The
chapter situated the analysis of employment relations in China and India in a
comparative capitalist framework, incorporating its critique by critical
perspectives. It identified the similarities and differences in
the economic patterns of development in the two economies with
respect to each other as well as compared with other
industrialised economies. It outlined the comparative
capitalism approach and its critique before focusing on the challenges and advantages
of applying it to China and India. Finally, it reviewed
recent research in the ‘second wave’ of comparative
capitalist tradition and how this has evaluated and
augmented the comparative institutional analysis with respect to China and
India.
The section on China explored the historical pattern of the
development of the Chinese institutional context
in which the state-party dominates the economy through SOEs and stateowned
banks. Weak corporate governance structures are supplemented by institutions
of family and guanxi and patron-client relations between
political power and capital. In the context of a deeply
segmented labour market along the rural-urban line which is institutionalised through
dual citizenship, employment relations in China are undergoing a gradual
change: from lifelong employment and comprehensive social security to a
more flexible labour market, towards a
contributory social security fund, and increased exploitation of rural migrant workers
in the new model of socialist market economy. As Chinese capitalism interacts
with global capitalism, the influx of MNCs and the transfer of HR
policies and practices reveal a complex picture
where traditional and Maoist values and practices in employment relations persist
parallel to the introduction of novel and innovative practices by MNCs in
China.
The section on India outlined the Indian institutional context
where a formerly interventionist state is withdrawing
from direct involvement in the economy as it transitions to a marketoriented
one. Institutions of family and social networks define the distinctive form of
private firm in India, i.e. the business group, governed
by both formal and informal institutions in corporate
governance mechanisms. Formal–informal labour market
segmentation reflects advanced specialisation and therefore
high skill levels in industries such as IT and computing alongside
a vast pool of low-skilled surplus informal labour without any social security
cover. In this context, employment relations in India are being
reshaped by liberal labour reforms, which have increased
the flexibility of labour and weakened the bargaining power of workers and
unions. This has resulted in new forms of union and new union
strategies, for example, a decline in
political unionism and the rise of enterprise unions and informal worker organisations.
State provision of skilling infrastructure is
being replaced by individualised or firm-based training.
Regional variations of industrial relations models and local state-capital relations
in India shape different employment dynamics. A peculiar feature of Indian capitalism
as it interacts with global capitalism lies in the advanced industry and skills
in certain sectors such as services and IT as well as prominent
Indian MNCs.
From a comparative institutional perspective, the section
emphasised two significant dimensions that need
to be included within any analysis of the two capitalisms: subnational forms of
governance and informal labour and labour agency. Further, comparative
advantages as well as challenges faced by the two
economies were discussed.
Comments
Post a Comment