经济自由化、市场制度和劳工权利外文翻译资料

经济自由化、市场制度和劳工权利

原文作者 ROBERT G. BLANTON1 amp; DURSUN PEKSEN

摘要：市场经济政策对劳工权利有何影响？尽管政策制定者和学术界对经济自由化的后果进行了激烈的辩论，但是鲜为人知的是劳动力市场政策对劳工权利的影响。现存的文献只集中于可能的结果：市场自由化政策，如贸易和投资流动，而不是直接评估市场友好政策与制度。此外，这一系列研究发现，这些结果对劳动条件的影响好坏参半。为了对这一联系作出全面评估，本文结合了1981到2012年间五个与经济自由化有关的政策领域的数据和劳工权利数据。结果表明，支持市场的政策——除了那些涉及法治和安全财产权的政策——破坏了劳工权利。因此，虽然在相关的市场支持政策下产生了一些积极的经济和政治结果，但是经济自由化是以牺牲劳工权利为代价的。

关键词：劳工权利；市场自由化；新自由主义；市场制度

新自由主义与劳动权在国际体系中享有广泛的支持。二战以来，新自由主义所倡导的自由市场的规范和政策在塑造全球秩序中一直占据主导地位。就其本身而言，劳工权利制度源远流长，相当普遍，可以追溯到于1919成立的国际劳工组织，并且为此所编纂各种劳工组织公约已被大多数国家认同的。

虽然是新自由主义政策和保护核心劳动标准都是受到支持的，但是他们未来的关系是有争议的。新自由主义的倡导者预测了一个良性循环，这个循环中，经济竞争力、效率与市场友好政策会增加社会政治和经济权利和机会。另一方面，反对者声称，追求以市场为基础的效率与社会核心价值观及权利是相抵触的，包括劳工权利。有些人甚至认为，市场原教旨主义会对人权产生直接威胁，比如那些严格遵守新自由主义政策的，特别是那些肆无忌惮追求经济效率并且使得公共部门萎缩的政策，使所有国家都极难为劳工广泛的权利提供充分的保护。

尽管自由市场政策的导向在世界经济秩序十分重要，同时亲市场政策又与劳工权利存在着潜在的冲突，但是，就目前为止，还没有人就市场制度对劳工权利的影响作出任何全面的、跨国际的分析。虽然有人在研究部分代理，尤其是国际贸易和投资流动。市场自由化带来的一系列的政策通常与新自由主义相关联，包括劳工权利和企业放松管制，保护产权，减少政府支出和干预。在这种情况下，对贸易和投资的开放程度增加反映的是经济成果，而不是实际的政策和体制。此外，这些研究的结果是混合的，贸易与劳工权利呈负相关（莫斯利2011），而外商直接投资（FDI）的影响在工业部门各不相同。在所有现存的文献只提供了部分，有些矛盾需要去洞察新自由主义和劳工权利的潜在关系。因此，我们试图通过跨国际地全面地分析亲市场政策对劳工权利的影响来填补这一空白。

为了研究这个问题，我们使用菲沙研究所的经济自由度数据，因为它为新自由主义的政策和做法提供了一个综合的、多方面的措施。我们依靠理查兹（CIRI）透彻的考虑遵守国际劳工组织制定的核心劳工标准中的工人权利。对于130个国家在1981到2012年的分析结果来看，新自由主义政策，特别是那些经济开放和国家的干预经济政策与劳工权利之间呈现负相关的关系。

新自由主义及其影响

鉴于新自由主义政策的普及，大量的学术研究已经调查了他们的社会经济和政治的影响。主张新自由主义者认为自由市场的做法刺激了经济的增长和发展（例如，森2001；沃尔夫2004），特别是这种政策创造了一个良性循环，因为经济增长会刺激中产阶级的发展，而中产阶级会要求并获得更大程度的政治和民事权利。最常见的反驳是这样的“亲商”政策会产生对政府的“竞次”效果。在政府对经济竞争力和外国资本的追求中，企业会获得更加廉价的劳动力和其他的环境和社会福利标准。（鲁德拉2008；辛格和先生2004）

在大多数时候，这方面的实证工作都会肯定由自由主义支持者所设想的良性循环。研究通常会验证部分代理的新自由主义政策的结果，包括如开放贸易和外国投资。一般认为，这些措施与各种积极的经济和政治成果有关。（沃尔夫2004）其余评估了由国际货币基金组织和世界银行提出的参与结构调整的影响。这种信号更多是新自由主义者设想的政策的总和，因为SAPs意味着一种更广泛的、并且通常更加快速的过渡到新自由主义政策的方式。研究表明，在这些项目的参与对避免未来的经济危机有帮助（德雷尔amp;沃尔特2010），他们可能会影响经济增长（弗里兰2003），对身体健康权利（Abouharb和cingranelli 2007）和劳工权利的尊重（布兰顿等人2015）。

