| . |
English
Ukrainian
|
| HOME |
№ 2024/3
KOSTRYTSYA Vasil 1, BURLAI Tetiana Viktorivna 2, BLYZNIUK Viktoriya 3
1Association of Employers' Organizations of Ukraine
2Institute for Economics and Forecasting, NAS of Ukraine
3SO "Institute for Economics and Forecasting of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine"
Deformations of the institution of social dialogue in Ukraine as a factor of social desolidarization
| Ekon. teor. 2024; 3:24-53 | https://doi.org/10.15407/etet2024.03.024 |
ABSTRACT ▼
It is shown that the effect of solidarity significantly enhances the mobilization potential of society, being applied at all levels of social organization, including the family, territo-rial community, and the business environment. The authors emphasize that the new social reality in Ukraine, which is being formed in the context of a fullscale Russian invasion, as well as the risk of loss of state integrity and statehood as such, determines the need to lay the basic principles of solidarity based on the coherence of actions of all subjects of social organization in the basis of the ideology of national state-building. The authors reveal the social phenomenon of solidarization as a result of reaching joint agreements and making consolidated decisions on the formation and implementation of the State socio-economic policy, which allowed establishing its close connection with the process of social dialogue. The relevance of the societal dimension of the functioning of the national system of tripartite social partnership in the context of military shocks is substantiated. Within the framework of institutional and comparative methodology, the modern role of tripartite social partnership and the impact of the institution of social dialogue in Ukraine on the processes of its social solidarity in the (pre)war period are revealed. It is proved that social dialogue plays a leading role in addressing issues related to achieving the criteria of decent work, ensuring social guarantees, promoting international labour standards, regulating non-standard forms of employment, ensuring equality in the field of labour, as well as digital and \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"green\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" transitions. It is established that the imbalance of interests of the parties to social dialogue in Ukraine is characterized by insufficient protection and lack of guarantees of decent work for employees, on the one hand, and the unmet needs of Ukrainian business for qualified and highly productive labour, on the other. It is emphasized that one of the consequences of this imbalance is the desolidating phenomenon of labour poverty. The authors identify and statistically substantiate the main deformations of the institution of social dialogue in Ukraine, which were formed in the prewar period. On the basis of specific examples from the period of martial law in Ukraine, the contribution to social solidarity of domestic employers\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' associations and trade unions is shown. Considering social dialogue as an institutional component of the social contract, the article establishes that the deformed system of social dialogue in Ukraine causes the erosion of its social contract – the framework for solidarity of citizens. It is shown that maintaining a high level of solidarity among the population of Ukraine is important in the context of its official status as an EU candidate country in June 2022. The article summarizes recommendations for solving the problems of social dialogue in Ukraine in the post-war period of reconstructive recovery of the Ukrainian economy, based on modern international approaches and practices. The authors propose relevant directions for the development of tripartite social partnership, taking into account current trends in the digitalization of the economy and society, as well as the spread of new non-standard forms of employment, including platform employment.
Keywords:postwar reconstruction of Ukraine, social cohesion, solidarity social potential, institu-tional capacity, employment, social partnership.
JEL: J51, J58, O43, P27, K40
| Article in English (pp. 24 - 53) | Download | Downloads :308 |
| Article in Ukrainian (pp. 24 - 53) | Download | Downloads :314 |
REFERENCES ▼
2. Borodina, O. (2023). Basic methodological approaches and applied mechanisms of transition to nationally rooted development in the agri-food system of Ukraine. Ekon. teor. – Economic theory, 3, 44-57. doi.org/10.15407/etet2023.03.044 [in Ukrainian].
3. Blyzniuk, V., & Yatsenko, L. (2023). The labor market in terms of social quality. Stalyi rozvytok ekonomiky – Sustainable Development of Economy, 1(46), 2130. doi.org/10.32782/2308-1988/2023-46-3 [in Ukrainian].
4. Heyets, V. (2023). Formation of the Profile of Strategically Important Industrial Activi-ty Types in Ukraine (An Outlook). Econ. Ukr. – Economy of Ukraine, 66(9), 3-29. doi.org/10.15407/economyukr.2023.09.003 [in Ukrainian].
5. Heyets, V. M., Burlai, T. V., & Blyzniuk, V. V. (2023). Social resilience of the national economy through the prism of the experience of the European Union and Ukraine. Ekon. teor. – Economic Theory, 3, 5-43. doi.org/10.15407/etet2023.03.005 [in Ukrainian].
6. Grytsenko, A. (2023). Nationally rooted economic development as a local response to the global geoeconomic shifts. Econ. Ukr. – Economy of Ukraine, 66(4), 38-54. doi.org/10.15407/economyukr.2023.04.038 [in Ukrainian].
7. Eschenko, P., & Arseenko, A. (2011). A new paradigm of economic development – the imperative of our time. Ekonomika i prohnozuvannia – Economy and Forecasting, 1, 28-47. URL: eip.org.ua/docs/EP_11_1_28.pdf [in Russian].
8. Kolodko, G. W. (2020). Economy of new pragmatism: definition, purpose, methods. Ekon. Ukr. – Economy of Ukraine, 2, 03-23. doi.org/10.15407/economyukr.2020.02.003 [in Ukrainian].
9. Kolot, A. M. (2013). Social dialogue as an institution for increasing social responsi-bility. Rynok pratsi ta zainiatist naselennia – Labor Market and Population Employment, 1, 21-24. Retrieved from nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/rpzn_2013_1_7 [in Ukrainian].
