The Political Economy of Industrial Conflict: Britain and the United States

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The 'political economy' tradition of writing on industrial conflict is outlined and criticized. The tradition has failed to develop a proper political economy because it does not ground its approach in an explicit theory of the labour process, lacks a view of the role of the state, and has an inadequate conceptualization of the power resources of employers and workers. Existing typologies of patterns of conflict are also unconvincing. Using Britain and America as examples, an alternative is sketched: an account of the state is developed and applied, trends in workplace relations are analysed, and a new way of examining comparative industrial relations is suggested. I am grateful to Tony Giles for his comments on an earlier version of this paper, and to Sam Bottone and Steve Jefferys for discussions of some of its themes.

This publication has 27 references indexed in Scilit: