Mission Reports & Studies

Social Dialogue and Tripartism
Prerequisites for Economic and Social Development

CONTENTS

I. Social Dialogue - The Concept

II. Aims and Purposes of Social Dialogue/Tripartism

III. Prerequisites for Effective Social Dialogue

IV. Obstacles to Social Dialogue

V. Institutional Arrangements for Social Dilaogue

VI. Levels and Scope of Social Dialogue

VII. Industry-wide and Enterprise Levels

VIII. National Level Consultation

IX. The Regional and Subregional Levels

X. The International Level

XI. The ILO and the Promotion of Social Dialogue

XII. Social Dialogue in the Arabic-Speaking Countries

XIII. Concluding Remarks

     This paper "Social Dialogue and Tripartism: Prerequisites for Economic and Social Development" was prepared and submitted by Mr. William Simpson, an ILO Consultant, for the "Inter-Regional Arab Meeting on the Promotion of Tripartism and Social Dialogue" that was organized by the ILO Regional Office for Arab States in Beirut from 24 to 26 October 2000.

I. Social Dialogue - The Concept
     The increasingly used and imprecise expression "social dialogue" can be defined in a number of ways. In its broadest sense, it can be interpreted to mean any negotiation, consultation or other kind of interaction within society, carried out among all or some segments of society in order to formulate recommendations or make decisions that will be in the best interests of the society in question. In its broadest sense, too, the dialogue can cover subjects of any nature but it would normally be intended to focus on such societal issues as the economy, education, health, employment, conditions of work and other issues affecting the whole or part of society. The groups or parties to the dialogue would be determined by their interest or competence in the issues under discussion and on their capacity to join in the dialogue. It is obvious that participation in such dialogue would depend on the freedom of societal groups or segments to do so, which in turn would depend on the laws or regulations governing such processes in a country. Again in its broadest sense, social dialogue can be seen as a process that is of use in seeking solutions to social and other kinds of problems within nations through consultation and negotiation by the involvement of the widest possible range of interested parties who not only have an interest in the matter but also the competence to make a constructive contribution to the debate. It is a process too that is seen as an alternative to the resolution of disputes through conflict or legal procedures. However broadly or narrowly the expression is defined, "social dialogue" is generally considered to be a process that produces more positive and generally acceptable results given the wider extent of the consultation and the consequent increased possibility of the acceptance of the results achieved by a wider spectrum of society. As a concept it is clearly linked closely with the concepts of freedom, democracy and the rule of law.
     In ILO terminology "social dialogue" has a more concrete and precise meaning. It is synonymous with the term "tripartism", which characterizes not only the unique three-party structure of the organization, that is employers, workers and governments, but also the interaction between these three groups which the ILO seeks to promote as being fundamental for the enhancement of social and economic development. Recently, however, some constituents have sought to give the expression a broader meaning in order to take account of the participation and interest of other groups (or "stakeholders") in society in matters in which the three ILO partners consider they have greatest competence. Other constituents strongly oppose the inclusion in the "tripartite" process of other parts of "civil society" such as, for example, non-governmental organizations, and insist that solely the governments concerned and organizations of workers and employers can legitimately represent their respective constituencies. This is a complex problem which will not be quickly resolved. For the purpose of this paper, therefore, while the term "social dialogue" will be used throughout, it should be taken as meaning "tripartism" or the tripartite dealings between the government as representing the State, and employers' and workers' organizations with a view to addressing issues and formulating and implementing policies of a social and economic character. Social dialogue in this sense seeks a greater understanding of the conflicting interests of the parties for the common good. It refers mainly to industrial dialogue where tripartite cooperation between government, industry and labour, usually at the national level, is acce+pted as a strategy to achieve balanced economic and social progress.
     In many countries such dealings have led to social agreements, contracts or pacts between the parties, often guaranteeing social peace and stability over long periods of time.
     Social dialogue may also include direct dealings between the workers and the employers, otherwise referred to as collective bargaining, at the national, sectoral or enterprise levels, depending on the levels at which bargaining takes place in the labour market in the country. This "bipartism" may be seen as a part of tripartism, with the government playing the role, as legislator, of the provider of the legal framework, or the labour laws, within which industrial relations operate, and as conciliator or arbiter in the event that insoluble disputes may arise between the parties. Later in this paper we shall take a closer look at the role that the state plays in the day-to-day functioning of labour relations.

III. Prerequisites for Effective Social Dialogue
     The experience of countries clearly shows that political democracy, the market economy and tripartism are in dissociable and that none of these objectives can be realized without the other two.
     Tripartite cooperation - as perceived by the ILO, and more especially in its instruments on tripartite cooperation - involves a certain reconciliation of interests whereby governments, employers and workers (or their organizations) despite their divergent interests, find areas of common accord in order to obtain advantages for themselves and for society as a whole. Another basic assumption behind tripartite cooperation is the acknowledgement by the state of the legitimacy of workers' and employers' organizations and their freedom to defend the interests of their members through the exercise of those civil and political rights that underpin democracy and freedom of association. Equally important is the acknowledgement by the state that these groups have something constructive to offer in the economic and social debate.
     Tripartite arrangements can, of course, be of mutual benefit to governments and to the social partners, and all the partners must have the possibility of gaining some advantage from participation in the process. Governments, for example, although always retaining the ultimate power of decision, may find it politically expedient to cede to the demands of workers or employers on certain issues in order to obtain their support for policies that are not popular. But as lawmaker and watchdog the state should create conditions, through policy decisions and legislation, that are conducive to social dialogue. It should establish the structures for social dialogue and provide resources, facilities and information. It should also encourage the creation of an environment and culture of dialogue by establishing effective mechanisms for the prevention or peaceful settlement of disputes. For employers and workers, too, involvement in tripartite negotiations opens up possibilities to influence government policies on economic and social questions. But they should also understand and accept that the purpose of social dialogue is not only to secure a share of the benefits of prosperity but also to ensure the fair distribution of the burden and sacrifices needed for development, especially in times of economic crisis or structural change. Effective tripartite arrangements naturally depend, to a great extent, on mutual confidence between the parties, something that can only be developed and maintained as long as all the parties respect the results of the consultation process.
     But if any kind of equilibrium is to be maintained between the parties, the smooth operation of tripartism implies that each of the parties carries out its functions effectively. Governments, for their part -and more particularly Ministries of Labour - should be able to assume different roles as the need arises, whether this may involve regulating, encouraging, moderating, conciliating or even arbitrating where necessary. On the other hand, workers' and employers' organizations should be structured in such a way as to be effective, enjoy sufficient representativeness and legitimacy to speak and act with authority on behalf of their constituents, be financially independent and possess the necessary technical knowledge and capacity to enable them to participate competently in the tripartite dialogue. In a rapidly changing, and highly complex economic and technological environment it is all the more important that organizations of employers and workers are adequately equipped to fulfill the role for which they are responsible.

