Employment Relations in Outsourced Public Services Working Between Market and State 1St Ed 2020 Edition Anna Mori Full Chapter

Employment Relations in Outsourced
Public Services: Working Between

Market and State 1st ed. 2020 Edition
Anna Mori
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/employment-relations-in-outsourced-public-services-
working-between-market-and-state-1st-ed-2020-edition-anna-mori/
Anna Mori
Employment
Relations in
Outsourced Public
Services
Working Between
Market and State
Employment Relations in Outsourced Public
Services
Anna Mori
Employment
Relations
in Outsourced Public
Services
Working Between Market and State
Anna Mori
Department of Social and Political Sciences
University of Milan
Milan, Italy
ISBN 978-3-030-24626-6 ISBN 978-3-030-24627-3 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24627-3
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse
of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by
similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Foreword
Public administrations and public service employment relations have

been under stress in recent decades in many European countries, with
an intensification in several cases after the 2008 economic crisis and
the ensuing sovereign debt crisis. Employment levels, working condi-
tions, salary increases and pension benefits have been a privileged target
of government policies in response to the crisis, often within a wider
strategy of public sector restructuring. Processes of privatisation, marke-
tisation and outsourcing of public services, which in various countries
already started in the 1980 and 1990s, have played a major role in this
strategy, inevitably affecting employment relations institutions and prac-
tices in the sector.
In this book, Anna Mori focuses in particular on outsourcing pro-
cesses in three European countries—Britain, Denmark and Italy—
examining in depth two sub-sectors in each national case, local
government and health care, with about 90 interviews to various stake-
holders and protagonists of these processes, complemented by docu-
mentary analysis. The volume has at least three merits.
First, the design of the research, and its presentation in the following
pages, is well structured. An introductory chapter sets the problem and
v
vi Foreword
raises the main research questions, framing them within wider debates
that interest the field of studies. The debate regarding the effects of mar-
ket pressures in undermining the traditional distinctiveness of public
service employment relations, once taken for granted. The question con-
cerning the role of institutions and of state action in mediating com-
mon market pressures, differentiating their consequences on working
conditions and employment relations institutions and practices. The
related, long-standing question about the convergence/divergence of
national employment relations systems, rooted in the varieties of capi-
talism versus the neoliberal trajectories literature. The central part of
the book consists of six chapters, two for each country, one providing
a background framework of country-specific administrative and regula-
tory traditions as well as of public service employment relations, and the
second one devoted to the empirical analysis and to the presentation of
its findings. The last chapter summarises and discusses the results of the
national case studies in comparative perspective, drawing general conclu-
sions about the research questions raised at the beginning of the book.
Second, differently from previous research, the analysis is not confined
to the sole public sector, but covers both public and private sectors. To
some extent, this is due to the very nature of the problem under exam,
since outsourcing processes almost inevitably break and trespass the
boundaries between the two sectors. However, the adoption of a more
comprehensive perspective allows the author to grasp the effects of out-
sourcing on working conditions and employment relations not only of
public service personnel but also of private workforce employed in con-
tracted services, suitably highlighting the more general consequences of
these processes on the national employment relations system as a whole.
Third, the findings of the national case studies are interesting and the
conclusions are well balanced. The evidence collected in the fieldwork
convincingly shows how similar outsourcing processes in response to com-
mon market pressures are managed in different ways in the three countries
under exam, with rather diverse consequences on working conditions and
employment relations. It shows as well how these differences are linked
to the overall regulatory system and institutional and cultural tradition
of each country, suitably including in the analysis the role of trade unions
and state action. In particular, drawing on the notion of market risks
Foreword vii
distribution, Anna Mori highlights how the three national cases fit well the
alternative patterns depicted in the literature. With its inclusive industrial
relations system, weak boundaries in the trade union structure between
private and public sector employees, and a role of the state that limits
employers’ discretion in outsourcing processes through specific labour pro-
tection devices in procurement practices, Denmark is a clear example of
how market risks for workers can be effectively contained (the hedging of
risks pattern). At the opposite pole, Britain, with the overall weakening of
the mechanisms of job protection, is a case of recommodification of work,
while Italy, with the dualisation between, on the one hand, a large majority
of employees who have kept full or at least partial job protection and, on
the other hand, public temporary staff who bore the main costs of out-
sourcing processes, well exemplifies the pattern of transferring of risks.
The analysis carried out by the author in a way allows her to take an
intermediate stance with regard to the traditional debate between the
trajectories of neoliberal transformation and the varieties of capitalism
theses. The strength of market pressures, which challenge and to some
extent weaken all established employment relations systems, is widely
underlined throughout the book. In the same time, however, the three
national case studies highlight how these pressures and challenges are
filtered through country-specific state traditions and employment rela-
tions institutions, which significantly influence and differentiate their
ultimate impact on working and labour market conditions. Neither
a universal trend towards a common neoliberal transformation of
European employment relations systems, obscuring any difference
between countries, nor an acritic re-proposition of the VoC argument
that neglects powerful market pressures towards neoliberal trajectories—
this is the general interpretation adopted by the author.
In so doing, this book offers empirical evidence and useful insights
that provide an important contribution to the broader debate in com-
parative political economy and employment relations literature about
the convergence/divergence of national systems of labour regulation,
beyond the specific issue of the outsourcing of public services.
Milan, Italy Lorenzo Bordogna

June 2019
Acknowledgements
My warmest thanks go to all those who have supported and helped me

during this research project, and in particular during my Ph.D., from
which this book draws upon.
First of all, many thanks to Lorenzo Bordogna for his valuable sup-
port and for having guided and supervised me during the Ph.D., the
following years of post-doc and the preparation of this manuscript.
Thank you to Stefano Neri for his help and recommendations. I would
like to thank all the people I met during my research stays abroad start-
ing from the King’s College London staff and, above all, Stephen Bach
for carefully advising me and Ian Kessler for his help. Many thanks to
the FAOS staff for the warm welcome and, in particular, thank you to
Mikkel Mailand for his supervision, to Nana Wesley Hansen for her
caring support and to Christian Lyhne Ibsen for the advices.
I would like to thank also all the colleagues who helped and advised
me during my research fellowship at the Warwick Business School
where I had many occasions to present and discuss this project. In par-
ticular, thank you to Guglielmo Meardi, Paul Marginson, Manuela
Galetto and Stefano Gasparri.
ix
x Acknowledgements
A huge thank goes to all the people that have dedicated to me their
valuable time for the interviews in Italy, Denmark and Britain: your
help has been precious, I am indebted.
I have really appreciated the constructive feedbacks and useful
insights I received on this project during conferences and seminars
attended over the last years: thanks a lot to all those I met around
Europe and, in particular, from my department in Milan.
A special thank goes to my mentor and friend Paride and to my per-
sonal consultant and good friend Eleonora.
Thank you Ada, mom, dad and of course granny: I owe you so, so
much.
Contents
1 Employment Relations in Outsourced Public Services:

Working Between Market and State 1
Part I The Case of Italy
2 Public Services Under Austerity: Structure of the Public

Sector and Drivers of Outsourcing 33
3 State-Controlled Dualisation Between Public

and Private Employment: Implications for Labour
and Employment Relations 59
Part II The Case of Denmark
4 The Search for Public Services Efficiency: Structure

of the Public Sector and Drivers of Outsourcing 91
xi
xii Contents
5 Market-Embedding and Inclusion: Implications

for Labour and Employment Relations 115
Part III The Case of Britain
6 The Neoliberal Agenda: Structure of Public Sector

and Drivers of Outsourcing 145
7 Market-Making and Deregulation: Implications

for Labour and Employment Relations 169
Part IV Conclusion
8 Enduring National Varieties Under Market Strain 201
Index 223
Abbreviations
3F United Federation of Danish Workers

AC Danish Confederation of Professional Associations
AfC Agenda for Change
ARAN Agency for the Representation of Public Administrations in
Collective Bargaining
CCG Clinical Commissioning Group
CCT Compulsory Competitive Tendering
CGIL Italian General Confederation of Labour
CISL Italian Confederation of Unions for Workers
DHA District Health Authority
DKK Danish krone
EU European Union
FHA Family Health Authority
FOA Trade and Labour Union
FP-CGIL Public Function-Italian General Confederation of Labour
FP-CISL Public Function-Italian Confederation of Unions for Workers
FPL-UIL Federation of Local Powers-Italian Union for Labour
FTF Confederation of Salaried Employees and Civil Servants
GDP Gross Domestic Product
HRM Human Resource Management
IKU Indicator for Exposure to Competition
xiii
xiv Abbreviations
ISP Internal Stability Pact

ISTC Independent Sector Treatment Centre
JCC Joint Consultative Committees
KL Local Government Denmark
LHA Local Health Authority
LO Danish Confederation of Trade Unions
NHS National Health System
NJC National Joint Council
NPM New Public Management
OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
PCT Primary Care Trust
PFI Private Finance Initiative
RCN Royal College of Nursing
RIKU Regional Indicator for Exposure to Competition
RoE Retention of Employment model
RSU Workers’ representative in the workplace
SGP Stability and Growth Pact
TUC Trade Union Confederation
TUPE Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulation
UIL Italian Union for Labour
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Italy: The consequences of outsourcing for terms

and conditions of employment 82
Table 3.2 Italy: The impacts of outsourcing on employment
relations institutions and trade union responses 85
Table 3.3 List of interviews 86
Table 4.1 Municipalities’ economy in nominal prices 106
Table 4.2 Public services exposed to competition 2006–2012 108
Table 5.1 Denmark: the consequences of outsourcing for terms
Table 5.2 Denmark: the impacts of outsourcing on employment
Table 7.1 Britain: The consequences of outsourcing for terms
Table 7.2 Britain: The impacts of outsourcing on employment
xv
1
Employment Relations in Outsourced
Public Services: Working Between Market
and State
Setting the Scene: Outsourcing in Public

Services
Over the last three decades, virtually all public administrations in advanced
economies, although to a different extent, have been subject to far-
reaching restructuring towards outsourcing of a wide range of tasks and
services (Ascher 1987; Hodge 1996; OECD 2005). European govern-
ments, at the start, approached outsourcing in public services under the
pressure of increasing public debts (Bordogna and Winchester 2001),
raising awareness of the inefficiency of traditional public administra-
tions, which tended to become ‘overloaded’ (Ascher 1987; Pollitt and
Bouckaert 2011), and faith in the New Public Management narrative
(NPM hereinafter) as a dominant paradigm for reforming public services
(Hood 1991; Osborne and Gaebler 1992; Savas 1987). More recently,
in particular during the last decade, the focus of political agenda on
outsourcing has become central, largely as a response to the detrimen-
tal consequences of the 2008–2009 economic crisis (Bach and Bordogna
2013; Lodge and Hood 2012). Diminished resources in the aftermath
of the sovereign debt crisis, together with stricter spending constraints,
put European governments under even more severe and sustained strain
© The Author(s) 2020 1
A. Mori, Employment Relations in Outsourced Public Services,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24627-3_1
2 A. Mori
(Bach and Bordogna 2016; Glassner 2010; OECD 2011; Streeck 2014;
Vaughan-Whitehead 2013), leading to a situation of permanent auster-
ity. As a policy response to such common pressures, public administra-
tions across Europe have differentiated the provision of services, opening
up the traditional direct production and delivery systems to competition
through the adoption of a wide set of market-type mechanisms, including
public–private partnerships, voucher systems, liberalisation and pri-
vatisation policies, and outsourcing of public services (Blöndal 2005;
Domberger 1998; OECD 1993).
The introduction of market discipline in the provision of public services
represents one piece within the broader jigsaw puzzle of public adminis-
tration reform—an ‘unending wave of reforms’ (Pollitt 2002) that has
expanded progressively since the 1980s across all European governments
under the label of NPM (Hood 1991, 1995), suggesting uniformity and
commonality. The suggestion of this doctrine was to remove differences
between the public and private sectors in a drive to increase efficiency and
effectiveness; thus, governments should have imported into their public
administrations business-like values and tools as well as market-type mech-
anisms from the private sector (OECD 1993). Outsourcing is an instru-
ment taken from this NPM-inspired toolbox—a market-based strategy for
reducing public expenditure (Savas 1987) through the shifting of service
provision across public sector boundaries and into the domain of private
organisations (Walsh 1995). The expectation was that opening up service
provision to market discipline would lead to cost reductions, since pri-
vate providers in a competitive regime can realise economies of scale, raise
effort and/or productivity with a given input/workforce-combination and
enhance organisational and numerical flexibility by focusing diminished
financial and personnel resources on key functions that supported the
organisation’s core mission (Blom-Hansen 2003; Domberger et al. 1986;
Domberger and Henser 1993; Jensen and Stonecash 2005).
Despite initial enthusiasm, however, the appeal of outsourcing has
increasingly been tarnished by a range of drawbacks, as only became appar-
ent over time. Budgetary savings turned out to be lower than expected
and/or declined over the long term (Bel et al. 2010): they were found
to be illusory when factoring in transaction costs (Prager 1994); alter-
natively, they were achieved only at the expense of the quality of service
1 Employment Relations in Outsourced Public Services … 3
(Quiggin 2002) or, importantly, the quality of work for their employ-
ees. While outsourcing has unquestionably promoted competition, gains
have often been achieved through the reduction in labour costs; indeed, a
consolidated literature has shown that savings often simply reflect either
reduced employment levels (Alonso et al. 2015; Fernandez et al. 2007) or
a deterioration in the terms and conditions of employment (Flecker and
Meil 2010; Hermann and Flecker 2012).
Despite these concerns, public administrations in search of budgetary
reductions in an era of multiple austerities (Lodge and Hood 2012) have
increasingly resorted to outsourcing in public services, aiming to exploit
the competitive advantages of market competition and the less stringent
regulation of employment in the private sector (Dorigatti and Mori
2016; Jaehrling and Méhaut 2013). This has blurred and overlapped
the boundaries between public and private sector working conditions
and triggered labour inequalities and fragmentation (Drahokoupil 2015;
Marchington et al. 2004). Public service employment relations, indeed,
had long remained sheltered from market pressures, ensuring relatively
uniform working conditions and job security. Their configuration has
primarily responded to a political rather than an economic process, in that
they are regulated by institutions operating independently of the private
sector and with distinct rules (Bach 1999), reflecting the unique role
played by the state authority as—simultaneously—economic regulator,
legislator, employer and provider of public services (Beaumont 1992).
Outsourcing upset this configuration, not only by putting traditionally
protected employment relations and working conditions under major
strain, but also by challenging their distinctive regulation of labour and
opening a traditionally insulated decisional arena to new regulatory
actors and different governance logics (Mori 2017). Hence, public service
reform towards outsourcing has put public service employment relations
institutions and actors under pressure. From an NPM posture, those
identifying public sector convergence towards private sector labour
governance within each country (and possibly between public sectors
across countries) (Hermann 2014; Greer and Doellgast 2017) assume the
pervasiveness of a common neoliberal trajectory in European employ-
ment relations. This trajectory would imply a uniform slide towards a
liberalisation pattern which adversely affects the distributive outcomes
4 A. Mori
associated with industrial relations structures and institutions, including

