IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/polsoc/v46y2018i2p205-233.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social Solidarity for All? Trade Union Strategies, Labor Market Dualization, and the Welfare State in Italy and South Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Niccolo Durazzi

    (London School of Economics)

  • Timo Fleckenstein

    (London School of Economics)

  • Soohyun Christine Lee

    (King’s College London)

Abstract

Challenging the new political-economic “mainstream†that considers trade unions to be “complicit†in labor market dualization, this article’s analysis of union strategies in Italy and South Korea, most-different union movements perceived as unlikely cases for the pursuit of broader social solidarity, shows that in both countries unions have successively moved away from insider-focused strategies and toward “solidarity for all†in the industrial relations arena as well as in their social policy preferences. Furthermore, unions explored new avenues of political agency, often in alliance with civil society organizations. This convergent trend toward a social model of unionism is ascribed to a response of unions to a “double crisis†: that is, a socioeconomic crisis, which takes the form of a growing periphery of the labor market associated with growing social exclusion, and a sociopolitical crisis, which takes the form of an increasing marginalization of the unions from the political process.

Suggested Citation

  • Niccolo Durazzi & Timo Fleckenstein & Soohyun Christine Lee, 2018. "Social Solidarity for All? Trade Union Strategies, Labor Market Dualization, and the Welfare State in Italy and South Korea," Politics & Society, , vol. 46(2), pages 205-233, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:polsoc:v:46:y:2018:i:2:p:205-233
    DOI: 10.1177/0032329218773712
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0032329218773712
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0032329218773712?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:polsoc:v:46:y:2018:i:2:p:205-233. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.