OECD Ülkelerinde Ekonomik Küreselleşme ve Toplu Pazarlık İlişkisine Bakış

Öz

1980’lerden itibaren neoliberal paradigmalar her alanda etkisini göstermiştir. Söz konusu 40 yıllık süreçte ekonomi politikalarının yönlendirilmesinde küreselleşme çok önemli bir yer tutmaktadır. Ekonomi-politik yapıda yaşanan dönüşümler kapsamında dışa açılma politikaları, ülkelere çeşitli açılardan fırsatlar sunsa da düşük vasıflı işgücünün çalışma koşullarının aşınmasına yol açan mekanizmaları da harekete geçirmektedir. Bu noktada, ekonomik küreselleşmenin işçi hakları üzerinde yarattığı etkinin boyutu ve yönü önem kazanmaktadır. Bu açıdan ele alındığında ticari ve finansal açıklıkla karakterize edilen ekonomik küreselleşme, toplu pazarlık kapsamındaki çalışanların oranını yakından etkilemektedir. Bu çalışmada, 2000-2016 dönemine ait veriler kullanılarak 10 OECD ülkesinde Kanada, Çekya, Almanya, Macaristan, Hollanda, Portekiz, İspanya, Birleşik Krallık, ABD ve Danimarka ekonomik küreselleşmenin toplu pazarlık kapsamındaki çalışanların oranına etkisi panel ARDL yöntemiyle incelenmiştir. Elde edilen bulgulara göre ekonomik küreselleşme, toplu pazarlık kapsamındaki çalışanların oranını negatif etkilemektedir. Modele dâhil edilen kontrol değişkenlerinin etkisine bakıldığında; nüfus ve kamu borcu toplu pazarlık kapsamında çalışanların oranını negatif etkilerken, ekonomik büyüme ve gelir eşitsizliği pozitif etkilemektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ekonomik Küreselleşme, Toplu Pazarlık, Çok Uluslu Şirketler, Panel ARDL

An Overview the Relationship between Economic Globalization and Collective Bargaining in OECD Countries

Öz

Since the 1980s, neoliberal paradigms have shown their impacts in all fields. Globalization has an important place in guiding economic policies in a given 40-year period. Within the scope of the transformations in the economy-political structure, although the opening-up policies provide opportunities for countries in various aspects, they also prompt the mechanisms that cause the working conditions of the low skilled labor force to erode. At this point, the size and direction of the impact of economic globalization on workers’ rights become a matter. From this point of view, economic globalization, which is characterized by trade and financial openness, closely affects the collective bargaining coverage rate. In this study, the impact of economic globalization on the collective bargaining coverage rate in 10 OECD countries Canada, Czechia, Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom, USA, and Denmark is examined with the panel ARDL method, using the data for the period 2000-2016. According to the findings, economic globalization negatively affects the collective bargaining coverage rate. When examining the impact of control variables included in the model, while population and public debt negatively affect the collective bargaining coverage rate, economic growth, and income inequality positively affect

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Economic Globalization, Collective Bargaining, Multinational Companies, Panel ARDL

Kaynakça

1. Abouharb, M. R. ve Cingranelli, D. L. (2006) “The Human Rights Effects of World Bank Structural Adjustment, 1981-2000”, International Studies Quarterly, 50(2), 233-262.
2. Abouharb, M. R. ve Fordham, B. O. (2020) “Trade and Strike Activity in the Postwar doi:10.3390/socsci9110198. States”, Social Sciences, 9(198), 1-25.
3. Abraham, F., Konings, J. ve Vanormelingen, S. (2009) “The Effect of Globalization on Union Bargaining and Price-Cost Margins of Firms”, Review of World Economics, 145(1), 13-36. DOI 10.1007/s10290-009- 0003-8.
4. Akbas, Y. E., Senturk, M. ve Sancar, C. (2013) “Testing for Causality between the Foreign Direct Investment, Current Account Deficit, GDP and Total Credit: Evidence from G7”, Panoeconomicus, 6, 791-812. DOI: 10.2298/PAN1306791A.
5. Apodaca, C. (2001) “Global Economic Patterns and Personal Integrity Rights after the Cold War”, International Studies Quarterly, 45(4), 587-602.
6. Belke, M. ve Al, İ. (2019) “Türkiye’de Bölgesel Enflasyon Yakınsaması: Panel Birim Kök Testlerinden Kanıtlar”, Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi, 5(2), 301-323.
7. Blanton, R. G. ve Blanton, S. L. (2012) “Labor Rights and Foreign Direct Investment: Is There a Race to the Bottom?”, International Interactions, 38(3), 267-294. DOI: 10.1080/03050629.2012.676496.
8. Blanton, R. G., Blanton, S. L. ve Peksen, D. (2015) “The Impact of IMF and World Bank Programs on Labor Rights”, Political Research Quarterly, 68(2), 324-336.

