Labour standards for a liberal market economy?

Introduction

A paradigm shift in economic science and corresponding changes in economic policies in the second half of this century encouraged a continuous trend towards economic liberalization and global economic integration. This trend was interrupted by two noteworthy exceptions, however. One was the rise of protectionism in the industrialized countries following the two oil crises of the 1970s; the other was the pursuit of strategic trade policies by developing countries in the 1980s and 1990s. But economic recovery in the industrialized countries and mixed experiences with strategic trade approaches encouraged a widely accepted return to liberal economic policies. The consequence was a strengthening of the international trading scheme which was mirrored by the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Economic liberalization has far-reaching implications for companies and industry locations. On the one hand, economic liberalization increased competition between companies and industry locations but, on the other hand, it limited classical tools for the management of competitiveness. The WTO - which can effectively sanction violations of trade agreements - successfully promotes compliance with lower trade barriers and precludes the pursuit of mercantilist trade policies. Therefore, countries are increasingly unable to protect their industries by imposing import barriers and subsidizing exports. Furthermore, the liberalization of international financial markets combined with the rapid expansion of international financial transactions have a disciplining effect on monetary policies. In contrast to the inter-war period, it is no longer feasible to devalue currencies in order to boost the competitiveness of exports. This is because such exchange rate policies (similar to inflationary monetary policies) would allow for arbitrage profits and encourage massive capital flight. The potential results of financial crises were documented by recent experience in south-east Asia. Massive capital outflows translated into a liquidity crisis which decreased loanable funds, introduced a credit crunch, impeded ongoing investments, and severely depressed the entire economy. But beyond the economic problems, the countries of the region suffered serious social effects as well. A radical decline in domestic purchasing power combined with a sudden increase in unemployment led to extreme poverty, desperation, anger and political instability.

In short, economic liberalization substantially restricted the flexibility of trade and exchange rate policies and thus it limited traditional macroeconomic instruments. The relative paralysis of these instruments resulted in increased pressure on alternative economic policies, including technology and education policies, but especially fiscal and labour policies. This is because corporate and capital gains taxes, as well as nominal wages and payroll-fringe costs, have an immediate impact on production costs and product prices and, hence, the competitiveness of companies. Companies exposed to increased competition therefore frequently demand lower levels of corporate taxes and lower labour costs. The lower levels of aggregate costs are expected to boost competitiveness. Should governments oppose lower corporate taxes and/or should workers object to real decreases in wage rates, companies threaten to relocate. The consequence is a catch-22 for both governments and workers. Even if they do not agree to lower taxes and wage rates, they may not be able to prevent them from declining. This is because company relocations in response to relatively high taxes and wages lead to a decreased tax base and employment rate. Workers and their proponents are therefore concerned that industry locations engage in a competitive decrease in wage rates, payroll-fringe costs, and labour standards in order to prevent company relocations, decreased tax revenues, and declining employment.

This is the background to the ILO's on-line conference "Organized Labour in the 21^st Century". In his introductory address, the Director-General of the ILO, Juan Somavía, highlighted the central changes in the world economy and the resulting challenges for worker's proponents:

[…] First and foremost, the values espoused by unions - equity, justice and social cohesion - are under threat. Globalization and market forces are transforming the social and economic environment of labour and questioning the relevance of established methods of income distribution. The rise of income inequalities both within and across countries - manifested through segmented markets and a polarized labour force - is beginning to threaten the very stability of our societies. The voice of an anguished majority either excluded or marginalized from the global markets, remains to be heard. It is time new global campaigns were launched to put redistribution back on the agenda of national governments and international agencies. A new message for consideration by all is: 'Yes to the market economy and no to the market society'. […] Unions can contribute to putting a human face on the global economy through influencing social policy which can strike a balance between efficiency of the market and equity for the people. […] The above tasks can be accomplished only through a political process. Building support for an agenda based on workers' rights, employment creation, social protection and social dialogue means a political struggle for which leadership ought to come from trade unions. The political mandate for that agenda should come from heads of states, Prime Ministers and finance ministers of individual countries, down to the UN system and multilateral institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. In short, the unions should position themselves to put political power behind the universal labour standards, and thereby influence the policies and programmes of multilateral institutions"

