<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<record
    xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd"
    xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">

  <leader>01614pab a2200181 454500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="008">180718b2002   xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Bowman, John R.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Employers and the persistence of centralized wage setting: the case of Norway</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">2002</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">p.995-1026.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="362" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Nov</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Recent research indicates that centralised collective bargaining institutions are more resilient than predicted by the conventional wisdom, which viewed them as incompatible with new competitive conditions and new production strategies.  Drawing on a case study of Norway, the author argues that one reason for this resilience is that centralized wage setting may be actively supported by employers because it serves important employer interests.  It has helped moderate wage growth, reduced transaction costs, contributed to stable industrial relations, and provided political leverage for employer organizations.  The author also argues that institutional change must be viewed in terms of its economic and institutional context.  There has been some formal devolution of bargaining capacity to the level of the individual firm in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark.  However, these changes have been accompanied by institutioal changes, instigated by employers, that have increased the coordinating capacity of labor market actors. Labor markets in all three countries remain highly institutionalized. - Reproduced.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Wages - Norway</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Collective bargaining - Norway</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Collective bargaining</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Comparative Political Studies</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="909" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">54932</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">54932</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">54932</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="0">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="1">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="4">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="7">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">IIPA</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">IIPA</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">2018-07-19</subfield>
    <subfield code="h">Volume no: 35, Issue no: 9</subfield>
    <subfield code="p">AR55377</subfield>
    <subfield code="r">2018-07-19</subfield>
    <subfield code="w">2018-07-19</subfield>
    <subfield code="y">AR</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