IV. Obstacles to Social Dialogue
     A general appraisal of the extent to which the concept of tripartism, and more generally of social dialogue, has been embraced throughout the world is largely positive. National tripartite bodies and arrangements have long been the traditional instruments of dialogue and consensus in most western European countries such as the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark, Belgium, to name only some. In these countries, where great importance has always been attached to achieving social consensus through tripartite dialogue, recourse to tripartite institutions in the event of economic or social problems is virtually a basic reflex. Other examples of national tripartite mechanisms are to be found in many other parts of the world but in no country is the form and scope of such arrangements the same as in another. There is a tremendous variety of systems, some formal, others informal, some with only a narrow mandate, others with a much broader policy role in social and economic matters. Even in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, where formerly the Communist Party was the leading and guiding force in society, as well as being the nucleus of the political system and of all state and social organizations, the natural acceptance of the value of the institutions of dialogue, there are factors which weaken or even prevent the operation of tripartite structures and the objectives they are trying to achieve. As previously indicated, the effective functioning of social dialogue requires the existence of a democratic system of government and a functioning market economy. In many countries these basic conditions are not met. There is no proper separation of powers at the national level as between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. Many countries are still under authoritarian rule with the inevitable suppression of civil liberties due mainly to the absence of the rule of law. Even where, in these countries, basic rights are guaranteed in the Constitution or the laws, they are not respected. In addition, the market economy system is not developed and the state remains the largest employer in the country. Where organizations of employers and workers do exist, they are generally subservient to the state.
     There are also differences in the perception of social dialogue. Many policy-makers interpret social dialogue as an abdication of sovereign state power to group interests. They believe that developing countries cannot afford the "luxury" of social dialogue, and contend that decisions are best taken by the state with the advice of technicians and specialists and imposed unilaterally. They take the view that "benevolent" authoritarian government is necessary to achieve rapid economic progress at least in the short term. The case of Singapore is often cited in this regard. It should be recalled, however, that Singapore, despite the severe restrictions on certain civil rights and freedoms, still has strong and effective tripartite machinery; in addition, it is, to say the least, unwise to suggest that the system prevailing in a minute city state would, if implanted in a nation-state, be equally successful. There are also employers organizations who consider that social dialogue is wasteful in time and resources. Such short-sighted attitudes constitute a hindrance to the effective functioning of social dialogue.
     Another major handicap in promoting effective social dialogue is the weakness of government institutions and the social partners. Governments, for example, which have come to power through force or other non-democratic means, may fail to gain the support or confidence of the people, and whatever they propose is regarded with suspicion or scepticism. In such a situation there can be no basis of trust or goodwill on which to build social dialogue. The weakness of governments also manifests itself in other ways. It is a most unfortunate fact that, in many countries, both developed and developing, Ministries of Labour or social affairs, which are generally responsible for relations with the social partners, are often weak in terms of personnel, resources and decision-making authority. Very often their information base is negligible and their capacity to analyze the labour market situation poor. They are rarely involved in negotiations with the international financial institutions in the formulation of structural adjustment programmes. The failure or incapacity to remedy these weaknesses has far-reaching consequences for the countries concerned.
     Employers' and workers' organizations also suffer from serious weaknesses. Some employers' organizations allocate only inadequate resources to the promotion of social dialogue, preferring to focus on other issues such as trade or political lobbying in order to influence national policies. Some have direct association with governments in power and do not see the usefulness of broader dialogue even with labour. Some others are weak in membership and resources or are otherwise weakened by rivalries with other competing organizations. More and more representational problems are also arising between organizations of employers and chambers of commerce, with the latter increasingly encroaching on matters such as labour law and labour relations, which the former are more competent to address. In the case of workers' organizations the most common weakness stems from the fact that their coverage is increasingly limited. In the majority of cases they represent only a small fraction of the labour force, so that their credibility as the representatives of the nation's workforce is almost always in question. In addition, especially in recent years, technological change, the mobility of capital, and the globalization process have all contributed to substantial changes in labour market structures leading to severe reductions in trade union membership. The multiplicity of trade unions or fragmentation of the trade union movement is also a major problem in many countries. In others the unions may have aligned themselves with the political party in power or other political parties and, as a result, lost their credibility as workers' organizations.
     Of crucial importance for all the parties to social dialogue is the possibility to acquire the technical and professional capacity to participate effectively in tripartite consultations. This necessarily involves training and experience in economic and social policy issues and industrial relations theory and practice, the ability to negotiate at various levels, the capacity to understand and formulate often complex economic or legal proposals and generally contribute in a positive way to the tripartite debate. This, too, involves access to information and the ability to analyse this information. Lack of such access can also be a serious hindrance to the capacity of the parties to negotiate in full knowledge of essential information.
     Mention should also be made of the informal sector which accounts for a large and ever-growing proportion of the labour force in the developing countries. This sector is generally unstable, without a minimum of social or legal protection, and is difficult to organize. Its incapacity to engage in national or even local consultations, mainly because it is unorganized, remains a major obstacle to social dialogue.

V. Institutional Arrangements for Social Dialogue
     A variety of frameworks exists within which social dialogue, or tripartite consultation can take place. In the first place, in some countries (e.g. in Western Europe) where social dialogue is well developed, formal tripartite bodies exist at the national level, sometimes set up by legislation, whose functions may be decision-making or advisory. These bodies deal with such subjects as social security, employment, training or other issues on which the government wishes to establish or elaborate policy. Frequently, however, similar tripartite bodies may be set up on an ad hoc basis, consisting of government officials and representatives of the national trade union and employers' organizations. In all of these instances, the consultation process that ensues can result in advice or recommendations being given to the government as to what further action might be taken or, alternatively, the result may take the form of an agreement between the parties that is binding in itself. In some other cases, depending on the issue under discussion, the negotiation may take place exclusively between the representatives of labour and management, with the government only present as an interested observer. In this latter case also the result may constitute a binding agreement on the parties which is recognized by the authorities.
     Social dialogue may also take place through systems of worker participation, a process whereby workers are involved in discussion or negotiation at the level of the workplace with a view to resolving problems at that level with the management. Such practices are common and play an indispensable role in the efficient functioning of an enterprise, even if they do not always result in a formal written agreement being concluded.
     In many countries throughout the world worker and employer representatives frequently participate in the resolution of individual or collective disputes through their work on industrial tribunals or courts. Here they can play the role of judges or advisers to the court in reaching decisions. The participation of workers and employers in this type of judicial work is beneficial in that it can contribute to more effective and rapid decision-making in cases and accelerate the return to a normal situation in an enterprise where there has been disruption as a result of the dispute before the tribunal.
     In general, social dialogue consists simply of a constant or regular exchange of information between the parties in order to ensure a greater degree of mutual understanding of each other's position on a particular issue. It can also take the form of constant or regular consultations between the parties with a view to exchanging opinions and ideas on certain economic or social issues; or finally, it can take the form of more formal negotiations between the parties, either on a tripartite or on a bipartite basis, with a view to formulating binding agreements or other kinds of pacts or charters for implementation at the agreed level.

