IMT Institutional Repository: No conditions. Results ordered -Date Deposited. 2024-03-28T09:24:43ZEPrintshttp://eprints.imtlucca.it/images/logowhite.pnghttp://eprints.imtlucca.it/2011-02-16T10:46:19Z2011-07-11T13:50:58Zhttp://eprints.imtlucca.it/id/eprint/75This item is in the repository with the URL: http://eprints.imtlucca.it/id/eprint/752011-02-16T10:46:19ZWhy Do States Commit to International Labour Standards?
The Importance of “Rivalry” and “Friendship”Ratifying conventions adopted by the International Labour Organization creates legal
obligations to improve labour standards in the domestic economy. Why do states
choose to ratify them? Two influential theoretical approaches offer contrasting
explanations. Rational institutionalist theory expects states to use institutions such as
the ILO to improve or consolidate their preferred standards while reducing the risk of
suffering competitive disadvantages in world markets. In this view, ILO conventions
are devices for the prevention and mitigation of regulatory “races to the bottom”
among trade rivals. By contrast, sociological institutionalism expect states to ratify
ILO conventions if doing so conforms to a norm of appropriate behaviour that is
prevalent in the states’ respective peer groups. The paper develops observable
implications of the two explanations and tests them by applying spatial regression
models to seven core ILO conventions, 187 countries, and 40 years. The paper finds
some evidence in support of both explanations, but sociological institutionalism is
supported more strongly than rational institutionalism.Leonardo Baccinileonardo.baccini@imtlucca.itMathias Koenig-Archibugi