The four papers in this session offer excellent and detailed descriptions of employment models in Germany, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and the Southern European countries of Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece. The papers provide a historical context to the changes that have been occurring in the employment relations institutions in each country and clearly demonstrate that there is no convergent European employment model. The importance of history is shown in the Anxo and Niklasson paper on Sweden where the core elements of the Rehn-Meidner Model continue to influence contemporary employment relations strategies and labor market institutions. In addition, the historic roles of the family and emigration have shaped the employment models in Southern European countries as shown in the Karamessini paper.

     National politics have had a strong effect in shaping the current employment relations policies and practices in the United Kingdom. Legislation around union recognition, a national minimum wage, some improvements in maternity leave, and EU provisions on employee voice have contributed to Rubery's characterization of the United Kingdom as a hybrid model rather than a liberal market economy in the same vein as the United States. The paper by Bosch et al. strongly emphasizes the role of German unification as a key factor in explaining the changes to the German employment model. The papers by Bosch et al. and Rubery are particularly useful in providing current assessments of employment models that contrast with the sometimes simple characterizations of Germany and the United Kingdom in the debates concerning the varieties of capitalism.

        All the papers reinforce the view that countries face common pressures, but their responses to these pressures differ and reflect existing institutional structures and politics. I briefly elaborate on three common pressures that each of the papers discuss. First, each paper emphasizes the importance of female labor force participation in the face of an aging population. Sweden is known for its high rate of female labor force participation and its strong paid parental leave benefits and public child care system. Bosch et al. see an increase in female labor force participation in Germany but mostly in atypical work. They call for more investment into child care centers to boost participation rates among women along the lines of the Swedish model. The female labor force participation in Greece, Spain, and Italy is below the EU-15 average. Karamessini attributes this to the emphasis on income security for male breadwinners within these countries and recognizes that this can have negative implications for economic growth.

     Second, each of the papers emphasizes the importance of education and training to remaining competitive. According to Rubery, participation and investment in university education has increased in the United Kingdom, reflecting the growing needs of a service economy. In contrast, Bosch et al. stress the importance of the German vocational education and training system in maintaining an employment model based on highly skilled labor. However, they maintain underinvestment in education and training is currently working against the strength of this model.

     Third, pressures on collective bargaining are evident across Europe. Sweden and Germany have witnessed the increased role of enterprise agreements that expand or alter sectoral agreements; however, this decentralization is happening to different degrees in each country. Anxo and Niklasson maintain that there has been a re-coordination in Sweden leading to a balance of centralization and decentralization in the bargaining system. In contrast, Bosch et al. discuss the extreme pressures that unions and employer associations are under in terms of membership and coverage, and they argue that the decentralization of bargaining has contributed to the growing wage inequality in Germany.

     These short descriptions of different responses to common pressures reflect the national focus of the papers. Each paper is written as a national study, yet each country exists within the European Union, which also influences, or seeks to influence, the employment models of European nations. My one criticism of the papers is that I would like to see some discussion of how the European Union as an international body exerts its influence on national employment models through social directives, statutes, or political representatives.