Union Strategy: A Gap in Union Theory

Abstract

Much union theory has attempted to describe and analyse the relationships between various factors and features of unionism. Early theories provided broad explanations of the rise of unionism as a response to industrialism, capitalism or the development of markets (Webb 1914, Hoxie 1919, Perlman 1966, Perlman 1976). More sophisticated theories have explained union growth in terms of the business cycle, government policies, size of establishment or occupational and demographic factors (Ashenfelter and Pencavel 1969; Bain and Elsheikh 1976, 1977, 1979, 1980, 1982). This type of theorising seeks to establish causal links and patterns. This is not only characteristic of work on union growth, but also of that on participation in unions and strike activity. It has even occurred in discussion of union goals or aims. Union aims, for example, have been portrayed as reflecting the composition of the membership (Hoxie 1919).

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 33 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.