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

Paul K. Edwards
Additional contact information
Paul K. Edwards: University of Warwick

Economic and Industrial Democracy, 1983, vol. 4, issue 4, 461-500

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.

Date: 1983
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0143831X8344003 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:ecoind:v:4:y:1983:i:4:p:461-500

DOI: 10.1177/0143831X8344003

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Economic and Industrial Democracy from Department of Economic History, Uppsala University, Sweden
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().