VI. Levels and Scope of Social Dialogue
     Social dialogue, whether in the form of bipartite or tripartite consultation or negotiation, can take place at the enterprise or plant- level, on an industry-wide basis, at a regional or even international level. The questions at issue will often determine the most appropriate level at which the dialogue should take place in order to produce the most effective results. For example, matters relating to the formulation of international trade or labour laws, or human rights questions may be discussed at the international level, while general policy issues on economic performance or productivity, fiscal, wage or employment policies, structural adjustment, training, social security or welfare, minimum wage issues, gender questions, the environment, etc. are all matters which may more appropriately be considered or negotiated at the national level. Matters that are normally dealt with at the industry-wide or at the enterprise level are such basic issues as wages and working conditions, occupational safety and health, etc.

VII. Industry-wide and Enterprise Levels
     Social dialogue at the industry-wide or at the enterprise or plant-level usually takes the form of bipartite negotiation or collective bargaining between representatives of the employers and representatives of the workers involved. This process will normally lead to the conclusion of an agreement which will fix working conditions and wages for a particular period of time. Collective bargaining of this kind - which is fundamental for effective labour relations- will depend on a number of factors. First, the parties to the process should be free to negotiate and voluntarily reach agreement without interference by the authorities. Secondly, each party should be representative of its constituency and have the authority to conclude a binding agreement with the other. And thirdly, there should be no question of the authorities having to homologate or approve such an agreement before it comes into force. The role of the government should be strictly limited to providing the necessary legal framework within which this bargaining process can take place, to encouraging and promoting the voluntary nature of the process and providing the necessary mechanisms for mediation, conciliation or arbitration should the parties request assistance from the government either during the process or if there should be a dispute which the parties themselves are unable to resolve.
     A critical question on bargaining structure for employers in any country is whether they should bargain as a united group, with an industry-wide agreement, or whether they should bargain independently, concluding agreements that are exclusive to all or some of their own employees, in other words, enterprise agreements. The bargaining unit these agreements may cover may be at the level of the whole company, or of some division within it, or of an individual workplace or plant. The attraction of industry-wide bargaining arrangements stems from their potential to encompass whole product markets. From the early days of collective bargaining both unions and employers have seen the benefits of concluding agreements that deal with the wage costs of all the producers of goods and services who are competing in the same market, whether local, regional or at the national level. For the employers, especially those with small firms, industry-wide agreements offer, first and foremost, a degree of protection against the more powerful unions which would be in a stronger position to deal with them separately. Secondly, there are other benefits which have a considerable productivity implications. For example, industry-wide agreements tend to reduce the influence of the union in the workplace over work arrangements. And thirdly, industry-wide agreements make possible the industry - wide management of training. For example, if the costs of training are spread across the industry as a whole, this will prevent the possibility of some employers neglecting to train and "poaching" workers from those who do. For the unions, industry-wide agreements have the attraction of establishing the "rate for the job", encouraging the identification of their members with their wider occupational and labour market collective interests, and protecting members in more weakly organized workplaces.
     Until the 1960's when one spoke of collective bargaining the presumption was that one was speaking about industry-wide bargaining. The notable exceptions were Japan and the United States where enterprise-level bargaining was well-established. The United Kingdom was the first country in Western Europe in which enterprise-level bargaining began to supersede industry-wide bargaining and by 1990 industry-wide agreements covered only one out of five British private sector employees still covered by collective bargaining. But the same phenomenon has affected many other European countries with a widespread move to enterprise-level bargaining, even in countries with strong traditions of employer solidarity. The situation is the same in other parts of the world with countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada abandoning highly centralised industrial pay award systems in favour of more decentralized systems of bargaining.
     The reasons for this transition from industry-wide bargaining to enterprise-level bargaining are varied and complex, and here it may simply be said that developments in the world economy over the past twenty years or so have accelerated the process. For example, industry-wide agreements are necessarily confined to individual countries whereas international trade necessarily obliges firms, especially the larger ones, to operate on a global scale if they wish to be competitive in international product markets. In such circumstances the advantages of an industry-wide agreement clearly diminish. Enterprise bargaining also gives employers greater potential for improving labour productivity in the light of their own business circumstances and greater flexibility in organising wage structures and working arrangements that are more tailored to their own needs. Enterprise agreements also provide the opportunity for more individualistic treatment of workers and make it easier for employers to deal with the problem of adapting their workforces to the introduction of new technology in the enterprise. But enterprise bargaining is not without limitations. The departure from national or industry-wide pay structures and experimentation with pay incentive and other schemes that are easier to introduce at the enterprise level can give rise to discontent among employees who may find themselves at a disadvantage in a particular locality or region. For employers, the advantages of industry-wide bargaining in the field of training have already been mentioned. The implications of decentralizing training to the enterprise-level are considerable and can be damaging for labour mobility and retention.
     Whatever the future of collective bargaining and its levels it should nevertheless be emphasised that collective bargaining between employers and workers for the purpose of determining wages and other conditions of work will always remain not only the most effective, rational and practical way of reaching agreement on these matters but also the most civilised way of conducting the business of labour relations. Abundant evidence exists to demonstrate that companies, big or small, national or multinational, which follow the collective bargaining process with representative organizations of workers enjoy far higher levels of industrial peace, stability and productivity than those which do not. Equally obvious is the fact that where the trade union movement has become weaker and collective bargaining less frequent there has been a corresponding rise in income inequality and, in many instances, sheer exploitation of workers.

