Comment JAN SVENJAR

Cornell University Everett Kassalow's paper represents a valuable discussion of the factors underlying the potential for "free riderism" and the relative absence of the closed and union shop in most Western European countries. Given that he devoted the first-third of his paper to reviewing the treatment of unions in "main-line economics," I shall adopt the same point of departure for my commentary. I agree emphatically with Professor Kassalow's assertion that economists, both here and abroad, have difficulty in integrating trade unions into main-line economic theories. I believe, however, that this difficulty does not stem (or at least not any more) from personal concern about the "unions' economic policies and impact" on the functioning of free markets. It arises rather from the extreme complexity and diversity of the institutional structure of unions. The existence of the union economic effects is not bothersome to most modern labor economists. In contrast to Alfred Marshall, they entered the profession when trade unions had already been well established and here to stay. The questions that modern labor economists find intriguing relate to the occurrence, dynamics, and magnitude of the various economic effects of unionism. Absence of the unions' economic impacts would make further economic (although not necessarily political and sociological) inquiry in this field by and large unnecessary. It would also eliminate any need to integrate unions into "main-line economic theories." Perhaps another way to look at the transition from the older schools of thought to modern labor economics is to view it as a gradual change from a normative to a more positive approach in labor economics. This view is supported by Clark Kerr's (1978, p. 138) description of the postwar labor economics as becoming "both more unified in outlook and more neutrally professional in approach." This leads me to Professor Kassalow's assertion that, curiously enough, only in the United States (as opposed to Europe) did the "writhing and struggling with the unions' role in modern economic society reach the stage of spawning competing schools of labor economics." Suppose Professor Kassalow's observation about the advent of competing schools of labor economics in the United States is correct. Then, given that (1) strike intensity (measured by the number of man-days lost) is much lower in most European countries than in the U.S. ' and (2) trade unions in continental Europe have historically placed ~See Everett Kassalow, "Industrial Conflict a n d C o n s e n s u s in the United States and Western Europe: A Comparative A n a l y s i s , " Industrial Relations Research Association, 30th Annual Proceedings, December 1977, p. 114. W h e n measured in terms of frequency (number of strikes per year), " t h e U.S. is less of a ' l e a d e r ' . . . " (ibid., p. 115). This, of course, m e a n s that in m a n y European countries the average strike has a shorter duration t h a n in the U.S. M a n y o f the shorter strikes are political in nature (e.g. a one-hour strike expressing solidarity with workers in other countries) and historically have been classified as such in national statistical yearbooks. JOURNAL OF LABOR RESEARCH Volume 1, Number 2 Fall, 1980

JAN SVENJAR

341

relatively more emphasis on political, rather than economic policies and impacts, one should not be surprised by the relative absence of competing schools of labor economics in Europe. In fact, should such schools emerge, they logically ought to be formed more along political-ideological rather than economic lines. Casual empirical evidence supports this hypothesis. Not only is the political-ideological spectrum relatively fuller and wider in Europe, but even the economic faculties at most of the universities can be more easily differentiated on the basis of ideological rather than strictly economic lines of thought. Another logical deduction from Professor Kassalow's observation is of interest. If the competing schools of labor economics emerged in the U.S. as a result of the "writhing and struggling with the unions' role" in society, then the relative lack of such writhing and struggling in the recent past may have been an important factor in the rise of a relatively homogeneous group of modern labor economists. Before turning to the European situation let me make one more brief comment on the relationship between analytical and institutional labor economics as I see it developing in the U.S. While it is true that modern "analytical labor economics" has replaced the traditional institutional approach to labor problems in the leading economics departments, it must be realized that modern labor economics represents a synthesis of strictly neoclassical and traditional institutional approaches. Speaking about the upcoming new labor economics Albert Rees (1971, p. 3) defined the field as follows: "It will be more eclectic in method and more powerful. Its best practitioners will combine a knowledge of institutions with skill in theory and in econometrics so that they can be both relevant and rigorous." There is no doubt that this process is taking place. At the same time it must be remembered that modern labor economics is still in its infancy and therefore has not yet been applied to all industrial and labor relations issues. Moreover, attempts to apply it in the European systems of industrial relations are only commencing now. The discussion of the free rider as well as the union and closed shop issues in Western Europe rests on an impressive body of evidence and reflects Professor Kassalow's profound knowledge of the European industrial and labor relations scene. Given the space and time limit, most issues are dealt with in sufficient detail and extensive care has been taken to point out important exceptions to the general rules. The importance of class sentiments, ideology and religion is given due weight in identifying the factors behind the relative absence of closed and union shops. In addition to socialism, one might also mention syndicalism as a leading ideology, at least in France, Italy and Spain. I am very glad that Professor Kassalow not only noted, but actually traced through historically the fundamental divergence of Britain from the general continental pattern of industrial and labor relations. Many labor economists (and economists in general) often do not quite realize that, by replicating earlier American tests in Britain, they do not necessarily obtain general results for Western Europe as a whole. The fact that some of the British institutions of

342

JOURNAL OF LABOR RESEARCH

industrial and labor relations resemble more their American, rather than continental, counterparts is very instructive. Since some of the historically determined aspects of the European systems of industrial and labor relations are generally familiar, I wish Professor Kassalow had placed slightly more emphasis on the recent developments - - in particular the various moves aimed at discouraging free riders and the increased cooperation between the employers, unions, and perhaps even the government in this area. It would have also been useful to devote more discussion to the role of works' or workers' councils as well as the other forms of employee representation in European enterprises that have been increasingly coming into existence. Since at least in principle these bodies represent all the workers in the enterprises (and not just the unionized ones) and do not fully coincide with the unions, their effects on free riderism and the occurrence of a union or closed shop is worth more attention. Overall, Professor Kassalow's paper represents a superb contribution to the understanding of the existence and nature of free riderism, the relative absence of union and closed shop, and the factors underlying European industrial and labor relations in general. One cannot but have great respect for the author's scholarship and contribution in this area.

REFERENCES Kassalow, Everett, "Industrial Conflict and Consensus in the United States and Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis," Industrial Relations Research Association, 30th Annual Proceedings, December 1977, pp. 113-122. Kerr, Clark, "Industrial Relations Research: A Personal Retrospective," Industrial Relations, Vol. 17, May 1978, pp. 131-142. Rees, Albert, "The Current State of Labour Economics," Industrial Relations Centre, Queen's University at Kingston, Ontario, Reprint Series No. 16, 1971, pp. 1-6.