Doctoral Dissertation Research: United States and Canada Unionization Divergence

博士论文研究：美国和加拿大工会化分歧

• 批准号: 0902276
• 负责人: Kim Voss
• 金额: $ 1万
• 依托单位: University of California-Berkeley
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Standard Grant
• 财政年份: 2009
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2009-05-01 至 2010-04-30
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=0902276&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: Doctoral; Dissertation; Research; United; States

SES-0902276Kim VossBarry EidlinUniversity of California, BerkeleyWhy, after tracking each other closely from the 1800s through the mid-1960s, did Canadian and U.S. unionization rates diverge so dramatically in the following decades? Canadian unionization rates are now more than twice as high as in the U.S. The problem is even more puzzling when one considers that Canadian and U.S. workers share many of the same unions, and work for many of the same employers, which operate in very similar economic environments. Prior research on the U.S. and Canada unionization divergence has either too narrowly focused on proximate causes without seeking to understand their historical and institutional context, or too broadly identified essential differences in political cultures without specifying mechanisms linking cultural differences with institutional configurations and policy outcomes. This project examines the historical conditions surrounding labor policy formation and development in both countries, with a special emphasis on variations in the relative permeability of state institutions. The central research hypothesis is that more permeable state institutions in the U.S. allowed labor to have their policy goals incorporated into state policy more easily than their Canadian counterparts, but at the expense of creating a labor policy that was more politically contested and less institutionally stable over time. In contrast, the greater impermeability of Canadian state institutions forced unions to fight for labor policy reform from the outside. While this made it more difficult initially for Canadian unions to achieve their policy goals, once labor's political pressure brought protective labor legislation within the purview of state action, the same institutional impermeability had the effect of shielding Canadian labor?s gains, creating a policy regime that was less politically contested and more institutionally stable.Given established links between union strength and outcomes such as welfare policies, political landscapes, and socio-economic inequality, this research into the causes of diverging union strength can deepen our understanding of forces driving a much broader set of social indicators. At a more theoretical and scientific level, this study uses the empirical case of U.S. and Canadian unionization divergence to offer important insights into still poorly understood processes of institutional formation and development. Additionally, thanks to labor unions? unique position as organizations that operate both within and outside state institutions, this study allows us to develop a more sophisticated understanding of the complex interplay between state institutions, social mobilization, and government action. Finally, at a methodological level, this study highlights the importance of incorporating temporal analysis as a critical means understanding cross-national institutional differences.

SES-0902276Kim VossBarry Eidlin加州大学伯克利分校为什么在从 1800 年代到 1960 年代中期密切跟踪之后，加拿大和美国的工会化率在接下来的几十年里差异如此之大？加拿大的工会率现在是美国的两倍多。考虑到加拿大和美国的工人拥有许多相同的工会，并为许多相同的雇主工作，而这些雇主在非常相似的经济环境下运作，那么这个问题就更令人费解了。先前对美国和加拿大工会分歧的研究要么过于狭隘地关注直接原因，而不寻求了解其历史和制度背景，要么过于广泛地确定政治文化的本质差异，而没有具体说明将文化差异与制度配置和政策结果联系起来的机制。该项目考察了两国劳工政策形成和发展的历史条件，特别强调国家机构相对渗透性的变化。研究的核心假设是，与加拿大同行相比，美国更具渗透性的国家机构允许劳工将其政策目标纳入国家政策，但代价是制定的劳工政策随着时间的推移更具政治争议性和制度稳定性。相比之下，加拿大国家机构的更大的不可渗透性迫使工会从外部争取劳工政策改革。虽然这使得加拿大工会最初更难以实现其政策目标，但一旦劳工的政治压力将保护性劳工立法纳入国家行动的范围内，同样的制度不渗透性就会起到保护加拿大劳工利益的作用，从而创建一个政治争议较少、制度更加稳定的政策制度。 社会经济不平等，这项对工会力量差异原因的研究可以加深我们对驱动更广泛的社会指标的力量的理解。在更理论和科学的层面上，本研究利用美国和加拿大工会差异的实证案例，为人们仍知之甚少的制度形成和发展过程提供了重要见解。另外，感谢工会？作为在国家机构内部和外部运作的组织的独特地位，这项研究使我们能够对国家机构、社会动员和政府行动之间复杂的相互作用有更深入的理解。最后，在方法论层面上，本研究强调了将时间分析纳入理解跨国制度差异的关键手段的重要性。