The selection of countries

There were several rationales for the choice of countries that were the subject of the study. First, the four countries that were selected represent four types of national industrial relations systems that are prevalent across European member states (Marginson and Sisson, 2004; Visser, 2008). Due to the absence of sufficient resources to conduct in-depth qualitative analysis of the implementation of the Framework Agreements and texts within each of the countries in which the Agreements and texts were implemented, this approach offered the best way in which to gauge the general effects of the Framework Agreements and texts across the countries in which they were implemented. Although there are limits to the extent that the study may generalize its findings given the high degree of diversity in national systems, the selection of four countries with very different systems at least provide the study with a decent claim to be able to generalize its findings. Further, the countries represent three of the four ‘worlds of compliance’ identified by Falkner et al (2005) and Falkner and Treib (2008)

The UK represents the model of an Anglo-Saxon industrial relations system of industrial relations and a country in the ‘world of domestic politics’ (Falkner et al, 2005). Within the UK, levels of social and employment protection are relatively low compared to other Western European countries, collective negotiations are largely conducted at the firm or plant level, and there is very little coordination between levels of collective bargaining. The UK is also a model of the type of Liberal Market

Economy (LME) that is widely discussed in the debate about varieties of capitalism (Hall and Soskice, 2001). In those countries in which the Agreements and texts were implemented, Ireland closely resembles the UK. The case of the implementation of the Agreements and texts in the UK is also likely to offer crucial clues about the relationship between European-level 'soft' law and states that exhibit LME style characteristics.

Denmark was selected as the model of a Nordic voluntarist-corporatist state, is a model of the type of Coordinated Market Economy (CME) that is widely discussed in the debate about varieties of capitalism (Hall and Soskice, 2001), and is grouped in the ‘world of compliance’ (Falkner et al, 2005). Within Denmark, there are very high levels of trade union and employer association density, collective negotiations between the Social Partners are conducted mainly at the sectoral level, there are very well established links between levels of social dialogue, and there are advanced levels of social and employment protection. Other countries in which the Agreements and texts were implemented that resemble Denmark closely are Norway, Sweden, and Finland.

Belgium was selected as it represents a Western European country in which the erga omnes procedure is used extensively to regulate employment relations and is grouped

in the ‘world of domestic politics’ (Falkner et al, 2005). Within Belgium, collective agreements concluded at the inter-sectoral level are also implemented via a legally- binding erga omnes procedure. The case of Belgium represents that of countries such

as France, Spain, and Portugal where erga omnes mechanisms are also used

extensively to regulate employment relations.

The Czech Republic was selected to represent the model of the type of system prevalent in Visegrad countries and is grouped in the ‘world of dead letters’ (Falkner and Treib, 2008). Within Czech Republic, a national labour code is used extensively to regulate employment relations, levels of trade union and employer association density are low, collective negotiations between the social partners take place pre- dominantly at the enterprise and firm level, and there is little social dialogue at the sectoral or inter-sectoral levels. Many topics of regulatory concern at the European level are also 'new' within the Czech regulatory context. Although there is some diversity within Visegrad countries, the above conditions are generally present within these countries, and the case of the implementations of the Agreements in the Czech Republic is thus likely to be representative of the effect of the Agreements and texts within these countries.

The choice of countries was also informed by more practical considerations. Firstly, owing to the fact that the researcher's native language is English and that the

researcher was based in the UK for the duration of the project, the selection of the UK as one of the countries was a somewhat obvious choice given the proximity of the social partner organizations and the use of the English language by the UK social partners. Practical reasons also facilitated the choices of Denmark and Belgium. Firstly, the researcher had existing contacts within the two states through his

participation in the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and

Working Conditions' network of correspondents, and was provided with office space at the University of Copenhagen and Université Catholique de Louvain for the duration of the fieldwork within the two countries. The fact that the majority of officials within the Danish and Belgian social partner organizations also speak English also lay behind the choice of the countries.

The researcher was unable to include in his country sample states from the Baltic, Mediterranean and Germanic variants of industrial relations systems. Owing to time and financial restraints, conducting research in more than four countries would have been unfeasible.