ILPC 2026

The International Labour Organization (ILO) was set up in 1919 to raise labour standards around the world. The ILO is important for trade unions as it is the only inter-governmental organization where trade unions have direct access at the international level. Since its foundation, the ILO has arguably changed substantially in its character, originally envisaged as a setter of labour standards it is now closer to a development agency (Standing, 2008). The ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work from 1998 can in part be seen as watershed in this process, but it is also an important point of reference for the Global Unions in their attempts to lobby for the core labour standards which underpin the more nebulous ‘principles’ of the Declaration. However, it has been argued that the ‘principles’ in the Declaration are a reflection of the weakened position of labour and the increasingly strong position of employers within the ILO (Royle, 2010). Allied with influential nation states like the USA, the World Bank and the IMF have driven neo-liberal economic policy and labour market ‘flexibility’ since the 1980s. The result has been an undermining of the tripartism on which the ILO has been based, weakening the notion of collectivism and the ILO’s position as a standard setter in the system of global economic governance. For example, after the World Trade Organization was established in 1995 its primary relations were and continue to be with the IMF and the World Bank and it makes no provisions for the incorporation of the ILO. As a result this system means that labour has no proper legal representation in the global system of economic governance (Wilkinson, 2002).

Nevertheless, following the 2008 global economic and financial crisis the IMF held its first ever joint conference with the ILO in Oslo in 2010. The organizations discussed the impact of the global economic and financial crisis on jobs and one outcome of the conference was a joint agreement on some follow-up work in the areas of social protection and social dialogue. In 2011 the G20 suggested that a mechanism be created for knowledge sharing and to better coordinate international agencies. In 2012 the Social Protection Inter-Agency Cooperation board (SPIAC-board) which is co-chaired by the ILO and the World Bank was established. Its members include, amongst others, the World Bank, the IMF, the ILO and the OECD. However, the International Trade Union Confederation has only an observer status, again reiterating labour’s weak position in the global system. According to SPIAC-board, its role is ‘about cooperation and ensuring policy coherence by bringing together the different competencies and constituents of agencies specialized in social protection topics’ (SPIAC, 2017).

The paper presents data from an ongoing qualitative study which examines the ‘dialogue’ between the ILO and the IFIs and the dialogue between the Global Unions and the IFIs. Since 2008 a total of more than 50 interviews have been conducted with senior representatives from the global trade unions and the ITUC, the IFIs and the ILO. More recently in 2017, 10 of these interviews were conducted with ILO and IFIs representatives before and during the high-level meetings in February in Washington D.C. and afterwards in Geneva. Further interviews are planned in Geneva 2018 and 2019.

The following paper aims to shed light on these recently established ‘interactions’ and the extent to which ILO is able to use such developments to influence the system of global governance in its attempts to promote a more inclusive economy based on fair employment, social protection and equality. In this context, the paper analyses some of the challenges which the ILO currently confronts (both internally and externally) and how this impacts on its relationship with the IFIs and the Global Unions. Preliminary findings suggest that the IMF, the World Bank and the ILO have been able to develop some understanding and agreement in some areas (e.g. the relevance of social dialogue), but different perceptions remain with regard to the role and importance of coordinated collective bargaining systems at the national level and, the development of a coherent international macro-economic strategy which is required for a successful implementation of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It is argued that the success and failure of interactions between the ILO and the IFIs are determined by the openness and commitment of individual actors, the organizational culture (which is to some extent determined by organizational leaders) and organizational resources (e.g. number of country offices and staff employed in these offices with the relevant knowledge and expertise).