Reflecting changes in the world economy during the second half of the twentieth century, the participants to the on-line conference are particularly concerned with the implications for relations between the social partners in general, and implications for workers and unions in particular. Beyond the attempt to understand these changes, however, the participants aim to develop responses to economic liberalization and globalization. Central to these responses are the answers to several questions: One, is it possible to ensure economic competitiveness and growth in the industrialized countries without accepting a downgrading of social standards? Two, is it possible to promote economic development and growth in the developing world without abandoning an upgrading of social standards? Downgrading social standards in the industrialized countries is as difficult as jeopardizing higher standards in the developing world. This is because existing social standards are the fruits of a century-long struggle between economic agents and, moreover, appropriate standards are seen as an indispensable condition for the long-term sustainability of economic systems. Third, can economic liberalization benefit all social groups and all countries? In other words, can it live up to its promise of a win-win situation for all actors ?

The first session of the ILO's on-line conference focused on core labour standards. Four main themes emerged from this debate. Initially the participants concentrated on the fundamental question of whether core labour standards are a necessary and sufficient condition to put a "human face on the global economy" - to use Somavía's terminology. A related, yet distinct discussion concerned the standards themselves, focusing on the problems of inclusion, exclusion and definition of core labour standards. Other topics of debate were the relation between core labour standards and international trade, and the possibility of promoting core standards through various policy instruments (such as a strategic utilization of pension funds, and the incorporation of core labour standards in lending practices).

The discussion did not always arrive at commonly acceptable conclusions. Many questions remained unanswered and many new ones were raised. These questions occupy a central place in this summary, as they lead to continuing discussion beyond the scope of this conference.

Core labour standards: A necessary and sufficient condition for a humane market economy?

Virtually all discussants emphasized the importance of core labour standards. But some stressed the fundamental compatibility of core labour standards with a market economy [Tan, Turner, Herrmann, Frundt, Brooks, Kyloh, Patel, etc.] while others emphasized the unresolvable contradiction between social politics and a capitalistic system [Shniad, Spampinato, Graham, Kumar, Collins]. In correspondence with the latter argument, it was argued that economic liberalization (manifested in the continuing trend towards free trade) implies a continuous challenge to core labour standards. This is because the liberalized economy depends on international differences between labour standards and labour costs for the generation of maximum profits [Spinrad]. Indeed it was suggested that economic liberalization does not help resolve the problem of poverty, but rather contributes to this evil. Shniad claimed that the liberalized market economy increases inequality, exploits the environment, destroys indigenous communities, and also leads to an increase in overall poverty, the destruction of social safety nets, and a decline in life expectancy.

The two opposite views on labour standards reached a synthesis, however, and it was acknowledged that core labour standards are of fundamental importance for a humane economy. But at the same time it was emphasized that core labour standards - which are a necessary condition for a fair and equitable society - are not insufficient in themselves to promote these ends [Kyloh, Patel]. In other words, it takes more than the respect of core labour standards to create a market economy with a genuine human face, not a mask [Kumar]. Moreover, there was general consensus that a further indispensable condition for a socially sustainable economy is an equalization of bargaining power between the social partners. This is because international economic liberalization and globalization have substantially increased the bargaining position of capital owners vis-à-vis the immobile actors, including workers and their unions. The first question was whether an equalization of bargaining power requires a departure from current economic trends, and the next question was whether a departure from international economic liberalization is feasible. These questions opened a new division between the parties. Adamant critics of the liberalized market economy answered both questions in the affirmative [Shniad]. Others, however, tended to oppose a radical position not only because a departure from international economic liberalization is unrealistic, but also because it is undesirable. It is rather difficult to ignore the potential benefits of free trade and a globally integrated market place.