trade unions’ disempowerment; fragmentation and weakening of the
structures for collective representation; decline in union density; and a
jobs shift from highly unionised public organisations towards private
contractors where industrial relations institutions are weaker (Hermann
and Flecker 2012; Jaehrling and Méhaut 2013).
This book takes up the challenge to investigate and question the influ-
ential interpretation of the impact of marketisation processes on public
service working conditions and employment relations in Europe. The
interplay between the austerity agenda in the aftermath of the financial
crisis and the swelling of outsourcing practices in public services, poten-
tially an extreme trigger for convergence, provides a privileged test case
across EU countries.
After this introductory section, the chapter proceeds as follows. After
having presented in detail the research questions and challenges of the
book, the research design and method applied are introduced. Three sec-
tions then briefly recall the main debates informing the book: the marketi-
sation and neoliberal trajectory in the public services; the ping-ponging
debate on convergence vs enduring differences in public sector national
regimes; and the role of the state in public services.
The Research Questions and Challenges

Against this scenario, the book examines the consequences of the outsourc-
ing of public services for working conditions and employment relations,
as well as the role of the state in their governance, placing these develop-
ments in a wider framework that incorporates the legacy of the national
models of public administration and employment relations regimes in the
public sector. By combining an interest in public service outsourcing and
its consequences for labour regulation widely conceived, the book will
incorporate a broader agenda, tracing the links across austerity policies; a
swelling marketisation trajectory in the public service sector and neolib-
eral political agenda; labour force governance; and ensuing consequences
for the workers, state and trade unions in core public services (local gov-
ernment and health care).
The starting point is that the public sector has traditionally been con-
figured according to country-specific characteristics. This has led to the
consolidation of national regimes (Ongaro 2009; Painter and Peters 2010)
that function as self-referential systems (Traxler 2003), employing path-
dependent adaptive processes that perpetuate variety in response to most
recent pressures to convergence towards a common neoliberal trajectory
(Bach and Bordogna 2011; Bordogna 2008; Kickert 2008; Pollitt et al.
2007), driven by cost containment, austerity measures and marketisa-
tion practices such as outsourcing in public services (Mori 2017). What
institutional/regulatory and agency structures might play a major role in
accommodating endogenous and exogenous shocks to the public services
and their workforce? This will be partly addressed by looking at the dis-
tinctive national regimes—including both the structure and main reforms
of their public administration (i.e. size, composition and status of public
service employment)—and at the configuration of employment relations
broadly defined (including regulation of wage setting and collective bar-
gaining, coverage of collective agreements, social partners’ organisational
structures and density, forms of employees’ voice and institutional bodies
of workers’ representation at the workplace).
Second, the patterns of public service outsourcing in each national con-
text (in terms of diffusion, intensity and types of service) are functionally
dependent on fiscal stress and financial pressures (Larbi 1999)—including
the austerity programmes imposed in the aftermath of the economic crisis
(Eurofound 2015; European Commission 2013); political/ideological ori-
entation of public authorities (Bel and Fageda 2017); and specific reforms
of the organisation and management of public services (Bach and Bor-
dogna 2016)—all often drawing heavily on the NPM narrative. The out-
come is that there may be distinct rationales, combining with variable
geographies, that explain the configuration of public service outsourcing
in the various countries. This analytical dimension will be investigated by
looking at the country-specific factors driving outsourcing decisions and
practices. The significance of these rationales resides in their explanatory
capacity of the variation in the consequences of outsourcing for labour
and employment relations.
Third, outsourcing in public services, by blurring and overlapping the
organisational and functional boundaries between the public and private
6 A. Mori
sector (and accordingly, their distinctive regulation of labour), has had

important consequences for labour, the workforce and working condi-
tions (Hermann and Flecker 2012; Mori 2017). To what extent and
in what ways does outsourcing alter the terms and conditions of public
employment—in terms of size, employment status, working hours, labour
protections, work organisation and flexibility, wage levels and contractual
arrangements as maternity leave and sick pay scheme? The scrutiny of these
transformations is strictly interconnected with those occurring within the
private workforce employed in contracted services. It is productive to
simultaneously look at the developments in both employment segments
in order to delineate the patterns of distribution of market risks between
employees and employers as well as between the public and private work-
force in each country.
Fourth, public service reform towards outsourcing has put employment
relations institutions and actors under strain. Mirroring developments
detected in the political economy literature (Baccaro and Howell 2017),
from an NPM posture, those authors identifying public sector conver-
gence towards private sector labour governance within each country (and
possibly between public sectors across countries) assume the pervasiveness
of a common neoliberal trajectory in European employment relations in
response to common budgetary and structural pressures (Hermann 2014).
Via a reconfiguration of public sector employment relations towards the
private sector regimes, differences in labour governance styles across the
two sectors were expected to fade away. To (con)test this assumption, the
implications of public services outsourcing for both employment relations
structures and actors’ responses will be scrutinised. Does outsourcing alter
the traditional configuration of public service employment relations as
being sheltered from external pressures and mostly shaped by the regula-
tory power of the state? To what extent and in what way does outsourcing
alter the mutual influence and the bargaining power between employers
and trade unions? Do market pressures undermine unions’ role and their
capacity to organise and mobilise employees in sectors as the public one
historically characterised by high organisational density?
Finally, the book places marketisation trajectories in the public sector
in interplay with the role of the state. The unique role played by the
state simultaneously as public employer, economic regulator, legislator
and provider of public services has historically underpinned not only the
national legislative and administrative configurations (Beaumont 1992),
but also the distinctiveness of public services employment relations from
the private sector. As a result, public sector employment relations remained
sheltered, operating in a relatively closed environment predominantly
shaped by the regulatory power of the state and other domestic actors,
while market pressures exercised only indirect and marginal influence.
Hence, the public sector has traditionally been seen as a distinctive and
‘good’ employer. Market-type practices such as outsourcing upset this
equilibrium by blurring the boundaries between public and private sec-
tors, by altering the system of constraints and incentives governing the
functioning of public services and by contesting the peculiar role of the
state in the governance of these major changes (Gottschall et al. 2015).
Consequently, a key objective here is to examine variations in the role
played out by the state in marketisation trajectories and to draw out the
consequences for the workforce and employment relations.
Approach and Research Design

To address these interrelated and conflicting assessments of the conse-
quences of outsourcing for working conditions, employment relations
and the role of the state, the book adopts a comparative orientation by
focusing on Italy, Denmark and Britain. As most different systems (Fren-
dreis 1983; Lijphart 1971) in a European perspective, their comparison
enables an appreciation of the mediating effect of different state traditions
and employment relations models in accommodating analogous domes-
tic and external pressures and absorbing common economic and organ-
isational shocks. In particular, the effects of outsourcing and of market
pressures are expected to be shaped by the structure of labour market reg-
ulation, the strength of employment relations institutions and actors, and
the coverage of collective agreements—as well as the extent to which reg-
ulatory processes extend job protections to both public and private sectors
and the institutional interplay between the two sectors of the economy
(Grimshaw et al. 2015).
8 A. Mori
The comparative analysis is based on a multilevel framework developed

at both the country and the organisational levels. In fact, the study com-
bines a consideration of upstream country-specific characteristics of the
public administration, employment relations and rationales—explaining
outsourcing decisions within the regulatory constraints set by the state and
the downstream consequences for working conditions, the workforce and
trade unions at the organisational level, within the selected public admin-
istrations. Accordingly, in each country, the analysis focuses on the config-
uration of the public sector and public employment, on the structure and
the main reforms of employment relations institutions, on the social part-
ners organisational characteristics and on the main political and economic
drivers explaining outsourcing decision in the country, including austerity
measures and ad hoc legislation. Such national configurations are comple-
mented by an analysis of the effects of outsourcing on working conditions,
employment relations and trade unions at the local level, by looking at the
empirical experience of local public administrations. From each national
context, two matching case studies are investigated in the municipal and
healthcare sectors, respectively. Local government and healthcare sectors
are selected, given the magnitude of the outsourcing policies in those
areas, because they are subject to common severe austerity and retrench-
ment programmes. All cases involved a far-reaching use of outsourcing
across a wide array of public services. The research design helps to pin-
point regularities in the systemic developments of employment relations
configurations and changes in working conditions, excluding exceptional
outcomes and outliers. ‘The hope is to find empirical regularities, and
then identify the underlying causes of these patterns so that empirical
generalisations – and, ultimately, predictions for other, similar situations
– can be made’ (Pollitt 2004: 324). Hence, an extensive implementation
of contracting out, involving a variety of tasks in labour-intensive services,
should reinforce the reliability of findings by confronting evidence from
distinct processes, stressing once again systemic regularities.
The empirical analysis focuses principally on the first round of com-
petitive tendering for each service, monitoring subsequent rounds when
significant in terms of implications for working conditions. The primary
data-gathering technique is the semi-structured interview: the research
involves 75 semi-structured interviews at both national and local levels
(25 in Italy, 26 in Denmark and 24 in Britain) complemented by docu-

mentary analysis.
Data collection was organised into two phases within each country. The
first step concentrated on the national level: interviews with key stake-
holders and document collection provided a general overview of the phe-
nomenon in the given country and laid the foundations for the selection of
the six cases, two for each country. The second phase involved analysis of
each case at the local level, conducted through interviews with key infor-
mants on the trade union side (trade union officials in local branches and
shop stewards), the employer side (mayors and councillors in the munic-
ipalities, local representatives from employers’ associations, heads of rel-
evant municipal and hospital departments as human resource [HR] and
procurement departments), and external experts. These interviews were
based on a semi-standardised set of topics, covering a detailed descrip-
tion of the outsourcing process, the principal drivers of outsourcing, the
main actors and stakeholders involved, changes in employment status and
work organisation, redundancy and dismissal procedures, application of
collective agreements and employment protections, variations in pay and
contractual allowances, the use of social clauses, trade union responses
and strategies, consequences for union role and strength, degree of union
involvement in the process and the nature of the relationships among
between social partners. All the interviews were recorded, transcribed and
content-analysed. Documentary analysis of secondary sources (legislation,
media debates, internal papers and reports, collective agreements and aca-
demic literature) complemented the analysis. Validity was gained through
triangulation of sources (i.e. interviewing key informants from multiple
sides of the process) (Healy and Perry 2000).
The empirical data yields a detailed description of the overall trajectory
of change of how outsourcing in public services has affected employment
industrial relations institutions and trade unions in each case. The term
‘trajectory of change’ refers to the route from a given state of affairs in the
status of the different analytical dimensions regarding employment rela-
tions (starting point) to an endpoint (Ongaro 2009; Pollitt and Bouckaert
2011). In this book, employment relations are broadly defined as encom-
passing the exploration, not only national institutional and regulatory
structures of labour governance, but also the agency of actors in response
10 A. Mori
to these pressures. Hence, the contribution of the book stems from an

employment relations perspective that focuses, on the one side, on the
interplay of institutional/regulatory structures and market forces as struc-
tural pressures triggering public service outsourcing, and on the other, on
the agency that this interaction spawns in employment relations. Respond-
ing to the scholarly call for an integrated approach between institutions and
actors (Meardi et al. 2016), the book will consider not just at how labour
market institutions and regulatory frameworks accommodate and medi-
ate market dynamics, but also how these institutions provide the room for
manoeuvring that the actors can utilise and exploit (Pollitt and Bouckaert
2009). Accordingly, the trajectories of change are seen as ‘the consequence
(whether intended or unintended) of strategic action (whether intuitive
or instrumental) filtered through perceptions (however informed or mis-
informed) of an institutional context that favours certain strategies, actors
and perceptions over others’ (Hay and Wincott 1998: 955).
Marketisation and Neoliberal Trajectory

in the Public Services
Tension between the convergence and divergence (enduring varieties) in
developments and transformations of public sector industrial relations and
public administration models is a recurring theme in relation to compar-
ative public administration and comparative industrial relations streams
of literature. These conflicting assessments mirror a prominent debate in
international political economy which has, as main representative, the
varieties of capitalism (VoC) school (Hall and Soskice 2001). Rooted in
the theory of path-dependency, VoC scholars acknowledge the consoli-
dation and the resilience of a number of models of capitalism (Amable
2003; Hall and Soskice 2001; Hancké et al. 2007). According primarily
to the country-specific core institutional complementarities and resulting
comparative advantages, each national economy responds differently to
common challenges (i.e. marketisation and globalisation; Hall and Sos-
kice 2001). Such complementarities are expected to not readily fade away,
even in times of severe economic strain: as, according to Hancké et al.,
‘past forms of coordination between labour, the state and firms, based
on pre-existing coalitions and institutionally shaped interests, will con-

dition national responses to exogenous shocks’ (2007: 294). By contrast,
those identifying a common trajectory across national economies and
industrial relations systems acknowledge the ‘power of exogenous shocks
and supranational institutions in enforcing convergence, irrespective of
existing institutional complementarities and sometimes even the interests
of national actors’ (Hermann 2014: 112). The convergent direction is
characterised as neoliberal (Baccaro and Howell 2017), resulting in sim-
ilar trends of widespread erosion of collective bargaining coverage and
union membership, a weakening of employment protections and social
welfare institutions (Greer and Doellgast 2017), generalised expansion of
employer discretion (Baccaro and Howell 2011), and an overall recom-
modification of labour (Greer 2015) and of labour regulation institutions
(Holst 2014).
All in all, such transformative effects on industrial relations and on
labour are ascribed to a wider marketisation trajectory that has driven
institutional change via diverse mechanisms in national systems of indus-
trial relations (Greer and Doellgast 2017; Kochan et al. 1986). Hence, the
central focus here is on the process of marketisation and the definition of
the different forms it displays—affecting, in particular, the public sector.
Embedding outsourcing of public services in such perspective, with com-
mon domestic and supranational neoliberal pressures, enables an under-
standing of the main factors sustaining and reinforcing the recourse to such
practice and a better qualification of the magnitude of the convergence in
country responses.
Marketisation here is broadly defined to encompass a wide set of mech-
anisms, policies and ideological matters, including both, at the upstream
level, market-friendly intellectual and ideational traditions promoting
market discipline and competition, deregulation, retrenchment and aus-
terity (referred to as neoliberalism) and, at the downstream level, pro-
market public policies and instruments that intensify price-based compe-
tition such as outsourcing and privatisation (referred to as liberalisation).
Accordingly, the marketisation trajectory is pushed and sustained by a
combination of different pressures.
During the last decades, economic shocks and financial constraints
enforced common pressures on European public sectors. High public
12 A. Mori
sector deficits and severe macroeconomic constraints pushed governments

to seek ways to contain their public expenditures. Such constraints became
stricter after 1992 for several countries because of the Maastricht eligibility
criteria for admission to the third stage of the Economic and Monetary
Union (EMU) (Bordogna and Winchester 2001), and even more severe
following the adoption of the Pact on Stability and Growth, approved in
1997, which established a set of rules designed to ensure that EU member
states pursued solid public finances and coordinated their fiscal policies.
The economic crisis that exploded in 2008 and continued to affect many of
the European countries for various years represented a massive exogenous
shock for national economies and public budgets, already under major
strain in the attempt to restabilising financial markets, sustaining employ-
ment and mitigating the effects of unemployment (Krugman 2008; Glass-
ner 2010). As such, it demanded governments major economic adjust-
ments and retrenchment measures (Hermann 2014; Theodoropoulou and
Watt 2011; Vaughan-Whitehead 2013).
Strict budgetary austerity and budget consolidation policies deeply
affected the public sector (European Commission 2013). A relevant com-
ponent of public expenditure, indeed, was (and still is) represented by
the cost for public personnel wages, which accordingly experienced major
cutbacks and pay freezes (Glassner 2010), complemented by reforms of
employment relations (Bach and Bordogna 2013), collective bargaining
institutions and pay determination mechanisms (Glassner 2010). Further-
more, the governments pursued retrenchment objectives by cutting the
cost of public services and differentiating their provision through opening
up the traditional direct production and delivery systems to competition
with the adoption of a wide set of market-type mechanisms, including
public–private partnerships, voucher systems, liberalisation and privatisa-
tion policies and outsourcing of public services (Blöndal 2005; OECD
1993).
This responded also to the pressure to enhance service quality in
response to increased citizen expectations for more efficient, more differ-
entiated and customised high-quality services (Bordogna and Winchester
2001).
The influence of neoliberal ideas based on the monetarist paradigm

and criticisms to state-led market coordination further contributed to the
swelling of the marketisation trajectory, strongly informed and influenced
by the ideas of economic liberals (Von Hayek 1973) and by public choice
theorists (Buchanan and Tollison 1984; Niskanen 1971). From the late
1970s, increasing criticism was raised by the New Right/neoliberals as
regard of the cost, the size and the role of government, ‘and doubts about
the capacity of governments to rectify economic problems’ (Larbi 1999:
3). In a similar vein, the Keynesian welfare state was seen as fundamentally
inefficient, and its crisis led governments to search new alternative ways
of organising and managing public services and redefining the role of the
state as a monopoly provider. In the neoliberal perspective, economic effi-
ciency could be achieved only by enhancing markets and competition, by
strengthening the role of the private and voluntary sectors, and by public
authority being offered free market choice. The virtues of the market were
extolled, being referred as to ‘an effective allocator of resources, an effi-
cient co-ordinating mechanism, a rational decision-making process and,
in addition, encourages resourcefulness and enterprise’ (Larbi 1999: 3; see
also Lindblom 1977).
These market-oriented changes have lately been prompted by NPM
enthusiasts, who increasingly promoted market-based reforms to respond
to such common challenges (Osborne and Gaebler 1992; Savas 1987).
The spreading NPM narrative as a means of reforming public services
played a central role in promoting market-driven changes, as presented
in the previous section. The faith in the expected advantages of the mar-
ket competition and private sector mechanisms of economic and labour
governance contributed to the diffusion of market-type tools in public
administrations (Blöndal 2005), and more widely, to the consolidation of
a marketisation trajectory.
14 A. Mori
The Ping-Ponging Debate on Convergence vs

Enduring Differences in Public Sector
National Regimes
Within the fields of public administration/management and compara-
tive employment relations, distinct national institutional configurations
of public sector and structures of labour regulation have traditionally been
recognised (Traxler 2003), with variation in the patterns and outcomes
of public sector reform (Pollitt et al. 2007). The distinctive role played
by the state as a simultaneously economic regulator, employer, legislator
and provider of public services has historically characterised the national
regimes (Beaumont 1992). This peculiar role has also shaped the distinc-
tiveness of public services discipline and institutions of employment rela-
tions from the private sector, regulated by separate institutions and distinct
rules (Bach and Bordogna 2013). As a result, public sector employment
relations have long remained sheltered, operating in a relatively closed
environment predominantly shaped by the regulatory power of the state
and other domestic actors, while market pressures exercised only indirect
and marginal influence.
In the last decades, however, the spread of NPM as a dominant narrative
for reforming public services (Hood 1991; Osborne and Gaebler 1992),
the magnitude of the neoliberal ideology, and the widespread adoption
of austerity and retrenchment measures (involving budgetary cutbacks in
public administration) have been argued to trigger a convergence across
European public administrations towards a private sector style of gover-
nance and labour regulation.
looseness-1Since the 1980s, virtually every Western government has
sought to modernise its public administration, in response to two com-
mon conflicting pressures identified, on the one hand, in increasing public
sector deficit and severe macroeconomic constraints—requiring a cutback
in public expenditure—and, on the other, in a growing demand by cit-
izens for more customised, more efficient and better-quality public ser-
vices—necessitating a major investment for public finances (Bordogna
and Winchester 2001). The common response inspired by the NPM
paradigm involved a multidimensional, two-level doctrine suggesting
to reduce or remove any difference between the public and private sec-
tors (Dunleavy and Hood 1994). The NPM theoretical construct rooted
in the new institutional economics—in particular, public choice, trans-
action costs, principal-agent theories—centred on applying managerial
concepts, values and disciplines from the private sector (Bordogna 2008;
Gruening 2001). At the operational level, it translated into a set of market-
oriented mechanisms of governance combined with private sector practices
of labour regulation (Hood 1991). The soon-spreading narrative of NPM
(Osborne and Gaebler 1992) implied transnational commonality and uni-
formity: according to Hood (1991), it embodied ‘public management for
all seasons’. Given the claim to universality of the paradigm, referred to as
a global movement (Borins 1998), NPM-inspired trajectories of reform
were expected to trigger convergence in public sector models across coun-
tries and convergence between public and private sectors within each
country. Hence, such convergence hypothesis implies that all countries
pursued the same policy agenda with similar outcomes, thus question-
ing the ‘enduring variety’ argument on the basis of an alleged isomorphic
transformation (Di Maggio and Powell 1983; Pollitt 2001). Reforms pro-
moting ‘disaggregation, competition, incentivization and marketization’
(Dunleavy and Hood 1994) were expected to reshape the organisational
and functional boundaries between the sectors. An analogous trajectory
of dual convergence was advocated also in employment relations. Follow-
ing such institutional reconfiguration, public service employment rela-
tions institutions and their functioning were expected, according to the
NPM perspective, to become increasingly alike across countries, with the
national context no longer paramount as structures of labour regulation
(Bordogna 2008). Even when institutions retain sectoral-specific charac-
teristics, the trajectory of institutional change and the practice and content
of institutions might tend to converge within each country (and possi-
bly between public sectors across countries). Such trajectories of change
mirrored the developments detected in political economy literature that,
dating back to the varieties of capitalism thesis (Hall and Soskice 2001),
assumed the pervasiveness of a common neoliberal trajectory (Baccaro and
Howell 2017) in response to common budgetary and structural pressures.
Via a reconfiguration of public sector employment relations towards the
16 A. Mori
private sector regimes, differences in labour governance styles across the

two sectors were expected to fade away.
During the last decade, scholarship in the comparative employment
relations and comparative public administration streams of literature,
however, newly reverses the convergence assumption (Pollitt and Bouck-
aert 2011). Advocates of enduring national differences emphasise the
key role played by the structural characteristics rooted in state traditions
in distinctively shaping diverse national configurations of public sector
employment relations under market strain (Bach and Bordogna 2013).
Hence, rooted in historical institutionalism foundations (Hall and Taylor
1996; Peters 1999; Thelen 1999), the hypothesis of persisting variety is
grounded within the explanatory power of state traditions (Traxler 2003),
crucial in shaping country-specific trajectories of reform in the public
sector (Kickert 2008; Ongaro 2009). Country-specific configurations of
public sector governance are seen as buffers, mediating the repercussions
of economic shocks and organisational restructuring on domestic public
services employment relations (Mori 2017). Resilience and adaptability of
national models explain institutional capacity to adapt flexibly to major
changes along path-dependent trajectories (Pierson 2000; Steinmo et al.
1992), absorbing shocks and resisting transformations potentially corro-
sive for national models.
The Role of the State in Public Services

The interplay between the austerity agenda in the aftermath of the financial
crisis and the swelling outsourcing practices in public services, against the
backdrop of a wide marketisation trajectory, calls into question also the
role played by the state.
As mentioned in the previous sections, in the arena of public services,
the state has traditionally played a distinctive role—being simultaneously
economic regulator, employer of public personnel, legislator and provider
of public services (Beaumont 1992). Such a peculiar role has historically
characterised national regimes and shaped the distinctiveness of public
services discipline and institutions of employment relations from the pri-
vate sector, regulated by separate institutions and distinct rules (Bach and
Bordogna 2013; Bordogna 2008). As a result, public sector employment

relations have long remained sheltered, operating in a relatively closed
environment predominantly shaped by the regulatory power of the state
and other domestic actors, while market pressures exercised only indirect
and marginal influence (Ferner 1992), for instance, by imposing budgetary
constraints or by setting comparability criteria in wage-setting processes
(Bach and Bordogna 2013). Accordingly, the state was long configured
as a distinctively good employer, ensuring stable, protected and homoge-
neous terms and conditions of employment, fair and transparent criteria
relating to personnel selection, reward and progression, as well as high job
security (Bach and Kessler 2007). All in all, the state has played a ‘key
role in shielding industrial relations in general, and collective bargaining
in particular, from the destructive effects of market forces’ (Traxler 2003:
144). Such a configuration has primarily responded to a political, rather
than an economic, process (Masters et al. 2008).
Outsourcing in public services has upset this equilibrium, not only by
putting traditionally protected employment relations and working condi-
tions under major strain, but also by challenging their distinctive regula-
tion of labour and opening an insulated decisional arena to new regulatory
actors and different governance logics and by destabilising the distinctive
role of the state as an employer. The pressure exerted by outsourcing
processes was driven—but also further exacerbated—by other external
forces, in particular, international financial markets, and supranational
actors (the EU, ECB and IMF, known as the ‘Troika’, which played a key
role in constraining state responses. Into an age defined as of multiple
austerities (Lodge and Hood 2012), major drivers of change stem from
the interaction between external pressures; EU financial constraints; and
the domestic economic situation in each country (especially its financial
vulnerability and level of public deficit in the aftermath of the economic
crisis; Glassner 2010).
In response to such common market pressure, states have reconfigured,
adjusting their size and functions to perform (Masters et al. 2008) through
outsourcing, among other market-type tools and policies (OECD 1993).
Via outsourcing, the state can withdraw from the direct delivery and cede
to external providers all the services it aims to dismiss. This process, also
defined as destatisation (Jessop 2003), represents a key element of the
18 A. Mori
‘hollowing out thesis’, which provides a useful framework for investigat-

ing the consequences of the state ceding responsibility for direct public
service provision to external providers (Cunningham 2016; Jessop 2002).
In fact, outsourcing has hollowed out the direct control of public author-
ities—exercised through their unilateral initiatives or by taking part in
collective bargaining—over the labour regulation of personnel employed
in contracted services. Nevertheless, the state can still exert considerable
(albeit indirect) influence in outsourcing processes through its market
power and its regulatory function in either negative (Forde and Slater
2016) or positive terms. This view is taken by the strand of literature
arguing for the role of the state in public procurement as both a ‘market-
making’ and a ‘market-embedding’ force according to the institutional
and legislative setting underpinning the processes of outsourcing. The two
opposing ideal-typical scenarios proposed by Jaehrling (2015) synthesise
the capacity of national institutional arrangements to shape countries’
experience of marketisation towards outsourcing and to reduce labour
deterioration and segmentation (Grimshaw et al. 2015; Ravenswood and
Kaine 2015). In the market-making model, the public procurement sys-
tem finds a favourable context for the development of an internal market
through an effective competition, unbound from regulatory obligations,
as social clauses or stringent labour regulations in restructuring processes
(such as TUPE) (Schulten et al. 2012). This context generally increases
employers’ discretion by marginalising the role of collective bargaining in
favour of a unilateral definition of terms and conditions of employment
in the entire labour market (Howell 2016). The market-making system
recalls the concept of ‘competition state’ developed by Cerny (1997),
according to which the dominant rationale underpinning the action of
the state has progressively become ‘maintaining and promoting compet-
itiveness in a world marketplace and multi-level political system’ (2010:
6), by promoting pro-competitive and pro-market regulation (Forde and
Slater 2016).
Instead, in the market-embedding model, the widespread application
of social clauses and a protective labour regulation limits the detrimental
repercussions of vertical disintegration processes (Jaehrling et al. 2018). By
integrating the market in the system of employment relations, the state
prevents and mitigates potential negative consequences of the market,
thereby stemming the discretion of both public and private employers

