Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T08:07:41.864Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Politics of Change. Coalitional politics and labour market reforms during the sovereign debt crisis in Portugal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2020

RUI BRANCO
Affiliation:
NOVA University Lisbon and IPRI-NOVA email: rui.branco@fcsh.unl.pt
DANIEL CARDOSO
Affiliation:
Autonomous University of Lisbon and Observare – Observatory of Foreign Relations email: dcardoso@autonoma.pt

Abstract

This article describes and explains labour market reforms in Portugal during the sovereign debt crisis from 2011 to 2014. Policy outputs were not homogenous, but differentiated between a first phase where recalibration co-existed alongside hard liberalising measures and a second phase, from late 2012, where recalibration was dropped and liberalisation further deregulated employment protection and security and eroded collective bargaining. This variation is explained by the changing coalitional politics and blame allocation underpinning policymaking under conditionality. Initial reforms resulted from a broad informal political coalition spanning the governing centre-right parties, the main opposition party, a trade union and employer confederations; its breakdown in late 2012 led to the executive’s increasing centralisation, the shut down of social concertation, and more radical policy outputs. The article shows that cooperation between government and opposition and government and social partners is possible even under external conditionality, how coalition politics affects the nature and direction of reforms, and highlights how political dynamics of blame allocation drive the process of coalition building and breakdown.

