Europe is in a disturbing quandary. The economic crisis threatens the future of the European Union, while the financial austerity promoted by European governments impedes economic growth. However, northern countries are not as bad as the southern periphery countries. Greece and Portugal have already been rescued from a fatal collapse, while Italy and Spain are constantly required to carry out structural reforms. It seems that these countries are unable to balance their budgets and to take the initiative themselves.
In our contention, the most surprising feature of the current fragile situation in Spain and Italy is the inability of the actors involved in economic policy-making to reach global labour market agreements. The severity of the crisis should have missed any kind of ideological dispute between employers’ associations, unions, and governments. But something prevents these actors to propose solutions, affecting their legitimacy. The literature has emphasised both the economic preconditions leading to social agreements and the institutional requirements social agreements need to truly success. These explanations argue that it is almost impossible that the institutional framework produce stable arrangements. But we feel the analysis should ask about the characteristics defining the actors, their limitations, and their interests beyond reaching competent agreements.
By comparing Spanish and Italian social actors to those in other European countries we will better understand the institutional differences between liberal market economies (UK), coordinated market economies (Germany), and mid-spectrum economies (Spain, Italy). We propose to combine both quantitative and qualitative variables in an attempt to better examine the singularities of social actors according to the economic norms and legal rules of each of them.
Authors: Rosa Nonell (UB) and Iván Medina (UAB)
