Collective bargaining autonomy in a crisis of legitimacy?

This introduced collective bargaining autonomy. Since then, it has been observed that the state monitors and sometimes steers the collective bargaining process. This behaviour can be explained by using a Principal Agent Model as an analytical framework. The state acts like a princal, while the social partners behave like agents. While the state leaves the regulation of wages and working conditions to the social partners, it expects their loyalty in return. In this sense, collective bargaining autonomy must legitimise itself by beeing useful. An analysis of historical debates since 1918 shows: If the social partners do not contribute to the economic and social policy objectives of the state, the state uses various steering instruments to restore their loyalty and ensure the usefullness of collective bargaining autonomy. Overall, some learning processes and a high degree of path dependency of the institutional framework can be observed. The learning processes show the state should strengthen and not weaken social partners‘ responsibility in the event of future steering of collective bargaining autonomy.