Global Regulation and Labour Strategy: The Case of International Labour Standards

Abstract

Internationalisation of capital grew rapidly in the post-war period, driven initially by US-based TNCs. International capitals were able to trade off production conditions in different economies against national regimes of regulation. Consequently, these regimes were increasingly subject to amendment in order to attract mobile investment. Such changes were particularly significant for local and national labour movements. Growing mobility of capital undermined the organisational and locational specificity of labour. Labour's response was to seek to internationalise collective bargaining in an attempt to impose a measure of international regulation on international capital. This response, first theorised in the 1960s, has generally failed. However, with the growth of international regulation of capital in recent years -for example, the WTO, proposed measures to control international investment, international production standards, the creation of powerful economic blocs prepared to place labour standards on the agenda (NAFTA, EU, APEC) - the possibility has arisen for labour to take advantage of international regulatory developments to press for the international imposition of core Labour standards. Initiatives taken by the ICFTU-APRO in the Asian/South Pacific region illustrate this development. However, given the nature of contemporary international regulation, labour strategies in this area are not guaranteed success.