9. Blanton, R. ve Blanton, S. L. (2016) “Globalization and Collective Labor Rights”, Sociological Forum, 1-23, DOI: 10.1111/socf.12239.
10. Busse, M. (2003) “Do Transnational Corporations Care about Labor Standards?”, The Journal of Developing Areas, 36(2), 39-57.
11. Chaison, G. (2012) The New Collective Bargaining, New York: Springer.
12. Dreher, A. ve Gaston, N. (2007) “Has Globalisation Really had no Effect on Unions?”, KYKLOS, 60(2), 165-186.
13. Dursun, G. ve Denktaş, E. (2020) “Toplu Pazarlık ve Gelir Eşitsizliği Arasındaki Asimetrik Nedensellik İlişkisi: Yüksek Gelirli OECD Ülkelerinden Yeni Kanıtlar”, Çalışma ve Toplum Dergisi, 3, 1387-1408.
14. Enderwick, P. (2006) Globalization and Labor, Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers.
15. Gao, J., Xu, W. ve Zhang, L. (2021) “Tourism, Economic Growth, and Tourism‑Induced EKC Hypothesis: Evidence from the Mediterranean Region”, Empirical Economics, 60, 1507-1529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-019-01787-1.
16. Gaston, N. (2000) “Unions and the Decentralisation of Collective Bargaining in a Globalising World”, Osaka University The Institute of Social and Economic Research Discussion Paper, Paper No. 495, 1-27.
17. Ghose, A. K., Majid, N. ve Ernst, C. (2010) The Global Employment Challenge, Geneva: International Labour Office.
18. Gozgor, G. ve Can, M. (2017) “Does Export Product Quality Matter for CO2 Emissions? Evidence from China”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24, 2866-2875. DOI 10.1007/s11356-016-8070-6.
19. Griffin, K. (2003) “Economic Globalization and Institutions of Global Governance”, Development and Change, 34(5), 789-808.
20. Gygli, S., Haelg, F., Potrafke, N. ve Sturm, J. E. (2019) “The KOF Globalisation Index-Revisited”, Review of International Organizations, 14(3), 543-574.
21. Hessami, Z. ve Baskaran, T. (2013) “Has Globalization Affected Collective Bargaining? An Empirical Test, 1980-2009”, University of Konstanz Department of Economics Working Paper Series 2013‐02, 1-25.
22. Kerrissey, J. (2015) “Collective Labor Rights and Income Inequality”, American Sociological Review, 80(3), 626-653.
23. Keune, M. ve Schmidt, V. (2009) “Global Capital Strategies and Trade Union Responses: Towards Transnational Collective Bargaining?”, International Journal of Labour Research, 1(2), 9-26.
24. Mert, M. ve Bölük, G. (2016) “Do Foreign Direct Investment and Renewable Energy Consumption Affect the CO2 emissions? New Evidence from a Panel ARDL Approach to Kyoto Annex Countries”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23, 21669-21681. DOI 10.1007/s11356-016-7413-7.
25. Mosley, L. ve Uno, S. (2007) “Racing to the Bottom or Climbing to the Top?”, Comparative Political Studies, 40(8), 923-948.
26. Neumayer, E. ve De Soysa, I. (2006) “Globalization and the Right to Free Association and Collective Bargaining: An Empirical Analysis”, World Development, 34(1), 31-49.
27. OECD (2019) OECD Employment Outlook 2019: The Future of Work, Paris: OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/9ee00155-en.
28. OECD (2021) Trade Unions and Collective Bargainig, https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TUD# [Erişim Tarihi: 03.02.2021].
29. Okafor, E. E. ve Akinwale, A. A. (2012) “Globalization and Collective Bargaining in Nigeria”, European Journal of Business and Management, 4(11), 88-94.
30. Oxford Economics (2019) How Robots Change the World: What Automation Really Means for Jobs and Productivity, Oxford: Oxford Economics Ltd.
31. Öztürk, Z. ve Öz, D. (2016) “Karadeniz Ekonomik İşbirliği Örgütü Ülkelerinde Enerji Tüketimi ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi: Panel Nedensellik Analizi”, Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 16(2), 37-48.