The question remains: How - if not through a radical limitation of international economic liberalization - can labour achieve a relative or absolute increase in bargaining power? The conference contributions outlined two answers to this question. One, the bargaining power of workers must be increased by strengthening unions. Dickson, for instance, emphasized that labour unions must address globalization and must themselves establish global partnerships because only international cooperation between labour unions can balance the increased power of capital. There was also consensus on a more traditional answer to the problem of unequal bargaining power. It was suggested that the equalization of bargaining power between workers and capital also depends on ownership of the means of production [Wheeler, Renard, Tan]. One popular and relatively uncontroversial way of increasing workers' influence over company assets is through employee stock ownership plans. So far, however, many workers have received stock options only on an ad hoc basis [Wheeler]. Stock options have frequently been offered only when the survival of the company was threatened and/or when the value of stocks had fallen to a very low level. In future, stock options should be offered even when companies benefit from strong demand and stock values are rising. There are other means, however, to ensure that workers benefit from increased ownership of the means of production. One such alternative is the establishment of cooperatives [Renard].

The discussion of the ownership problem raised new questions: Is it the beginning of the end of the capitalist system of production if workers own the means of production? Or is it simply the same old system with different owners? Or is it the first indication of the gradual, but inevitable transformation of the capitalist system into a socialist economy?

Core labour standards: Problems of inclusion, exclusion and definition

What are core labour standards anyway? The answer to this question was fairly clear to some participants, who stressed that core labour standards are those that appear in the ILO Declaration on the fundamental principles and rights at work, namely freedom of assembly, abolition of child labour, abolition of compulsory labour, and non-discrimination [Kyloh, Patel]. Other participants, however, did not see matters so clearly. Discussants wondered why the core labour standards do not emphasize the right to a safe work environment which protects workers from physical and mental harm. Workers should not suffer hazardous exposure to chemicals, asbestos and noise, or be placed under extreme stress. The latter can substantially increase the likelihood of accidents [Graversgaard]. Other discussants believed that the right to maternity benefits should be included in the shortlist of core labour standards [Kumar].

The reflection on labour standards also addressed the problem of definition. Some discussants maintained that the instruments in question are basic norms which define an indisputable, necessary, and universally applicable floor of standards [Kyloh, Patel]. This position, however, was not shared by other participants who pointed out that some core labour standards, which seem very basic at first glance, may turn out to be quite advanced on close inspection.

In many countries, including the Western industrialized nations, child labour threatens to continue because children are increasingly pressured to work to supplement the family income. Furthermore, the principle of non-discrimination is violated, since female workers generally receive lower wages than their male counterparts. But discrimination is not only a question of gender relations; it is also evident in relations between the majority group and minorities. For instance, ethnic minorities are often amongst the first to be fired if companies restructure. In sum, core labour standards are often rather high standards. If the countries which industrialized more than a century ago, accumulated substantial wealth and developed stable democratic systems are not yet able to respect these standards, how can they be observed by developing countries [Herrmann]?

In view of the multiple violations of core labour standards which occur in practice, discussants suggested a clear definition of the core standards. This would help to define the "bottom line" for labour activists and provide guidelines for policy makers [Tan, Herrmann]. Other participants, however, were concerned that a clear definition of minimum standards for all countries might trigger a competitive downgrading of social standards in the more advanced economies [Collins, Woodhead, Shniad]. On the other hand, a very high level of minimum standards would have devastating implications for the developing world [Tan, Herrmann]. What is the solution to this problem? Does this suggest a flexible approach to core labour standards where the applicable standards for a country depend on the level of economic development of that country?

