The Rise of Public Sector Unions in the Twenty-First Century: A Theoretical, Mixed-Methods Approach with Evidence from Argentina

• Published date: 01 December 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00323292231205440
• Author: Sebastián Etchemendy,Germán Lodola
• Date: 01 December 2024
• Subject Matter: Articles

The Rise of Public Sector

Unions in the Twenty-First

Century: A Theoretical,

Mixed-Methods Approach

with Evidence from Argentina

Sebastián Etchemendy

and Germán Lodola

Universidad Torcuato Di Tella

Abstract

Public sectorunions are increasingly becomingthe hegemonic contemporarylabor actor

in terms of membership and militancy in both advanced and emerging economies.

However, political economy lacks a unif‌ied theoretical approach to study mobilization

by state unions. The analysis of public sector union politics has been largely separated

by regional(United States vs. Europe vs. GlobalSouth) and disciplinary (Americanpolitics

vs. comparativepolitics/political sociology)divides. We contend that though both public

and private workers belong to the subaltern classes, public sector union politics and

mobilization have different foundations than in the private sector. Unlike private unions,

state labormobilization is essentiallydriven by what we call the “reverseeconomic cycle”

(militancy increases in bad—rather than good—economic times), by the legal enforce-

ment of bargaining rights (which in contrast to the private sector substantially varies

across and within democracies), and by the likelihood of a political exchange between

labor and the government. Argentine teachers between 2006 and 2019 provide an

ideal laboratoryto test this argument througha multilevel (i.e., nationaland subnational),

mixed-methods strategy, which includes comparative and statistical assessments.

Keywords

labor, public sector, political economy, teachers, Argentina

Corresponding Author:

Sebastián Etchemendy, Department of Political Science and International Studies, Universidad Torcuato Di

Tella, Figueroa Alcorta 7350, C1428, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Email: setchemendy@utdt.edu

Correction (January 2024): Article updated to correct the row of “Interactive Term”in Table 3 and the

title of Figure 2.

Article

Politics & Society

2024, Vol. 52(4) 547–585

© The Author(s) 2023

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00323292231205440

journals.sagepub.com/home/pas

Modern publicsector unions are a lightning in the landscape of quiet and shrinking labor

movements in both advanced and emerging economies. While private sector unions are

generally in retreat, public sector labor is a consistent force in most of the democratic

world. It is widelyargued that structural trends thatundermine nonstate labor amidglob-

alization, such as enhanced international economic competition, widespread f‌lexibiliza-

tion of employment conditions, and retrenchment in traditional manufacturing

strongholds, have affected much less, or largely sidelined, public unions.

1

During the

last f‌ifteen years, public sector unions and teachers (the largest state workers’group in

almost every country) have staged prominent strike waves in places as diverse as the

United States, South Africa, Israel, the Nordic countries, China, and Argentina.

2

The

president of Peru elected in 2021 built his career in a teacher union, and state labor

and teachers became the organizational backbone of the Tunisian revolution that

sparked the Arab Spring in 2011. Ruth B. Collier has recently stated that across Latin

America “the labor movement has come to be centered in the public rather than the

private sector, with teachers emerging as the largest organized group.”

3

Public sector

unions have been the main force behind massive strikes in the United Kingdom and

France in the f‌irst half of 2023, the largest in at least two decades. In brief, most

twenty-f‌irst-century big labor battles are, essentially, public sector union clashes.

Given the relevance of public sector conf‌lict in contemporary political economies, it is

surprising that we lack a general theoretical approach to study state unions. For some

scholars, they tend to be more combative because they are less challenged by price com-

petition and enjoy employment protection. But others insist that they tend to be more reg-

ulated/controlled by the government, and composed by white collar and educated workers

that are prone to moderation and “yellow”unionism.

4

In short, it is not clear why and in

what ways public sector unions differ from private sector labor organizations. Though the

current rise of public unions is ref‌lected in various aspects such as union density and con-

tract coverage, this article focuses on a key contemporary feature: mobilization capacity.