VIII. National Level Consultation
     National tripartite bodies have long been the traditional mechanisms of social dialogue and consensus in most Western European countries. Other examples of national tripartite mechanisms can be found in many other parts of the world, in Latin America, Asia and elsewhere, but in no country is the form and scope of the arrangements the same as in another. There is a great variety of systems, some formal, others informal, some with only a narrow mandate, others with a much broader role in social and economic affairs.
     During the economic recession of the early 1990's many countries in the West devised various forms of tripartite cooperation in the search for national solutions to economic problems as well as ways of reducing social tension caused by unemployment. As part of their efforts to fight redundancy and protect unemployment, workers in a number of industrialized countries, through national tripartite agreements, opted for a voluntary reduction in earnings. A notable example was the Italian national agreement of 1993 which decided upon the abolition of the scala mobile (partial wage index system) which had covered earlier wage agreements. A number of national collective agreements reached in Scandinavia as well as in Western Europe during 1992 and 1993 conformed to this pattern, and we have seen similar and more recent examples of such national agreements on wages in Germany. Also in Scandinavia, some countries have concluded "Basic Agreements" covering a set of rules and procedures that should be adhered to in labour relations. In addition to setting up procedures for collective bargaining and the machinery for dispute settlement these agreements establish a structure of labour relations including workers' representation through shop stewards or councils. In some other countries, national tripartite consultations take place within bodies specifically established for that purpose (e.g. The Economic and Social Councils in France and the Netherlands).
     In Latin America debates in recent years on structural adjustment and employment have highlighted the crucial importance of "social bargaining", or tripartite debate, for the viability and equity of reform programmes. Governments of the region generally appear to understand that the commitment, and the participation of the social partners, are essential conditions if any structural reforms are to succeed. In the legalistic culture of Latin American politics, as well as industrial relations, the role of the State remains an important one, and is likely to remain so. In addition, however, to the development of bipartite, collective bargaining relationships, the notion of social dialogue resulting in "concertation" among the social partners and the government on broader social and economic issues has become more frequent, particularly in countries such as Mexico, Venezuela and Chile, where this type of mechanism has been used successfully. In Mexico, for example, a National Council on Economic Cooperation was established in 1989 and focuses on institutional cooperation and long-term strategy. In Argentina a National Tripartite Council on Employment, Productivity, the Minimum Wage and Wages Adjustment (1992) plays a role in fixing minimum wages and determining unemployment benefits, and submits recommendations on employment, vocational training and productivity. It is of some significance that tripartite relationships have worked best where trade unions are strongest.
     Examples of properly functioning tripartite bodies are rare on the African continent. One that is, however, noteworthy is South Africa's National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC), a statutory body which is independent from the government. In addition to the traditional partners of government, labour and business, this body also includes representatives from a number of other groups of civil society, all of whom share the common goal of promoting sustainable economic development in the country. In spite of the many restrictions on freedom of association and collective bargaining in African countries, trade unions and employers' organizations, collective bargaining, and even a limited participation in national social and economic policy-making have developed over the years, and the social partners are highly conscious of the role that they should play in the social and economic life of their countries. The assertion of their commitment to tripartism as the foundation of social dialogue was emphatically stated in the conclusions of a recent high-level tripartite regional seminar on social dialogue held in Addis Abeba in October, 1999. For Africa, as elsewhere, it is especially important that governments acknowledge that the problems of economic restructuring and increasing economic interdependence can only be successfully addressed if workers' and employers' organizations are strong and independent and are closely involved in the policy-making process.
     In the South-East Asian region the concern to attract direct foreign investment and develop export-oriented industry has been accompanied by labour relations systems in which the right to organize and collective bargaining have been substantially limited. Once again, the diversity of political and economic systems in the region makes it difficult to generalize, but it may be said that the region has not been a model for cooperative interaction between the State and the social partners. We have already commented on the implications of the weakness of tripartism and social institutions for the countries in the region when faced with the financial and economic crisis in 1997. The crisis and its aftermath, however, created opportunities for strengthening social dialogue at the national level and a number of useful initiatives were taken to address the serious social and labour issues that resulted directly from the crisis. Tripartite social accords were reached in the Republic of Korea and the Philippines in 1998 and tripartite bodies on retrenchment were established in Singapore, Thailand and Malaysia. There was also increased dialogue over wages, the minimum wage and the relationship of wages to employment. Even in the transition countries of China, Vietnam, Lao PDR and Mongolia, all of which were, in varying degrees, affected by the crisis, there is much evidence of a realization of the value of collective bargaining and the closer involvement, in the context of a free market economy, of workers and employers in economic and social policy-making and problem-solving.
     Generally, it is the State that takes the lead in initiating tripartite dialogue at the national level. In this way it can ensure, for example, that the demands of the workers in the field of wages and working conditions take account of national policies in these areas. By allowing workers and employers to participate in the formulation of national policies the State shows that it is prepared to relinquish its prerogative in these areas; the workers and employers, on the other hand, and in exchange, accept partially to forego what are generally their prerogatives by accepting to be guided by government policy in the determination of wages and other conditions of work.

IX. The Regional and Subregional Levels
     Since the beginning of the 1960's regional and sub-regional integration has been a topical issue of debate in the formulation of social and economic development policies. Such integration was initially perceived as a proper means to exploit the advantages of economies of scale and gain the benefits of protected domestic markets. The debate on the advantages and disadvantages of integration has shifted focus over the years and, during the 1990's the emphasis has been on global rather than regional integration and on questions concerning deregulation, the implications of the liberalization of trade, etc.
     Supporters of global integration perceive it as a process which offers the advantages of greater economies of scale and a high level of specialization but which would obviate the need for domestic market protection. On the other hand, critics fear that, in the process, the State may be obliged to surrender its autonomy over policy matters, resulting in possible be job losses and deterioration in working conditions and welfare benefits. The debate is still active but, irrespective of what becomes of it, globalization is already affecting the social and economic policies of nations. These developments have increased the need for social dialogue at all levels. At the regional and sub-regional levels the interest in social dialogue as an effective means to pursue social and economic goals has been recognised. Most regions and sub-regions have established institutional machinery for social dialogue. These function with varying degrees of success. The following are some examples.
     Historically, the European Economic Community (now the European Union) which was established under the Treaty of Rome in 1957 and came into effect in 1958, is the oldest and perhaps the most advanced instance of regional integration where an elaborate framework for social dialogue has been established. Currently, the Union consists of fifteen member States. The original Treaty of Rome established an Economic and Social Committee with representatives from "the various categories of economic and social activity" that is to say, not only the trade unions and employers' organizations, but also representatives of agricultural, commercial, artisan and consumer interests. The role of the Committee has, from time to time, been reviewed and expanded, and under the Maastricht Treaty of 1991, any agreement reached between management and labour at Community level can be directly implemented as EU law by a decision of the Council. The main social partners comprising the Committee are the employers' confederation UNICE, the umbrella trade union ETUC and the public sector confederation CEEP. In 1994, a directive was adopted to introduce works' councils in European enterprises. The Directive, which covers all enterprises with at least 1000 employees in Europe or 300 employees in any two member States, places emphasis on consultation, exchanges of information and dialogue. The social partners have acquired an increasingly important consultative role in EU policy-making. The most recent example of this is the conference of the social partners that was organized by the Commission, on the initiative of the ETUC, in Warsaw (March 1999) on the question of the enlargement of the Union.
     In North America, sub-regional integration started with the signing of a long-negotiated agreement known as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between Canada, Mexico and the United States at the beginning of 1994. In the same year a related agreement, known as the North American Agreement on Labour Cooperation (NAALC) was signed between Mexico and the United States, with Canada signing at a later date after obtaining confirmation from the provinces. This latter agreement rejects the idea of harmonizing the labour laws of the three countries but nevertheless contains a provision containing an obligation to provide high labour standards. It further provides for the establishment of a ministerial commission for labour cooperation as well as national advisory committees to advise on its implementation. The US committee comprises twelve members from business, labour and academic circles with representation on an equal basis, that of Mexico eight members, with five from labour and three from business, and that of Canada ten members, representing government, labour, business, academia and non-governmental organizations.
     The Common Market of the Southern Latin American countries comprising Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, known as MERCOSUR, was founded in 1991. Bolivia and Chile became associate members of the economic integration pact in 1996. By the end of 1998 the MERCOSUR Declaration on Social and Labour Affairs was adopted. The Declaration stresses that social and labour rights are integral to the Common Market and establishes a tripartite Social and Labour Commission to pursue their implementation. It requires member States to establish standing mechanisms for social dialogue with workers' and employers' organizations at the national and sub-regional levels in order to promote social and economic development in the sub-region.
     Similarly, a number of Asian countries, including Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines and Thailand, established an Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 1967 with the principal aim of enhancing cooperation among member States for peaceful purposes. In 1992 a framework agreement was signed to establish the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA). The trade unions in the region have created a regional trade union council which has been accorded observer status in AFTA.
     The Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM) is another example of regional economic integration currently comprising 15 Caribbean States (Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, St.Kitts and Nevis, St.Lucia, St.Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago). CARICOM was established by a 1973 Treaty to pursue three main objectives, including economic integration based on a regional common market, and functional cooperation in such areas as culture, education, health and labour relations. In 1993, The Standing Committee of CARICOM Ministers of Labour set up a tripartite regional working party comprising representatives of member States, the Caribbean Congress of Labour, the Caribbean Employers' Confederation and the Organization of East Caribbean States, in order to prepare a CARICOM Declaration of Labour and Industrial Relations Principles taking into account international labour standards. The Declaration, which was approved and put into effect in 1995, provides, among other things, for the cooperation of the social partners and requires that "the member States shall make arrangements suitable to national conditions to secure within the system of labour administration, consultation, cooperation and negotiations between public authorities and the most representative workers' and employers' organizations at the local, national or regional levels as appropriate".

