IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Equal pay and dilemmas of justice


  • Cathrine Holst


Equal pay for work of equal value is a fundamental principle in EU law and so in the EEA Agreement. The paper takes as its point of departure the debate in Norway on the interpretation of EEA equal pay legislation, and relates this debate to the broader equal pay controversy in Norway. Among arguments on both sides in these debates have been arguments about what is right and just: Whereas proponents for strong equal pay commitments typically stress that social justice requires work of equal value to be paid as equally as possible, if necessary by means of state intervention and law enforcement (the law enforcement position), proponents for weaker equal pay commitments stress typically either (1) the relative justice of markets; pay ought primarily to be distributed through markets and according to market value and not according to some market-external equality standard (the free market position), or (2) that wages should be set as far as possible by strong democratic unions that negotiate with employers and employers’ organizations (the collective bargaining position). The paper focuses on the law enforcement /collective bargaining confrontations and interprets these confrontations as reflecting dilemmas of justice (Nancy Fraser); in part a redistribution/recognition dilemma; in part a justice-from-above/justice-from-below dilemma. Finally, the paper investigates to what extent these dilemmas are genuine. Are there ways to narrow down the gap between the law enforcement camp and the collective bargaining camp?

Suggested Citation

  • Cathrine Holst, 2011. "Equal pay and dilemmas of justice," RECON Online Working Papers Series 32, RECON.
  • Handle: RePEc:erp:reconx:p0114

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Andreas Follesdal & Simon Hix, 2006. "Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44, pages 533-562, September.
    2. Hooghe, Liesbet & Marks, Gary, 2009. "A Postfunctionalist Theory of European Integration: From Permissive Consensus to Constraining Dissensus," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(01), pages 1-23, January.
    3. Sebastian Dullien & Daniela Schwarzer, 2009. "Bringing Macroeconomics into the EU Budget Debate: Why and How?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47, pages 153-174, January.
    4. Pieter de Wilde, 2008. "Media Coverage and National Parliaments in EU Policy-Formulation. Debates on the EU Budget in the Netherlands 1992-2005," ARENA Working Papers 19, ARENA.
    5. Pieter de Wilde, 2008. "Media Coverage and National Parliaments in EU Policy-Formulation: Debates on the EU Budget in the Netherlands 1992-2005," RECON Online Working Papers Series 13, RECON.
    6. Pieter de Wilde, 2009. "Reasserting the Nation State: The Trajectory of Euroscepticism in the Netherlands 1992-2005," RECON Online Working Papers Series 1, RECON.
    7. Pollack, Mark A., 1997. "Delegation, agency, and agenda setting in the European Community," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(01), pages 99-134, December.
    8. Pieter de Wilde, 2007. "Politicisation of European Integration: Bringing the Process into Focus," ARENA Working Papers 18, ARENA.
    9. Erik Oddvar Eriksen & John Erik Fossum, 2002. "Democracy through Strong Publics in the European Union?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(3), pages 401-424, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    democracy; gender policy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:erp:reconx:p0114. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Marit Eldholm). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.