Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Global Social Policy
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Arandarenko, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

International Advice and Labour Market Institutions in South-East Europe

Mihail Arandarenko

Belgrade University and G17 Institute, Belgrade mihail.arandarenko{at}plac-yu.org

This article describes and assesses the impact of evolving labour market institutions after the onset of transition in South-East Europe on economic performance and, at the same time, the impact of international advice on the direction and speed of institutional change. Institutions analysed include employment protection legislation, features of passive and active labour market policies and trade unions and collective bargaining structures. Countries of the region could roughly be divided into two groups – first, covering successor states of former Yugoslavia, with more rigid, and second, covering former centrally planned economies, with more flexible labour market institutions. This divide suggests the importance of institutional tradition. A simple test is undertaken to indicate whether the two groups differ significantly with regard to economic and labour market performance. No firm evidence is found to support the assumption that more flexible labour regimes induce better economic results, contrary to what has been the leading paradigm in the region, promoted by World Bank and IMF. Conditionality is only a partial explanation for their dominant influence; we argue that their agenda is better articulated and communicated than competing agendas of ILO and EU.

Key Words: institutions • international advice • labour • performance

Global Social Policy, Vol. 4, No. 1, 27-53 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/1468018104040984
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?