Liberalizaton Without Major Reforms: The Destandarization of Employment Relations in Central Eastern European Countries

  • Karol MuszyńskiEmail author
Part of the Prekarisierung und soziale Entkopplung – transdisziplinäre Studien book series (PSETS)


The following paper employs Kathleen Thelen’s concept of “trajectory” of liberalization to describe the changes in the area of employment regulation in Central Eastern European countries—Czechia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia (CEECs). The paper argues that the institutional changes that took place in the recent years in the CEECs could be described as a new trajectory of liberalization of “destandarization” that consists of actions that are directly or indirectly violating or circumventing the law and that relies on weak mechanisms of surveillance and lack of sufficient actions from the policy makers on a political level. To substantiate the claim, paper reviews the data on the labor law violations from respective labor inspectorates, and other secondary data on the non-standard forms of employment from various sources. Conceptually, paper is influenced by historical institutionalism.


Liberalization Central eastern european countries Labor law violations Labor standards Non-standard contracts 


  1. Albert, F., K. Gáspár, and R.I. Gal. 2017. ESPN thematic report on access to social protection of people working as self-employed or on non-standard contracts. Hungary. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  2. Avlijaš, S. 2019. The dynamism of the new economy: Non-standard employment and access to social security in EU-28. London: LSE Europe in Question Discussion Paper Series.Google Scholar
  3. Bekas, M., P. Grodzki, M. Lachowicz, K. Piech, M. Pindelski, K. Wierus, and J. Żukowska. 2009. Strategie funkcjonowania i procesy inwestycyjne przedsiębiorstw w sytuacji znaczącego pogorszenia się koniunktury w gospodarce lub konkretnych branżach. Warsaw: PARP.Google Scholar
  4. Blanpain, R., and L. Nagy (eds.). 1996. labour law and industrial relations in central and eastern Europe: From planned to a market economy. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  5. Bohle, D., and B. Greskovits. 2007. Neoliberalism, embedded neoliberalism and neocorporatism: Towards transnational capitalism in Central-Eastern Europe. West European Politics 30 (3): 443–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bohle, D., and B. Greskovits. 2012. Capitalist diversity on Europe’s periphery. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Čaněk, M., A. Šimečková, T. Dumbrava, and P. Čižinský. 2017. Compliance report Foxconn in Pardubice. Czech republic. Amsterdam: Electronics Watch.Google Scholar
  8. Council of Ministers of Poland (Rada Ministrów). 2003. Projekt ustawy o zatrudnianiu pracowników tymczasowych (Act on hiring temporary workers). Warsaw.Google Scholar
  9. Ciett. 2016. Economic report 2016 edition. Brussels: International Confederation of Private Employment Services.Google Scholar
  10. Ciett. 2015. Economic report 2015 edition. Brussels: International Confederation of Private Employment Services.Google Scholar
  11. Cichy, H. 2019. Testu przedsiębiorcy nie będzie, ale…, Polityka 1.06.2019.,1, Accessed 3 June 2019.
  12. Czarzasty, J. 2018. Patchy world. Privatisation as the driving force behind the evolution of labour relations in Poland. Przegląd Socjologiczny 67 (3): 135–153.Google Scholar
  13. Dimitrova, A.L. 2010. The new member states of the EU in the aftermath of enlargement: Do new European rules remain empty shells? Journal of European Public Policy 17 (1): 137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Drahokoupil, J. 2009. Globalization and the state in Central and Eastern Europe: the politics of foreign direct investment. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Drahokoupil, J., and M. Myant. 2015. Labour’s legal resources after 2004: the role of the European Union. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research 21 (3): 327–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Drahokoupil, J., and M. Myant. 2016. Dependent capitalism and employment relations in East Central Europe. In Labour and social transformation in Central and Eastern Europe, ed. V. Delteil and V. Nikolaev, 56–73. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Drahokoupil, J. 2017. The state of the capitalist state in east-central Europe: Towards the Porterian workfare post-national regime? In Industries and markets in Central and Eastern Europe, ed. B.S. Sergi, W.T. Bagatelas, and J. Kubicova, 199–220. London-New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Duda, K. 2016. Outsourcing usług ochrony oraz utrzymania czystości w instytucjach publicznych. Wpływ publicznego dyktatu najniższej ceny usług na warunki zatrudniania pracowników przez podmioty prywatne. Wrocław: Ośrodek Myśli Społecznej im. Ferdynanda Lassalle’a.Google Scholar
  19. Dunn, E.C. 2004. Privatizing Poland: Baby food, big business, and the remaking of labor. London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  20. European Parliament. 2016. Precarious employment in Europe. Part 1: Patterns, trends and policy strategy. Brussels: Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy, European Parliament.Google Scholar
  21. Eurostat. 2014–2017a. Temporary employees as percentage of the total number of employees, by sex, age and country of birth (%).Google Scholar
  22. Eurostat. 2004–2017b. Temporary employees by sex, age and main reason. Reasons: could not find permanent one (%).Google Scholar
  23. Gardawski, J. 2009. Dialog społeczny w Polsce. Teoria, historia, praktyka. Warsaw: MPiPS- Katedra Socjologii Ekonomicznej SGH.Google Scholar
  24. Geidlová, J. 2017. Problematika a zkušenosti z kontrol v oblasti zastřeného agenturního zaměstnávání. Zpravodaj SÚIP 3/2017. Accessed 3 June 2019.