(Boyer 2011). In this scenario, the market is incorporated through forms of
solidarity and coordination, in which the dynamics of collective bargaining
interact and mutually reinforce with a universal social protection system
and a sustainable model of public procurement, guaranteeing uniform
terms and conditions of employment therein.
Hence, a key objective is to examine variations in the role played out by
the state in marketisation trajectories and to draw out the consequences for
the workforce and employment relations. Does the public sector remain a
distinctively good employer? Have outsourcing processes and the market
shocks of austerity measures and retrenchment triggered the longer-term
consequences for the parties and institutions of public sector employment
relations? And to what extent does the state, configured as ‘socially respon-
sible customer’ (Jaehrling 2015), have a role to play, and in what direction
has its marketisation experience been shaped?
Innovation
There are three distinctive features of this book. First, it straddles and
brings together insights from the fields of comparative employment
relations and comparative public administration/management, which
are often addressed separately (Bach and Bordogna 2016). Scholarship,
respectively, concentrates either on the institutional structures and out-
comes of employment relations—collective bargaining, wage setting, dis-
pute resolution, etc. (Bach et al. 1999)—or on the provision, governance
and reform of public services (Hermann and Flecker 2012). Specifically,
contributions to public service outsourcing focus either on how indus-
trial relations regimes and labour market institutions shape the form
and pace of outsourcing practices (Grimshaw et al. 2015) or on other
explanatory factors underpinning outsourcing decisions, including cost-
efficiency maximisation (Jensen and Stonecash 2005), fiscal stress and the
political/ideological orientation of public administrations (Bel and Fageda
2017). This book combines a consideration of upstream developments in
the rationales explaining outsourcing decisions by public administrations
within the regulatory constraints set by the state and the downstream
20 A. Mori
consequences for working conditions, the workforce and the trade unions.
It analyses systematically developments in the public service outsourcing
in a comparative manner that jointly considers the decision-making pro-
cesses underpinning market-making practices as outsourcing and their
implications for employment relations and working conditions.
Second, the book represents an attempt to revamp the role of the state,
most neglected by recent elaborations. The preoccupation for the state in
the interplay with the world of work and capital has long been central to a
flourishingly and lively theoretical debate, to recently resolve itself into a
distinct and basically self-contained area. It has experienced a major come-
back after the 2008 economic crisis, when its role became unprecedentedly
influential as an interventionist in the Western economies through auster-
ity measures, bank rescues and stimulus packages (Vaughan-Whitehead
2013). The radical reform of public administration represents another tra-
ditional state leverage for public finance cutbacks in times of retrenchment
(Leisink and Bach 2014). Responding to the call for investigation of state
institutions in interplay with work organisation as a re-emerging issue
(Meardi et al. 2016), this book looks at the transformations of the role of
the state as distinctive good employer, regulator and public service provider
in an equitable and impartial way, in interaction with market forces within
a wider neoliberal trajectory spreading across Western economies.
Third, the contribution of the book stems from an employment rela-
tions perspective that focuses, on the one hand, on the interplay of insti-
tutional/regulatory structures and market forces as structural pressures
triggering public service outsourcing, and on the other, on the agency
that this interaction spawns in employment relations (Pollitt and Bouck-
aert 2009). Responding to the scholarly call for an integrated approach
between institutions and actors, the book will look not just at how labour
market institutions and regulatory frameworks accommodate and medi-
ate market dynamics, but also at how these institutions shape room for
manoeuvring that the actors can utilise and exploit (Meardi et al. 2016).
Structure of the Book

There are eight chapters. After this introductory chapter that addressed
the key debates that animate the book, stemming from the perspectives
of both comparative employment relations and public management, the
main issues examined lay the groundwork for the chapters on each of the
three countries (each following a common structure). Two chapters are
devoted to each country (Italy, Denmark and Britain).
One chapter (respectively, Chapter 2 for Italy, Chapter 4 for Denmark
and Chapter 6 for Britain) presents the main country-specific administra-
tive and regulatory framework of the public sector, in terms of employ-
ment relations institutions and actors, collective bargaining structure, and
main drivers of austerity and outsourcing in public services. The objective
is to provide an informative institutional background to understand the
processes of outsourcing in public services in the country and the conse-
quences for working conditions, trade unions, employment relations and
the role of the state. Hence, after an introductory administrative overview
of the country, it presents the main transformations and reforms of pub-
lic sector employment relations and the country-specific institutions and
structure of collective bargaining. The following section describes the main
social partners in the public sector and their organisational structure and
composition. A final section examines the main drivers of outsourcing, by
investigating both austerity measures implemented in the aftermath of the
economic crisis that pushed towards the marketisation in public services
and the legislative interventions promoting outsourcing.
The second country-related chapter (respectively Chapter 3 for Italy,
Chapter 5 for Denmark and Chapter 7 for Britain) deals with the outsourc-
ing of public services in the municipality and in the local health authority
(selected as case studies in the country to illustrate the consequences for
working conditions, employment relations and trade union responses).
For each case, the analysis sheds light on three main analytical dimen-
sions: the main drivers of outsourcing; the consequences for terms and
conditions of employment; the strategies that trade unions implemented
in the workplace and the impacts on collective bargaining institutions.
A concluding chapter (Chapter 8) discusses the main findings from
the three countries—Italy, Denmark and Britain—in a comparative
22 A. Mori
perspective and integrates them into an overall conclusion. It starts with a

brief account of major consequences of outsourcing in public services for
employment, working conditions and distribution of market risks, linking
the trajectories of change to the enduring variety of national regimes in
public sector employment relations. It then discusses the strategies that
trade unions displayed to respond to the market challenges and the impacts
that outsourcing practices have had on union role and collective bargain-
ing institutions. A subsequent section examines the role played by the
state in interplay with market pressures. The chapter ends with an elabo-
ration of a refined categorisation of national trajectories in public sector
employment relations.
References
Alonso, J. M., Clifton, J., & Diaz-Fuentes, D. (2015). Did new public manage-
ment matter? An empirical analysis of the outsourcing and decentralization
effects on public sector size. Public Management Review, 17 (5), 643–660.
Amable, B. (2003). The diversity of modern capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ascher, K. (1987). The politics of privatisation: Contracting out public services.
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Baccaro, L., & Howell, C. (2011). A common neoliberal trajectory: The trans-
formation of industrial relations in advanced capitalism. Politics and Society,
39 (4), 521–563.
Baccaro, L., & Howell, C. (2017). Trajectories of neoliberal transformation: Euro-
pean industrial relations since the 1970s. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bach, S. (1999). Europe: Changing public service employment relations. In S.
Bach, L. Bordogna, G. Della Rocca, & D. Winchester (Eds.), Public ser-
vice employment relations in Europe: Transformation, modernization or inertia?
(pp. 1–17). London: Routledge.
Bach, S., & Bordogna, L. (2011). Varieties of new public management or alter-
native models? The reform of public service employment relations in indus-
trialised democracies. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
22(11), 2281–2294.
Bach, S., & Bordogna, L. (2013). Reframing public service employment rela-
tions: The impact of economic crisis and the new EU economic governance.
European Journal of Industrial Relations, 19 (4), 279–294.
Bach, S., & Bordogna, L. (Eds.). (2016). Public service management and employ-
ment relations in Europe: Emerging from the crisis. London: Routledge.
Bach, S., Bordogna, L., Della Rocca, G., & Winchester, D. (Eds.). (1999). Public
service employment relations in Europe: Transformation, modernization or inertia?
New York: Routledge.
Bach, S., & Kessler, I. (2007). Human resource management and the new public
management. In P. Boxall, J. Purcell, & P. Wright (Eds.), The Oxford handbook
of human resource management (pp. 469–488). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Beaumont, P. (1992). Public sector industrial relations. London: Routledge.
Bel, G., & Fageda, X. (2017). What have we learned from the last three decades
of empirical studies on factors driving local privatisation? Local Government
Studies, 43(4), 503–511.
Bel, G., Fageda, X., & Warner, M. E. (2010). Is private production of public ser-
vices cheaper than public production? A meta-regression analysis of solid waste
and water services. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29, 553–577.
Blom-Hansen, J. (2003). Is private delivery of public services really cheaper?
Evidence from public road maintenance. Public Choice, 115 (3/4), 419–438.
Blöndal, J. R. (2005). Market-type mechanisms and the provision of public
services. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 5 (1), 79–106.
Bordogna, L. (2008). Moral hazard, transaction costs and the reform of public
service employment relations. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 14 (4),
381–400.
Bordogna, L., & Winchester, D. (2001). Collective bargaining in Western
Europe. In G. Dell’Aringa, G. Della Rocca, & B. Keller (Eds.), Strategic choices
in reforming public service employment (pp. 48–70). New York: Palgrave.
Borins, S. (1998). Lessons from the new public management in Commonwealth
nations. International Public Management Journal, 1(1), 37–58.
Boyer, R. (2011). EU procurement green paper on the modernization of EU pub-
lic procurement policy: A personal response. Public Procurement Law Review,
5, 171–184.
Buchanan, J. M., & Tollison, R. D. (1984). The theory of public choice—II. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Cerny, P. (1997). Paradoxes of the competition state: The dynamics of political
globalization. Government and Opposition, 32(2), 251–274.
24 A. Mori
Cerny, P. (2010). The competition state today: From raison d’État to raison du
Monde. Policy Studies, 31(1), 5–21.
Cunningham, I. (2016). Non-profits and the ‘hollowed out’ state: The trans-
formation of working conditions through personalizing social care services
during an era of austerity. Work, Employment & Society, 30 (4), 649–668.
Di Maggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional
isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Soci-
ological Association, 48(2), 147–160.
Domberger, S. (1998). The contracting organization: A strategic guide to outsourc-
ing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Domberger, S., & Henser, D. (1993). On the performance of competitively
tendered public sector cleaning contracts. Public Administration, 71, 441–454.
Domberger, S., Medowcroft, S. A., & Thompson, D. J. (1986). Competitive
tendering and efficiency: The case of refuse collection. Fiscal Studies, 7 (4),
69–87.
Dorigatti, L., & Mori, A. (2016). L’impatto delle scelte datoriali sulle condizioni
di lavoro e sulle diseguaglianze: Disintegrazione verticale, esternalizzazioni e
appalti. Sociologia Del Lavoro, 144, 190–204.
Drahokoupil, J. (Ed.). (2015). The outsourcing challenge: Organizing workers across
fragmented production networks. Brussels: ETUI.
Dunleavy, P., & Hood, C. (1994). From old public administration to new public
management. Public Money and Management, 14 (3), 3–19.
Eurofound. (2015). ERM Annual Report 2014: Restructuring in the public sector.
Luxembourg: Publications Office or the European Union.
European Commission. (2013). Industrial relations in Europe 2012. Luxembourg:
Publications Office of the European Union.
Fernandez, S., Smith, C. R., & Wenger, J. B. (2007). Employment, privati-
zation, and managerial choice: Does contracting out reduce public sector
employment? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26 (1), 57–77.
Ferner, A. (1992). The state as employer. In A. Ferner & R. Hyman (Eds.), New
frontiers of industrial relations (pp. 52–79). Oxford: Blackwell.
Flecker, J., & Meil, P. (2010). Organisational restructuring and emerging service
value chains: Implications for work and employment. Work, Employment &
Society, 24 (4), 680–698.
Forde, C., & Slater, G. (2016). Labour market regulation and the ‘competition
state’: An analysis of the implementation of the Agency Working Regulations
in the UK. Work, Employment & Society, 30 (4), 590–606.
Frendreis, J. P. (1983). Explanation of variation and detection of covariation:

