This article provides an analysis of strategies aimed to promote workplace innovation in nine national and regional policy contexts in the last few years. Its conceptual objective is to elaborate a model, developed by Naschold, and assess its usability in the analysis of contemporary workplace development strategies. The empirical objective of this article is to assess strengths and weaknesses of the strategies and similarities and differences between them by means of the model. The comparison results in a map of profiles of the nine strategies. The policy objective of this article is to raise issues that can be considered crucial for promoting learning across national borders in workplace development. The study was implemented between 2005 and 2008 as part of the EU-funded WORK-IN-NET project (2004—9).
Aagaard Nielsen, K. and L. Svensson, eds (2006) Action and Interactive Research: Beyond Practice and Theory. Maastricht: Shaker Publishing.
2.
Alasoini, T. ( 2006) ‘In Search of Generative Results: A New Generation of Programmes to Develop Work Organization’, Economic and Industrial Democracy27(1): 9-37.
3.
Alasoini, T., E. Ramstad, T. Hanhike and M. Lahtonen ( 2005) European Programmes on Work and Labour Innovation: A Benchmarking Approach, Coordinated Action WORK-IN-NET, supported within the Sixth Framework Programme of the European Commission. Helsinki: Finnish Workplace Development Programme (TYKES).
4.
Alasoini, T., E. Ramstad, T. Hanhike and N. Rouhiainen ( 2008) Learning across Boundaries: Workplace Development Strategies of Singapore, Flanders and Ireland in Comparison, Coordinated Action WORK-IN-NET, supported within the Sixth Framework Programme of the European Commission . Helsinki: Finnish Workplace Development Programme (TYKES).
5.
Arnkil, R. ( 2008) ‘In Search of Missing Links in Disseminating Good Practice - Experiences of a Work Reform Programme in Finland’, International Journal of Action Research4(1 and 2): 39-61.
6.
Bamps, H. and P. Berckmans ( 2005) Overheidsbeleid ter stimulering van organisatieinnovatie in bedrijven: Lessen uit het buitenland [Public Policies to Promote Organizational Innovation in Companies: Lessons from Foreign Countries]. Brussels: SERV - STV Innovatie & Arbeid.
7.
Brödner, P. and E. Latniak ( 2003) ‘Sources of Innovation and Competitiveness: National Programmes Supporting the Development of Work Organisation’, Concepts and Transformation8(2): 179-211.
8.
Business Decisions Limited (2000) Government Support Programmes for New Forms of Work Organisation: A Report for DG Employment and Social Affairs. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
9.
Cole, R.E. ( 1989) Strategies for Learning: Small-Group Activities in American, Japanese, and Swedish Industry. Berkeley: University of California Press.
10.
Cole, R.E. (1993) ‘The Leadership, Organization and Co-determination Programme and its Evaluation: A Comparative Perspective’, pp. 121-32 in F. Naschold, R.E. Cole, B. Gustavsen and H. van Beinum (eds) Constructing the New Industrial Society. Assen: Van Gorcum.
11.
Den Hertog, J.F. and P. Schröder ( 1989) Social Research for Technological Change: Lessons from National Programmes in Europe and North America. Maastricht : University of Limburg.
12.
Florida, R. ( 2002) The Rise of the Creative Class: And How it’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books.
13.
Fricke, W. ( 1994) ‘Scientific Knowledge, Social Change and Action Research’, pp. 47-69 in T. Kauppinen and M. Lahtonen (eds) National Action Research Programmes in the 1990s. Helsinki: Ministry of Labour.
14.
Gustavsen, B. ( 2007) ‘Work Organization and the "Scandinavian Model" ’, Economic and Industrial Democracy28(4): 650-71.
15.
Hastings, T., B. Sheehan and P. Yeates ( 2007) Saving the Future: How Social Partnership Shaped Ireland’s Economic Success. Dublin: Blackhall .
16.
Kuruvilla, S. and C.L. Erickson ( 2002) ‘Change and Transformation in Asian Industrial Relations’ , Industrial Relations41(2): 171-227.
17.
Latour, B. ( 1996) Aramis, or the Love of Technology. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
18.
Leggett, C. ( 2007) ‘From Industrial Relations to Manpower Planning: The Transformations of Singapore’s Industrial Relations’, International Journal of Human Resource Management18(4): 642-64.
19.
Lundvall, B.-Å. and M. Tomlinson ( 2002) ‘International Benchmarking as a Policy Learning Tool’, pp. 203-31 in M.J. Rodrigues (ed.) The New Knowledge Economy in Europe: A Strategy for International Competitiveness and Social Cohesion. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
20.
Naschold, F. ( 1994a) ‘Nationale Programme zur Innovationsentwicklung: Arbeitspolitik im internationalen Vergleich’ [National Programmes for Innovation Development: Labour Policy in International Comparison], Arbeit3(2): 103-31.
21.
Naschold, F. ( 1994b) ‘The Politics and Economics of Workplace Development: A Review of National Programmes’, pp. 109-55 in T. Kauppinen and M. Lahtonen (eds) National Action Research Programmes in the 1990s. Helsinki : Ministry of Labour.
22.
Qvale, T.U. ( 2002) ‘A Case of Slow Learning? Recent Trends in Social Partnership in Norway with Particular Emphasis on Workplace Democracy’ , Concepts and Transformation7(1): 31-55.
23.
Roche, W.K. ( 2007) ‘Social Partnership in Ireland and New Social Pacts’ , Industrial Relations46(3): 395-425.
24.
Schienstock, G. ( 2004) ‘From Path Dependency to Path Creation: A New Challenge to the Systems of Innovation Approach’, pp. 3-27 in G. Schienstock (ed.) Embracing the Knowledge Society: The Dynamic Transformation of the Finnish Innovation System. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
25.
Tan, K.S. and S.Y. Phang ( 2006) ‘Economic Growth and Strategic Investment in Infrastructure: Perspectives from Singapore’, pp. 203-45 in W.T.H. Koh and R.S. Marino (eds) The Economic Prospects of Singapore. Singapore: Addison-Wesley .
26.
Trubek, D.M. and L.G. Trubek ( 2005) ‘Hard and Soft Law in the Construction of Social Europe: The Role of the Open Method of Co-ordination’, European Law Journal11(3): 343-64.
27.
Van Ark, B. ( 2006) Europe’s Productivity Gap: Catching Up or Getting Stuck?, Economics Program Working Paper Series #06-02. New York: The Conference Board.
28.
Westlund, H. ( 2004) Social Capital, Innovation Policy and the Emergence of the Knowledge Society: A Comparison between Sweden, Japan and the USA. Östersund: Swedish Institute for Growth Policy Studies.
29.
Zeitlin, J. and P. Pochet , eds (2005) The Open Method of Co-ordination in Action: The European Employment and Social Inclusion Strategies. Brussels: PIE.-Peter Lang.