Type
Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Afonso, A. and Bulfone, F. (2019), ‘Electoral coalitions and policy reversals in Portugal and Italy in the aftermath of the eurozone crisis’. South European Society and Politics, 24, 2, 233-257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Afonso, A., Zartaloudis, S. and Papadopoulos, Y. (2015), ‘How party linkages shape austerity politics: clientelism and fiscal adjustment in Greece and Portugal during the eurozone crisis’, Journal of European Public Policy, 22, 3, 315-334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aníbal, S., Botelho, L. and Faria, A. R. (2011), ‘Troika moderada no corte do défice e radical nas reformas estruturais’, Público, 5 May.Google Scholar
Armingeon, K. and Baccaro, L. (2012), ‘The Sorrows of Young Euro: Policy Responses to the Sovereign Debt Crisis’, in Bermeo, N. and Pontusson, J. (eds.), Coping with Crisis: Government Reactions to the Great Recession, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 162198.Google Scholar
Asensio, M. and Popic, T. (2019), ‘Portuguese healthcare reforms in the context of crisis: External pressure or domestic choice?’, Social Policy & Administration, 53, 7, 1003-1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baccaro, L. and Howell, C. (2011), ‘A common neoliberal trajectory: the transformation of industrial relations in advanced capitalism’, Politics and Society, 39, 4, 521563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonoli, G. (2012), ‘Blame avoidance and credit claiming revisited’, in Bonoli, G. and Natali, D. (eds), The Politics of the New Welfare State, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 93-110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulfone, F. and Afonso, A. (2020), ‘Business against markets: employer resistance to collective bargaining liberalization during the eurozone crisis’, Comparative Political Studies, 53, 5, 809-846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campos Lima, M. P. and Abrantes, M. (2016), DIADSE – Dialogue for Advancing Social Europe. Country Report: Portugal, Lisbon: CESIS.Google Scholar
Campos Lima, M. P. and Naumann, R. (2011), ‘Portugal: From Broad Strategic Pacts to Policy-Specific Agreements’, in Avdagic, S., Rhodes, M., and Visser, J. (eds.), Social Pacts in Europe Emergence, Evolution, and Institutionalization, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 147173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CAP, CCP, CIP and CTP (2012), Emissão Portarias de Extensão, Lisbon, October.Google Scholar
Cardoso, D. and Branco, R. (2018), ‘Liberalized Dualization. Labour Market Reforms and the Crisis in Portugal: a New Departure’, European Journal of Social Security, 20, 1, 3148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CES (2011), Acordo Tripartido para a Competitividade e o Emprego, Lisbon, March.Google Scholar
CES (2012), Compromisso para o Crescimento, Competitividade e o Emprego, Lisbon, January.Google Scholar
Cioffi, J. W. and Dubin, K. (2016), ‘Commandeering Crisis. Partisan Labor Repression in Spain under the Guise of Economic Reform’, Politics & Society, 44, 3, 423453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, P. D. and Regan, A. (2014), ‘Why don’t governments need trade unions anymore? The death of social pacts in Ireland and Italy’, Socio-Economic Review, 12, 4, 723745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DAR (Diário da Assembleia da República) (2011), [https://www.parlamento.pt/DAR]Google Scholar
DAR (Diário da Assembleia da República) (2012), [https://www.parlamento.pt/DAR]Google Scholar
de Giorgi, E., Moury, C. and Ruivo, J. P. (2015), ‘Incumbents, Opposition and International Lenders: Governing Portugal in Times of Crisis’, The Journal of Legislative Studies, 21, 1, 54-74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs (2011), The Economic Adjustment Programme for Portugal, Occasional papers 79Google Scholar
Durazzi, N., Fleckenstein, T. and Lee, S. C. (2018), ‘Social Solidarity for All? Trade Union Strategies, Labor Market Dualization, and the Welfare State in Italy and South Korea’, Politics & Society, 46, 2, 205233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission (2014), The economic adjustment programme for Portugal 2011-2014, Luxembourg: EUR-OP.Google Scholar
Faria, A. (2012), ‘FMI muda receita para evitar espiral recessiva na economia’, Público, 6 AprilGoogle Scholar
Faria, A. R. and Aníbal, S. (2012), ‘Chefe de missão do FMI: mudanças na TSU não foram exigência da troika’, Público, 19 December.Google Scholar
Ferrera, M. and Hemerijck, A. (2003), ‘Recalibrating Europe’s Welfare Regimes’, in Zeitlin, J. and Trubek, D. M. (eds), Governing Work and Welfare in a New Economy: European and American Experiments, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 88128.Google Scholar
Fonseca, S. (2013), ‘Ou há entendimento em fevereiro ou UGT rasga acordo’, Diário de Notícias, 17 January.Google Scholar
Gaspar, V. and Avillez, M. J. (2014), Vitor Gaspar, Lisbon: Dom Quixote.Google Scholar
Guardiancich, I. and Molina, O. (2017), ‘Comparative overview: National trajectories and good practices in social dialogue’, in Guardiancich, I. and Molina, O. (eds.), Talking Through the Crisis: Social dialogue and industrial relations trends in selected EU countries, Geneva: ILO, 1-58.Google Scholar
Hering, M. (2008), ‘Welfare State Restructuring without Grand Coalitions: The Role of Informal Cooperation in Blame Avoidance’, German Politics, 17, 2, 165-183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hick, R. (2017), ‘Enter the Troika: The Politics of Social Security during Ireland’s Bailout’, Journal of Social Policy, 47, 1, 1-20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, C. and Mortensen, P. B. (2014), ‘Government Responses to Fiscal Austerity: The Effect of Institutional Fragmentation and Partisanship’, Comparative Political Studies, 47, 2, 143-170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, P. (2013), ‘Smaghi versus the Parties: Representative Government and Institutional Constraints’, in Streeck, W. and Schäfer, A. (eds.), Politics in the Age of Austerity, Cambridge: Polity, 143–68.Google Scholar
Martins, R. (2014), ‘Governo aprova critérios para os despedimentos sem acordo da UGT e da CIP’, Público, 6 December.Google Scholar
Moreira, A., Alonso Dominguez, Á., Antunes, C., Karamessini, M., Raitano, M. and Glatzer, M. (2015), ‘Austerity-Driven Labour Market Reforms in Southern Europe: Eroding the Security of Labour Market Insiders’, European Journal of Social Security, 17, 2, 202225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moury, C. and Standring, A. (2017), ‘Going Beyond the Troika: Power and Discourse in Portuguese Austerity Politics’, European Journal of Political Research, 56, 3, 1-20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Picot, G. and Tassinari, A. (2017), ‘All of One Kind? Labour Market Reforms Under Austerity in Italy and Spain’, Socio-Economic Review, 15, 2, 1-22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, P. (1994), Dismantling the Welfare State? Reagan, Thatcher and the Politics of Retrenchment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pires, L. R. and Martins, N. (2015), Segredos de Estado, Lisbon: Matéria-Prima.Google Scholar
Schludi, M. (2005), The Reform of Bismarckian Pension Systems: A Comparison of Pension Politics in Austria, France, Germany, Italy and Sweden, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IMF (2013), Portugal: Rethinking the State—Selected Expenditure Reform Options, Washington.Google Scholar
Shahidi, F. V. (2015), ‘Welfare Capitalism in Crisis: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Labour Market Policy Responses to the Great Recession’, Journal of Social Policy, 44, 4, 659686 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Távora, I. and González, P. (2016), ‘Labour market regulation and collective bargaining in Portugal during the crisis: Continuity and change’, European Journal of Industrial Relations, 22, 3, 251265.Google Scholar
Theodoropoulou, S. (ed) (2018), Labour Market Policies in the Era of Pervasive Austerity. A European Perspective, Bristol: Policty Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UGT (2012), Parecer da UGT sobre a Proposta de Lei 46/XII que aprova a revisão do Código do Trabalho. Lisbon: UGT.Google Scholar
UGT (2013), Posição da UGT. 10ª Avaliação da Troika. Lisbon: UGT.Google Scholar
Watson, S. E. (2015), The Left Divided: The Development and Transformation of Advanced Welfare States. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, A. (1991), ‘Co-ordination: A problem in public sector management’, Policy & Politics, 19, 2, 229–41.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Branco and Cardoso supplementary material

Appendix

Download Branco and Cardoso supplementary material(File)
File 13.6 KB