X. The International Level
     As we have already pointed out, the International Labour Organization provides the unique world forum for tripartite negotiation and debate. There, national and international trade union organizations and national and international organizations of employers get together with government representatives from the 174 member States to formulate international labour standards and, through the various means of action at its disposal, pursue the objectives set out in its Constitution. In addition to its structure, programmes and activities, which are invariably tripartite, the ILO has made considerable efforts to spread the tripartite approach to social and economic development to other international organizations. To this end, it has adopted a system of reciprocal representation in the major meetings of the United Nations and its specialized agencies.
     In recent years the ILO has focused greater attention on promoting the tripartite approach in developing policies with the international financial institutions. For example, in 1987, the ILO initiated a dialogue with the Bretton Woods institutions. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund participated in the High-Level Meeting on Employment and Structural Adjustment alongside government, worker and employer members of the ILO's Governing Body. Lately, the Bretton Woods institutions have shown greater acceptance of the need for, and usefulness of the participation of the social partners in structural adjustment programmes, and are increasingly emphasising the fact that sustainable reform programmes require the support of workers and employers.
     The ILO has been promoting social dialogue to ensure that the process of globalization and liberalization of trade and investment will take account of the corresponding need to ensure decent work. In this regard, it is noteworthy to recall that the Social Summit on Social Development in Copenhagen in 1995 outlined the fundamental workers' rights and affirmed their significance within the context of the rapid global changes that are taking place. Social dialogue has also been pursued with the World Trade Organization which, at its Singapore conference in 1996, underlined the role of the ILO in dealing with core labour standards.
     An active form of social dialogue has for long been promoted through the international trade union movements, particularly the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions and its affiliated international trade secretariats. These international trade secretariats have in some cases been successful in concluding collective agreements and codes of conduct with their respective transnational companies. Examples of these are the 1994 agreement reached between the Food, Agriculture and Allied Workers International (IUF) and the French-based food conglomerate Danone covering trade union rights and training opportunities; the 1998 agreement between the International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers' Unions (ICEM) and the World Chlorine Council in Montreal covering, among other things, the role and legitimacy of trade union rights and the need for good faith in labour-management relations; and the case of employers and workers in commerce, textiles and clothing and the footwear industries in the European Union, where a code of conduct for this sector was based on the core international labour Conventions. Another example is that of the International Federation of Commercial, Clerical, Professional and Technical Employees (FIET), which, in 1997, reported that it was involved in negotiations for the setting up of of works councils in more than one hundred multinational enterprises operating within the European Union and that a few agreements had already been signed.

