INTRODUCTION: 75 YEARS OF THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR REVIEW , A RETROSPECTIVE
A retrospective can be a healthy reminder of the continuity of ideas, the recurrence of problems and the possibility of progress. These are among the reasons for offering our readers highlights of articles 1 published in the International Labour Review over its 75-year history. 2 As the 20th century draws to a close, change seems so rapid and crises so prevalent that one may be forgiven for assuming that lessons from the past are few, that new solutions must be found. Yet the design of a global project for the achievement of social justice in a world where social conflict is rampant, the analysis of options for confronting mass unemployment, the outline of social policy to maintain social cohesion, and the importance of employment for self-esteem - themes taken up many years ago on the pages of the Review - demand our urgent attention today. This issue brings together for easy reference a selection of published articles where these themes among others were addressed and solutions suggested.3 By so doing, it also reveals something of the enduring role of the Review in disseminating the ideas of leading thinkers on major economic and social issues and encouraging informed debate on policy options.
This special issue opens (as did the first issue of the Review) with a ringing statement of the reasons for an international labour organization, by its first Director, Albert Thomas. Why create an ILO? What is its real value? Then (as now) questions were raised as to the utility of such an international body. Its future was not assured. But visionaries seldom have an easy path: failed visions are soon forgotten, some are an eternity in coming, the struggles behind the successes lost from view. All of the articles reproduced here relate in some way to those struggles.
The context in which those struggles were first addressed by the ILO was one where, for many countries, the very social and political order was in doubt. Peaceful as against violent change was nowhere assured. At present, when some question the role of the United Nations system as a whole and the value of any other than purely technical international organizations, it is appropriate to recall the stark alternatives that many societies confronted and the vision of a world order that was beginning to take shape. At its creation in 1919 the ILO became the institutional manifestation at the global level of the commitment to social justice. The initial attacks against it are highlighted by Thomas, writing for the Review less than two years later.
One unusual aspect of the ILO is its tripartite structure: trade union and employer representatives participate along with governments in its governing structures and in the annual International Labour Conference where Conventions are negotiated and adopted. There was not, of course, total agreement on the respective roles of capital and labour. J. Oudegeest, Secretary of the International Federation of Trade Unions, saw the opportunities for labour in the workers' rights declared in the Treaty of Peace signed at Versailles and institutionalized in the ILO. In the article reproduced here he underlines the central importance of consultation, and pledges his organizations' support to the ILO so long as it serves labour faithfully. In another article, John R. Commons, in commenting on workers' expectations as he saw them in his inquiry into successful experiments in labour management, argues that workers essentially want security in a good job, not any role in financial management; managers have responsibility to stockholders, the workers and the community. He reports on the beginnings of capitalism's self-cure, through accident prevention and health and unemployment insurance provided by the enterprise.
John D. Rockefeller Jr. articulates what might even today be seen as an enlightened view on the role of industrial leaders. He states that "the purpose of industry is quite as much the advancement of social well-being as the production of wealth." And he underlines the fact that "organised capital sometimes conducts itself in an unworthy manner, contrary to law and in disregard of the interest of both labour and the public. ... Likewise it sometimes happens that organisations of labour are conducted without just regard for the rights of the employer or the public." Emphasizing the need for labour to be organized he goes on to suggest institutional mechanisms to ensure workers' representation, and the content of an employee's bill of rights and an industrial creed.
The development of a body of international labour law was already under way. Ernest Mahaim, in the article reproduced here, provides a brief history of such law prior to the creation of the ILO, and then clarifies the relationship between national and international law, between the principles of national sovereignty and the community of States. As he points out, some situations fall readily into the international domain, such as the protection of foreign workers, but international labour law under ILO auspices goes much further, "because it aims at securing to the whole of the labouring portion of mankind a certain minimum of rights." The universality of the ILO - which some see as a sign of weakness - is, he argues, of enormous importance. "The final purpose of international labour law is to place beyond attack from international competition a minimum of conquests in the world of labour, such as shall constitute a human charter."
These articles from 1921, taken together, clarify the reasons for the creation of the ILO. They set out the vision, the tensions, and the distinct perspectives of capital and labour that then, as now, circumscribe economic and social policy and define the ILO as an institution. They also take up themes that recur on the pages of the Review: workers' protection and security, the role of international labour law, and the pursuit of cooperative solutions.
