The future of social dialogue?
ESCs working in a more diverse and polarised environment
th
Annual meeting of secretaries-general: May 12-13 2011
Europe’s Economic and Social Councils (ESCs) are extremely varied, both with regard to their history and
to how they operate. What ESCs have in common is their effort to help give direction and substance –
through social dialogue (in any case between employers and unions) – to the socio-economic
development of their countries. The recent economic crisis has put social-economic issues at the top of
the political agenda in every European country. This entails many opportunities for social dialogue but, at
the same time, ESCs and institutionalised social dialogue are confronted with new obstacles on their way
to achieving consensus. In many European countries relations between social partners seem to sharpen.
This sharpening is related to the often harsh economic measures governments are preparing. But it is
also linked to the polarisation of politics and society in general and the public’s decreasing confidence in
dialogue and consensus forming.
These changing conditions provide the basis for what we hope will be an interesting and worthwhile
discussion by the SGs of the European ESCs on the future of social dialogue. Can we transform
challenges into success? And, if so, how?
The world around us is constantly changing ...
In recent years, we have been witness to a multitude of simultaneous and in part related social changes. Since
the 1980s, we have found ourselves in the “third phase” of globalisation. A phase characterised by a broadening
of the process of globalisation – more countries are now involved – and a more extensive integration of markets,
in particular due to cutting up of operational processes and increasing capital mobility. Nation states find
themselves more and more confronted by issues that go beyond their borders.
... the economic crisis has left serious consequences ...
The global economic crisis has hit Europe hard. Growth levels have shrunk, unemployment has grown
dramatically, and fiscal balances have tilted to the (far) negative. As a result, Europe‟s policy agendas are
dictated by the need for reform. Besides improved monitoring of the financial sector, social-economic reforms are
at the top of the political agenda. The established tradition of social partnership between employers and unions in
many European countries presupposes adequate room for social dialogue before deciding on major socialeconomic reforms.
... while anti-political sentiments flower ...
Over the past twenty years, however, there has been increasing criticism of “established politics”, and we have
recently seen the rise of populism and a wide-ranging public debate on the integration of immigrants into society.
Politicians at national level are often accused of procrastination, of ignoring the interests of the public, of
“backroom politicking”, and of playing political games. This anti-political sentiment threatens many other related
bodies, including the parties involved in social dialogue. There seems to be little scope for recognition of the fact
that political decision-making is by its very nature a complicated process, a quest for compromises between
different interests in which understanding the other side‟s position is a precondition for finding solutions.
... and confidence dwindles away ...
All this seems to be accompanied by the widespread conviction that the elite are dishonest and mainly engaged in
pursuing their own interests. This is a problem for our leaders and to a certain extent also for all those who
represent us. At the same time, there is a call for new leadership, and many anxious citizens expect a great deal
of government, which they believe should remove all risk from their lives. The much-discussed gap between the
citizen and government/politicians also expresses itself in a perceived decrease in confidence in institutions and
social trust. The extent of this decrease varies, however, from one European country to another. In the
Netherlands, for example, confidence in institutions would in fact seem to have increased between 2002 and
2008. The majority of the Dutch population trust other people and national and international institutions,
particularly trade unions and large companies.
….and we feel less and less of a bond with “established” parties or groups.
Throughout all of this, finally, there are of course also wider, long-term social trends such as individualisation
which leads to less well-established and valued practices of „representation‟ (by unions and employers‟
associations) at the national level. This is accompanied by significant labour market changes (greater flexibility
and greater participation), and technological developments (ICT and social media and their impact on social
dialogue).
What does all this mean for the future of social dialogue and ESCs?
Social dialogue could provide governments with advice on the direction, timing and specifics of the important
social-economic reforms that are at the top of the political agenda. At the same time the complex of social trends
described above has its effect on social dialogue. But what do these trends precisely mean for the future of
employers‟ organisations and trade unions in different countries, and for the possibilities open to them at the
tables of our ESCs for reaching agreement on crucial policy issues? What demands does all this make on an
ESC, and what changes are necessary in the way an ESC works? What can we learn from one another and what
inspiration can we offer one another?
During the May meeting of secretary-generals we would like to discuss the challenges that ESCs in
different countries are facing and how ESCs can deal with them. The agenda of our meeting would focus
on what these challenges mean for the day-to-day operation of ESCs. In other words: how resilient is the
institutionalised social dialogue we represent, and how are ESCs adapting their working methods in
response to changes in society at large?
Specific issues to discuss at our meeting of SGs could be:
-
Changes in the context. What are the most significant issues/changes in the societal and/or economic
context that influence the position of your ESC and/or its day to day workings in dealing with polarisation and
in trying to come to consensus? The opening session by prof. Jelle Visser will be largely dedicated to the
challenges that social dialogue faces in the year 2011.
-
Changes in legitimacy and/or parties involved. Have changes occurred in the (perceived) legitimacy of ESCs,
e.g, as a consequence of declining representation by the members of the council? Have changes occurred in
the parties involved in advisory projects (e.g. a broader spectrum of interest groups)? How - by admitting
more full members to the council, by involving these parties in a consultation mode through hearings, or
otherwise?
-
Changes in the agenda. What – if any - changes have occurred in the way the agenda of an ESC is set? Did
the issues on the agenda change? How pro-active (or passive) is your ESC?
-
Changes in working methods. Did your ESC introduce innovations in meetings and/or consultations? How
does your ESC use new forms of ICT or social media in the advisory projects?