  25. Geissler, H. 2012. New regulations aim to fight bogus self-employment. Eurofound. Accessed 2 March 2020.
  26. Gerbery, D., and R. Bednárik. 2017. ESPN Thematic Report on Access to social protection of people working as self-employed or on non-standard contracts. Slovakia. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  27. Golias, P. 2015. Slovakian non-standard contract reform has marked effect on jobs. Bratislava: INEKO.Google Scholar
  28. Hála, J. 2006. Unions criticise government decision to defer new labour code. Eurofound.
  29. Falkner, G., O. Treib, and E. Holzleithner. 2008. Compliance in the enlarged European Union: Living rights or dead letters? Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  30. Ferreira, J. 2017. Emergence, development and resistance: the temporary staffing industry in the Czech Republic. Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe 25 (1): 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hacker, J. 2004a. Privatizing risk without privatizing the welfare state: The hidden politics of social policy retrenchment in the United States. American Political Science Review 98 (2): 243–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hacker, J. 2004b. Reform without change, change without reform: The politics of US health policy reform in comparative perspective. In Transatlantic policymaking in an age of austerity: Diversity and drift, ed. M.A. Levin and M. Shapiro, 13–63. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hacker, J.S., P. Pierson, and K. Thelen. 2015. Drift and conversion: Hidden faces of institutional change. In Advances in comparative-historical analysis, ed. J. Mahoney and K.A. Thelen, 180–208. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hardy, J. 2009. Poland’s new capitalism. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  35. Hall, P.A., and D. Soskice. 2001. An Introduction to Varieties of Capitalism. In Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage, ed. P.A. Hall and D. Soskice, 1–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. ILO. 2016. Non-standard employment around the world. Understanding challenges, shaping prospects. Geneva: International Labour Office.Google Scholar
  37. Kahancová, M. 2016. The rise of the dual labour market: fighting precarious employment in the new member states through industrial relations (PRECARIR). Bratislava: Central European Labour Studies Institute.Google Scholar
  38. Kártyás, G. 2015. New forms of employment casual work, Hungary. Brussels: Eurofound. Accessed 3 June 2019.
  39. Kohl, H., and H.W. Platzer. 2007. The role of the state in Central and Eastern European industrial relations: the case of minimum wages. Industrial Relations Journal 38 (6): 614–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Labour Force Survey (LFS). 2004–2018. Eurostat.Google Scholar
  41. Landau, L. 1997. Poland country assistance review. Partnership in a transition economy. Washington: World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Łukasik, M. 2019. Test przedsiębiorcy. Padła jasna deklaracja premiera. 01.05.2019. Accessed 3 June 2019.