Core labour standards and international trade

Liberalization and globalization have intensified competition between companies and industry locations, raising concerns about competitiveness. Companies and industry locations alike may follow the "high road" to competitiveness, based on productivity gains and improved workers' skills. Another option, however, is to improve competitiveness by reducing production costs. Accordingly, companies and industry locations may encourage low corporate taxes and/ or low wage rates. Furthermore, they may resist any emphasis on labour standards which could increase production costs and thus reduce the competitiveness of product prices. (Objections to higher environmental standards follow the same logic.) The strategy of cost cutting - that focuses on social costs and environmental protection measures - threatens the social achievements of industrialized countries and impedes sustainable development programmes in the developing world.

For these reasons, workers are concerned about the effects of international economic liberalization (i.e. liberalization of the international trading system and capital markets). The common concerns of labour proponents lead to different conclusions, however. On the one side, labour activists demand a radical departure from the neo-liberal economic approach that advocates a further opening of the markets and stresses the benefits of increased international competition. Respect for labour standards (and the environment) can only be ensured - it is argued - if countries resist further economic liberalization. This is because liberalization is considered to be the root cause of increased international competition and, hence, the root cause of competitiveness strategies aimed at reducing product prices by lowering social standards.

Other participants maintain that it is possible to combine a free market economy with a social welfare system, and to gain from free trade without sacrificing social achievements. For this group it is essential that the workings of the free market should be limited by the establishment of core labour standards, to ensure that social downgrading is taken out of the competitiveness formula. Societies could then benefit from healthy competition without jeopardizing social achievements. Following the same logic certain worker advocates demand that respect for core labour standards should become a principle of the international trading system, and that violation of this principle should be sanctioned through countervailing duties or anti-dumping measures. Enforcing core labour standards through trade sanctions is not without problems, however, because the possibility of sanctions may encourage abuse and trigger a new wave of protectionism [Tan, Herrmann]. A radical increase of protectionist policies cannot be excluded, because seemingly basic standards may turn out to be fairly high standards in fact. One example is the principle of non-discrimination. If violation of this standard were penalized most countries today would face trade sanctions, because very few adhere strictly to this principle. The result could be de facto paralysis of the international trading system.

The concerns discussed above do not provide any reason to question the importance of core labour standards themselves, but they do provide potential reasons for keeping them distinct from the international trading system. The ILO and the WTO have acknowledged their respective competencies and have agreed on the separation of these two areas. Whether it is possible to sustain this approach, however, has become increasingly questioned in some circles. The demonstrations at the WTO ministerial meeting in Seattle were the most public expressions of this demand so far.

Some conference participants considered that the demand for links between international trade and labour standards is frequently based on the misconception that low labour standards in the developing world put a downward pressure on labour standards in the industrialized countries. But they pointed out that it is more likely that low labour standards in developing countries translate into low standards in other developing countries [Kyloh, Patel], while labour policies in industrialized countries set an example for the labour policies in their industrialized counterparts. These interdependencies between different country groups are explained by the trade relations between them. Trade figures reveal two levels of competition. First, developing countries generally compete with other developing countries in low-tech sectors; second, industrialized countries compete with other industrialized countries in high-tech industries. By contrast, the trade relation between developing countries and industrialized nations largely follows the principle of comparative advantage. Accordingly, developing countries as a group specialize in commodities that cannot be produced (or reasonably produced) by industrialized countries, while the industrialized countries as a group specialize in commodities that cannot be produced (or reasonably produced) in the developing world. Thus, each country exports goods in exchange for goods which cannot be produced locally, but which are desired by local residents. The contemporary view of dynamic comparative advantage does not preclude changes within countries. Changes with respect to capital accumulation, education, know-how, technology and productivity can alter a country's production structure, specialization and export composition.

It is argued therefore that, trade along the lines of comparative advantage is characterized by compatibility rather than competition, so that there is no strong competition between developing countries and industrialized nations. Therefore, low labour standards in developing countries cannot logically result in a downgrading of standards in the industrial world. If anything, low standards in the developing countries imply benefits for the industrialized countries because they benefit from the low prices of imported commodities. This amounts to an indirect transfer of wealth from the developing countries to the industrialized nations.

