IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ecoind/v36y2015i4p677-699.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Post-communist state measures to thwart organized labor: The case of Romania

Author

Listed:
  • Mihai Varga

    (Freie Universitaet, Berlin)

  • Annette Freyberg-Inan

    (Technical University Darmstadt The Netherlands)

Abstract

This article supplements the literature on post-communist trade unions with an account of how state measures can affect union strength in post-communist Europe. The authors focus on the case of Romanian trade unions, which is exceptional in post-communist Europe in that it is possible to rule out lack of protest capacity as a cause for weakness of policy influence: Romanian unions have maintained a high protest capacity throughout the transition. However, this protest capacity has translated into influence over national economic policy and labor-relevant legislation only throughout the 1990s, and much less so in the 2000s and beyond. The authors examine the reasons for the trade unions’ diminishing influence over national policies and observe a refinement of government measures to render protest ineffective. Key measures include a reduction of the unionized labor force, especially in protest-prone sectors, the de-coupling of plant-level protests from national mobilizations, the granting of selective concessions dividing organized labor, and, more recently, efforts to employ legal changes and state agencies to apply pressure on union leaders.

Suggested Citation

  • Mihai Varga & Annette Freyberg-Inan, 2015. "Post-communist state measures to thwart organized labor: The case of Romania," Economic and Industrial Democracy, Department of Economic History, Uppsala University, Sweden, vol. 36(4), pages 677-699, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:ecoind:v:36:y:2015:i:4:p:677-699
    DOI: 10.1177/0143831X14548770
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0143831X14548770
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0143831X14548770?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Haney, Michael & Shkaratan, Maria, 2003. "Mine closure and its impact on the community : five years after mine closure in Romania, Russia and Ukraine," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3083, The World Bank.
    2. Christopher J. Coyne & Peter T. Leeson, 2004. "The Plight of Underdeveloped Countries," Cato Journal, Cato Journal, Cato Institute, vol. 24(3), pages 235-249, Fall.
    3. Ionica SOARE & Otilia MAN & Silviu COSTACHIE & Adrian NEDELCU, 2010. "Viticultural Potential And Vine Tourism In Romania," Revista de turism - studii si cercetari in turism / Journal of tourism - studies and research in tourism, "Stefan cel Mare" University of Suceava, Romania, Faculty of Economics and Public Administration - Economy, Business Administration and Tourism Department., vol. 10(10), pages 68-74, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Brouthers, Lance & Văduva, Sebastian & Tiron-Tudor, Adriana & Burtic, Daniel, 2023. "The Transformation of the Romanian Economy Through Privatization and Internationalization," Journal of East European Management Studies, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 28(2), pages 265-292.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Raymond J. March & Adam G. Martin & Audrey Redford, 2016. "The substance of entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurship of substances," Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 5(2), pages 201-220, August.
    2. Raquel Ortega-Argilés, 2022. "The evolution of regional entrepreneurship policies: “no one size fits all”," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 69(3), pages 585-610, December.
    3. Aleksandra Kozłowska-Woszczycka & Katarzyna Pactwa, 2022. "Social License for Closure—A Participatory Approach to the Management of the Mine Closure Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-26, May.
    4. Madhuri Mahato & Julie Vardhan, 2022. "The spatial distribution of self-employment — evidence from Jharkhand," Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Springer;UNESCO Chair in Entrepreneurship, vol. 12(1), pages 291-304, December.
    5. Achim D. Schmillen, 2020. "Causes and Impacts of Job Displacements and Public Policy Responses," World Bank Publications - Reports 33720, The World Bank Group.
    6. John Ntema & Lochner Marais & Jan Cloete & Molefi Lenka, 2017. "Social disruption, mine closure and housing policy: evidence from the Free State Goldfields, South Africa," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 41(1), pages 30-41, February.
    7. Peter T. Leeson, 2008. "Escaping Poverty: Foreign Aid, Private Property, and Economic Development," Journal of Private Enterprise, The Association of Private Enterprise Education, vol. 23(Spring 20), pages 39-64.
    8. Naudé, Wim, 2011. "Entrepreneurship is Not a Binding Constraint on Growth and Development in the Poorest Countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 33-44, January.
    9. Leeson, Peter T. & Boettke, Peter J., 2009. "Two-tiered entrepreneurship and economic development," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 252-259, September.
    10. Elert, Niklas & Stenkula, Mikael, 2020. "Intrapreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and Destructive," Working Paper Series 1367, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    11. Ajay K Garg & Phillip NT Phaahla, 2018. "Factors Affecting the Business Performance of Small Businesses in Sekhukhune," Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, AMH International, vol. 10(4), pages 54-67.
    12. Gerhard Wegner, 2019. "Entrepreneurship in autocratic regimes – how neo-patrimonialism constrains innovation," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 29(5), pages 1507-1529, November.
    13. Elissaios Papyrakis, 2007. "A Development Curse: Formal vs. Informal Activities in Resource-Dependent Economies," DEGIT Conference Papers c012_027, DEGIT, Dynamics, Economic Growth, and International Trade.
    14. Claudia Williamson, 2010. "Exploring the failure of foreign aid: The role of incentives and information," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 23(1), pages 17-33, March.
    15. Boettke, Peter J. & Coyne, Christopher J., 2009. "Context Matters: Institutions and Entrepreneurship," Foundations and Trends(R) in Entrepreneurship, now publishers, vol. 5(3), pages 135-209, March.
    16. Djula Borozan & Josip Arneric & Ilija Coric, 2017. "A comparative study of net entrepreneurial productivity in developed and post-transition economies," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 855-880, September.
    17. E. Colombatto, 2006. "On economic growth and development," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 19(4), pages 243-260, December.
    18. Lochner Marais & Etienne Nel, 2016. "The dangers of growing on gold: Lessons for mine downscaling from the Free State Goldfields, South Africa," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 31(1-2), pages 282-298, February.
    19. Trubnikov, Dmitrii, 2021. "What entrepreneurship is really “productive”? An alternative view on Baumol's typology," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 16(C).
    20. Russell S. Sobel & Nabamita Dutta & Sanjukta Roy, 2014. "Does fiscal decentralization result in a better business climate?," Chapters, in: Robert F. Salvino Jr. & Michael T. Tasto & Gregory M. Randolph (ed.), Entrepreneurial Action, Public Policy, and Economic Outcomes, chapter 9, pages 151-176, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:ecoind:v:36:y:2015:i:4:p:677-699. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ekhist.uu.se/english.htm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.