It is perhaps surprising to see in an article written in 1927 an explicit discussion of the pros and cons of what we would now call a social clause.4 Herbert Feis addresses the impact on international competition of regulating labour conditions by means of international labour standards. Recognizing the benefits of international competition for all countries, as a means of increasing national income and improving overall working conditions and earnings, he underlines the fact that it can nevertheless have destructive effects, as countries try to undercut foreign competition by reducing working conditions and as workers in affected industries face painful and slow adjustment to competition. International regulation can help to secure gains from growth for workers and prevent a depression of working conditions, he argues, but it can also lead to economic loss by restricting competition, raising prices to consumers, and hindering the advancement of the poorest countries relying on low cost labour. The persistence of these deep tensions is part of the reason why trade policy has frequently had space on the pages of the Review (see, e.g., the article by Jan Tinbergen in this issue). In addition, Feis provides insights into the process of compromise among and between representatives of workers, employers, rich and poor countries negotiating the adoption of international labour standards.
In 1935 many of the richer countries were in the depths of economic depression, experiencing mass unemployment and deflation. Sweden, however, experienced less of a decline and a more rapid recovery, and there was considerable interest at the time in the reasons for that superior performance. Bertil Ohlin, who had earlier prepared reports on the world depression and on unemployment in Sweden (and was later awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics.5 ), here analyses the causes of recovery in Sweden. In essence, Sweden applied a Keynesian model before Keynes, partly as a result of Ohlin's own contribution to macroeconomic policy analysis.6 A combination of exchange rate flexibility, monetary policy designed to lower real interest rates and encourage investment,expansionary fiscal policy with public borrowing to finance substantial deficits and productive public works, and supportive state policies for agriculture, all helped to reduce unemployment, to raise investment and to keep incomes from falling significantly.7 Ohlin goes on to examine policies to deal with future problems of employment and unemployment, arguing that it is highly important for the State and municipalities to be ready with a suitable economic policy in the event of need. In addition, he examines labour policy, including wage differentials adequate to ensure the employment of workers with lower skills, geographical mobility to facilitate adjustment, and the disincentive effects of public aid (in effect, a discussion of moral hazard) - all subjects of current debate.
The article by Abba Lerner reproduced here was "the first article ... to make Keynes' employment theory simple and generally intelligible".8 Lerner made major contributions, in his own right, to socialist economics, trade theory and welfare economics, e.g. on the development of market pricing for a decentralized socialist economy, the symmetry of export and import taxes, factor-price equalization, and his concept of low and high full employment (which evolved into the natural rate and then non-accelerating-inflation rate of unemployment). But here he explains the nature of Keynes' influential argument. Contrasting it with the prevailing orthodoxy of the classical economists, he explains why lowering money wages would not be sufficient to achieve full employment (the absence of involuntary unemployment): costs would fall but demand would fall by more, leading to the reversal of any gain in employment, unless at the new equilibrium, the rate of interest is lower. The central contribution concerns the determinants of investment - on which the level of employment depends. It is more efficient to act directly rather than indirectly on the rate of interest and consumption. "To seek the alleviation of depression by reducing money wages, rather than by directly reducing the rate of interest or otherwise encouraging investment or consumption,is to abandon the high road for a devious, dark, difficult and unreliable path ..." Apart from the central message, several fundamental Keynesian concepts are clearly defined, such as liquidity preference and the marginal efficiency of capital, and the fallacy of composition with respect to individual thrift and deficit spending explained. The debate engaged then (as now) on inflexibility as against inadequate aggregate demand as the primary cause of unemployment is critical to determining the cure.
In addition to its prescient economic policy in the early 1930s, Sweden is notable for the policy of family support that it adopted. Alva Myrdal - who was later awarded the Nobel Peace Prize - was closely associated with the development of a population policy in Sweden. In the article reproduced here, she explains the particular concerns in Sweden and the nature of policy recommended and applied. At the time (as now in some industrialized countries) there was concern with the progressive decline and ageing of the population. To design an effective family policy in a democratic society was a challenge. Overall, the policy endorsed was "a constructive synthesis ... of Neo-Malthusianism by sanctioning rational birth control, and ... the positive interest in population of the conservative group... in so far as the prevention of a cumulative decline is concerned". Given the economic burden of raising children, a key aspect of policy was the transfer of part of that burden from the family to the community. In discussing means of equalizing the cost of supporting children she addresses a number of broader issues of social policy, including arguments for benefits in kind vs. in cash, housing subsidies, education, the employment of married women and rural-urban inequalities. It is interesting to note the explicit link made between encouraging larger families and ensuring that married women had opportunities for remunerative work, the argument underlying the practical measures adopted to harmonize women's productive and maternal roles.
