Negotiated austerity? A comparative survey of social concertation in Canada, Denmark, Ireland and Spain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter deals with the impact of austerity and, more broadly, neoliberalism on one of the mechanisms used by labour to shape or modify the political-economic environment that it encounters in its dealings with capital. We refer here to social concertation as an umbrella term encapsulating processes and institutions of social partnership/social dialogue/social concertation/and neo-corporatism. Labour has other instruments. These include political action – either through endorsement or participation in political parties representing its interests, or through lobbying or otherwise seeking to influence political decision makers; direct action of various types – general strikes, boycotts, civil disobedience, use of legal processes and the courts; and various forms of industrial action. Here we focus on one aspect of labour’s representative role. Through unions, or trade union federations at various geographic scales, labour has engaged in joint negotiations or discussions with employers’ federations and the state in processes and institutions designed to promote cooperation on various policy issues through partnership and dialogue. As Guy Standing noted (1999, 43) regarding voice regulation of labour markets, these arrangements will work best where there is a relatively even balance between the social actors. Without such balance capital will see little need to participate (arguably this is the Canadian case); or the structure will simply be an exercise in which the weaker party (labour) receives symbolic recognition but whose participation functions mostly to legitimate decisions over which it has little control. One of the ingredients for the success of this type of regulation is the ‘shadow of the future’ – the realization by all sides that they have to deal with each other on a continuing basis, and hence that the maximization of some short-term advantages may not be desirable.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".