"One simple factor, however, does appear to explain much of the observed variation in unionization trends: the broad national political environment.3 Countries that have been strongly identified during the postwar period with social democratic parties – Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland – have generally seen small increases in union coverage and only small decreases in union membership since 1980. Over the same period, countries that are more typically identified as “liberal market economies” – the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Canada, and Japan – have generally seen sharp drops in union coverage and membership. Countries in the broad Christian democratic tradition, sometimes referred to as “coordinated market economies” or “continental market economies” – Germany, Austria, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and Switzerland – typically have had outcomes somewhere in between, with small drops in union coverage and moderate declines in union membership. These patterns are consistent with the view that national politics are a more important determinant of recent trends in unionization than globalization or technological change."

this contrasted to wage share trends properly corected might establish whether institutionalized unions make much of a difference eh ??

note the difference between coverage rates and membership rates

high coverage 90%  low membership sub 10%

the french end run around istitutionalizing the  unions



notice the size of the nation's able to build sd style  state transfer systems
are the sd state transfer systems qualitatively different ??

hasn't the ultimo sd state sweden taken some hits
since  the thatcher reagan global cap morph ??

there's a point of deflection thru all these nations post 75 -80