The nature of economic policy to maintain full employment was examined in the article by Michal Kalecki reproduced here. By way of background he provides a very simple exposition of national income accounts and the concept of net national product. He uses those tools to consider the appropriate fiscal policy stance in the United Kingdom and the United States, respectively, for the purpose of achieving full employment in the postwar period. By 1945 Kalecki had already established a substantial reputation through his work on business cycles, and he went on to make a significant contribution to growth theory and the operation of capitalist and socialist economies. On the question of employment, he analysed the political as well economic aspects of achieving and maintaining full employment in other writings from this period.9
There was an explosion in the number of nation states after the Second World War as former colonies gained their independence. Policies were formulated to achieve economic development and the field of development economics emerged. One dimension receiving much attention - then as now- was the rate of population growth. Many experts and politicians argued that controlling fertility was necessary for development, postulating a simple and direct relationship between reducing fertility and raising living standards. In 1974 several authors of Review articles (e.g. Harvey Leibenstein, Naval H. Tata and P. P. Narayanan) discussed family planning and population policy,including the role of trade unions and employers' organizations in implementing those policies.10 The subject of population and of demographic change in general is of course relevant to labour market analysis and, as such, has been a recurring theme in ILO research. The contribution to the debate reproduced here - written in 1953 by Colin Clark - reflects a different perspective, arguing that there is no simple relationship between an increase in population and improvement in living standards. Clark was a person of wide-ranging interests. A pioneer in the development of GNP (gross national product) estimates, he had turned to an analysis of the determinants of economic growth and the problems of inequality between rich and poor countries at the time he wrote for the Review.
By this time, recovery from the depression and the devastation of the Second World War was largely accomplished. Not only was the need felt for a range of social benefits, but the means were at last at hand for some countries, and the beginnings of support for the development of the less developed countries were visible. In his article reproduced here Paul Chu poses the question, "Is there any foundation for the belief that our age will be remembered chiefly as the first era in which large groups of people dared to consider making the ideal of welfare for all a practical objective instead of a Utopian dream?" In retrospect we know that the answer is partly in the affirmative. As a result of major improvements in welfare benefits (along with important gains in agricultural productivity and sanitation), life expectancy has increased enormously and many other indicators confirm astounding progress, even though the scourges of poverty and deprivation persist. But this was a time of transition. Chu addresses the contributions of employers and trade unions as well as other voluntary associations to the provision of benefits, and highlights the emergence of the Welfare State. Echoing a point heard in contemporary debate, he argues that "in an undertaking, as in the national economy, social investment is an essential part of economic development."
This was a time when all countries seemed on the road to industrialization - "a universal society toward which all peoples are marching" - as put in the article reproduced here by Clark Kerr,Frederick Harbison, John Dunlop and Charles Myers. They summarize the basic ideas and findings of a vast inter-university project to examine industrializing societies at all stages of development.They had re-examined the issue of labour protest and turned to a focus on the emergence of "the complex 'web of rules' which binds men together in new chains of subordination and creates a network of rights, obligations, and functions of workers, technicians, and managers in the hierarchy of far-flung private and governmental organisations". The common characteristics they highlight are an advanced level of technology (dependent on research and requiring investments), a wide range of skills (dependent on a functional educational system), large-scale organization (public and private), and a consensus which entails personal responsibility on the part of both workers and managers. The scale of their enquiry - and its influence - were unprecedented. 11 So it is perhaps not surprising that at least important elements of their predictions have been sustained. They foresaw a pluralistic industrial society "in which the struggle between uniformity and diversity continues, a society which is centralising and decentralising at the same time... [where] the State will not wither away". They saw two faces to this pluralistic industrialism: "industrial man the world over will probably acquire greater freedom in his personal life at the cost of greater conformity in his working life."