XI. The ILO and the Promotion of Social Dialogue
     Up to this point we have attempted to define what is meant, at least in current ILO terms, by social dialogue, the prerequisites for the effective use of the process of dialogue, the obstacles that can stand in the way of the success of the process and the institutional arrangements that are required if such dialogue is to be beneficial to all the parties involved. The concept of tripartism has been the bedrock of the ILO since its inception in 1919, and the Organization remains convinced that the experience of those nations in which tripartite arrangements are in place clearly demonstrates the considerable economic and social benefits that flow from constructive interaction between the State, employers and workers. The ILO remains equally convinced that the absence or weakness of tripartite arrangements can only have negative consequences for a society both in terms of economic performance and social stability.
     In the light of these concepts the ILO has proceeded over the years to formulate and adopt a number of international labour standards on the approaches and policies for the promotion of the rights and mechanisms that are essential to ensure meaningful and beneficial dialogue between the social partners and between them and the State. The elaboration and adoption of these international instruments are in themselves interesting examples of real tripartite dialogue in action at the international level. Instruments, or Conventions, are normally adopted by the International Labour Conference as a whole only after several years of preliminary work by the Office, tripartite debates in the Governing Body and two years of intense tripartite debate in the Conference. They are, therefore, instruments which contain broad guarantees for worker protection in the field concerned and which oblige governments which ratify them to apply certain rules which they have indicated are generally acceptable. For their part, the employers make sure that the economic factors which these obligations may involve are fully taken into account during the Conference debates. The result is that none of the parties involved in their elaboration may be entirely satisfied with the final product. But the elaboration and adoption of these instruments is a quite brilliant example of tripartite deliberations at the international level, carried out in an atmosphere of compromise and good faith, and resulting in the adoption of instruments that contain solid obligations but which, at the same time, are sufficiently flexible as to be acceptable to a majority of countries.
     The basic premise for any industrial relations system is the right and freedom that both workers and employers must enjoy to form and join organizations of their own choosing in order to protect and defend their interests. Workers and employers need strong and representative organizations to serve as vehicles for their involvement or their participation in the social and economic development of their countries. These organizations are also the foundation stones of a stable industrial relations system. It is in this context, therefore, that freedom of association and protection of the right to organize and collective bargaining, as essential elements of human rights, assume significance.
     It is now more than fifty years since the ILO adopted two of the most famous and important Conventions which have in no way lost their relevance or validity and which continue today to provide the basic premise for a valid and lasting industrial relations system. These Conventions are the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No.87) and the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No.98). As at 1 January 2000, Convention No.87 had been ratified by 127 member States and Convention No.98 by no fewer than 145 member States. Although two of the most ratified of all the Conventions, however, they are not always respected and special complaints procedures have been created to deal with alleged violations of the principle of freedom of association in view of the special importance it has for labour relations and the effective operation of social dialogue.
     These Conventions are two of the seven core Conventions which are contained in the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work that was adopted by the Conference in 1998. This Declaration, which also includes other core labour Conventions concerning forced labour, child labour and discrimination, is an instrument which seeks to set out the universal social ground rules that were recognised by the international community, first at the 1995 Social Summit in Copenhagen, and echoed at the 1996 Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization in Singapore. The general commitment that was made by the ILO's member States in 1998 to respect the principles contained in the relevant Conventions was also an acknowledgement that the process of globalization was resulting in greater inequalities both within and between countries, and that greater respect for these principles could reduce the unequal economic and social realities that prevailed. Special importance has been attached to this Declaration and its follow-up procedures which were put into operation for the first time this year with reports on the two freedom of association Conventions being submitted by member States and examined and debated by the Governing Body and the Conference. Further reference will be made to these debates in regard to the countries involved in this regional seminar.
     A number of standards specifically deal with social dialogue, such as the Consultation (Industrial and National Levels) Recommendation, 1960 (No.113), the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No.144) and its accompanying Tripartite Consultation (Activities of the International Labour Organization) Recommendation, 1976 (No.152), the Labour Administration Convention, 1978 (No. 150) and accompanying Recommendation, 1978 (No. 158). Recommendation No.113, for example, states that " Measures appropriate to national conditions should be taken to promote effective consultation and cooperation at the industrial and national levels between public authorities and employers' and workers' organizations, as well as between these organizations for the purposes...of promoting mutual understanding and good relations...with a view to developing the economy as a whole or individual branches thereof, improving conditions of work and raising standards of living".
     These are some examples of how the ILO, through its legislative process, has sought to define and promote the precepts which form the basis of social dialogue. But, in order to reap the benefits of such dialogue it is, of course, necessary to give practical effect to these precepts through laws and practice that ensure the conditions in which the dialogue can take place. This means that Governments must provide a free and democratic system in which free, independent and competent organizations of employers and workers can freely negotiate, with the State also providing the legal framework within which this can be done; it also means creating an environment in which the results of the dialogue are fully respected by all the parties. Different countries with different histories, traditions and cultures may have widely varying ways of giving practical effect to these principles. But it should be clearly understood that there can be no variation of the principles themselves, for these are not only enshrined in the Constitution of the ILO itself, in Conventions, and now in the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, they have also been universally accepted as being applicable to all member States of the Organization.
     All the principles established in the instruments mentioned above were reconfirmed by the International Labour Conference in 1996 following a General Discussion on the subject of tripartite consultation at the national level on economic and social policy. The result of the Conference was the unanimous adoption of a set of conclusions that it might be useful to recall here.
     It is significant that the Committee of the Conference that was set up to examine the question recognised that the exacerbation of economic difficulties, globalization, the flexibilization of production methods and the diversification of the labour market -all these had made tripartite cooperation more difficult. An overall environment had been created that was not particularly favorable to tripartite cooperation. Concessions offered to trade unions in exchange for sacrifices were increasingly viewed as inadequate. The capacity of workers' and employers' organizations as parties to tripartite cooperation had been weakened. And an increasing number of decisions were now being taken at the enterprise-level as a result of the continuing trend towards the decentralization of collective bargaining.
     The future of tripartite cooperation as a means to achieve an equitable balance between economic and social imperatives seemed to depend on whether there was a political will to achieve that objective. On this point the Conference Committee recalled that such a political will had been reaffirmed only the previous year by all the countries participating in the Social Summit held in Copenhagen and in which it was emphasized that social progress would not be realized simply through the free interaction of market mechanisms. This needed to be complemented by public policies and cooperation between the State and the social partners. After a lengthy and intense debate the Conference concluded that:

1. Meaningful and effective tripartite cooperation cannot exist without a market economy and democracy.
2. That it is only through tripartite cooperation that compromises between economic and social imperatives have the greatest likelihood of being effectively implemented, thus promoting social peace and harmony.
3. That the major challenge of tripartite cooperation is to contribute effectively to resolving the problems resulting, in many countries, from the exacerbation of economic difficulties and the globalization of the economy as well as from the structural adjustment programmes that both have necessitated.
4. That one of the roles of tripartite cooperation should essentially be to reconcile the imperatives of social justice with those of enterprise competitiveness and economic development. It had to be borne in mind that tripartite consultation should be used not only in adverse, but also in favourable economic circumstances.

     The Conference also re-emphasized the need for full respect for the right to organize, as well as the need for free, independent, representative, responsible and accountable organizations of workers and employers. It was also concluded that the ILO should take every initiative to promote tripartite consultation at the national or other appropriate levels.
     In response to the above conclusions the ILO has intensified its programme of activities and has sought, through its technical programmes at the regional and the national levels, to take whatever action may be necessary to promote the concept and improve the institutional capacity that is essential for it to be effective. The ILO, and its technical departments and multidisciplinary teams, have been carrying out programmes and activities in three main areas: (a) policy advice on the legislative framework that is necessary for social dialogue; (b) strengthening the processes of dialogue through institution- building; and (c) assisting in the flow of information and the determination of the content of dialogue. In many parts of the world member States have called upon the ILO for technical advice in the drafting of their labour laws, not only to ensure that they conform to ILO standards, but also to well-functioning labour relations systems. Workers and employers organizations have also requested the ILO to assist in the formulation of their proposals for legislative reform and to comment on existing proposals from their respective points of view. In certain countries in which there existed a centrally-planned economy the challenge has been to adapt their labour laws to the exigencies of a market economy. Many meetings and symposia have taken place on the development of tripartism and tripartite cooperation as well as fieldwork involving extensive exchanges with the tripartite constituents on ways to promote the concept. Seminars have offered the constituents the opportunity for an exchange of views and information on ways in which tripartite functions can best be promoted and improved. Training has also been given in the techniques and conduct of collective bargaining and basic training materials in the form of booklets have been developed for improving negotiating skills, workplace cooperation, conciliation and disputes settlement procedures.
     However, building effective social dialogue requires a focus not only on the inter-relationship among constituents but also on the separate effort that is needed to strengthen the individual organizations. The ILO's worker and employer representatives have been active in building procedural capacity (e.g. through training in negotiating skills) as well as along substantive lines as, for example, through training in wage determination or performance-based pay. Another major area of assistance has been that of dispute resolution procedures in which technical projects have been set up to develop or improve existing systems. Strengthening conciliation and labour inspection services and the capacity of labour court administrations has been another priority request by member States who are concerned to improve their labour relations. This has often been accompanied by training of conciliators, labour inspectors and labour court judges.
     Assistance has also been provided on the shape and content of social dialogue. This has mainly taken the form of meetings and policy advice on such questions as the impact of globalization and the liberalization of trade on national industrial relations systems, ways to maintain employment security, productivity improvement, performance-linked pay systems, alternatives to retrenchment in times of economic difficulty, wage determination and minimum wage systems.
     The above is an illustration of the huge variety of fields in which the ILO is being called upon to provide the necessary technical advice and assistance. The capacity of the ILO is limited but, in future, the demands and efforts of constituents to improve their performance in the application of core labour standards will have to be matched by a corresponding effort by the ILO to respond fully and efficiently to these demands. The Declaration on Fundamental principles and Rights at Work places a heavy obligation both on member States and on the ILO to take whatever measures may be necessary to ensure that the principles contained in that Declaration are effectively applied. That obligation includes the provision of technical assistance by the ILO, when requested, to assist member States to establish and promote all the institutional arrangements that are essential for the proper functioning of social dialogue.