Participants argued that developing countries which depress their labour standards merely cause other developing countries to pursue depressive labour policies as well. The proper response to this dilemma is for developing countries to cooperate in resisting socially devastating policies [Kyloh, Patel]. It remains a fact, however, that developing countries may gain market share at the expense of other developing countries if they do not comply with stricter labour laws. (For a similar reason, developing countries have frequently violated cartel arrangements that were intended to stabilize the world price of primary products.) Effective cooperation between the developing countries depends on finding a solution to this problem.

Finally, Tan affirmed that the question of labour standards should be separated from the question of low wages because a violation of fundamental labour standards is unacceptable at all times, while low wage rates maybe an important means for promoting economic growth. Low wage rates are the only way to balance low productivity levels in many developing countries and ensure their comparative advantage. Furthermore, low wage rates are not necessarily an evil, since they do not necessarily mean low purchasing power. But even if wages do not ensure sufficient purchasing power, low wages are acceptable if states supplement individual incomes through payments in kind. The state may provide basic necessities such as shelter, food, health insurance and education [Tan]. However, Tan added that low wages must remain a short-term phenomenon. They may be considered necessary to initiate the process of industrialization in developing countries, but they should gradually be abandoned as industrialization enters a phase of self-sustained growth. In short, low wage rates are only a temporary solution to underdevelopment. In the long run, countries must encourage industrial competitiveness on the basis of productivity improvement which depends on continuous investment in physical and human infrastructure (i.e. education and skills).

Enforcement options

The ILO Bureau for Workers' Activities stressed that respect for labour standards is promoted through an annual review of labour policies which critically assesses a country's actions in this area. These regular follow-up reports are complemented by special reports that examine one core standard at a time. Corresponding to four core labour standards, there will be four special annual reports. The report for 2001 will concentrate on freedom of association, and the next will focus on compulsory labour. In 2003 the report will examine the abolition of child labour and the final report in 2004 will address the elimination of discrimination with respect to employment and occupation. These reports make a substantial contribution to the promotion of labour standards, since they provide a forum for public discourse and offer guidance for policy makers.

Conference participants, however, questioned whether these publications are sufficient to ensure respect for core labour standards. Jordan, Secretary General of ICFTU, stated that shaming a government is the only real way of putting pressure on countries to respect labour standards. Somavía observed that unions need to put power behind their century-long campaign for the respect of universal labour standards. Many colleagues shared these concerns and they discussed other possible ways to encourage compliance with standards. The possibilities range from an expansion of the social dialogue and technical cooperation, to the strategic use of pension funds and the inclusion of labour standards in the lending criteria of international financial institutions (IFIs).

Amongst others Spinrad, Howard, and Dickson pointed out that pension funds are a large source of investment finance. Consequently it was suggested that workers could exercise a substantial influence on investment projects if they imposed conditions on lending. Such conditions might include compliance with core labour standards and a minimum wage. The inclusion of core labour standards in the lending criteria of IFIs is based on a similar idea.

Following a request by Owen, various participants reflected on the possible role of IFIs in promoting a humane work environment. There was a broad consensus on the potential role of IFIs. It was suggested that the International Finance Corporation, other members of the World Bank Group, the IMF and regional lending agencies should incorporate core labour standards in their lending criteria. The financial institutions would then only support investment projects that could plausibly claim to respect these standards. Such lending practices could serve as a model for other financial institutions and contribute to a widespread upgrading of labour standards [Woodhead, Howard]. The feasibility of such an endeavour was demonstrated by a pilot project of the ILO and the Asian Development Bank [Otobe]. Graversgaard generally agreed with this position, but he added that the successful incorporation of core labour standards in the lending policies of IFIs must be accompanied by a reconsideration of the structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) pursued by the Bretton Woods institutions. This is because SAPs (combined with fiscal austerity) demand a substantial decrease in public expenditure, which affects all areas of government operations, including the labour department's inspection of companies. The suspension of visits impedes the ability of inspectors to ensure that labour standards are respected.