The purpose and logic of comparative analysis. Comparative Political Studies,
16 (2), 255–272.
Glassner, V. (2010). The public sector in the crisis. Brussels: ETUI.
Gottschall, K., Kittel, B., Briken, K., Heuer, J. O., Hils, S., Streb, S., & Tepe,
M. (2015). Public sector employment regimes: Transformations of the state as an
employer. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Greer, I. (2015). Welfare reform, precarity and the re-commodification of labour.
Work, Employment & Society, 30 (1), 162–173.
Greer, I., & Doellgast, V. (2017). Marketization, inequality, and institutional
change: Toward a new framework for comparative employment relations. Jour-
nal of Industrial Relations, 59 (2), 192–208.
Grimshaw, D., Rubery, J., Anxo, D., Bacache-Beauvallet, M., Neumann, L., &
Weinkopf, C. (2015). Outsourcing of public services in Europe and segmen-
tation effects: The influence of labour market factors. European Journal of
Industrial Relations, 21(4), 295–313.
Gruening, G. (2001). Origin and theoretical basis of new public management.
International Public Management Journal, 4, 1–25.
Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (Eds.). (2001). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional
foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political science and the three new insti-
tutionalisms. Political Studies, 44, 952–973.
Hancké, B., Rhodes, M., & Thatcher, M. (Eds.). (2007). Beyond varieties of capi-
talism: Conflict, contradictions and complementarities in the European economy.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hay, C., & Wincott, D. (1998). Structure, agency and historical institutionalism.
Political Studies, 46, 951–957.
Healy, M., & Perry, C. (2000). Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reli-
ability of qualitative research within the realism paradigm. Qualitative Market
Research: An International Journal, 3, 118–126.
Hermann, C. (2014). Structural adjustment and neoliberal convergence in labour
markets and welfare: The impact of the crisis and austerity measures on Euro-
pean economic and social models. Competition and Change, 18(2), 111–130.
Hermann, C., & Flecker, J. (Eds.). (2012). Privatization of public services: Impacts
for employment, working conditions, and service quality in Europe. New York:
Routledge.
Hodge, G. (1996). Contracting out government services: A review of international
evidence. Melbourne: Montech Pty Ltd.
26 A. Mori
Holst, H. (2014). ‘Commodifying institutions’: Vertical disintegration and insti-

tutional change in German labour relations. Work, Employment & Society,
28(1), 3–20.
Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration,
69 (1), 3–19.
Hood, C. (1995). The ‘new public management’ in the 1980s: Variations on a
theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20 (2–3), 93–109.
Howell, C. (2016). Regulating class in the neoliberal era: The role of the state
in the restructuring of work and employment relations. Work, Employment &
Society, 30 (4), 573–589.
Jaehrling, K. (2015). The state as ‘socially responsible customer’? Public procure-
ment between market-making and market-embedding. European Journal of
Industrial Relations, 21(2), 149–164.
Jaehrling, K., Johnson, M., Larsen, T. P., Refslund, B., & Grimshaw, D. (2018).
Tackling precarious work in public supply chains: A comparison of local gov-
ernment procurement policies in Denmark, Germany and the UK. Work,
Employment & Society, 32(3), 546–563.
Jaehrling, K., & Méhaut, P. (2013). ‘Varieties of institutional avoidance’: Employ-
ers’ strategies in low-waged service sector occupations in France and Germany.
Socio-Economic Review, 11, 687–710.
Jensen, P. H., & Stonecash, R. E. (2005). Incentives and the efficiency of public
sector-outsourcing contracts. Journal of Economic Surveys, 19 (5), 767–787.
Jessop, B. (2002). The future of the capitalist state. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Jessop, B. (2003). The future of the state in an era of globalization. International
Politik Und Gesellschaft, 3, 1–15.
Kickert, W. (Ed.). (2008). The study of public management in Europe and the US:
A comparative analysis of national distinctiveness. London: Routledge.
Kochan, T. A., Katz, H. C., & McKersie, R. B. (1986). The transformation of
American industrial relations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Krugman, P. (2008). The return of depression economics and the crisis of 2008.
London: Penguin.
Larbi, G. A. (1999). The new public management and crisis state (UNIRISD
Discussion Paper No. 112). Geneva.
Leisink, P., & Bach, S. (2014). Economic crisis and municipal public service
employment: Comparing developments in seven EU member states. Transfer,
20 (3), 327–342.
Lijphart, A. (1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method. The
American Political Science Review, 65 (3), 682–693.
Lindblom, C. E. (1977). Politics and markets. New York: Basic Books.
Lodge, M., & Hood, C. (2012). Into an age of multiple austerities? Public man-
agement and public service bargains across oecd countries. Governance, 25 (1),
79–101.
Marchington, M., Grimshaw, D., Rubery, J., & Willmott, H. (Eds.). (2004).
Fragmenting work: Blurring organisational boundaries and disordering hierar-
chies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Masters, M. F., Gibney, R., Shevchuk, I., & Zagenczyk, T. (2008). The state as
employer. In P. Blyton, N. Bacon, J. Fiorito, & E. Heery (Eds.), The SAGE
handbook of industrial relations (pp. 305–324). London: Sage.
Meardi, G., Donaghey, J., & Dean, D. (2016). The strange non-retreat of the
state: Implications for the sociology of work. Work, Employment & Society,
30 (4), 559–572.
Mori, A. (2017). The impact of public services outsourcing on work and employ-
ment conditions in different national regimes. European Journal of Industrial
Relations, 23(4), 347–364.
Niskanen, W. A. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. Hawthorne:
Aldine de Gruyter.
OECD. (1993). Managing with market-type mechanisms. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2005). Modernising government: The way forward. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2011). Restoring public finances. Paris: OECD.
Ongaro, E. (2009). Public management reform and modernization: Trajectories of
administrative change in Italy, France, Greece, Portugal and Spain. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the
entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. New York: Addison-
Wesley.
Painter, M., & Peters, B. G. (2010). The analysis of administrative traditions.
In M. Painter & B. G. Peters (Eds.), Tradition and public administration
(pp. 3–18). New York: Palgrave.
Peters, G. (1999). Institutional theory in political science: The new institutionalism.
London: Pinter.
Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics.
The American Political Science Review, 94 (2), 251–267.
Pollitt, C. (2001). Convergence: The useful myth? Public Administration, 79 (4),
933–947.
28 A. Mori
Pollitt, C. (2002). Clarifying convergence: Striking similarities and durable dif-

ferences in public management reform. Public Management Review, 3(4),
471–492.
Pollitt, C. (2004). Theoretical overview. In C. Pollitt & C. Talbot (Eds.), Unbun-
dled government: A critical analysis of the global trend to agencies, quangos and
contractualisation (pp. 319–341). London: Routledge.
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2009). Continuity and change in public policy and
management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative
analysis—New public management, governance, and the neo-Weberian state (3rd
ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pollitt, C., Van Thiel, S., & Homburg, V. (Eds.). (2007). New public management
in Europe: Adaptation and alternatives. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Prager, J. (1994). Contracting out government services: Lessons from the private
sector. Public Administration Review, 54 (2), 176–184.
Quiggin, J. (2002). Contracting out: Promise and performance. Economic and
Labour Relations Review, 13(1), 88–104.
Ravenswood, K., & Kaine, S. (2015). The role of government in influencing
labour conditions through the procurement of services: Some political chal-
lenges. Journal of Industrial Relations, 57 (4), 544–562.
Savas, E. S. (1987). Privatization: The key to better government. Chatham, NJ:
Chatham House.
Schulten, T., Alsos, K., Burgess, P., & Pedersen, K. (2012). Pay and other social
clauses in European public procurement: An overview on regulation and prac-
tices with a focus on Denmark, Germany, Norway, Switzerland and the United
Kingdom. Brussels: EPSU.
Steinmo, S., Thelen, K., & Longstreath, F. (Eds.). (1992). Structuring politics:
Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Streeck, W. (2014). The politics of public debt: Neoliberalism, capitalist devel-
opment and the restructuring of the state. German Economic Review, 15 (1),
143–165.
Thelen, K. (1999). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Annual
Review of Political Science, 2, 369–404.
Theodoropoulou, S., & Watt, A. (2011). Withdrawal symptoms: An assessment of
the austerity packages in Europe. Brussels: ETUI.
Traxler, F. (2003). Bargaining, state regulation and the trajectories of industrial
relations. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 9 (2), 141–161.
Vaughan-Whitehead, D. (Ed.). (2013). Public sector shock: The impact of policy

retrenchment in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; Geneva: ILO.
Von Hayek, F. A. (1973). Law, legislation and liberty (Vol. 1). Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Walsh, K. (1995). Public services and market mechanisms: Competition, contracting
and the new public management. London: Macmillan.
Part I
The Case of Italy
2
Public Services Under Austerity: Structure
of the Public Sector and Drivers
of Outsourcing
An Introductory Administrative Overview