XII. Social Dialogue in the Arabic-Speaking Countries
     In this section we shall attempt to analyze the extent to which legal and practical frameworks exist in those countries participating in this meeting for the effective practice of social dialogue, the problems or obstacles that might stand in the way of social dialogue and the ways in which any problems that are identified might be addressed and overcome. This analysis will be based on the various governments' responses to the ILO and its constitutional bodies in the fulfillment of reporting obligations under articles 19 and 22 of the Constitution and under the Follow-up procedure required by the Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. This method is particularly appropriate in a year in which the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has carried out a General Survey on the application of the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No.144) and the Tripartite Consultation (Activities of the International Labour Organization) Recommendation, 1976 (No.152).
     The year 2000 was also the year in which it was decided to devote the first Global Report under the Declaration's Follow-up procedures to freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining. This first Global report, entitled "Your Voice at Work", was submitted to and examined by the 2000 Session of the International Labour Conference. In addition, this analysis is based on the situation of the countries concerned in relation to the application of the relevant Conventions that have been ratified by them and the comments made by the Committee of Experts on the law and practice in these countries. Account will also be taken of any cases that have recently been, or are being dealt with by the Governing Body Committee on Freedom of Association.
     The conclusions that may be derived from such an analysis may not be complete or even entirely accurate. This is partly because of the absence of information about the legislative process in the countries concerned or incomplete information on the structures and functioning of tripartite bodies where these exist. The conclusions will, however, it is suggested, enable the meeting to identify at least some of the major problems that impede the effective practice of social dialogue and discuss ways in which these obstacles might be removed.
     It may be recalled that Governments are obliged, in accordance with the Follow-up procedure to the Declaration, to supply reports on all the core Conventions mentioned in the Declaration which they have not ratified, including Conventions Nos.87 and 98 concerning freedom of association and the right to organize and collective bargaining. It is these reports, along with reports supplied by Governments under article 22 of the ILO Constitution on ratified Conventions, that formed the basis of the examination made by the Governing Body in March 2000 of the application of the principles contained in the Declaration. It was these same reports, but limited to the subject of freedom of association and the right to organize and collective bargaining that formed the basis of the global report, "Your Voice at Work" that was reviewed by the Conference in June 2000.
     Once again, it should be underlined that there can be no social dialogue without freedom of association as defined in the relevant Conventions and as that concept has been interpreted by the ILO supervisory bodies over the last fifty years. These ILO bodies have, on many occasions, pointed out that, while there may be different practical ways of giving effect to freedom of association, depending on the cultures and traditions of different nations, there can be no question of any variation of the principles themselves which are now well-defined and which are equally applicable to all member States. Furthermore, it may also be recalled that, given the special importance of freedom of association and collective bargaining as underpinning tripartism and social dialogue, these principles are considered as being applicable to all member States by virtue of their adherence to the Constitution, whether or not they have formally ratified the relevant Conventions.
     The ratification rate of the eighteen countries participating in this meeting of Conventions Nos.87 and 98. This shows that only seven of the countries have ratified C.87 and eleven have ratified C.98. Of the remaining eleven States, however, which have not ratified C.87, no fewer than eight submitted reports under the Declaration procedures, with five submitting reports on C.98. This reporting rate is surprisingly good and encouraging in view of the fact that many of the countries concerned had had serious misgivings about the Declaration and had abstained in the vote on its adoption by the Conference in June 1998. Only two of the participating countries failed to supply any reports under the Declaration procedures, including reports on the freedom of association Conventions. On the other hand, no worker or employer organization in any of the countries concerned took advantage of their right to submit observations on the situation in their countries, a most unfortunate phenomenon but not one that was limited to the participating countries. From all the reports received, including the reports that have been submitted to date by ratifying countries, as well as observations received from one major international organization of workers, it is possible to identify a number of basic problems which, in many of the countries concerned, constitute fundamental obstacles to the free exercise of trade union rights, and hence to the possibility for social dialogue.
     In the first place, in a number of countries concerned, trade union rights are restricted or refused to various categories of workers such as public servants, foreign workers, domestic workers or agricultural workers. In view of the number of such workers, and in particular the fact that foreign migrants make up approximately forty per cent of the population of the Gulf States (roughly 11 million workers, including 2 million domestic workers ), this deprives many millions of workers of the most basic right to organize in order to protect and defend their interests, a right guaranteed by Convention no.87 to "all workers without distinction whatsoever". Indeed, in a number of countries, these workers are not only deprived of trade union rights but are also totally excluded for the coverage of the labour laws altogether. Consequently, it is obvious that there can be no question of these workers entering into any kind of social dialogue or having collectively the right to negotiate the terms and conditions of their employment. The possibility of exploitation and discontent among these categories of workers is, therefore, great, and already one country has recently experienced serious instability as a result of unemployment among its migrant worker population.
     Legislation in a number of countries also places other kinds of organizational restrictions on workers and even employers. In some countries, where the legislation would seem to permit some form of organization, but where, in practice, free trade unions are illegal or banned, explanations are sometimes advanced that the absence of trade unions is due to the special situation prevailing in the country, for example, where the Islamic Sharia serves as the Constitution of the country. Several countries indicate that, in addition to, or instead of trade unions, they have joint labour-management consultative committees to which worker and employer representatives are elected. The problem here is the manner in which these persons are elected, the control exercised by the authorities over the election process and restrictions on the activities of the workers' organizations. This question is fully examined in a recent case dealt with by the Committee on Freedom of Association involving one of the participating countries. Another serious organizational problem arises in some of the participating countries where a trade union monopoly situation is established by law, thus preventing workers and employers from exercising their right to form and join organizations "of their own choosing" as Convention No.87 requires. Such systems remove all independence from the trade union movement and place it effectively under the control of the government or the ruling party. It is difficult to imagine any kind of serious dialogue taking place in such situations.
     There are also instances where the previous authorization of the government is required before a trade union or an employers' organization can be set up, and interference in the free choice of representatives and other activities, including, in particular, the right to strike. In some participant countries workers can be, and are systematically arrested and imprisoned for exercising their legitimate right to strike. In the field of collective bargaining there are also many restrictions including the need for prior authorization of the authorities before a collective agreement can come into force, or a provision in the legislation that no agreement can come into effect if it does not take account of the national economic interest. There are, in addition, examples of compulsory arbitration without any recourse being possible to more voluntary procedures such as mediation and conciliation or even voluntary arbitration. This type of restriction places a virtual prohibition on the right to strike. Needless to say, where there are no trade unions or employers' organizations there can be no collective bargaining. In such cases, the governments concerned can hardly be seen as fulfilling their obligation to promote the free and voluntary negotiation of conditions of work between employers and workers.
     It may be concluded that, while freedom of association and collective bargaining are, to some degree, enjoyed in some of the countries participating in this meeting, in others, serious restrictions are placed on these rights. Since their enjoyment is a prerequisite for effective social dialogue there can be no question of achieving such dialogue unless and until solutions have been found to these problems. For they are real problems not only for the workers and employers concerned but for the countries as a whole. Both social and economic development depend, and will increasingly depend on the democratization of societies and the existence of democratic institutions such as trade unions and employers' organizations that are free to operate as such are essential in that process.
     As mentioned above, at its 1999 Session, the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations carried out a General Survey on the application of the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No.144) and corresponding Recommendation. This Survey was fully discussed during the 2000 International Labour Conference. As regards the participant countries, the ratification rate for this Convention is shown in Annex 2 to this report. The table also shows the extent of compliance with the Constitutional obligation to report on the application of non-ratified Conventions and Recommendations. Disappointingly, only four of the participating countries have ratified Convention No.144, a Convention designated by the Governing Body as a "priority" Convention. That said, however, it is encouraging to note that eleven of the participating countries submitted reports on the application of the Convention and an equal number sent reports on the application of the Recommendation. This would seem to indicate a fresh interest in establishing or strengthening dialogue at least on matters that relate to ILO standards, and perhaps even an interest in dialogue on broader issues of social and economic development. Some countries have indicated that it is their intention to ratify the Convention and are taking appropriate steps to do so through their legislative bodies. Others advance organizational or administrative reasons for the non-ratification of the Convention, to many of which the Committee of Experts has responded and provided advice to the countries concerned in order to facilitate ratification. Those countries that have ratified would all appear to have special consultative or even national tripartite committees or other types of advisory bodies to consider the matters covered by the Convention.
     A total of 93 countries have now ratified Convention No.144 and the Committee of Experts, in its Survey, was satisfied to observe that consultation procedures, in one form or another, exist in the large majority of member States, including those which have not ratified the Convention, and that these procedures are being further extended to more and more areas of ILO activities. Significantly, many countries are now emphasizing the reinforcing effect of social dialogue on harmonious relations between governments and the social partners, as well as on the process of the democratization of public life. The Committee noted that, while a number of countries did experience difficulties in ratifying the Convention, these difficulties related not so much to a lack of political will, but mostly to the most appropriate form of consultation, to the representativeness of employers' and workers' organizations, to problems arising from the transition to political pluralism and the market economy, or inadequate administrative or financial resources.
     It is clear that, for the majority of the countries participating in this meeting, the problems related to the free exercise of trade union rights and collective bargaining that have been briefly mentioned above constitute major obstacles to the ratification of Convention No.144 as well as to the exercise of social dialogue. Matters relating to ILO standards are of the utmost importance in the life of the Organization and for its membership. Of equal importance is the need for all matters relating to ILO standards to be addressed by the Organization and by its individual member States on a tripartite basis. It is for this reason that the ratification of Convention No.144 is important. Moreover, ratification of the Convention, in addition to ensuring that standards-related matters are reviewed by tripartite bodies, should also be regarded as a step in the process of promoting tripartite consultation on other issues that are necessary for development in general.