其他研究使用经济自由指数（格沃特尼等人，2014）、更全面的新自由主义政策的多维索引。美国的新自由主义与自由市场所广泛使用的评估企业的原则表现在五个方面：经济政府的规模，一个国家有效性法律制度、宏观经济政策、国际贸易和投资壁垒以及劳动和商业管制。这方面的研究通常发现这组亲市场政策与各种有益的经济成果相关，包括经济的增长、生活水平的提高和失业率的下降。（格沃特尼等人，2006）这些政策也产生了积极的政治和社会外部效应，包括对于身体健康权利更多地尊重（de索伊萨和vadlammanati， 2013），减少腐败（德雷尔与施耐德，2010）和增加幸福（OTT ，2010）。总的来说，大约80%的经济学术者认为它与积极的结果有着显著的联系，而且“证据平衡”是压倒一切的，即经济自由与各种各样的积极成果相对应，几乎没有消极权衡（霍尔和劳森，2014：8）。

然而，我们认为劳动权是对相关市场自由化政策的“折衷”。首先，新自由主义对劳工权利的处理方法一直持怀疑态度，认为它们与市场经济和自由国际贸易和投资的最佳“商业气候”相矛盾。因此，制定旨在增加参与世界经济的政策的国家可能不太愿意承认和执行劳工权利。其次，美国可能会去保护工人权利，因为更小和更少的干预性政府是以新自由主义理想为其基础的。我们将在下文详细阐述这些论点，围绕经济自由指数的各个方面展开我们的讨论。

我们的研究增加了有关劳工权利决定因素的学术研究，特别是这些权利与参与全球经济的关系。首先，我们的研究表明了促进更多国际经济开放和劳工权利的政策之间呈负相关关系。这意味着尽管新自由主义和对劳动权的尊重可能没有明显的矛盾。–例如，国际金融机构尤其是在最近几年里，呼吁尊重核心劳工标准和劳工。灵活性并不明确意味着取消集体谈判过程或者更多地使用童工-这意味着亲市场政策确实导致权力的下降。与工商业相对应的劳动，在较低的劳动权利水平上表现出来。

结论

因此，我们的研究表明，传统的劳工权利观与经济竞争力是对立的，在国家政策中仍然普遍存在，而且显而易见。通过实验数据，我们很不幸的发现，这种传统的智慧是错误的，一些研究发现劳动权与提高经济效益和竞争力相关（Martin amp; Maskus 2001），一个稳定的投资环境，可以吸引更多的外国投资（库切拉2002），特别是在高技术领域（Moran 2011）。的确，Bretton Woods机构–长堡垒新自由主义–现在正在有建设性地参与劳动组织。劳工标准条款现在是结构调整政策的一个共同部分，有些人认为，与普遍的观点相反，国际货币基金组织和世界银行已经成为准合伙人。（与国际劳工组织在促进劳动权利）（斯托林斯2010：13）尽管有这些积极的事态发展，但我们仍然发现，各国实行的市场友好政策与保护工人权利不一致。

在规范的扩散和论争的工作背景下（如Sikkink 1998），我们的研究表明，新自由主义规范的传播，这可以说是“对二十世纪下旬的特征”（西蒙斯et al，2006：781）与另一个长期和普遍的全球规范——即与劳动权有关的规范——相对立。事实上，我们发现明确的证据表明，追求自由市场政策与保护这一关键社会权利之间存在权衡取舍。经济增长增加了广泛的社会和政治权利的“良性循环”。外，这表明，我们应该是更密切地研究新自由主义政策的盲目的采用，如广泛的私有化或国家的“瘦身”。

总的来说，人们对发展中国家的新自由主义的推进，很大程度上是70年代和80年代的南半球对过度控制劳动、商业市场和臃肿的国有部门的反应。沿着这些线路，新自由主义的意图是推动资本、国家和劳动力之间的力量平衡，以实现持续经济增长所必需的新平衡。我们的研究结果表明，这种新的均衡有损于工人的权利，应当努力实现劳工权利和经济竞争力之间的更公平和平衡。

外文文献出处：European Journal of Political Research 55: 474–491, 2016

附外文文献原文

Economic liberalisation, market institutions and labour rights

ROBERT G. BLANTONamp; DURSUN PEKSEN

Department of Government, University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA;Department of Political Science,University of Memphis, USA

Abstract. What effect do pro-market economic policies have on labour rights? Despite signi cant debatein policy and academic circles about the consequences of economic liberalisation, little is known about the labour rights effects of pro-market policies. Extant literature has focused only on the possible outcomes of market-liberalising policies, such as trade and investment ows, rather than directly assessing market-friendly policies and institutions. Moreover, this line of research has found mixed results on how these outcomes in uence labour conditions. To provide a comprehensive assessment of this linkage, this article combines data on ve distinct policy areas associated with economic liberalisation with data on labour rights for the period 1981–2012. The results indicate that pro-market policies – except the ones involving rule of law and secure property rights – undermine labour rights. Thus while there are some positive economic and political outcomes associated with market-supporting policies, economic liberalisation comes at the cost of respectfor labour rights.

