Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:53:06.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Management of Industrial Change in a Small Country: The Netherlands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Rob Van Tulder
Rob Van Tulder
Affiliation:
Department of International Relations and International Public LawUniversity of Amsterdam
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The awareness of the structural rather than cyclical nature of economic problems caused a fundamental rethinking of the institutions and instruments of industrial policy in most OECD countries. However, studies have concentrated on a limited number of large countries, with only marginal use being made of the experience of the smaller OECD countries. The need for comparative material becomes relevant since the large economies are increasingly facing the same structural problems as the smaller ones. This article analyses the experience of the Netherlands in comparison with other small European economies. The Netherlands economy is highly intertwined with the other economies of the European Community, particularly Germany. Multinationals (many home-based in the case of the Netherlands) dominate certain sectors of the economy and exports, but smaller companies provide the bulk of employment. The loss of employment since 1970 has mostly resulted from the restructuring of large firms. Government subsidies grew considerably, and proliferated in form, in the 1970s and most went to industries experiencing structural problems. Large firms have tended to benefit most. Criticisms have been made of rescue operations, the risky nature of development credits, the obstacles to the use of schemes by small firms and the cost and ineffectiveness of the investment subsidy account. Because of declining domestic investment, public subsidies accounted for 82 per cent of all private investment by 1982. In the 1980s there has been a move away from tripartite arrangements for discussing and administering industrial subsidies to commissions of ‘independent’ experts, and the degree of organisation in labour unions in the Netherlands, already low, has declined considerably in recent years. The prevalence of centre-right governments in recent years has made it easier to reduce support for individual firms, though large grants for modernisation are made to large firms. The Netherlands appears to be one of the small open countries in which the basic linkages in the model proposed by Cameron have been broken.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , November 1984 , pp. 333 - 350
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allaart, P. (1979), Loonkoslensubsidies en investeringssubsidies in Nederland. Universiteit van Leiden.Google Scholar
Asplund, C., Gilmore, C. and Hutsebaut, M. (1981) Collective Bargaining in Western Europe 1976–1980 and Prospects for 1981. Brussels: European Trade Union Institute.Google Scholar
Bartels, C. (1980) Regio's aan het werk, WRR-voorstudies en achtergronden. The Hague.Google Scholar
Cameron, D. (1978) The expansion of the public economy: a comparative analysis, American Political Science Review, 72, 1243–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsson, B. (1983) Industrial subsidies in Sweden: macro-economic effects and an international comparison, Journal of Industrial Economics, 32, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czada, R. (1982) Zwischen Arbeitsplatzinteresse und Modernisierungszwang, Industriepolitische Performanz und gewerkschaftliche Orientierung im international Vergleich. Diskussionpaper. Vienna.Google Scholar
van Dijk-commission (1980) Steunverlening individuele bedrijven. The Hague.Google Scholar
Douma, S. (1983) De steunverlening aan individuele ondernemingen in moeilijkheden, Beleid en Maatschappij, 10, 284–95.Google Scholar
Franko, L. (1980) European Industrial Policy, Past, Present and Future. European Research Report, Brussels.Google Scholar
Freeman, C. (1982) The Economics of Industrial Innovation. London.Google Scholar
Girvin, B. (1983) Irish industrial policy: the constraints and opportunities of an open economy, Journal of Public Policy, 3, 81–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagedoorn, J. (1980) Het innovatiebeleid, in: economisch beleid uit de klem, SUA, Amsterdam, 115–24.Google Scholar
Hesselman, L. (1983) Trends in European industrial intervention, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 7, 197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, E. J. (1983) Management of industrial change in Germany. Sussex European Papers, no. 13.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, P. (1980) Capitalism in one country? Switzerland in the international economy. Cornell University, papers no. 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katzenstein, P. (1983) The small European states in the international economy: Economic dependence and corporatist politics. In Ruggic, J. (ed), The Antinomies of Interdependence: National Welfare and the International Divison of Labor, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Kramer, H. (1983) Österreich im internationalen system, zusammenfassung der ergebnisse und ausblick. Wilhelm Braumüller.Google Scholar
Krasner, S. (1978) State power and international trade, World Politics, 28, 317–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langer, F. (with the collaboration of Irving Jaffe and Errol Ezra) (1982) The Experience of OECD countries in the Area of Industrial Policy. Report for the OECD secretariat, Paris.Google Scholar
Lustgraaf, E.V.D. (1984) Het belied van het Ministerie van Economische zaken inzake de Nederlandse industrie. The Hague.Google Scholar
McKinsey & Company Inc. (1979) Internal study. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Modelski, G. (1981) Long cycles, Kondratieffs, and alternating innovations: implications for U.S. foreign policy. In Kegley, C. and McGowan, P. (eds), The Political Economy of Foreign Policy Behavior, Beverly Hills: Sage, 63–83.Google Scholar
Müller, W. (1983) Economic success without an industrial strategy: Austria in the 1970s, Journal of Public Policy, 3, 119–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD, (1982) Positive Adjustment Policies. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Prakke, F. and Zegveld, W. (1982) Innovation in Small and Medium firms. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Robinson, E. (ed.) (1960) Economic Consequences of the Size of Nations. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, M. (1983) The Welfare State and the Economy in periods of Economic Crisis, European Journal of Political Research, 11, 1–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidenius, N. (1983), Danish industrial policy: persistent liberalism, Journal of Public Policy, 3, 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spierenburg, R. (1982) Staatinterventie en noodlijdendc bedrijven. In Vrolijk and Hengeveld, Interventie en vrije markt, Amsterdam: SUA.Google Scholar
Swedish National Industrial Board (SIND) (1982) Swedish Industry up to 1990: Analysis and Policy Proposals. Stockholm.Google Scholar
van Paridon, C, Greup, E. and Ketting, A. (WRR) (1982) De handelsbetrekkingen tussen Nederland en de Bondsrepubliek Duitsland. The Hague.Google Scholar
WRR, P. (1984) Geldstromen tussen overheid en bedrijfsleven, ESB, 70–3.Google Scholar
WRR (1980) Plaats en Toekomst van de Nederlandse Industrie. The Hague (English translation available)Google Scholar
WRR (1982) Onder invloed van Duitsland. The Hague.Google Scholar