With a population of about 60 million inhabitants, Italy is a unitary state
which, since the early 1970s, has attributed to the decentralised levels of
government strong autonomy on administrative and regulatory matters,
powers further strengthened by the 2001 constitutional reform. Beyond
the central government, decentralised governments develop along a
three-tier administrative structure comprising twenty regions—five with
a special statute of autonomy—one hundred and ten provinces, two
endued with a special statute and about eight thousand municipalities.
The process of decentralisation has experienced a halt with the decision
to suppress the provinces in 2012 and with the attempt to reduce the
regional powers through the 2016 constitutional reform, subject to a
referendum which rejected it. As the figures show, the municipal level
is characterised not only by a marked fragmentation, but also by a
clear-cut prevalence of small local authorities in terms of the resident
population. Indeed, the majority of the municipalities (around 70%)
count a population of fewer than 5000 inhabitants, while almost all
(more than 90%) have fewer than 20,000 inhabitants; only a dozen cities
count more than 250,000 inhabitants. The distribution of the population
© The Author(s) 2020 33
A. Mori, Employment Relations in Outsourced Public Services,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24627-3_2
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
other, and would very naturally be spoken of as near neighbors. The most weighty
argument, however, rests on a passage in Mark vi. 45, where it is said that Jesus
constrained his disciples to “get into a vessel, to go before him to the other side unto
Bethsaida,” after the five thousand had been fed. Now the parallel passage in John vi. 17,
says that they, following this direction, “went over the sea towards Capernaum,” and that
when they reached the shore, “they came into the land of Gennesaret,” both which are
understood to be on the western side. But on the other hand, we are distinctly told, by Luke,
(ix. 10,) that the five thousand were fed in “a desert place, belonging to (or near) the city
which is called Bethsaida.” On connecting these two passages, therefore, (in John and
Mark,) according to the common version, the disciples sailed from Bethsaida on one side, to
Bethsaida on the other, a construction which has been actually adopted by those who
maintain the existence of two cities of the same name on different sides of the lake. But
what common reader is willing to believe, that in this passage Luke refers to a place totally
different from the one meant in all other passages where the name occurs, and more
particularly in the very next chapter, (x. 13,) where he speaks of the Bethsaida which had
been frequented before by Jesus, without a word of explanation to show that it was a
different place? But in the expression, “to go before him to the other side, to Bethsaida,” the
word “to” may be shown, by a reference to the Greek, to convey an erroneous idea of the
situation of the places. The preposition προς, (pros,) may have, not merely the sense of to,
with the idea of motion towards a place, but in some passages even of Mark’s gospel, may
be most justly translated “near,” or “before,” (as in ii. 2, “not even about” or “before” the
door, and in xi. 4, “tied by” or before “the door.”) This is the meaning which seems to be
justified by the collocation here, and the meaning in which I am happy to find myself
supported by the acute and accurate Wahl, in his Clavis Novi Testamenti under προς, which
he translates in this passage by the Latin juxta, prope ad; and the German bey, that is, “by,”
“near to,” a meaning supported by the passage in Herodotus, to which he refers, as well as
by those from Mark himself, which are given above, from Schleusner’s references under
this word, (definition 7.) Scott, in order to reconcile the difficulties which he saw in the
common version, has, in his marginal references, suggested the meaning of “over against,”
a rendering, which undoubtedly expresses correctly the relations of objects in this place,
and one, perhaps, not wholly inconsistent with Schleusner’s 7th definition, which is in Latin
ante, or “before;” since what was before Bethsaida, as one looked from that place across
the river, was certainly opposite to that city. I had thought of this meaning as a desirable one
in this passage, but had rejected it, before I saw it in Scott, for the reason, that I could not
find this exact meaning in any lexicon, nor was there any other passage in Greek, in which
this could be distinctly recognized as the proper one. The propriety of the term, however, is
also noticed, in the note on this passage in the great French Bible, with commentaries,
harmonies, &c. (Sainte Bible en Latin et Francois avec des notes, &c. Vol. xiv. p. 263, note,)
where it is expressed by “l’autre cote du lac, vis-a-vis Bethsaide: c. a. d. sur le bord
occidental opposé a la ville Bethsaide que etait sur le bord oriental,” a meaning undoubtedly
geographically correct, but not grammatically exact, and I therefore prefer to take “near,” as
the sense which both reconciles the geographical difficulties, and accords with the
established principles of lexicography.
After all, the sense “to” is not needed in this passage, to direct the action of the verb of
motion (προαγειν, proagein, “go before,”) to its proper object, since that is previously done by
the former preposition and substantive, εις το περαν, (eis to peran.) That is, when we read
“Jesus constrained his disciples to go before him,” and the question arises in regard to the
object towards which the action is directed, “Whither did he constrain them to go before
him?” the answer is in the words immediately succeeding, εις το περαν, “to the other side,”
and in these words the action is complete; but the mere general direction, “to the other
side,” was too vague of itself, and required some limitation to avoid error; for the place to
which they commonly directed their course westward, over the lake, was Capernaum, the
home of Jesus, and thither they might on this occasion be naturally expected to go, as we
should have concluded they did, if nothing farther was said; therefore, to fix the point of their
destination, we are told, in answer to the query, “To what part of the western shore were
they directed to go?” “To that part which was near or opposite to Bethsaida.” The objection
which may arise, that a place on the western side could not be very near to Bethsaida on
the east, is answered by the fact that this city was separated from the western shore, not by
the whole breadth of the lake, but simply by the little stream of Jordan, here not more than
twenty yards wide, so that a place on the opposite side might still be very near the city. And
this is what shows the topographical justness of the term, “over against,” given by Scott,
and the French commentator, since a place not directly across or opposite, but down the
western shore, in a south-westerly direction, as Capernaum was, would not be very near
Bethsaida, nor much less than five miles off. Thus is shown a beautiful mutual illustration of
the literal and the liberal translations of the word.
Macknight ably answers another argument, which has been offered to defend the
location of Bethsaida on the western shore, founded on John vi. 23. “There came other
boats from Tiberias, nigh unto the place where they did eat bread,” as if Tiberias had been
near the desert of Bethsaida, and consequently near Bethsaida itself. “But,” as Macknight
remarks, “the original, rightly pointed, imports only, that boats from Tiberias came into some
creek or bay, nigh unto the place where they did eat bread.” Besides, it should be
remembered that the object of those who came in the boats, was to find Jesus, whom they
expected to find “nigh the place where they ate bread,” as the context shows; so that these
words refer to their destination, and not to the place from which they came. Tiberias was
down the lake, at the south-western corner of it, and I know of no geographer who has put
Bethsaida more than half way down, even on the western shore. The difference, therefore,
between the distance to Bethsaida on the west and to Bethsaida on the east, could not be
at most above a mile or two, a matter not to be appreciated in a voyage of sixteen miles,
from Tiberias, which cannot be said to be near Bethsaida, in any position of the latter that
has ever been thought of. This objection, of course, is not offered at all, by those who
suppose two Bethsaidas mentioned in the gospels, and grant that the passage in Luke ix.
10, refers to the eastern one, where they suppose the place of eating bread to have been;
but others, who have imagined only one Bethsaida, and that on the western side, have
proposed this argument; and to such the reply is directed.
For all these reasons, topographical, historical and grammatical, the conclusion of the
whole matter is――that there was but one Bethsaida, the same place being meant by that
name in all passages in the gospels and in Josephus――that this place stood within the
verge of Lower Gaulanitis, on the bank of the Jordan, just where it passes into the
lake――that it was in the dominions of Philip the tetrarch, at the time when it is mentioned
in the gospels, and afterwards was included in the kingdom of Agrippa――that its original
Hebrew name, (from ‫ בית‬beth, “house,” and ‫צדה‬, tsedah, “hunting, or fishing,” “a house of
fishing,” no doubt so called from the common pursuit of its inhabitants,) was changed by
Philip into Julias, by which name it was known to Greeks and Romans.
By this view, we avoid the undesirable notion, that there are two totally different places
mentioned in two succeeding chapters of the same gospel, without a word of explanation to
inform us of the difference, as is usual in cases of local synonyms in the New Testament;
and that Josephus describes a place of this name, without the slightest hint of the
remarkable fact, that there was another place of the same name, not half a mile off, directly
across the Jordan, in full view of it.
The discussion of the point has been necessarily protracted to a somewhat tedious
length; but if fewer words would have expressed the truth and the reasons for it, it should
have been briefer; and probably there is no reader who has endeavored to satisfy himself
on the position of Bethsaida, in his own biblical studies, that will not feel some gratitude for
what light this note may give, on a point where all common aids and authorities are in such
monstrous confusion.
For the various opinions and statements on this difficult point, see Schleusner’s,
Bretschneider’s and Wahl’s Lexicons, Lightfoot’s Chorographic century and decade,
Wetstein’s New Testament commentary on Matthew iv. 12, Kuinoel, Rosenmueller,
Fritzsche, Macknight, &c. On the passages where the name occurs, also the French
Commentary above quoted,――more especially in Vol. III. Remarques sur le carte
geographique section 7, p. 357. Paulus’s “commentar ueber das neue Testament,” 2d
edition, Vol. II. pp. 336‒342. Topographische Erlaeuterungen.
Lake Gennesaret.――This body of water, bearing in the gospels the various names of
“the sea of Tiberias,” and “the sea of Galilee,” as well as “the lake of Gennesaret,” is formed
like one or two other smaller ones north of it, by a widening of the Jordan, which flows in at
the northern end, and passing through the middle, goes out at the southern end. On the
western side, it was bounded by Galilee proper, and on the east was the lower division of
that portion of Iturea, which was called Gaulanitis by the Greeks and Romans, from the
ancient city of Golan, (Deuteronomy iv. 43; Joshua xx. 8, &c.) which stood within its limits.
Pliny (book I. chapter 15,) well describes the situation and character of the lake. “Where the
shape of the valley first allows it, the Jordan pours itself into a lake which is most commonly
called Genesara, sixteen (Roman) miles long, and six broad. It is surrounded by pleasant
towns; on the east, it has Julias (Bethsaida) and Hippus; on the south, Tarichea, by which
name some call the lake also; on the west, Tiberias with its warm springs.” Josephus also
gives a very clear and ample description. (Jewish War, book 3, chapter 9, section 7.) “Lake
Gennesar takes its name from the country adjoining it. It is forty furlongs (about five or six
miles) in width, and one hundred and forty (seventeen or eighteen miles) in length; yet the
water is sweet, and very desirable to drink; for it has its fountain clear from swampy
thickness, and is therefore quite pure, being bounded on all sides by a beach, and a sandy
shore. It is moreover of a pleasant temperature to drink, being warmer than that of a river or
a spring, on the one hand, but colder than that which stands always expanded over a lake.
In coldness, indeed, it is not inferior to snow, when it has been exposed to the air all night,
as is the custom with the people of that region. In it there are some kinds of fish, different
both in appearance and taste from those in other places. The Jordan cuts through the
middle of it.” He then gives a description of the course of the Jordan, ending with the remark
quoted in the former note, that it enters the lake at the city of Julias. He then describes, in
glowing terms, the richness and beauty of the country around, from which the lake takes its
name,――a description too long to be given here; but the studious reader may find it in
section eighth of the book and chapter above referred to. The Rabbinical writers too, often
refer to the pre-eminent beauty and fertility of this delightful region, as is shown in several
passages quoted by Lightfoot in his Centuria Chorographica, chapter 79. The derivation of
the name there given from the Rabbins, is ‫גני סרים‬, ginne sarim, “the gardens of the princes.”
Thence the name genne-sar. They say it was within the lands of the tribe of Naphtali; it must
therefore have been on the western side of the lake, which appears also from the fact that it
was near Tiberias, as we are told on the same authority. It is not mentioned in the Old
Testament under this name, but the Rabbins assure us that the place called Cinnereth, in
Joshua xx. 35; Chinneroth in xi. 2, is the same; and this lake is mentioned in xiii. 27, under
the name of “the sea of Chinnereth,”――“the sea of Chinneroth,” in xii. 3, &c.
The best description of the scenery, and present aspect of the lake, which I can find, is
the following from Conder’s Modern Traveler, Vol. 1. (Palestine) a work made up with great
care from the observations of a great number of intelligent travelers.
“The mountains on the east of Lake Tiberias, come close to its shore, and the country on
that side has not a very agreeable aspect; on the west, it has the plain of Tiberias, the high
ground of the plain of Hutin, or Hottein, the plain of Gennesaret, and the foot of those hills
by which you ascend to the high mountain of Saphet. To the north and south it has a plain
country, or valley. There is a current throughout the whole breadth of the lake, even to the
shore; and the passage of the Jordan through it, is discernible by the smoothness of the
surface in that part. Various travelers have given a very different account of its general
aspect. According to Captain Mangles, the land about it has no striking features, and the
scenery is altogether devoid of character. ‘It appeared,’ he says, ‘to particular disadvantage
to us, after those beautiful lakes we had seen in Switzerland; but it becomes a very
interesting object, when you consider the frequent allusions to it in the gospel narrative.’ Dr.
Clarke, on the contrary, speaks of the uncommon grandeur of this memorable scenery. ‘The
lake of Gennesaret,’ he says, ‘is surrounded by objects well calculated to highten the
solemn impression,’ made by such recollections, and ‘affords one of the most striking
prospects in the Holy Land. Speaking of it comparatively, it may be described as longer and
finer than any of our Cumberland and Westmoreland lakes, although perhaps inferior to
Loch Lomond. It does not possess the vastness of the Lake of Geneva, although it much
resembles it in certain points of view. In picturesque beauty, it comes nearest to the Lake of
Locarno, in Italy, although it is destitute of any thing similar to the islands by which that
majestic piece of water is adorned. It is inferior in magnitude, and in the hight of its
surrounding mountains, to the Lake Asphaltites.’ Mr. Buckingham may perhaps be
considered as having given the most accurate account, and one which reconciles, in some
degree, the different statements above cited, when, speaking of the lake as seen from Tel
Hoom, he says, ‘that its appearance is grand, but that the barren aspect of the mountains
on each side, and the total absence of wood, give a cast of dulness to the picture; this is
increased to melancholy, by the dead calm of its waters, and the silence which reigns
throughout its whole extent, where not a boat or vessel of any kind is to be found.’
“Among the pebbles on the shore, Dr. Clarke found pieces of a porous rock, resembling
toad-stone, its cavities filled with zeolite. Native gold is said to have been found here
formerly. ‘We noticed,’ he says, ‘an appearance of this kind; but, on account of its trivial
nature, neglected to pay proper attention to it. The water was as clear as the purest crystal;
sweet, cool, and most refreshing. Swimming to a considerable distance from the shore, we
found it so limpid that we could discern the bottom covered with shining pebbles. Among
these stones was a beautiful, but very diminutive, kind of shell; a nondescript species of
Buccinum, which we have called Buccinum Galilæum. We amused ourselves by diving for
specimens; and the very circumstance of discerning such small objects beneath the
surface, may prove the high transparency of the water.’ The situation of the lake, lying as it
were in a deep basin between the hills which enclose it on all sides, excepting only the
narrow entrance and outlets of the Jordan, at either end, protects its waters from long-
continued tempests. Its surface is in general as smooth as that of the Dead Sea; but the
same local features render it occasionally subject to whirlwinds, squalls, and sudden gusts
from the mountains, of short duration, especially when the strong current formed by the
Jordan, is opposed by a wind of this description, from the south-east; sweeping from the
mountains with the force of a hurricane, it may easily be conceived that a boisterous sea
must be instantly raised, which the small vessels of the country would be unable to resist. A
storm of this description is plainly denoted by the language of the evangelist, in recounting
one of our Lord’s miracles. ‘There came down a storm of wind on the lake, and they were
filled with water, and were in jeopardy.... Then he arose, and rebuked the wind and the
raging of the water; and they ceased, and there was a calm.’ (Luke viii. 23, 24.)”
The question of Peter’s being the oldest son of his father has
been already alluded to, and decided by the most ancient authority,
in favor of the opinion, that he was younger than Andrew. There
surely is nothing unparalleled or remarkable in the fact, that the
younger brother should so transcend the elder in ability and
eminence; since Scripture history furnishes us with similar instances
in Jacob, Judah and Joseph, Moses, David, and many others
throughout the history of the Jews, although that nation generally
regarded the rights of primogeniture with high reverence and
respect.
his introduction to jesus.
The earliest passage in the life of Peter, of which any record can
be found, is given in the first chapter of John’s Gospel. In this, it
appears that Peter and Andrew were at Bethabara, a place on the
eastern bank of the Jordan, more than twenty miles south of their
home at Bethsaida, and that they had probably left their business for
a time, and gone thither, for the sake of hearing and seeing John the
Baptist, who was then preaching at that place, and baptizing the
penitent in the Jordan. This great forerunner of the Messiah, had
already, by his strange habits of life, by his fiery eloquence, by his
violent and fearless zeal in denouncing the spirit of the times,
attracted the attention of the people, of all classes, in various and
distant parts of Palestine; and not merely of the vulgar and
unenlightened portion of society, who are so much more susceptible
to false impressions in such cases, but even of the well taught
followers of the two great learned sects of the Jewish faith, whose
members flocked to hear his bold and bitter condemnation of their
precepts and practices. So widely had his fame spread, and so
important were the results of his doctrine considered, that a
deputation of priests and Levites was sent to him, from Jerusalem,
(probably from the Sanhedrim, or grand civil and religious council,) to
inquire into his character and pretensions. No doubt a particular
interest was felt in this inquiry, from the fact that there was a general
expectation abroad at that time, that the long-desired restorer of
Israel was soon to appear; or, as expressed by Luke, there were
many “who waited for the consolation of Israel,” and “who in
Jerusalem looked for redemption.” Luke also expressly tells us, that
the expectations of the multitude were strongly excited, and that all
men mused in their hearts whether he were the Christ or not. In the
midst of this general notion, so flattering, and so tempting to an
ambitious man, John vindicates his honesty and sincerity, by
distinctly declaring to the multitude, as well as to the deputation, that
he was not the Christ, and claimed for himself only the comparatively
humble name and honors of the preparer of the way for the true king
of Israel. This distinct disavowal, accompanied by the solemn
declaration, that the true Messiah stood at that moment among
them, though unknown in his real character, must have aggravated
public curiosity to the highest pitch, and caused the people to await,
with the most intense anxiety, the nomination of this mysterious king,
which John was expected to make. Need we wonder, then, at the
alacrity and determination with which the two disciples of John, who
heard this announcement, followed the footsteps of Jesus, with the
object of finding the dwelling place of the Messiah, or at the deep
reverence with which they accosted him, giving him at once the
highest term of honor which a Jew could confer on the wise and
good,――“Rabbi,” or master? Nor is it surprising that Andrew, after
the first day’s conversation with Jesus, should instantly seek out his
beloved and zealous brother, and tell him the joyful and exciting
news, that they had found the Messiah. The mention of this fact was
enough for Simon, and he suffered himself to be brought at once to
Jesus. The salutation with which the Redeemer greeted the man
who was to be the leader of his consecrated host, was strikingly
prophetical and full of meaning. His first words were the annunciation
of his individual and family name, (no miracle, but an allusion to the
hidden meaning of his name,) and the application of a new one, by
which he was afterwards to be distinguished from the many who
bore his common name. All these names have a deeply curious and
interesting meaning. Translating them all from their original Aramaic
forms, the salutation will be, “Thou art a hearer, the son of divine
grace――thou shalt be called a rock.” The first of these names
(hearer) was a common title in use among the Jews, to distinguish
those who had just offered themselves to the learned, as desiring
wisdom in the law; and the second was applied to those who, having
past the first probationary stage of instruction, were ranked as the
approved and improving disciples of the law, under the hopeful title
of the “sons of divine grace.” The third, which became afterwards the
distinctive individual name of this apostle, was given, no doubt, in
reference to the peculiar excellences of his natural genius, which
seems to be thereby characterized as firm, unimpressible by
difficulty, and affording fit materials for the foundation of a mighty and
lasting superstructure.
The name Simon, ‫ שמונ‬was a common abridgment of Simeon, ‫ שמעונ‬which means a
hearer, and was a term applied technically as here mentioned. (For proofs and illustrations,
see Poole’s Synopsis and Lightfoot.) The technical meaning of the name Jonah, given in
the text, is that given by Grotius and Drusius, but Lightfoot rejects this interpretation,
because the name Jonah is not fairly derived from ‫( יוחנא‬which is the name corresponding to
John,) but is the same with that of the old prophet so named, and he is probably right in
therefore rejecting this whimsical etymology and definition.
With this important event of the introduction of Simon to Jesus,

