The Erosion Continues: Reply

Hassel, Anke

doi:10.1111/1467-8543.00234

アイテム詳細

登録内容を編集ファイル形式で保存

一時保存へ追加

タグ情報を表示リリース履歴を表示詳細要約

公開

学術論文

The Erosion Continues: Reply

MPS-Authors

/persons/resource/persons41194

Hassel, Anke
Regimewettbewerb und Integration in den industriellen Beziehungen, MPI for the Study of Societies, Max Planck Society;

External Resource

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8543.00234/abstract
(要旨)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8543.00234/pdf
(出版社版)

Fulltext (restricted access)

There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.

フルテキスト (公開)

BJIR_40_2002_Hassel.pdf
(出版社版), 261KB

付随資料 (公開)

There is no public supplementary material available

引用

Hassel, A. (2002). The Erosion Continues: Reply. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 40(2), 309-317. doi:10.1111/1467-8543.00234.

引用: https://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0012-5242-A

要旨

How stable is the German system of industrial relations? The answer to this question depends on two factors. First, it depends on what we assume to be the important indicators for measuring institutional stability. And second, it depends on what we choose as the benchmark between stability and change. The main concern of Thomas Klikauer's critique of my `erosion thesis' seems to be the question of how to interpret the existing material. Is the glass half empty or half full? Are the changes in coverage of institutions signs for a fundamental long-term decline, or are these merely fluctuations that depend on the business cycle and are likely to pick up when unemployment vanishes? How can we accommodate contradicting accounts on the stability of German industrial relations institutions?