The incorporation of core labour standards in the lending criteria of IFIs is, according to this view, only the first step because IFIs often provide loans only to larger firms, whereas the micro-finance institutions of the informal sector are often the major sources of finance for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). It may therefore prove rather difficult to encourage respect for core labour standards in the SMEs of the developing world. This is a problem, since many of these SMEs - which often work as subcontractors - are sweat shops with an inhuman work environment. It follows that the effective promotion of core labour standards requires increased control over the major firms of the formal economy, and even more over their subcontractors in the informal sector [Kumar].

The discussion on IFIs led to a further division between conference participants. Those who believe in the possibility of a market economy with a human face were opposed by those who stress the fundamental contradiction between a capitalist system and socially oriented policies. The latter were rather sceptical about the ability of IFIs to encourage social policies effectively [Jonsson, Shniad]. Their scepticism was underlined by recent experience in Bosnia-Herzegovina, where proposed labour legislation was opposed by World Bank representatives who argued that the stipulations promoted a negative investment climate and hence contradicted the economic recovery objective for the region [Jonsson].

Conclusion

The discussion reached one central conclusion: respect for core labour standards is a fundamental precondition for a humane work environment, in particular, and the establishment of a humane economic system of production, in general. But widespread agreement with respect to ends was parallelled by disagreement with regard to means. The discussants could not agree on appropriate (i.e. effective and efficient) means to encourage respect for core labour standards. Many participants outlined possible ways to promote a market economy with a human face; but sceptics challenged these ideas and indicated obstacles to a sustainable economic system which places equal emphasis on social justice and economic growth, on equity and efficiency.

References to relevant literature for the first conference session

Boswell, T.; Stevis, D. 1997. "Globalization and international labour organizing: A world system perspective", in Work and Occupations, Vol. 24, No. 3, Aug.

Brecher, J.; Costello, T. 1994. Global village or global pillage: Economic restructuring from the bottom up(South End Press, Boston).

Breitenfellner, A. 1997. "Global unionism: A potential player", in International Labour Review, Vol. 136, No. 4, Winter.

Campbell, D. 1994. "Foreign investment, labour immobility and the quality of employment", in International Labour Review, Vol. 133, No. 2.

Carr, B. 1999. "Globalization from below: Labour internationalism under NAFTA" in International Social Science Journal, Vol. 51, No. 1, Mar.

EPAC. 1994 Globalization: Issues for Australia: Papers and proceedings from an Economic Planning Advisory Commission Seminar held in Canberra on 15 Sep. 1994 (Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra).

Fieldhouse, D. K. 1986. "The multinational: A critique of a concept" in Teichova, A.; Levy-Leboyer, M.; Nussbaum, H. (eds.): Multinational enterprise in historical perspective (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).

Frundt, H. J. 1996. "Trade and cross border labour strategies in the Americas", in Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 17, No. 3, Aug.

Harrod, J. The International Studies Association. 1999. Globalization or corporatization: Labour and social forces in the global political economy (Columbia International Affairs Online, Columbia University Press), Mar. http://wwwc.cc.columbia.edu/sec/dlc/ciao/conf/haj01/haj01.html [accessed 22 Sep 1999]

Hecker, S. 1993. "US unions, trade and international solidarity: Emerging issues and tactics", in Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 14, No. 3, Aug.

Herod, A. 1995. "The practice of international labour solidarity and the geography of the global economy", inEconomic Geography, Vol. 71, No. 4, Oct.

International Labour Organization and the International Institute for Labour Studies. 1998. Conference on organized labour in the 21st century: Background document. Available online http://www.ilo.org/public/english/130inst/research/network.htm, ILO

International Monetary Fund. 1997. World economic outlook (Washington D. C., IMF), May.