This was the 50th anniversary year of the ILO, thus a time of reflection and stock-taking. In 1919 it was thought that standard-setting would be the ILO's principal means of action, though even then Albert Thomas had a broader vision of the ILO's role. In the interim the ILO had adopted the Declaration of Philadelphia and gained a broader mandate to examine economic and financial policies;12 the number of member States had increased several fold. Yet the formulation of international labour standards remained a core function of the ILO. The article written on the occasion of the ILO's 50th anniversary by Nicolas Valticos and reproduced here explains in the clearest terms the nature and relevance of the ILO's standard-setting activity. He describes the purpose of international labour standards, the process of their adoption, and the means of giving them effect. As he points out, the original idea of international labour legislation is much older than the ILO, dating from the beginning of the industrial era. "The most powerful driving force behind the international regulation of labour questions is the ancient, undying instinct for justice." In parallel has been the desire to secure peace, which "is not a purely negative matter of absence of war but a positive concept requiring stable, just and balanced relationships both within and between countries".The third aim he underlines is to "ensure that competition [is] not at the workers' expense". Beyond those three aims, standards have served, he argues,to emphasize that economic policy is a means of achieving social objectives, to provide a guarantee against backsliding at the national level, and to guide governments in framing social policy. This overview of the ILO's standard-setting activity is as timely now as it was then.
Jan Tinbergen, who was awarded the first Nobel Prize in Economics, in 1969, participated in an ILO meeting at the end of that year to provide advice on the research priorities for its newly-created World Employment Programme.13 He addressed the relationship between international trade policy and the creation of employment. Restrictive policies - particularly with respect to trade in agricultural products and textiles - as well as the bias in trade barriers against more products of higher value added, ran counter to trade based on comparative advantage, in line with the Heckscher-Ohlin theory, he argues. In the article reproduced here he also explains the basis for ranking industries by relative factor intensity as a guide to achieving an optimal international division of labour. The main point he made "is that the biggest obstacle to the choice of industries for developing countries at the moment lies in the restrictive trade policies pursued by the developed countries" - though he is also critical of the obstacles created by less developed countries. His powerful arguments contributed to the progress made since in reducing trade barriers, but they are also a reminder of the gains in employment to be reaped from a less distorted trading system.
The article by Michael Todaro on migration in Africa included here speaks to a number of current themes, including rapid urbanization despite high urban unemployment and the determinants of migration. It is also striking to note the alarm sounded concerning urban problems at a time when the largest cities in Africa were a small fraction of their present size. The policy options he discusses are still current: in the short term, reducing factor-price distortions (where they exist), tripartite agreements to stimulate employment creation, and restrictions on migration; in the medium term, comprehensive incomes policies, technologies for expanding aggregate output, and public works; and, in the longer term, population policy and reducing technological dependence. His analysis sets out many of the central elements in policy aiming to achieve economic development and an improvement in living standards.
The subject of employment has been central to the role of the ILO since its creation. Most recently, the commitment to the pursuit of full, productive and freely chosen employment has been renewed and its feasibility persuasively argued.14 Amartya Sen - a creative thinker in economics and philosophy - addressed the issue of employment in a seminal work for the ILO in 1975, on which the article reproduced here was based. By characterizing employment in terms of its recognition, production and income aspects he made an enduring contribution to understanding the role of employment in modern life. That distinction has since been extended in some of his more recent writings in moral philosophy15 in terms of intrinsic and instrumental value, a fundamental point that contributes clarity to a wide range of policy choices and judgments. In this article he applies that distinction to an examination of alternative policies in developing countries, setting out a model for technological choice and employment policy under the (usual) conditions of partial ignorance.
This special issue closes16 with the reflections of Nicolas Valticos, not only on 75 years of the International Labour Review and its role (and 77 years of the ILO), but also on the directions in which the questions treated in the past are headed. Thus his new contribution to the Review constitutes a bridge to the future. It is a reminder that a clear sense of objective combined with vigilance and attention to evolving needs and exigencies constitute a recipe for progress toward social justice.
*****
While the articles have been presented here in chronological order there are recurrent themes, among which the central role of international labour standards in promoting respect for fundamental human and labour rights, and the critical importance of economic and financial policy for promoting full, productive and freely chosen employment and combatting unemployment. Taken together, the articles in this issue demonstrate the function of the International Labour Review in disseminating the results of innovative thinking, research and policies on economic and social issues and in promoting informed debate and policy formulation.