and the application of his new and characteristic name, the life of
Peter, as a follower of Christ, may be fairly said to have begun; and
from this arises a simple division of the subject, into the two great
natural portions of his life; first, in his state of pupilage and
instruction under the prayerful, personal care of his devoted Master,
during his earthly stay; and second, of his labors in the cause of his
murdered and risen Lord, as his preacher and successor. These two
portions of his life may be properly denominated his discipleship and
his apostleship; or perhaps still better, Peter the learner, and Peter
the teacher.
THE FORDS OF THE JORDAN.
I. PETER’S DISCIPLESHIP;
OR,
PETER THE LEARNER AND FOLLOWER.
After his first interview with Christ, Peter seems to have returned
to his usual business, toiling for his support, without any idea
whatever of the manner in which his destiny was connected with the
wonderful being to whom he had been thus introduced. We may
justly suppose, indeed, that being convinced by the testimony of
John, his first religious teacher and his baptizer, and by personal
conversation with Jesus, of his being the Messiah, that he afterwards
often came to him, (as his home was near the Savior’s,) and heard
him, and saw some of the miracles done by him. “We may take it for
granted,” as Lardner does, “that they were present at the miracle at
Cana of Galilee, it being expressly said that Jesus and his disciples
were invited to the marriage solemnity in that place, as described in
the second chapter of John’s gospel. It is also said in the same
chapter, ‘this beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and
manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him;’ that is,
were confirmed in the persuasion that he was the Messiah.” And
among the disciples of Jesus, Simon and his brother were evidently
numbered, from the time when they received their first introduction to
him, and were admitted to the honors of an intimate acquaintance.
The formal manner in which Jesus saluted Simon, seems to imply
his adoption, or nomination at least, as a disciple, by referring to the
remarkable coincidence of meaning between his name and the
character of a hopeful learner in the school of divine knowledge. Still
the two brothers had plainly received no appointment which
produced any essential change in their general habits and plans of
life, for they still followed their previous calling, quietly and
unpretendingly, without seeming to suppose, that the new honors
attained by them had in any way exempted them from the necessity
of earning their daily bread by the sweat of their brow. To this they
devoted themselves, laboring along the same sea of Galilee, whose
waters and shores were the witnesses of so many remarkable
scenes of the life of Christ. Yet their business was not of such a
character as to prevent their enjoying occasional interviews with their
divine master, whose residence by the lake, and walks along its
shores, must have afforded frequent opportunities for cultivating or
renewing an acquaintance with those engaged on its waters. There
is nothing in the gospel story inconsistent with the belief, that Jesus
met his disciples, who were thus occupied, on more occasions than
one; and had it been the Bible plan to record all the most interesting
details of his earthly life, many instructive accounts might, no doubt,
have been given of the interviews enjoyed by him and his destined
messengers of grace to the world. But the multiplication of such
narratives, however interesting the idea of them may now seem,
would have added no essential doctrine to our knowledge, even if
they had been so multiplied as that, in the paradoxical language of
John, the whole world could not contain them; and the necessary
result of such an increased number of records, would have been a
diminished valuation of each. As it is, the scripture historical canon
secures our high regard and diligent attention, and its careful
examination, by the very circumstance of its brevity, and the wide
chasms of the narrative;――like the mysterious volumes of the
Cumaean Sybil, the value of the few is no less than that of the many,
the price of each increasing in proportion as the number of the whole
diminishes. Thus in regard to this interesting interval of Peter’s life,
we are left to the indulgence of reasonable conjecture, such as has
been here mentioned.
The next direct account given in the Bible, of any event

immediately concerning him, is found in all the first three gospels. It
is thought by some, that his father Jonah was now dead; for there is
no mention of him, as of Zebedee, when his two sons were called.
This however is only a mere conjecture, and has no more certainty
than that he had found it convenient to make his home elsewhere, or
was now so old as to be prevented from sharing in this laborious and
perilous occupation, or that he had always obtained his livelihood in
some other way; though the last supposition is much less accordant
with the well-known hereditary succession of trades, which was
sanctioned by almost universal custom throughout their nation.
However, it appears that if still alive, their connection with him was
not such as to hinder them a moment in renouncing at once all their
former engagements and responsibilities, at the summons of Christ.
Jesus was at this time residing at Capernaum, which is said by
Matthew to be by the sea-coast, better translated “shore of the lake;”
for it is not on the coast of the Mediterranean, as our modern use of
these terms would lead us to suppose, but on the shore of the small
inland lake Tiberias, or sea of Galilee, as it was called by the Jews,
who, with their limited notions of geography, did not draw the nice
distinctions between large and small bodies of water, which the more
extended knowledge of some other nations of antiquity taught them
to make. Capernaum was but a few miles from Bethsaida, on the
other side of the lake, and its nearness would often bring Jesus in
his walks, by the places where these fishermen were occupied, in
whichever of the two places they at that time resided. On one of
these walks he seems to have given the final summons, which called
the first four of the twelve from their humble labors to the high
commission of converting the world.
Capernaum.――Though no one has ever supposed that there were two places bearing
this name, yet about its locality, as about many other points of sacred topography, we find
that “doctors disagree,” though in this case without any good reason; for the scriptural
accounts, though so seldom minute on the situations of places, here give us all the
particulars of its position, as fully as is desirable or possible. Matthew, (iv. 13,) tells us, that
Capernaum was upon “the shore of the lake, on the boundaries of Zebulon and Naphtali.” A
reference to the history of the division of territory among these tribes, (Joshua xix.) shows
that their possessions did not reach the other side of the water, but were bounded on the
east by Jordan and the lake, as is fully represented in all the maps of Palestine. Thus, it is
made manifest, that Capernaum must have stood on the western shore of the lake, where
the lands of Zebulon and Naphtali bordered on each other. Though this boundary line
cannot be very accurately determined, we can still obtain such an approximation, as will
enable us to fix the position of Capernaum on the northern end of the western side of the
lake, where most of the maps agree in placing it; yet some have very strangely put it on the
eastern side. The maps in the French bible, before quoted, have set it down at the mouth of
the Jordan, in the exact place where Josephus has so particularly described Bethsaida as
placed. Lightfoot has placed it on the west, but near the southern end; and all the common
maps differ considerably as to its precise situation, of which indeed we can only give a
vague conjecture, except that it must have been near the northern end. Conder (Modern
Traveler, Palestine,) gives the following account of modern researches after its site, among
the ruins of various cities near the lake.
“With regard to Chorazin, Pococke says, that he could find nothing like the name, except
at a village called Gerasi, which is among the hills west of the village called Telhoue, in the
plain of Gennesaret. Dr. Richardson, in passing through this plain, inquired of the natives
whether they knew such a place as Capernaum? They immediately rejoined, ‘Cavernahum
wa Chorasi, they are quite near, but in ruins.’ This evidence sufficiently fixes the proximity of
Chorazin to Capernaum, in opposition to the opinion that it was on the east side of the lake;
and it is probable that the Gerasi of Pococke is the same place, the orthography only being
varied, as Dr. Richardson’s Chorasi.”
his call.
In giving the minute details, we find that Luke has varied widely
from Matthew and Mark, in many particulars. Taking the accounts
found in each gospel separately, we make out the following three
distinct stories.
1. Matthew, in his fourth chapter, says that Jesus, after leaving

Nazareth, came and dwelt at Capernaum, where he began the great
work for which he came into the world,――preaching repentance
and making known the near approach of the reign of heaven on
earth. In pursuance of this great object, it would seem that he went
forth from the city which he made his home, and walked by the sea
of Galilee, not for the sake of merely refreshing his body with the
fresh air of that broad water, when languid with the confinement and
closeness of the town, but with the higher object of forwarding his
vast enterprise. On this walk he saw two brothers, Simon and
Andrew, casting their net, or rather seine, into the sea; for they were
fishermen by trade, and not merely occupied in this as an occasional
employment, by way of diversion in the intervals of higher business.
Jesus directly addressed them in a tone of unqualified command,
“Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” And they, without
questioning his authority or his purpose, immediately left their
business at its most interesting and exciting part, (just at the drawing
of the net,) and followed him, as it here seems at once, through
Galilee, on his pilgrimage of mercy and love. Matthew gives no other
particulars whatever, connected with the call of these two brothers;
and had we been left to obtain the whole gospel-history from him
alone, we should have supposed that, before this, Peter had no
acquaintance, of a personal character at least, with Jesus; and that
the call was made merely in a private way, without the presence of
any other than ordinary accidental witnesses. From Matthew we hear
nothing further respecting Peter, until his name is mentioned in the
apostolic list, in the tenth chapter, except the mention in chapter
eighth, of the illness of his mother in-law at his house. But the other
gospel-writers give us many interesting and important particulars in
addition, which throw new light on the previous circumstances, the
manner and the consequences of the call.
2. Mark, in his first chapter, makes it appear as if, immediately

after the temptation of Christ, and before his entrance into
Capernaum, he met and summoned the two pairs of brothers, of
which call the immediate circumstances are given there, in words
which are a very literal transcript of those of Matthew, with hardly the
slightest addition. But the events which followed the summons are
given in such a manner, as to convey an impression quite different
from that made by Matthew’s brief and simple narrative. After the
call, they, both Jesus and his four disciples, entered into
Capernaum, of which place Mark has before made no mention; and
going at once into the synagogue, Jesus preached, and confirmed
the wonderful authority with which he spoke, before the face of the
people, by the striking cure of a demoniac. From the synagogue he
went to the house of Simon and Andrew, by which it appears that
they already resided in Capernaum. Here a new occasion was given
for the display of the power and benevolence of the Messiah, in the
case of Simon’s mother-in-law, who, laboring under an attack of
fever, was instantly entirely relieved, upon the word of Jesus. This
event is given by Matthew in a totally different connection. Very early
in the next morning, Jesus retired to a neighboring solitude, to enjoy
himself in meditation apart from the busy scenes of the sabbath, in
which the fame of his power had involved him the evening before. To
this place, Simon and those with him, no doubt his brother and the
sons of Zebedee merely, (already it would seem so well acquainted
with their great master as to know his haunts,) followed him, to make
known to him the earnest wish of the admiring people for his
presence among them. Jesus then went out with them through the
villages of Galilee, in the earnest performance of the work for which
he came. It is not till this place, in the story of the leper healed, that
the statements of Matthew and Mark again meet and coincide. Mark
evidently makes significant additions to the narrative, and gives us a
much more definite and decided notion of the situation and conduct
of those concerned in this interesting transaction.
3. Luke has given us a view of the circumstances, very different,

both in order and number, as well as character, from those of the
former writers. His account of the first call of the disciples, seems to
amount to this; giving the events in the order in which he places
them in his fourth and fifth chapters. The first mention which is here
made of Simon, is in the end of the fourth chapter, where his name is
barely mentioned in connection with the account of the cure of his
mother-in-law, which is brought in without any previous allusion to
any disciple, but is placed in other respects, in the same connection
as in Mark’s narrative. After a full account of this case, which is given
with the more minuteness, probably from the circumstance that this
writer was himself a physician, he goes on to relate the particulars of
Simon’s call, in the beginning of the fourth chapter, as if it was a
subsequent event. The general impression from the two preceding
narratives, would naturally be, that Jesus went out on his walk by the
shore of the lake, by himself, without any extraordinary attendance.
But it now appears, that as he stood on the shore, he was beset by
an eager multitude, begging to hear from him the word of God. On
this, casting his eyes about for some convenient place to address
them, he noticed two fishing vessels drawn up near him by the
shore, and the owners disembarked from them, engaged in washing
their nets. He then first spoke to Simon, after going on board of his
boat, to beg him to push off again a little from the land, and his
request being granted, he sat down, and from his seat in the boat,
taught the multitude gathered on the shore. After the conclusion of
his discourse, perhaps partly, or in some small measure, with the
design of properly impressing his hearers by a miracle, with the idea
of his authority to assume the high bearing which so characterized
his instructions, and which excited so much astonishment among
them, he urged Simon to push out still further into deep water, and to
open his nets for a draught. Simon, evidently already so favorably
impressed respecting his visitor, as to feel disposed to obey and
gratify him, did according to the request, remarking, however, that as
he had toiled all night without catching any thing, he opened his net
again only out of respect to his Divine Master, and not because, after
so many fruitless endeavors, so long continued, it was reasonable to
hope for the least success. Upon drawing in the net, it was found to
be filled with so vast a number of fishes, that having been used
before its previous rents had been entirely mended, it broke with the
unusual weight. They then made known the difficulty to their friends,
the sons of Zebedee, who were in the other boat, and were obliged
to share their burden between the two vessels, which were both so
overloaded with the fishes as to be in danger of sinking. At this
event, so unexpected and overwhelming, Simon was seized with
mingled admiration and awe; and reverently besought Jesus to
depart from a sinful man, so unworthy as he was to be a subject of
benevolent attention from one so mighty and good. As might be
expected, not only Peter, but also his companions,――the sons of
Zebedee,――were struck with a miracle so peculiarly impressive to
them, because it was an event connected with their daily business,
and yet utterly out of the common course of things. But Jesus
soothed their awe and terror into interest and attachment, by telling
Simon that henceforth he should find far nobler employment in taking
men.
4. John takes no notice whatever of this scene by the lake of

