Negotiated versus adversarial patterns of social democracy: a comparison between the Netherlands and France

Abstract

On the basis of Lijphart’s (1999) two forms of democracy, majoritarian and consensus, this article explores the relevance of a similar two-sided typology of negotiated versus adversarial patterns of social democracy ( démocratie sociale) for characterizing industrial relations in European Union countries and understanding the link between these patterns and a country’s social and economic performance. Social democracy ( démocratie sociale) is considered as a form of collective action in the field of industrial relations resulting from social and economic citizenship. Seven dimensions are chosen to bring out the overall patterns: welfare state regime, collective actors, collective bargaining, industrial disputes, social and economic arenas and institutions, employee representation, and decision-making processes. With France and the Netherlands being two good examples of the majoritarian and the consensus types of democracy, these countries are chosen to test the relevance of the two patterns of social democracy ( démocratie sociale). The two countries clearly illustrate the two patterns.