Kapstein, E. B. 1996. "Workers and the world economy" in Foreign Affairs, Vol. 75, No. 3, May/June.
Litvak, I. A.; Maule, C. K. 1972. "The union response to international corporations", in Industrial Relations, Vol. 11, No. 1, Feb.

Levinson, C. 1972. International trade unionism (Allen and Unwin, London).

MacShane, D. 1992. International labour and the origins of the cold war (Clarendon Press, Oxford).

Moody, K. 1997. "Towards an international social-movement unionism", in New Left Review, No. 225, Sep/Oct.

Moran, J. 1998. "The dynamics of class politics and national economies in globalization: The marginalization of the unacceptable", in Capital and Class, Issue 66, Autumn.

Munck, R.; Waterman, P. (eds.). 1999. Labour worldwide in the era of globalization (St. Martin's Press).

Ramsay, H. 1995. "Euro-unionism and the great auction: An assessment of the prospects for the European labour movement post-Maastricht", in Cressey, P.; Jones, B. (eds.). Work and employment in Europe: A new convergence (Routledge, London).

Ramsay, H. 1997. "Solidarity at last? International trade unionism approaching the millennium", in Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 18, No. 4, Nov.

Tan, E. S; Chew, I. 1997. "The new role of trade unionism in the 21st century: The case of Singapore", inEconomic and Labour Relations Review, Vol. 8, No. 1.

Tarrow, S.; Acostaville, M. 1999. Lazarsfeld Center at Columbia University. Transnational politics: A bibliographic guide to recent research on transnational movements and advocacy groups. (Columbia International Affairs Online, Columbia University Press) June.

http://wwwc.cc.columbia.edu/sec/dlc/ciao/wps/tws01/tws01.html [accessed 22 Sep 1999].

Teichova, A.; Levy-Leboyer, M.; Nussbaum, H. (eds.). 1986. Multinational enterprise in historical perspective.(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).

Troy, L. 1996. "Convergence in international unionism, etc. The case of Canada and the USA", in British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 30, No. 1, Mar.

Ulman, L. 1975. "Multinational unionism: Incentives, barriers, and alternatives", in Industrial Relations, Vol. 14, No. 1, Feb.

Many of the references in these articles provide an excellent guide to further sources. In particular see Ramsay, 1997; Breitenfellner, 1997; Moody, 1997; Carr, 1999; Troy, 1996; Tarrow and Acostaville, 1999.

The bibliography was composed by Mark Sieler.

Participants
Boyd Lawrence
Brooks Tequila, USA
Collins Tom
Dickson Ron
Dobbins Peggy
Frundt Hank, USA
Graham David
Graversgaard John, Denmark
Grundheber Alfons
Guthey Greig
Herrmann Michael
Howard James
Hyman Richard, UK
Jackson Mark
Jimenez-Zamora Elisabeth
Jonsson Bo
Jordan Bill, Secretary General, ICFTU
Keighley Jeff
Kumar Arun, India
Kyloh Bob, ILO
Lukman Salihu, Nigeria
Mackie Robert
Mahendra K.L.
Mamkoottam Kuriakose, India
Murray Jill, University of Melbourne, Australia
Oates Steven, ILO
Otobe Naoko
Owen Dan
Patel Ebrahim, South Africa
Purohit U.M.
Renard Gilbert, ILO
Sepulveda Alicia, Mexico
Shniad Sid, Canada
Sieler Mark
Somavía Juan, Director- General, ILO
Spampinato Carlo
Spinrad Alex, labour advocate, Israel
Subramaniam L.V., President, Indian Managerial & Professional Employees Centre, India
Tan Ern-Ser, Singapore
Trebilcock Anne, ILO
Turner Lowell
Wheeler Hoyt
Woodhead Gregory