The increasing primacy of public unions has been noted both in advanced and

developing economies alike. However, the study of public sector union politics is

largely separated by regional (United States vs. Europe vs. Global South) and discipli-

nary (American politics/economics vs. comparative politics/political sociology)

divides that scarcely speak to each other. In the United States, a “rent-seeking,”neo-

utilitarian approach critically emphasizes the growth of public unions.

5

It holds that

state labor has mostly used its gained legal rights to stage workplace and political

mobilization, and protect their rents in the form of wages and expanded employment.

The (mostly European-based) comparative politics/political sociology subf‌ield largely

sees rising state unions as part of larger labor movements that are national political

actors. In this literature, public unions can affect general wage moderation because

of their noncompetitive nature. Thus, the key issues are the conditions (i.e., common

government-union political identity and unif‌ied labor movements) in which the “polit-

ical exchange”between government and state labor is more likely.

6

Finally, scholars in

Latin America and the Global South have pointed out how, in those cases where the

union movement is relatively strong at a national level (such as Argentina, Brazil,

South Africa, and Tunisia) public unions increasingly dominate national labor confed-

erations and social contestation. The question here is whether party-union ties and

548 Politics & Society 52(4)

varieties of top-down state-corporatist arrangements (which generally date from the

predemocratic period) gave way to more autonomous patterns of mobilization that

can truly benef‌it state labor and workers.

7

In this study, we aim to build the f‌irst steps for a general theoretical approach to the

study of public sector unions. We argue that a more unif‌ied view of public sector

union politics should begin by disentangling the similarities, and the key differences,

between public and private sector trade unionism. In a capitalist society, both public

and private labor constitute a “f‌ictitious commodity”that is sold for a price,

8

and they

are thus part of the subaltern classes. In both cases workers can try to compensate in

the political realm for their “natural”disadvantageof being depr ived of the means of pro-

duction/subsistence, especially under democratic governance. However, we contend that

public unionism radically differs in (a) the contemporary key role of state regulation in

collective bargaining and (b) the labor market foundations for collective action, as

public labor is less threatened by international and domestic competition, and by retalia-

tory layoffs (in view of its statutory protections).

As we will elaborate below, these differences shape distinct conditions for collective

action. Put differently, private and public workers belong to the same social class but

have different mobilization patterns. First, against established private sector–based eco-

nomic theories of strike mobilization, we put forward a “reverse economic cycle”hypoth-

esis for state unions. We argue that public sector workers tend to protest less in the upper

part of the economic cycle, when the economy grows, unemployment is low, and budget

constraints are less stringent. Second, we contend that in a free union organizing environ-

ment, mobilization declines when legal collective bargaining (at the national and/or sub-

national levels) is mandatory and thus labor disputes become institutionalized. Finally, in

the line of European and Global South corporatist theories, we claim that public sector

militancy weakens when government leaders share a party identity with relatively

unif‌ied labor unions, and a political exchange of moderation for wage and nonwage

payoffs unfolds. Conversely, contention will be stronger in times of f‌iscal adjustment

and high unemployment, when public sector activists who generally cannot be f‌ired

will f‌ight for scarce resources. Militancy will also increase when collective bargaining

is hindered by state regulation (which, unlike in the private sector, is frequent under

democracies), when government and labor leaders belong to different political parties,

and labor is divided internally and/or among many unions.

Argentine teachers provide an ideal laboratory to test our argument. They are the

paradigmatic example of a public sector union more powerful after the economic lib-

eralization of the last quarter of the twentieth century than before. Argentina is a robust

federation in which teacher mobilization and the legal status of bargaining rights vary

dramatically across the twenty-four provinces. It also harbors the strongest labor move-

ment on the continent, which is politically close to one of the mainstream parties, the

Peronist movement. These aspects allow us to test the effects of both legal and political

exchange factors on public sector union militancy. Argentina is a democracy, public

unions are autonomous actors, and elected politicians fear labor strife. Teachers are

the largest public sector union in most countries and play a central role in the politics

of education.

9

Etchemendy and Lodola 549