Rethinking trade union density: A new index for measuring union strength

• Published date: 01 November 2021
• Author: Anne Metten
• Date: 01 November 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12347

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Rethinking trade union density: A new index

for measuring union strength

Anne Metten MA

Department of Political Science, Kiel

University, Kiel, Germany

Correspondence

Anne Metten, Department of Political

Science, Kiel University, Westring

400, Kiel 24118, Germany.

Email: ametten@politik.uni-kiel.de

Abstract

Although trade union density is the most influential

and most commonly used indicator to map trade union

strength, comparing between countries and time, the

author argues that trade union density is lacking both

specificity and comparability. Additionally, many stud-

ies on industrial relations neglect developing countries.

Therefore, the paper offers a new concept based on a

combination of different theoretical approaches that

identify determinants of trade union strength involving

developing countries. On that basis, the author creates

a novel, composite index that is better at capturing

trade union strength than previous indices. First evalu-

ations of this collective labour force index, which

covers the years 2000 to 2016 in 72 countries, show that

it is quite capable of doing so.

1|INTRODUCTION

The most influential and commonly used comparative measure of trade union strength is union

density (e.g. Crouch, 2017, p. 49; Flanagan, 1999, p. 1165; Visser, 2006, p. 38; Western, 1997,

p. 15). Union density quantifies the share of union members in all gainfully employed persons.

In research, the share is frequently utilised to draw comparisons over time and between coun-

tries. However, I argue that the comparability of trade union density and its use is highly prob-

lematic for two main reasons: conceptual narrowness and regional bias. Therefore, in this

paper, I propose a new measure of union strength. This measure overcomes the two central

DOI: 10.1111/irj.12347

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits

use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or

adaptations are made.

© 2021 The Author. Industrial Relations Journal published by Brian Towers (BRITOW) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

528 Ind. Relat. 2021;52:528–549.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/irj

shortcomings of the existing approach in two ways. One is to take a more detailed examination

of the determinants of union strength, and the other is to explicitly include developing

countries.

First, a detailed examination of the determinants is necessary because union density is a

more multifaceted phenomenon than can be captured by the mere share of union members. On

the one hand, union density may be high in some countries where labour movements are not

able to exercise authority in politics and at the workplace when it comes to improving the mate-

rial, social and legal position of their members. We can exemplify this logic by looking at

China. In 2008, the All-China Federation of Trade Unions had a membership rate of 184%

(International Labour Organization [ILO], 2018). This high rate not only illustrates that non-

working people get included in China's official statistics. Additionally, it is questionable

whether the All-China Federation of Trade Unions actually places the interests of its workers

and the protection of their rights in the foreground. On the other hand, unionisation in some

countries may be nominally low, but trade unions might nonetheless exercise authority in poli-

tics and at the workplace. France is a prime example for this contradiction. Its trade union den-

sity levels off at merely 8% in the 2000s (ibid.). Nevertheless, the power of French labour

movements is considered to be strong and independent of the actual number of members

(Bean & Holden, 1994, p. 7).

We can also observe in other countries that ‘the very concept of membership and of what

it means to take a membership card does not translate across countries’(Visser, 1991, p. 99).

Thus, there are different incentive structures for membership and different ranges of union

influence: There are countries with independent unions, countries with rather monopolistic

union representation (as in Cuba) and countries that ban unions (as Saudi Arabia does).

There are unions that predominately operate and negotiate either centralised, decentralised,

sectoral or with a single employer. Unions with closed shop agreements (as in Canada or the

United States) or unions that govern unemployment benefits (as in Denmark). Eventually,

there are different modes of labour market regulation: Reaching consensus in decision-

making in either bipartite (as in Germany) or tripartite arenas (as in Mauritius), negotiations

in some countries can be rather conflictual/pluralist (as in France) or rather institutionally

consensual/corporatist (as in the Scandinavian countries). To conclude, union membership

and the functions of a union itself differ between states in ways that go beyond density rates.

The concept of union density as a measure for trade union strength is quite frankly to

narrow.

For the second shortcoming, I argue that the disproportionate focus of industrial relations

research on affluent democracies adversely affects the idea of broad comparability. Labour

movements in non-industrialised countries seem to be neglected by research (see Lawrence &

Ishikawa, 2005, p. 3 f.; Martin & Brady, 2007, p. 579). If anything, industrial relations in devel-

oping countries get analysed in terms of case studies or the comparison of a small number of

countries. Comparatively little is known about union strength in non-industrialised countries

due to a lack of quantitative data on industrial relations (Bazillier, 2008, p. 18). Considering the

international division of labour and the increasing involvement of developing countries in the

world market, the status of dependent workers and the perception of the potential that labour

movements can unfold should not be overlooked.

To address these research gaps, my paper explores how the strength of trade unions can be

captured in a comparative way and with the inclusion of developing countries. Assuming that

trade union strength is a multifaceted phenomenon, various manifestations of this strength are

therefore systematically assessed at different levels in a variety of countries hereafter. The

METTEN 529