1 The articles - a few in their entirety, most abridged - are reproduced as they were published. Deletions (to make possible the inclusion of a larger number of articles) are indicated by [...]. Any editorial comments or explanations are presented within square brackets.Back to text
2 The International Labour Review and the Revue internationale du Travail were started in 1921, in fulfilment of the requirement of Part XIII, Article 396 of the Treaty of Peace (Versailles), 28 June 1919 that the ILO "edit and publish in French and English, and in such other languages as the Governing Body may think desirable, a periodical paper dealing with problems of industry and employment of international interest". The Revista Internacional del Trabajo was started only in 1930. Since 1994 it has been Review policy to publish the same material in the Spanish edition as in the French and English editions. Therefore a number of the articles published here appear in Spanish for the first time (those by Albert Thomas, J. Oudegeest, John R. Commons, Ernest Mahaim, John D. Rockefeller Jr., Herbert Feis, Bertil Ohlin and Alva Myrdal).Back to text
3 The reader is also referred to Vol. 134 (1994), No. 4 of the International Labour Review which, on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the ILO, included an editorial with extensive excerpts from articles published over the years. The emphasis in that selection was on articles dealing with the four subjects taken up by the authors invited to contribute to that issue, namely employment,labour law, social security and industrial relations.Back to text
4 For a very recent clarification of the issues involved in that debate, see the address of the ILO Director-General in the perspectives section of Vol. 135 (1996), No. 2 of the Review..Back to text
5 He is especially identified with developments in the theory of international trade and, in particular, what is known as the Heckscher-Ohlin theorem.Back to text
6 Both Ohlin and Kalecki claimed to have anticipated Keynes' findings.Back to text
7 The particular contribution of researchers on the ILO staff to economic policy in the 1920s and early 1930s is discussed in A. M. Endres and Grant Fleming: "International economic policy in the interwar years: The special contribution of ILO economists", in International Labour Review, Vol.135 (1996), No. 2.Back to text
8 Tibor Scitovsky, author of the biographical profile on Abba Ptachya Lerner in The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics (John Eatwell, Murray Milgate and Peter Newman, (eds.), London, Macmillan Press, 1987, Vol. 3, p.168).Back to text
9 See, for example, "Political aspects of full employment", in The Political Quarterly (London), Vol.14, Oct.-Dec., 1943, which sets out succinctly many of the main arguments of labour and capital, albeit from the perspective of a progressive.Back to text
10 See the "Editorial" in International Labour Review, Vol. 134 (1994), No. 4, pp. 442-444.Back to text
11 The project involved research in 35 countries and had, by the time of writing, led to the publication of 14 books and 23 articles. It was the point of reference for a major review of the subject 35 years later. See Richard Locke, Thomas Kochan and Michael Piore: "Reconceptualizing comparative industrial relations: Lessons from international research", in International Labour Review, Vol. 134(1995), No. 2.Back to text
12 For the background to the Declaration and its contents, see Eddy Lee: "The Declaration of Philadelphia: Retrospect and prospect", in International Labour Review, Vol. 133 (1994), No. 4.).Back to text
13 Sir W. Arthur Lewis summed up the views of the invited experts on what should be the research priorities ("Summary: The causes of unemployment in less developed countries and some research topics" in International Labour Review, Vol. 101 (1979), No. 5 (May), pp. 547-554).Back to text
14 See ILO: World Employment, 1996/97 (Geneva), which also contains the Conclusions concerning the achievement of full employment in a global context: The responsibility of governments, employers and trade unions, which were adopted by the 83rd Session of the International Labour Conference, June 1996.Back to text
15 See, for example, Inequality Re-examined (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1992).Back to text
16 There have been of course other significant articles published in the International Labour Review in its early years and since 1975. Those of the last 20 years are more readily available than are earlier articles: see the note at the end of the table of contents. The full English texts of the Review from 1921 through 1931 (vols. 1-24) have been reprinted by Schmidt Periodicals GmbH (Bad Feilnbach, Germany), which also has an agreement to reprint the texts through 1976 (vols. 25-114).Back to text
For further information, please contact: International Labour Review, ILO, CH-1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland - at Tel: +41.22.799.7903 or Fax: +41.22.799.6117 or +41.22.798.8685 or E-mail: revue@ilo.org