IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indlaw/v51y2022i3p560-597..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Worlds of Labour: Introducing the Standard-Setting, Privileging and Equalising Typology as a Measure of Legal Segmentation in Labour Law

Author

Listed:
  • Irene Dingeldey
  • Heiner Fechner
  • Jean-Yves Gerlitz
  • Jenny Hahs
  • Ulrich Mückenberger

Abstract

The Standard Employment Relationship (SER) in industrialised countries is associated with strong protection for employees who fulfil its criteria but tends to neglect those who do not. Although the theoretical concept of SER has had repercussions around the world, its global empirical incidence and the variation of regulatory patterns associated with it have not been scrutinised so far. Comparative quantitative research in labour law has mainly focused on the overall level of employment protection in the countries of the Northern Hemisphere. Against this background, we ask how legal segmentation in labour law, that is, the exclusion from and gradation in employment protection which seems to be connected with the SER, can be conceptualised and measured in a global perspective. Drawing on leximetrics, a method to measure and quantify norms, we make use of and extend existing data sets such as the Centre for Business Research Labour Regulation Index (CBR-LRI) and Employment Protection Legislation Index (EPLex) in order to grasp the nature of legal segmentation. We identify three main functions of individual employment law in the protection/segmentation context: the standard-setting (S), the privileging (P) and the equalising (E) functions. We develop the SPE-employment law model on the assumption that the three functions are mutually independent in normative terms. The SPE typology offers a genuinely new perspective for comparative labour regulation research, making it possible to see the differentiation of patterns of legal segmentation and their path dependencies in 115 countries. First findings on a global scale show that in 2013 no fundamental difference between the levels of regulation in the Global South and North can be found. Moreover, familiar patterns can be observed such as a tendency to stable and low protection levels in liberal welfare states, and a tendency to universalist types of regulation in former socialist countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Irene Dingeldey & Heiner Fechner & Jean-Yves Gerlitz & Jenny Hahs & Ulrich Mückenberger, 2022. "Worlds of Labour: Introducing the Standard-Setting, Privileging and Equalising Typology as a Measure of Legal Segmentation in Labour Law," Industrial Law Journal, Industrial Law Society, vol. 51(3), pages 560-597.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:51:y:2022:i:3:p:560-597.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/indlaw/dwab016
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ulrich MÜCKENBERGER & Irene DINGELDEY, 2022. "Introduction: Worldwide patterns of legal segmentation in employment law," International Labour Review, International Labour Organization, vol. 161(4), pages 511-534, December.
    2. Graciela BENSUSÁN AREOUS, 2022. "Employment law and its contribution to labour market segmentation in Latin America," International Labour Review, International Labour Organization, vol. 161(4), pages 535-553, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:indlaw:v:51:y:2022:i:3:p:560-597.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ilj .

    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.