Participation in Canada and England
John Godard
Abstract
This article draws on data from 750 Canadian and 450 English workers to
systematically explore the implications of work for political participation,
addressing whether ‘good’ work, and recent trends identified in work and
employment, appear to be good for political participation. It finds that various
aspects of work and of the work experience, many of which have been associated
with recent trends, can have significant implications. However, these implica-
tions tend to differ for ‘passive’ and ‘active’ forms of participation and to be
weak for the former. Moreover, characteristics that might be associated with
‘good’ work have negative as well as positive spillovers, suggesting contradic-
tory effects and reducing the net positive effects of good jobs. Finally, there is
some (albeit limited) evidence of cross-national differences, especially with
regard to the implications of union representation.
1. Introduction
Over the past few decades, a number of trends have been identified in the
world of work (Cappelli 1997; Green 2001, 2006; Lowe 2000), including a
decline in union representation, adoption of alternative forms of work and
human resource management (HRM) practices, an increasingly insecure and
stressful work environment, and others. Although the extent and meaning of
these trends have been debated (e.g. Godard 2004; Nolan and Wood 2003;
Taylor 2002), they may have important implications for political participa-
tion and recent changes therein (Putnam 2000). However, little attention has
been paid to these implications or to those of employment-related variables
in general. A few US studies have addressed the implications of either work-
place participation (e.g. Greenberg et al. 1996; Sobel 1993) or union repre-
sentation (e.g. Delaney et al. 1988; Schur 2003; Freeman 2003), but they have
John Godard is at the Faculty of Management, the University of Manitoba.
British Journal of Industrial Relations doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8543.2007.00648.x
45:4 December 2007 0007–1080 pp. 760–790
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2007. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd,
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
been limited in focus. There has been little or no research on the implications
of new work and HRM practices for political participation, despite some
conjectures that these implications are positive (Estlund 2003; Putnam 2000:
86), and little or no research on the implications of variation in the conditions
or actual experience of work. There has also been little research outside of the
USA, despite the potential importance of national institutional environments
for the dynamics of political participation and hence for the generalizability
of US findings.
In this article, I draw on data from unique 2003–2004 telephone surveys of
750 Canadian and 450 English workers to more systematically explore
whether and how the way in which work is experienced, work and HRM
practices, union representation, and selected work context variables appear
to be associated with political participation.1I address not just whether these
variables are associated with political participation, but also whether condi-
tions and experiences that tend to be associated with high-quality employ-
ment or, simply, ‘good’ work appear to be good for political participation,
and ultimately what various changes in work and employment may mean for
political participation. I also explore whether the answers to these questions
appear to differ across Canada and England, and hence the extent to which
institutional differences seem to matter. Two forms of participation are
addressed. The first is ‘passive’ participation, or whether individuals have
voted in a recent election. The second is ‘active’ participation, or whether
they have recently donated time to a political or social cause.
2. Literature review
There is a long tradition of literature arguing that work can have important
implications for political participation (see Greenberg et al. 1996: 306).
Emphasis has been on the importance of participative workplace structures,
on the grounds that participation in decision making at work educates and
socializes workers to develop more democratic norms and expectations,
which in turn spill over to the political sphere (e.g. Almond and Verba 1963:
363; Pateman 1970; Sobel 1993: 339). In other words, participation at work
is believed to breed participation in politics (Mason 1982: 60). These argu-
ments would appear to be most applicable for employee-owned and con-
trolled workplaces (e.g. Dahl 1985; Greenberg 1986), but they also apply to
conventionally owned ones.
Complementing the emphasis on workplace participation has been the
general argument that the nature of work — especially the degree of job
complexity, authority and autonomy — is also associated with political
participation, largely through its implications for self-efficacy and for both
the mental and physical state of workers (Greenberg et al. 1996; Pateman
1970; Sobel 1993). Representation by a labour union has also been argued to
have positive implications for political participation, largely because unions
are believed to educate and mobilize workers in the political process (Bok and
Dunlop 1970; Delaney et al. 1988; Sinyai 2006).
Is Good Work Good for Democracy? 761
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2007.
To continue reading
Request your trial