Keywords: labour rights; market liberalisation; neoliberalism; market institutions

Introduction

Neoliberalism and labour rights both enjoy broad support in the international system. The free-market-oriented norms and policies advocated by neoliberalism have been dominant in shaping the global economic and political order since the end of the Second World War. For its part, the labour rights regime is well-established and quite pervasive, dating back to the formation of the International Labor Organization (ILO) in 1919 and codi ed in a wide variety of ILO conventions that have been rati ed by a vast majority of states.

Though there is widespread support for neoliberal policies as well as the protection of core labour standards, their prospective relationship is contentious. Advocates of neoliberalism predic

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

Economic liberalisation, market institutions and labour rights

ROBERT G. BLANTONamp; DURSUN PEKSEN

Department of Government, University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA;Department of Political Science,University of Memphis, USA

Abstract. What effect do pro-market economic policies have on labour rights? Despite signi cant debatein policy and academic circles about the consequences of economic liberalisation, little is known about the labour rights effects of pro-market policies. Extant literature has focused only on the possible outcomes of market-liberalising policies, such as trade and investment ows, rather than directly assessing market-friendly policies and institutions. Moreover, this line of research has found mixed results on how these outcomes in uence labour conditions. To provide a comprehensive assessment of this linkage, this article combines data on ve distinct policy areas associated with economic liberalisation with data on labour rights for the period 1981–2012. The results indicate that pro-market policies – except the ones involving rule of law and secure property rights – undermine labour rights. Thus while there are some positive economic and political outcomes associated with market-supporting policies, economic liberalisation comes at the cost of respectfor labour rights.

Keywords: labour rights; market liberalisation; neoliberalism; market institutions

Introduction

Neoliberalism and labour rights both enjoy broad support in the international system. The free-market-oriented norms and policies advocated by neoliberalism have been dominant in shaping the global economic and political order since the end of the Second World War. For its part, the labour rights regime is well-established and quite pervasive, dating back to the formation of the International Labor Organization (ILO) in 1919 and codi ed in a wide variety of ILO conventions that have been rati ed by a vast majority of states.

Though there is widespread support for neoliberal policies as well as the protection of core labour standards, their prospective relationship is contentious. Advocates of neoliberalism predict a virtuous cycle in which economic competitiveness and ef ciency associated with market-friendly policies increase social, political and economic rights and opportunities (e.g., Sen 2001; Wolf 2004). Critics, on the other hand, assert that the pursuit of market-based ef ciencies contradicts core societal values and rights, including labour protections (Rudra 2008; Singh amp; Zammit 2004). Some even suggest that lsquo;market fundamentalism poses a direct threat to human rightsrsquo;, as strict adherence to neoliberal policies, particularly those related to the unbridled pursuit of economic ef ciency and the shrinking of the public sector, lsquo;make it extremely dif cult for all countries hellip; to provide adequate protection for a wide range of rightsrsquo; (Goodhart 2009: 373).

Despite the centrality of free-market-oriented policies to the global economic order, as well as potential con icts between pro-market policies and labour rights, there has notbeen any comprehensive, cross-national analysis of the impact of market institutions on labour rights. While there are studies that use partial proxies, particularly international trade and investment ows (Neumayer amp; De Soysa 2006; Mosley amp; Uno 2007; Greenhill et al. 2009; Mosley 2011), market liberalisation entails a comprehensive array of policies generally associated with neoliberalism, including labour and business deregulation, protection of property rights, and reduced government spending and intervention. Within this context, increased openness to trade and investment re ects economic outcomes rather than actual policies and institutions. Moreover, the results of these studies are mixed – for example, trade is negatively related to labour rights (Mosley 2011), while the impact of foreign direct investment (FDI) varies across industrial sectors (Blanton amp; Blanton 2012). In all, extant literature provides only partial, and somewhat contradictory, insights into the prospective relationship between neoliberalism and labour rights. We thus attempt to ll this gap by offering a comprehensive, cross-national analysis of the labour rights effects of pro-market policies.

To examine this issue, we use the Fraser Institutersquo;s economic freedom data, as it provides a comprehensive and multifaceted measure of neoliberal policies and practices. We rely on the Cingranelli-Richards (CIRI) measure of worker rights to thoroughly account for the degree of adherence to the core labour standards denoted by the ILO. The results from data analysis for over 130 countries for the period 1981–2012 indicate a negative relationship between neoliberal policies – particularly those related to economic openness and state intervention in the economy – and labour rights.

Neoliberalism and its impacts

Given the pervasiveness of neoliberal policies, a large body of scholarship has examined their socioeconomic and political impacts. Advocates of neoliberalism posit that the free market practices spur economic growth and development (e.g., Sen 2001; Wolf 2004). Speci cally, such policies create a virtuous cycle, as economic growth stimulates the development of a middle class that demands – and obtains – greater levels of political and civil rights. Arguably the most common counterargument is that such lsquo;business friendlyrsquo; policies produce a lsquo;race to the bottomrsquo; as governments, in their pursuit of economic competitiveness and foreign capital, competitively lower labour, environmental and other social welfare standards (e.g., Rudra 2008; Singh amp; Zammit 2004).

For the most part, empirical work in this area supports the positive cycle envisioned by proponents of liberalism. Studies often examined partial proxies for neoliberalism, inclu

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

资料编号：[280479]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word