Chủ Nghĩa Tập Thể Hà Lan: Liệu Nó Vẫn Hoạt Động? Hình Thành Chính Sách và Hiệu Suất Kinh Tế Vĩ Mô 1980–2005

Acta Politica - Tập 43 - Trang 308-332 - 2008
Jaap Woldendorp1, Lei Delsen2
1Department of Political Science, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2Department of Economics, Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Tóm tắt

Bài báo này thách thức phân tích về chủ nghĩa tập thể Hà Lan là một mô hình phát triển từ sự xơ cứng thể chế và đình trệ chính trị vào những năm 1980, đã biến đổi được Bệnh Hà Lan thông qua mô hình Polder thành Kỳ tích Hà Lan vào cuối những năm 1990. Bài báo giải quyết hai câu hỏi: Liệu chủ nghĩa tập thể có góp phần vào việc hình thành chính sách hiệu quả (Các Thỏa Thuận Trung ương) giữa năm 1980 và 2005? Liệu các Thỏa Thuận Trung ương có cải thiện hiệu suất kinh tế vĩ mô không? Thực tế là chủ nghĩa tập thể đã góp phần vào việc hình thành chính sách hiệu quả, nhưng có rất ít bằng chứng cho một mô hình tập thể không hiệu quả vào những năm 1980 hoặc cho một mô hình Polder có hiệu quả vào cuối những năm 1990. So sánh Hà Lan với các quốc gia thành viên khác của EMU cho thấy hiệu suất kinh tế vĩ mô của Hà Lan không nổi bật, không tiêu cực (cho thấy Bệnh Hà Lan) cũng không tích cực (Kỳ tích Hà Lan), và không liên quan trực tiếp đến hành vi của chính phủ và "các đối tác xã hội" hoặc hiệu quả của các kết quả được đo lường bằng các Thỏa Thuận Trung ương. Hành vi của các tác nhân cũng như việc hình thành chính sách hiệu quả dường như phụ thuộc vào các điều kiện kinh tế vĩ mô và sự phát triển được thúc đẩy bởi EU.

Từ khóa

#Chủ nghĩa tập thể Hà Lan #Chính sách công #Hiệu suất kinh tế #Các Thỏa Thuận Trung ương #Bệnh Hà Lan #Kỳ tích Hà Lan

