Abstract
Ratifying conventions adopted by the International Labour Organization creates legal obligations to improve labour standards in the domestic economy. Why do states choose to ratify them? Two influential theoretical approaches offer contrasting explanations. Rational institutionalist theory expects states to use institutions such as the ILO to improve or consolidate their preferred standards while reducing the risk of suffering competitive disadvantages in world markets. In this view, ILO conventions are devices for the prevention and mitigation of regulatory “races to the bottom” among trade rivals. By contrast, sociological institutionalism expect states to ratify ILO conventions if doing so conforms to a norm of appropriate behaviour that is prevalent in the states’ respective peer groups. The paper develops observable implications of the two explanations and tests them by applying spatial regression models to seven core ILO conventions, 187 countries, and 40 years. The paper finds some evidence in support of both explanations, but sociological institutionalism is supported more strongly than rational institutionalism.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.