10. International Labour Organization (ILO) (2016). Social security system of Ukraine in 2014–15 and beyond: towards effective social protection floors. International Labour Organiza-tion; ILO DWT and Country Office for Central and Eastern Europe. Budapest. Retrieved from www.ilo.org/publications/social-security-system-ukraine-2014-15-and-beyond-towards-effective-social
11. Novikova, O. F., Ostafiichuk, Ya. V., & Novak, I. M. (2022). Changes in the labor and tax legislation of Ukraine under military conditions: problems and prospects for im-provement. Ekonomika promyslovosti – Economy of Industry, 2(98), 75-90. doi.org/10.15407/econindustry2022.02.075 [in Ukrainian].
12. Pankova, O., & Kasperovich, О. (2024). Formation of strategic partnership between the state, employers and trade unions to ensure the workforce capacity of the post-war industrial recovery: condition and prospects. Ekonomika promyslovosti – Economy of Industry, 1(105), 80-106. doi.org/10.15407/econindustry2024.01.080 [in Ukrainian].
13. Poplavska, O. M. (2019). Social dialogue in Ukraine: state, effectiveness, pro-spects for development in the digital economy. Naukovyi visnyk Uzhhorodskoho natsional-noho universytetu. Seriia: Mizhnarodni ekonomichni vidnosyny ta svitove hospodarstvo – Uzhorod National University Herald. Series: International Economic Relations and World Economy, 26(2), 44-49. Retrieved from www.visnyk-econom.uzhnu.uz.ua/archive/26_2_2019ua/10.pdf [in Ukrainian].
14. Sakharuk, I. (2020). Social dialogue as a basis for implementing the concept of decent work. Visnyk Kyivskoho natsionalnoho universytetu imeni Tarasa Shevchenka – Bulletin of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. 2(113), 56-61. doi.org/10.17721/1728-2195/2020/2.113-11 [in Ukrainian].
15. Burlay, T. (2024). New Meaning of CSR in Business: Support for Ukraine’s Societal Resilience in Wartime. In: Belak, J., Nedelko, Z. (Eds.). 8th FEB International Scientific Confer-ence: Challenges in the Turbulent Economic Environment and Organizations’ Sustainable Devel-opment (21 May, 2024, Maribor, Slovenia). University of Maribor. Р. 139-150. doi.org/10.18690/um.epf.5.2024
16. Fultz, E., & Kostrytsia, V. (2023). Delivering Social Security in Wartime: Ukraine's Re-markable Innovations. UN ECOSOC Subcommittee on NGOs Meeting, New York, May 2023. Retrieved from www.researchgate.net/publication/370550730_Delivering_Social_Security_in_Wartime_Ukraine's_Remarkable_Innovations
17. Kolodko, G. W. (2011, February 25). New Pragmatism versus Failing Neoliberal-ism. World Bank’s Blogs. Retrieved from blogs.worldbank.org/en/developmenttalk/new-pragmatism-versus-failing-neoliberalism
18. Kriesi, H., Moise, A. D., & Oana, I.-E. (2024). The determinants of transnational sol-idarity in the EU. West European Politics, 5(47). doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2024.2340336
19. Manca, A. R. (2014). Social Cohesion. In: Michalos, A. C., et al. (Eds). Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Springer, Dordrecht. doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_2739
20. Mihes, Ch. (Ed.) (2023). Workers’ representatives in selected Central and Eastern European countries: Filling a gap in labour rights protection or trade union competition? ILO. Re-trieved from www.ilo.org/publications/workers-representatives-selected-central-and-eastern-european-countries
21. National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI) (2024, July). Unemployment Insur-ance Task Force. Final Report. Washington. Retrieved from www.nasi.org/research/unemployment/unemployment-unemployment-insurance-task-force-final-report/
22. Portna, O. V., Iershova, N. Y., et al. (2021). New Configurations of Social and La-bour Relations in a Crisis Economy. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 2(17), 157-172. 10.14254/1800-5845/2021.17-2.13.
23. Rodrik, D. (2022, July 5). The New Productivism Paradigm? Project Syndicate. Re-trieved from www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/new-productivism-economic-policy-paradigm-by-dani-rodrik-2022-07
24. Rodrik, D. (2006). Goodbye Washington Consensus, Hello Washington Confu-sion? A Review of the World Bank’s Economic Growth in the 1990s: Learning from a Dec-ade of Reform. Journal of Economic Literature, XLIV, 973-987. Retrieved from drodrik.scholar.harvard.edu/files/dani-rodrik/files/goodbye_washington_consensus_.pdf;
doi.org/10.1257/jel.44.4.973
25. Shumska, S., Gaidai, A., & Blyzniuk, V. (2023). Welfare of the Ukrainian Population: Assessment of the Level and Impact of Key Factors. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, 9(2), 230-241. doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2023-9-2-230-241
26. Stiglitz, J. E., & Kosenko, A. (2024, July 12). The Way Forward for Ukraine’s Econ-omy. Project Syndicate. Retrieved from www.project-syndicate.org/onpoint/ukraine-economy-roadmap-must-avoid-neoliberalism-pursue-market-government-balance-by-joseph-e-stiglitz-and-andrew-kosenko-2024-07
27. Stiglitz, J. E. (2003). Challenging the Washington Consensus. The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 9(2), 33-40. Retrieved from business.columbia.edu/sites/default/files-efs/imce-uploads/Joseph_Stiglitz/2003_Challenging_Washington_Consensus.pdf
28. Vandaele, K., Piasna, A., & Zwysen, W. (2024). Are platform workers willing to un-ionize? Exploring survey evidence from 14 European countries. ILO Working Paper, 106. Geneva: International Labour Office.doi.org/10.54394/QWUL5553
Сalendar of events
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |||
