Labour market deregulation and the decline of labour power in North America and Western Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The goal of this article is to provide a critical evaluation of what has happened to organized labour and labour markets since 1980. It examines the impacts of labour market deregulation on wage share and pay standardization. It also explores how recent economic changes have weakened organized labour and eroded wage setting and social corporatism. The argument is made that contemporary institutional and ‘Varieties of Capitalism’ perspectives on labour market reform have overstated the power of states, institutions, and organized interests in deflecting global economic pressures. Drawing on a range of recent OECD statistics and qualitative studies, it is claimed that current labour deregulation policies and labour market reforms mark a fundamental break with post-war developments, and represent a reassertion of the power of capital ownership over organized labour and labour markets across North America and Western Europe. It assesses how far this reversal in power has gone by focusing on changes in four key variables: (i) job quality, (ii) wage share, (iii) pay standardization and income equality, and (iv) the effectiveness of wage setting institutions in allowing unions to bring bargaining pressure on capital. This is the first study to report on comparative changes and qualitative reforms to these labour market variables in 13 OECD countries between 1970 and the 25-year period 1980–2005.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".