Tài liệu tham khảo

Alvarez, R.M., Garret, P. and Lange, P. (1991) ‘Government partisanship, labor organisation, and macroeconomic performance’, American Political Science Review 85 (2): 539–556. Andeweg, R.B. (2000) ‘From Dutch disease to Dutch model? Consensus government in practice’, Parliamentary Affairs 53 (4): 697–709. Andeweg, R.B. and Irwin, G.A. (2005) Governance and Politics of the Netherlands, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Armingeon, K. (1983) Neokorporatistische Einkommenspolitik; eine vergleichende Untersuchung von Einkommenspolitiken in West-Europäischen Ländern in den siebziger Jahren, Frankfurt am Main: Haag und Herchen. Armingeon, K.A. (1994) Staat und Arbeitsbeziehungen: Ein internationaler Vergleich, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Armingeon, K.A., Leimgruber, P., Beyeler, M. and Menegale, S. (2005, 2007) Comparative Political Dataset I, Berne: University of Berne. Becker, U. (2001) ‘‘Miracle’ by consensus? Consensualism and dominance in Dutch employment development’, Economic and Industrial Democracy 22 (4): 453–483. Becker, U. (2005) ‘An example of competitive corporatism? The Dutch political economy 1983–2004 in critical examination’, Journal of European Public Policy 12 (6): 1078–1102. Calmfors, L. and Driffill, J. (1988) ‘Bargaining structure, corporatism, and macroeconomic performance’, Economic Policy 3 (6): 13–61. Castles, F.G. (2004) The Future of the Welfare State. Crisis Myth and Crisis Realities, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crépaz, M.M.L. (1992) ‘Corporatism in decline? An empirical analysis of the impact of corporatism on macroeconomic performance and industrial disputes in 18 industrialized democracies’, Comparative Political Studies 25 (2): 139–168. Delsen, L. (2002) Exit Polder Model? Socioeconomic Changes in the Netherlands, Westport: Praeger. Delsen, L. and Poutsma, E. (2005) ‘Labour market institutions and economic performance in the Netherlands’, International Economic Journal 19 (2): 169–196. den Butter, F.A.G. and Mosch, R.H.J. (2003) ‘The Dutch Miracle: institutions, networks and trust’, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 159 (2): 362–391. Flanagan, R.J. (1999) ‘Macroeconomic performance and collective bargaining: an international perspective’, Journal of Economic Literature 37 (3): 1150–1175. Golden, M. (1993) ‘The dynamics of trade unionism and national economic performance’, American Political Science Review 87 (2): 439–454. Hall, P.A. and Gingerich, D.W. (2004) ‘Varieties of capitalism and institutional complementarities in the macroeconomy: an empirical analysis’, MPIfG Discussion Paper 04/5, Cologne: Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies. http://www.mpi-fg-koeln.mpg.de/pu/mpifg_dp/dp04-5.pdf (22 October 2007). Hartog, J. (1999) ‘Whither Dutch corporatism? Two decades of employment policies and welfare reforms’, Scottish Journal of Political Economy 46 (4): 458–487. Hassel, A. and Ebbinghaus, B. (2000) ‘From Means to Ends: Linking Wage Moderation and Social Policy Reform’, in G. Fajertag and P. Pochet (eds.) Social Pacts in Europe, Brussels: ETUI, pp. 61–85. Hemerijck, A. (2003) ‘The Resurgence of Dutch Corporatist Policy Coordination in an Age of Globalization’, in F. van Waarden and G. Lehmbruch (eds.) Renegotiating the Welfare State. Flexible Adjustment through Corporatist Concertation, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 33–70. ILO (2007) http://www.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/ifpdial/info/pacts/index.htm (last update 9 December 2005) (16 October 2007). Jones, E. (1999) ‘Is competitive corporatism an adequate response to globalisation? Evidence from the Low Countries’, West European Politics 22 (3): 159–181. Karsten, L., van Veen, K. and van Wulfften Palthe, A. (2008) ‘What happened to the popularity of the Polder Model? Emergence and disappearance of a political fashion’, International Sociology 23 (1): 37–67. Katzenstein, P.J. (1985) Small States in World Markets. Industrial Policy in Europe, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Keman, H. (1999) ‘Political stability in divided societies: a rational-institutional explanation’, Australian Journal of Political Science 34 (2): 249–268. Keman, H. (2003) ‘Explaining miracles: third ways and work & welfare’, West European Politics 26 (2): 115–135. Keman, H. and Pennings, P. (1995) ‘Managing political and societal conflict in democracies: do consensus and corporatism matter?’ British Journal of Political Science 25 (2): 271–281. Kenworthy, L. (2002) ‘Corporatism and unemployment in the 1980s and 1990s’, American Sociological Review 67 (3): 367–388. Kenworthy, L. (2006) ‘Institutional coherence and macroeconomic performance’, Socio-Economic Review 4: 69–91. Korver, T. (1993) ‘The Netherlands: Labour Market, Labour Contracts and Collective Bargaining’, in J. Hartog and J. Theeuwes (eds.) Labour Market Contracts and Institutions. A Cross-National Comparison, Amsterdam etc.: North-Holland (Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.), pp. 385–415. Lehmbruch, G. (1979) ‘Liberal Corporatism and Party Government’, in P.C. Schmitter and G. Lehmbruch (eds.) Trends Toward Corporatist Intermediation, Beverly Hills and London: Sage, pp. 147–185. Lijphart, A. (1999) Patterns of Democracy. Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Minnich, D.J. (2003) ‘Corporatism and income inequality in the global economy: a panel study of 17 OECD countries’, European Journal of Political Research 42 (1): 23–54. Molina, O. and Rhodes, M. (2002) ‘Corporatism: the past, present, and future of a concept’, Annual Review of Political Science 5: 305–331. OECD (2007) Economic Outlook 81, Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Scharpf, F.W. (1998) ‘Political Institutions, Decision Styles, and Policy Choices’, in R. Czada, A. Héritier and H. Keman (eds.) Institutions and Political Choice. On the Limits of Rationality, Amsterdam: VU University Press, pp. 43–61. Schmidt, M.G. (1982) ‘Does Corporatism matter? Economic Crisis, Politics and Rates of Unemployment in Capitalist Democracies in the 1970s’, in G. Lehmbruch and P.C. Schmitter (eds.) Patterns of Corporatist Policy-Making, Beverly Hills: Sage, pp. 237–258. Schmitter, P.C. (1989) ‘Corporatism is dead! Long live corporatism!’, Government and Opposition 24 (1): 54–74. Shepsle, K.A. (1997) ‘Studying Institutions: Some Lessons from the Rational Choice Approach’, in J. Farr, J.S. Dryzek and S.T. Leonard (eds.) Political Science in History. Research Programs and Political Traditions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 276–295. Siaroff, A. (1999) ‘Corporatism in 24 industrial democracies: meaning and measurement’, European Journal of Political Research 36 (2): 175–205. Slomp, H. (2002) ‘The Netherlands in the 1990s: Towards ‘Flexible Corporatism’ in the Polder Model’, in S. Berger and H. Compston (eds.) Policy Concertation and Social Partnership in Western Europe. Lessons for the 21st Century, New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books, pp. 235–248. Teulings, C. and Hartog, J. (1998) Corporatism or Competition? Labour Contracts, Institutions and Wage Structures in International Comparison, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Therborn, G. (1987) ‘Does corporatism really matter? The economic crisis and issues of political theory’, Journal of Public Policy 7 (3): 259–285. Traxler, F. and Kittel, B. (2000) ‘The bargaining system and performance: a comparison of 18 OECD countries’, Comparative Political Studies 6 (2): 181–202. van der Meer, M., Visser, J., Wilthagen, T. and van der Heijden, P.F. (2003) Weg van het overleg? Twintig jaar na Wassenaar: naar nieuwe verhoudingen in het Nederlandse model, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. van Waarden, F. (2002) ‘Dutch consociationalism and corporatism. A case of institutional persistence’, Acta Politica 37 (1/2): 44–68, (special issue). Visser, J. and Hemerijck, A. (1997) ‘A Dutch Miracle’. Job Growth, Welfare Reform and Corporatism in the Netherlands, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Wagschal, U. (1996) Staatsverschuldung. Ursachen im Internationalen Vergleich, Opladen: Leske und Budrich. Western, B. (1991) ‘A comparative study of corporatist development’, American Sociological Review 56 (3): 283–294. Woldendorp, J. (1997) ‘Neo-corporatism and macroeconomic performance in eight small West European countries (1970–1990)’, Acta Politica 32 (1): 49–79. Woldendorp, J. (2005) ‘The Polder Model: from disease to miracle? Dutch neo-corporatism 1965–2000’, Ph.D. dissertation, Amsterdam: Thela Thesis (https://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/handle/1871/9056). Woldendorp, J. and Keman, H. (2006) ‘The contingency of corporatist influence: incomes policy in the Netherlands’, Journal of Public Policy 26 (3): 301–329. Woldendorp, J. and Keman, H. (2007) ‘The Polder Model reviewed: Dutch corporatism 1965–2000’, Economic and Industrial Democracy 28 (3): 317–347. Woldendorp, J., Keman, H. and Budge, I. (2000) Party Government in 48 Democracies. Composition — Duration — Personnel, Dordrecht etc.: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Wolinetz, S.B. (1989) ‘Socio-Economic Bargaining in the Netherlands: Redefining the Post-War Policy Coalition’, in H. Daalder and G.A. Irwin (eds.) Politics in the Netherlands. How Much Change?, London and Totowa (NJ): Frank Cass, pp. 79–98.