How are unions and professional associations brought under control or divided?
The government can control trade unions and professional associations by once giving preferential access to negotiations, money and media, offering its leaders functions, and making it difficult for competing organizations to register, space or contact members. This leaves employees and experts divided, while the representative who depends on the government transfers pressure downwards and mitigates demands upwards.
Control can also be subtle: management formally remains elected, but knows that an open conflict would endanger members or benefits. Cooperation with the state is a normal part of the work of trade unions and professions, so in itself it is not a proof of capture. The problem exists when an organization cannot freely choose leaders and attitude, when the benefit depends on obedience and when the government helps one representative to remove or weaken competition.
Cooperation with the state is not in itself a proof of control. It should be shown that the organization has lost the right to decide, received special benefit or helped to eliminate competition.
Works supporting this answer, with their evidence type and an explanation of how they relate to the claim.
comparing several countries or cases
Kim, W. i Gandhi, J. (2010), „Coopting Workers under Dictatorship“, Journal of Politics 72(3): 646–658.
- Contribution to this answer
- Kim and Gandhi show why authoritarian governments do not have to be just enemies: through parties and other regime institutions, the government can offer material benefits to workers in exchange for political peace. In more institutionalized dictatorships, workers really get more benefits, and workers’ protests are less.
Explain how the system works
Robertson, G. B. (2007), „Strikes and Labor Organization in Hybrid Regimes“, American Political Science Review 101(4): 781–798.
- Contribution to this answer
- Robertson shows what happens when unions exist, but they are not independent organizations of workers: in post-communist Russia, the protest depends less on the union organization, and more on whether it is supported by a part of the political elite or whether the economic conditions have become extremely difficult. The controlled union therefore changes the way workers’ discontent can become political pressure.
research in universities
Yan, X. (2014), „Engineering Stability: Authoritarian Political Control over University Students in Post-Deng China“, China Quarterly 218: 493–513.
- Contribution to this answer
- Yan shows how the authoritarian government organizes and supervises another potentially important collective actor students through institutions within the university. The mechanism of control of organized collective action is relevant, but the work is not about trade unions or professional associations.
review more research
Toepler, S., Zimmer, A., Fröhlich, C. i Obuch, K. (2020), „The Changing Space for NGOs: Civil Society in Authoritarian and Hybrid Regimes“, VOLUNTAS 31: 649–662.
- Contribution to this answer
- Toepler and co-authors demonstrate the general logic of selective treatment of organizations: politically demanding groups may be limited, while others engage in cooperation and provision of services. This helps to understand the co-optation of organizations, but is not a specific study of trade unions or professional associations.
comparing several countries or cases
Schleutker, E. (2021), „Co-optation and Repression of Religion in Authoritarian Regimes“, Politics and Religion 14(2): 209–240.
- Contribution to this answer
- Schleutker shows the same choice between co-optation and repression on religious communities. It is a useful comparative mechanism the regime can offer institutional access and benefit to one organized group and limit the other but it is not evidence of workers’ or professional organizations.
Is a relevant source missing? Send it to us.
Suggest a source or report an error in this answer →