Aliki Mouriki
Some scholars argue that this “consensus by reluctant acquiescence rather than consensus by
positive agreement” has been possible because the social partners share a common awareness of the
vulnerability of the Dutch economy, and because wage moderation enjoys a “remarkable” legitimacy
in the Netherlands, unlike any other country (Bruff, 2008b).
Following the Wassenaar Agreement, two major tripartite central agreements concluded in the
1990s, were the New Course agreement of 1993 on working time reduction, and the Flexibility and Se-
curity agreement of 1996 (Visser, 2005). The rapid deterioration of the economy and growing social
unrest indicated at the beginning of the 2000s that the era of consensus was over. This period, how-
ever, only lasted until 2004, when consensus was once again re-established, although this time heavily
skewed against labour. Unions agreed to a wage freeze, in return for fewer cuts in welfare spending
that the government had unilaterally planned —without consulting the social partners. On this occa-
sion, Bruff (2008a) makes the point that the exchange of concessions was even more asymmetric
than in the 1980s and 1990s, although it came from the state and not from the employers.
In Denmark centralised negotiations and dispute solving mechanisms were established long be-
fore most other European countries. As early as 1899, the labour market parties had reached an
agreement on how to regulate labour market issues without state interference (Larsen, 2004).47 Public
authorities assumed a more active role in the formulation of labour market policies only after the
1960s. Social partners have always been and continue to be an important driving force behind the
developments in labour market policy through their institutionalised participation not only in the
making and implementation of policy, but also in administration, through their representation in
councils, committees, commissions and regional bodies with increased competences (ibid.). The long
tradition of consensus-creating institutions and the prominent role of the social partners allow room
for broad compromises when far reaching reforms are needed. By contrast, the parliamentary system
and government coalitions traditionally have little influence on labour market policy formulation.
According to Larsen (2004), Denmark’s successful labour market performance is hard to explain
rationally and on the basis of conscious and deliberate policies, as it is strongly based on practical
experience and the institutional setting that mitigates the power struggles between the social actors.
47 The so-called “September Compromise” of 1899 also recognised the employers’ right to hire and fire at will (Bredgaard,
Larsen & Madsen, 2005).
Page • 64