XIII. Concluding Remarks
     The participating countries in this meeting are mostly developing countries with considerable economic and employment problems which they are finding increasingly difficult to solve. All are having to face a global situation which requires open markets, freer access to goods and services, and the capacity to adapt to the rapid changes that are taking place in the world economy as a result of technological advances and an evolving trading system. Their capacity to meet these challenges with some success will depend not only on the political will of these countries to embrace the free market system and a greater liberalization of trade but also, and more particularly, on the strategies and structures they put in place to meet these challenges. Nor should it be forgotten that economic and employment problems inevitably produce social pressures which also must be addressed if any kind of progress is to be made in the development of economies. It is at their peril that governments ignore or fail to deal with social pressures and there are a number of recent examples of the consequences of such failure.
     The argument has been made throughout this paper that it is through various forms of social dialogue that social, economic and employment issues can best, and most successfully be addressed. More particularly, and basing its view on the fundamental principle of tripartism, the ILO would argue that it is only through a democratic process of consultation with free, independent and representative organizations of employers and workers that governments can hope to achieve their social and economic objectives. Indeed, perhaps at no time in the past has regard for social dialogue and tripartite approaches to economic and social problems been more important or relevant. The example of the recent Asian crisis provided ample evidence of how the absence or weakness of relevant social structures and institutions could seriously aggravate the consequences of the crisis and retard efforts to find solutions to the social and labour problems that the crisis brought in its wake. Proper collective negotiation between labour and management could undoubtedly have reduced the huge number of lay-offs that took place; adequate social security systems could have alleviated the poverty and misery that ensued; and effective labour inspection and employment services could have been employed to settle disputes and keep unemployment to a minimum. In other words, the instruments of dialogue were missing and the consequences of that extremely damaging. The question must, therefore, be posed by each country whether the legal and practical arrangements are in place to ensure that social dialogue can effectively take place, not only in a situation of crisis but also as an instrument that is constantly available for social and economic progress.
     First and foremost, governments must ensure that there is full respect for the principles of freedom of association and collective bargaining. Without free, independent and representative trade unions and employers' organizations social dialogue is meaningless. There are many ways in which governments can encourage and promote such organizations and they should see this as being in their interests as well as those of the nation as a whole. It is also incumbent upon governments actively to promote the free and voluntary settlement of conditions of work through collective negotiation which, as we have seen, is a bilateral form of social dialogue, with the government playing the role of provider of the legislative framework and conciliator and arbiter if necessary. This bipartite interaction between employers and workers is also of major importance in any democratic society.
     In their efforts to achieve social dialogue governments, employers and workers should make every use of the technical and other services that the ILO can place at their disposal. A number of ways in which the Office can assist have already been mentioned. Given the importance attached to the promotion of social dialogue as a strategic objective, the Office will be making special efforts to provide assistance to countries which require programmes that will enable them to make progress in this field. Practically all the countries involved in this meeting need both legislative and practical assistance to strengthen the bases on which social dialogue must be established, and the ILO stands ready to make this assistance available to those countries which show a genuine willingness to improve their situations.
     A number of countries are now experiencing profound political change and it is interesting and encouraging to hear the new and younger leaders speak of the absolute necessity of adapting to the changes that are taking place in the world, by making their countries more democratic, more transparent and more oriented to the realities of the market. They also emphasize the need to involve society as a whole in questions affecting the nation. This is sound advice to all the countries represented at this meeting. If countries wish to enter the modern world many will have to turn their backs decisively on the past and embrace such concepts as the rule of law as the foundation of both democracy and economic prosperity, freedom of association and social dialogue. The social and economic consequences could be grave for those which do not.