32. Peksen, D. ve Pollock, J. M. (2021) “Economic Globalization and Labor Rights: A Disaggregated Analysis”, Human Rights Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-021-00628-y.
33. Pesaran, M. H. (2004) “General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels”, CESifo Working Paper, No. 1229, Center for Economic Studies and IFO Institute (CESifo), Munich.
34. Pesaran, M. H. (2007) “A Simple Panel Unit Root Test in the Presence of Cross‐Section Dependence”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22, 265-312.
35. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. ve Smith, R. P. (1999) “Pooled Mean Group Estimation of Dynamic Heterogeneous Panels”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94(446), 621-634.
36. Pesaran, M.H. ve Smith, R. (1995) “Estimating Long-Run Relationship from Dynamic Heterogeneous Panels”, Journal of Econometrics, 68(1), 79-113.
37. Piazza, J. A. (2005) “Globalizing Quiescence: Globalization, Union Density and Strikes in 15 Industrialized Countries”, Economic and Industrial Democracy, 26(2), 289-314. DOI: 10.1177/0143831X05051518.
38. Rama, M. (2003) “Globalization and the Labor Market”, The World Bank Research Observer, 18(2), 159-186. DOI: 10.1093/wbro/lkg010.
39. Rodrik, D. (2018) Straight Talk on Trade: Ideas for a Sane World Economy, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
40. Savran, S. (2007) “Küreselleşme ve Yeni Dünya Düzeni: Emperyalizmin ve Savaşın Yeni Dinamikleri”, Alan Freeman ve Boris Kagarlitsky (Haz.), Küreselleşmenin Krizi (Çev. Tuncel Öncel) içinde, Yordam Kitap: İstanbul, 148-192
41. Slaughter, M. J. (2007) “Globalization and Declining Unionization in the United States”, Industrial Relations, 46(2), 329-346.
42. Smith, J. (2006) “Economic Globalization and Labor Rights: Towards Global Solidarity”, Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy, 20(2), 873-882.
43. Swamy, P. A. (1970) “Efficient Inference in a Random Coefficient Regression Model”, Econometrica, 38(2), 311-323.
44. Şenses, F. (2016) “Neoliberal Küreselleşme Kalkınma için Bir Fırsat mı, Engel mi?” Fikret Şenses (Der.), Neoliberal Küreselleşme ve Kalkınma: Seçme Yazılar (3. Baskı) içinde, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 235-280.
45. The Global Economy (2021) Indicators, https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/download-data.php [Erişim Tarihi: 10.03.2021].
46. Traxler, F. (1994) “Collective Bargaining: Levels and Coverage”, OECD Employment Outlook 1994 içinde, Paris: OECD Publishing, 167-208.
47. Wade, R. H. (2004) “Is Globalization Reducing Poverty and Inequality?”, World Development, 32(4), 567-589.
48. WIID (2021) World Income Inequality Database, https://www.wider.unu.edu/project/wiid-%E2%80%93-world-income- inequality-database [Erişim Tarihi: 03.02.2021].
49. Williamson, J. (1990) “What Washington Means by Policy Reform”, John Williamson (Ed.), Latin American Adjustment: How Much has Happened? içinde, Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics, 7-20.
50. World Bank (2021) World Development Indicator, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator [Erişim Tarihi: 03.02.2021].
51. Wu, Y. H. ve Lin, E. S. (2011) “Does Purchasing Power Parity Hold Following the Launch of the Euro? Evidence from the Panel Unit Root Test”, Applied Economics Letters, 18(2), 167-172. DOI: 10.1080/13504850903442970.
52. Yaghmaian, B. (2002) “The Political Economy of Global Accumulation and Its Emerging Mode of Regulation”, Berch Berberoglu (Ed.), Labor and Capital in the Age of Globalization: The Labor Process and the Changing Nature of Work in the Global Economy içinde, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 125-144.