  43. Mahoney, J. 2000. Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory and society 29 (4): 507–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mahoney, J., and K. Thelen. 2010. A theory of gradual institutional change. In Explaining institutional change, ed. J. Mahoney and K. Thelen, 1–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Martišková, M., and M. Sedlákova. 2016. The rise of the dual labour market: fighting precarious employment in the new member states through industrial relations (PRECARIR). The case of Czechia. Bratislava: Central European Labour Studies Institute.Google Scholar
  46. Meszmann, T. 2016. Country report: Hungary PRECARIR: The rise of the dual labour market: fighting precarious employment in the new member states through industrial relations. Bratislava: Central European Labour Studies Institute.Google Scholar
  47. Muszyński, K. 2016a. Czynniki sterujące antykryzysową polityką prawa pracy w Polsce w latach 2009–2013. Profilaktyka Społeczna i Resocjalizacja 29: 99–126.Google Scholar
  48. Muszyński, K. 2016b. Factors behind the growth of civil law contracts as employment contracts in Poland–a study of labour law violations. Prakseologia 158: 323–359.Google Scholar
  49. Muszyński, K. 2018. Labour law violations as innovations in Central Eastern European countries. Przegląd Socjologiczny 67 (3): 9–34.Google Scholar
  50. Morsink, J.H. 1995. Wage controls during IMF arrangements in Central Europe. In IMF conditionality: Experience under stand-by and extended arrangements, ed. S. Schadler, 107–124. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.Google Scholar
  51. MRPiPS (Ministerstwo Rodziny, Pracy i Polityki Społecznej Ministerstwo Pracy i Polityki Społecznej/Polish Ministry for Family, Labor, and Social Policy). 2004–2018. Informacja o działalności agencji zatrudnienia w latach 2003–2017. Warsaw.Google Scholar
  52. Myant, M. 2014. Economies undergoing long transition: Employment relations in Central and Eastern Europe. In The Oxford Handbook of Employment Relations, ed. A. Wilkinson, G. Wood, and R. Deeg, 359–384. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Národný inšpektorát práce (NIP – Slovakian Labor Inspectorate). 2018. Správa o stave ochrany práce a o činnosti orgánov štátnej správy v oblasti inšpekcie práce za rok 2017. Košice.Google Scholar
  54. Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal (NAV - Hungarian Tax Office). 2011–2018. NAV évkönyv (Yearbooks). Budapest.Google Scholar
  55. Nemzetgazdasági Minisztérium Munkavédelmi Főosztály (NGM – Hungarian Ministry of Finance). 2018. A munkaügyi ellenőrzés tapasztalatai [2017. év]. Budapest.Google Scholar
  56. Nölke, A., and A. Vliegenthart. 2009. Enlarging the varieties of capitalism: The emergence of dependent market economies in East Central Europe. World Politics 61 (4): 670–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. PIP (Państwowa Inspekcja Pracy—Polish State Labour Inspectorate). 2018. Sprawozdanie z działalności Państwowej Inspekcji Pracy w 2017 r. Warsaw.Google Scholar
  58. Palczyńska, M. 2016. Rodzaj umowy o pracę a umiejętności i ich wykorzystywanie. Warsaw: Instytut Badań Edukacyjnych.Google Scholar
  59. Peters, B.G., J. Pierre, and D.S. King. 2005. The politics of path dependency: Political conflict in historical institutionalism. The Journal of Politics 67 (4): 1275–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Portes, A., and J. Böröcz. 1988. The informal sector under capitalism and state socialism: A preliminary comparison. Social Justice 15 (33–34): 17–28.Google Scholar
  61. Rotkiewicz, M. 2010. Zatrudnianie pracowników tymczasowych. Warsaw: Beck.Google Scholar
  62. Sobczyk, A. 2009. Zatrudnienie tymczasowe: komentarz. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar
  63. SUIP (Státní úřad inspekce prace – Czech Labor Inspectorate). 2018. Zpráva o činnosti Státního úřadu inspekce práce za rok 2017. Oprava.Google Scholar
  64. Starke, P. 2006. The politics of welfare state retrenchment: A literature review. Social policy & administration 40 (1): 104–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Streeck, W., and K. Thelen. 2005. Introduction: Institutional change in advanced political economies. In Beyond continuity. Institutional change in advanced political economies, ed. W. Streeck and K. Thelen, 1–39. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Streeck, W. 2004. Taking uncertainty seriously: Complementarity as a moving target. In: Workshops/Oesterreichische Nationalbank, Eurosystem: Proceedings of OeNB workshops, 101–115. Vienna: Oesterreichische Nationalbank.Google Scholar
  67. Thelen, K.A. 2012. Varieties of capitalism: Trajectories of liberalization and the new politics of social solidarity. Annual Review of Political Science 15 (1): 137–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Thelen, K.A. 2014. Varieties of liberalization and the new politics of social solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Waller, M., and M. Myant (eds.). 1994. Parties, trade unions, and society in East-Central Europe. Portland: Frank Kass.Google Scholar
  70. Vis, B. 2016. Taking stock of the comparative literature on the role of blame avoidance strategies in social policy reform. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 18 (2): 122–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WarsawWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations