Attempts to expand labor rights are rarely met with automatic acceptance by employers who benefitted from past practices. Workers, thus, sometimes engage in transnational activism in an attempt to secure labor rights on the local or national scale. This article investigates why some employers alter their behavior in response to such activism. I hypothesize that an employer will concede to a transnational labor campaign only when workers fully shift that employer’s attention onto the international scale and directly threaten the employer’s core, material interests. Evidence from a controlled comparison of labor disputes at luxury hotels in Indonesia and Cambodia during a period of institutional transition in the early 2000s supports this argument. This analysis sheds light on the conditions necessary for the implementation of labor rights through transnational activism and the causal mechanisms linking labor and employer strategies to the outcomes of transnational campaigns.
AdlerD.WoolcockM. (2009). Justice without the rule of law? The challenge of rights-based industrial relations in contemporary Cambodia (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1445687). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1445687
2.
AmengualM.ChirotL. (2016). Reinforcing the state: Transnational and state labor regulation in Indonesia (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2714476). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2714476
3.
AnnerM. S. (2011). Solidarity transformed: Labor responses to globalization and crisis in Latin America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
4.
BerikG.RodgersY. V. D. M. (2010). Options for enforcing labour standards: Lessons from Bangladesh and Cambodia. Journal of International Development, 22, 56-85.
BrookesM. (2013). Varieties of power in transnational labor alliances: An analysis of workers’ structural, institutional, and coalitional power in the global economy. Labor Studies Journal, 38(3), 181-200.
7.
BrookesM. (2015). Power, labour, and globalisation: How context-appropriate strategies help transnational labour alliances succeed. In BielerA.ErneR.GoldenD.. (Eds.), Labour and transnational action in times of crisis (pp. 129-142). London, England: Rowman & Littlefield International.
8.
BrownA. (2016). Political regimes and employment relations in Thailand. Journal of Industrial Relations, 58, 199-214.
9.
BurtonJ.KazminA. (2004, April28). Hospitality at Cambodia’s top hotels does not extend to unionised workers. Financial Times, p. 11.
10.
CarawayT. L. (2004). Protective repression, international pressure, and institutional design: Explaining labor reform in Indonesia. Studies in Comparative International Development, 39(3), 28-49.
11.
CarawayT. L. (2006). Political openness and transnational activism: Comparative insights from labor activism. Politics Society, 34, 277-304.
12.
CarawayT. L. (2010). Labor standards and labor market flexibility in East Asia. Studies in Comparative International Development, 45, 225-249.
13.
ChenF. (2016). China’s road to the construction of labor rights. Journal of Sociology, 52(1), 24-38.
14.
ChheangV. (2008). The political economy of tourism in Cambodia. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 13, 281-297.
15.
DeanA. (2015). Power over profits: The political economy of workers and wages. Politics & Society, 43, 333-360.
16.
den HondF.de BakkerG. (2012). Boomerang politics: How transnational stakeholders impact multinational corporations in the context of globalization. In LindgreenA.KotlerP.VanhammeJ.MaonF. (Eds.), A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: Pressures, conflicts, reconciliation (pp. 275-292). Aldershot, UK: Gower.
17.
EvansP. (2010). Is it labor’s turn to globalize? Twenty-first century opportunities and strategic responses. Global Labour Journal, 1, 352-379.
GeorgeA. L.BennettA. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22.
HallP.SoskiceD. (2001). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
23.
HarrisonA.ScorseJ. (2004, May). Moving up or moving out? Anti-sweatshop activists and labor market outcomes (Working Paper No. 10492). National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w10492
24.
HiattJ. P.GreenfieldD. (2004). The importance of core labor rights in world development. Michigan Journal of International Law, 26, 39.
JacksonG.KuruvillaS.FregeC. (2013). Across boundaries: The global challenges facing workers and employment research. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 51, 425-439.
30.
JuliawanB. H. (2011). Street-level politics: Labour protests in post-authoritarian Indonesia. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 41, 349-370.
31.
KangS. L. (2012). Human rights and labor solidarity: Trade unions in the global economy. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
32.
KayT. (2005). Labor transnationalism and global governance: The impact of NAFTA on transnational labor relationships in North America. The American Journal of Sociology, 111, 715-756.
33.
KayT. (2011). NAFTA and the politics of labor transnationalism. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
34.
KeckM. E.SikkinkK. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
LierD. C. (2007). Places of work, scales of organising: A review of labour geography. Geography Compass, 1, 814-833.
37.
LockeR. M. (2013). The promise and limits of private power: Promoting labor standards in a global economy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
38.
LockeR. M.ThelenK. (1995). Apples and oranges revisited: Contextualized comparisons and the study of comparative labor politics. Politics & Society, 23, 337-368.
39.
ManningC.RoesadK. (2006). Survey of recent developments. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 42, 143-170.
40.
MarchJ. G.OlsenJ. P. (2006). The logic of appropriateness. In MoranM.ReinM.GoodinR. E. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 689-708). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
41.
McAteerE.PulverS. (2009). The corporate boomerang: Shareholder transnational advocacy networks targeting oil companies in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Global Environmental Politics, 9(1), 1-30.
42.
McCallumJ. K. (2013). Global unions, local power: The new spirit of transnational labor organizing. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
43.
MosleyL. (2008). Workers’ rights in open economies global production and domestic institutions in the developing world. Comparative Political Studies, 41, 674-714.
44.
NeakS.RobertsonR. (2009). Globalization and working conditions: Evidence from Cambodia. In RobertsonR.BrownD.PierreG.lleL. B.Sanchez-PuertaM. L. (Eds.), Globalization, wages, and the quality of jobs: Five country studies (pp. 97-130). Washington, DC: World Bank.
45.
Nolan GarcíaK. A. (2011). Transnational advocates and labor rights enforcement in the North American free trade agreement. Latin American Politics and Society, 53(2), 29-60.
RobertsonR.BrownD.PierreG.lleL. B.Sanchez-PuertaM. L. (2009). Globalization, wages, and the quality of jobs: Five country studies. Washington, DC: World Bank.
50.
RobertsonR.SitalaksmiS.IsmalinaP.FitradyA. (2009). Globalization and working conditions: Evidence from Indonesia. In RobertsonR.BrownD.PierreG.lleL. B.Sanchez-PuertaM. L. (Eds.), Globalization, wages, and the quality of jobs: Five country studies (pp. 203-236). Washington, DC: World Bank.
51.
SchattschneiderE. E. (1960). The semi-sovereign people. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