Galilee, but gives us, what is not found in the first three gospels, an
interesting account, already quoted, of the first introduction of Peter
to Christ, not choosing to incumber his pages with a new repetition
or variation of the story of his direct call.
The office of an apostolic historian becomes at once most arduous
and most important, and the usefulness of his labors is most fully
shown in such passages as this, where the task of weaving the
various threads and scraps of sacred history in one even and
uniform text, is one to which few readers, taking the parts detailed in
the ordinary way, are competent, and which requires for its
satisfactory achievement, more aids from the long accumulated
labors of the learned of past ages, than are within the reach of any
but a favored few. To pass back and forth from gospel to gospel, in
the search after order and consistency,――to bring the lights of other
history to clear up the obscurities, and show that which fills up the
deficiencies of the gospel story,――to add the helps of ancient and
modern travelers in tracing the topography of the Bible,――to find in
lexicons, commentaries, criticisms and interpretations, the true and
full force of every word of those passages in which an important fact
is expressed,――these are a few of the writer’s duties in giving to
common readers the results of the mental efforts of the theologians
of this and past ages, whose humble copyist and translator he is.
Often aiming, however, at an effort somewhat higher than that of
giving the opinions and thoughts of others, he offers his own account
and arrangement of the subject, in preference to those of the
learned, as being free from such considerations as are involved in
technicalities above the appreciation of ordinary readers, and as
standing in a connected narrative form, while the information on
these points, found in the works of eminent biblical scholars, is
mostly in detached fragments, which, however complete to the
student, require much explanation and illustration, to make them
useful or interesting to the majority of readers. Thus in this case,
having given the three different accounts above, he next proceeds to
arrange them into such a narrative as will be consistent with each,
and contain all the facts. In the discussion of particular points,
reference can be properly made to the authority of others, where
necessary to explain or support.
Taking up the apostolic history, then, where it is left by John, as

referred to above, and taking the facts from each gospel in what
seems to be its proper place and time; the three narratives are thus
combined into one whole, with the addition of such circumstances as
may be inferred by way of explanation, though not directly stated.
Leaving Nazareth, Jesus had come to Capernaum, at the

northwestern end of the lake, and there made his home. About this
time, perhaps on occasion of his marriage, Simon had left Bethsaida,
the city of his birth, and now dwelt in Capernaum, probably on
account of his wife being of that place, and he may have gone into
the possession of a house, inherited by his marriage, which
supposition would agree with the circumstance of the residence of
his wife’s mother in her married daughter’s family, which would not
be so easily explainable on the supposition that she had also sons to
inherit their father’s property, and furnish a home to their mother. It
has also been suggested, that he probably removed to Capernaum
after his introduction to Christ, in order to enjoy his instructions more
conveniently, being near him. This motive would no doubt have had
some weight. Here the two brothers dwelt together in one house,
which makes it almost certain that Andrew was unmarried, for the
peculiarity of eastern manners would hardly have permitted the
existence of two families, two husbands, two wives in the same
domestic circle. Making this place the center of their business, they
industriously devoted themselves to honest labor, extending their
fishing operations over the lake, on which they toiled night and day. It
seems that the house of Simon and Andrew was Jesus’s regular
place of abode while in Capernaum, of which supposition the
manifest proofs occur in the course of the narrative. Thus when
Jesus came out of the synagogue, he went to Simon’s
house,――remained there as at a home, during the day, and there
received the visits of the immense throng of people who brought
their sick friends to him; all which he would certainly have been
disposed to do at his proper residence, rather than where he was a
mere occasional ♦visitor. He is also elsewhere mentioned, as going
into Peter’s house in such a familiar and habitual kind of way, as to
make the inference very obvious, that it was his home. On these
terms of close domestic intimacy, did Jesus remain with these
favored disciples for more than a year, during which time he
continued to reside at Capernaum. He must have resided in some
other house, however, on his first arrival in Capernaum, because, in
the incident which is next given here, his conduct was evidently that
of a person much less intimately acquainted with Simon than a
fellow-lodger would be. The circumstances of the call evidently show,
that Peter, although acquainted with Christ previously, in the way
mentioned by John, had by no means become his intimate, daily
companion. We learn from Luke, that Jesus, walking forth from
Capernaum, along the lake, saw two boats standing by the lake, but
the fishers having gone out of them, were engaged in putting their
nets and other fishing tackle in order. As on his walk the populace
had thronged about him, from curiosity and interest, and were
annoying him with requests, he sought a partial refuge from their
friendly attacks, on board of Simon’s boat, which was at hand, and
begging him to push out a little from the land, he immediately made
the boat his pulpit, in preaching to the throng on shore, sitting down
and teaching the people out of the boat. When he had left off
speaking, he said to Simon, “Launch out into the deep, and let down
your nets for a draught.” And Simon answered, “Master, we have
toiled all night and caught nothing; nevertheless, at thy word I will let
down the net.” As soon as they did so, they took into the net a great
multitude of fishes, and the net broke. They then beckoned to their
partners, who were in the other vessel, that they should come and
help them. And they came and filled both vessels, so that they began
to sink. When Simon saw what was the result, he fell down at
Jesus’s knees, saying, “Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O
Lord.” For both he, and they that were with him, Andrew, James and
John, were astonished at the draught of fishes they had taken. But
Jesus said to Simon, “Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch
men;” and then gave both to him and his brother a distinct call,
“Follow me――come after me, and I will make you fishers of men.”
And as soon as they had brought their ships to land, they forsook
their nets, ships and all, and followed him, not back into Capernaum,
but over all Galilee, while he preached to wondering thousands the
gospel of peace, and set forth to them his high claims to their
attention and obedience, by healing all the diseased which his great
fame induced them to bring in such multitudes. This was, after all,
the true object of his calling his disciples to follow him in that manner.
Can we suppose that he would come out of Capernaum, in the
morning, and finding there his acquaintances about their honest
business, would call on them, in that unaccountable manner, to
follow him back into their home, to which they would of course,
naturally enough, have gone of their own accord, without any divine
call, for a simple act of necessity? It was evidently with a view to
initiate them, at once, into the knowledge of the labors to which he
had called them, and to give them an insight into the nature of the
trials and difficulties which they must encounter in his service. In
short, it was to enter them on their apprenticeship to the mysteries of
their new and holy vocation. On this pilgrimage through Galilee,
then, he must have been accompanied by his four newly chosen
helpers, who thus were daily and hourly witnesses of his words and
actions, as recorded by all the first three evangelists. (Matthew
chapters iv.‒viii. Mark, chapters i.‒iii. &c. Luke, chapters v.‒vi.)
♦ “visiter” replaced with “visitor”
The accounts which Matthew and Mark give of this call, have seemed so strikingly
different from that of Luke, that Calmet, Thoynard, Macknight, Hug, Michaelis, Eichhorn,
Marsh, Paulus, (and perhaps some others,) have considered Luke’s story in v. 1‒11, as
referring to a totally distinct event. See Calmet’s, Thoynard’s, Macknight’s, Michaelis’s, and
Vater’s harmonies, in loc. Also Eichhorn’s introduction, 1. § 58, V. II.,――Marsh’s
dissertation on the origin of the three gospels, in table of coincident passages,――Paulus’s
“Commentar weber das Neue Testament.” 1 Theil xxiii. Abschnitt; compare xix.
Abschnitt,――Hug’s “Einleitung in das Neue Testament,” Vol. II. § 40. “Erste auswanderung,
Lucas, iii.,” compare Mark.
These great authorities would do much to support any arrangement of gospel events,
but the still larger number of equally high authorities on the other side, justifies my boldness
in attempting to find a harmony, where these great men could see none. Lightfoot, Le Clerc,
Arnauld, Newcome, with all his subsequent editors, and Thirlwall, in their harmonies, agree
in making all three evangelists refer to the same event. Grotius, Hammond, Wetstein, Scott,
Clarke, Kuinoel, and Rosenmueller, in their several commentaries in loco,――also
Stackhouse in his history of the Bible, and Horne in his introduction, with many others, all
take the view which I have presented in the text, and may be consulted by those who wish
for reasons at greater length than my limits will allow.
“Peter and Andrew dwell together in one house.”――This appears from Mark i. 29,
where it is said that, after the call of the brothers by Jesus, “they entered the house of
Simon and Andrew.”
“Sat down and taught the people out of the ship,” verse 3. This was a convenient
position, adopted by Jesus on another occasion also. Matthew xiii. 2. Mark iv. 1.
“Launch out.”――Luke v. 4. Επαναγαγε, (Epanagage,) the same word which occurs in

verse 3, there translated in the common English version, “thrust out.” It was, probably, a
regular nautical term for this backward movement, though in the classic Greek, Εξαναγειν,
(exanagein,) was the form always used to express this idea, insomuch that it seems to have
been the established technical term. Perhaps Luke may have intended this term originally,
which might have been corrupted by some early copyist into this word, which is in no other
place used with this meaning.――“Let down,” (Χαλασατε, khalasate, in the plural; the former
verb singular.) More literally, “loosen,” which is the primary signification of the verb, and
would be the proper one, since the operation of preparing the net to take the fish, consisted
in loosening the ropes and other tackle, which, of course, were drawn tight, when the net
was not in use, closing its mouth. “Master, we have toiled,” &c. verse 5. The word
Επιστατα, (Epistata,) here translated Master, is remarkable, as never occurring in the
Testament, except in this gospel. Grotius remarks, (in loc.) that doubtless Luke, (the most
finished and correct Greek scholar of all the sacred writers,) considered this term as a more
faithful translation of the Hebrew ‫רבי‬, (Rabbi,) than the common expressions of the other
evangelists, Κυριε, (Kurie, Lord,) and διδασκαλε, (didaskale, teacher.) It was a moderate,
though dignified title, between these two in its character, rather lower than “Lord,” and rather
higher than “Teacher.” It is used in the Alexandrian version, as the proper term for a
“steward,” a “military commander,” &c. (See Grotius theol. op. Vol. II. p. 372; or Poole’s
Synopsis on this passage.) “Toiled all night.” This was the best time for taking the fish, as is
well known to those who follow fishing for a living.
On this journey, they saw some of his most remarkable miracles,

such as the healing of the leper, the paralytic, the man with the
withered hand, and others of which the details are not given. It was
also during this time, that the sermon on the mount was delivered,
which was particularly addressed to his disciples, and was plainly
meant for their instruction, in the conduct proper in them as the
founders of the gospel faith. Besides passing through many cities on
the nearer side, he also crossed over the lake, and visited the rude
people of those wild districts. The journey was, therefore, a very long
one, and must have occupied several weeks. After he had
sufficiently acquainted them with the nature of the duties to which he
had consecrated them, and had abundantly impressed them with the
high powers which he possessed, and of which they were to be the
partakers, he came back to Capernaum, and there entered into the
house of Simon, which he seems henceforth to have made his home

Employment Relations in Outsourced Public Services Working Between Market and State 1St Ed 2020 Edition Anna Mori Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Employment Relations in Outsourced Public Services Working Between Market and State 1St Ed 2020 Edition Anna Mori Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Employment Relations in Outsourced

Public Services: Working Between

ISBN 978-3-030-24626-6 ISBN 978-3-030-24627-3 (eBook)

Public administrations and public service employment relations have

Milan, Italy Lorenzo Bordogna

My warmest thanks go to all those who have supported and helped me

1 Employment Relations in Outsourced Public Services:

Part I The Case of Italy

2 Public Services Under Austerity: Structure of the Public

3 State-Controlled Dualisation Between Public

Part II The Case of Denmark

4 The Search for Public Services Efficiency: Structure

5 Market-Embedding and Inclusion: Implications

Part III The Case of Britain

6 The Neoliberal Agenda: Structure of Public Sector

7 Market-Making and Deregulation: Implications

8 Enduring National Varieties Under Market Strain 201

3F United Federation of Danish Workers

ISP Internal Stability Pact

Table 3.1 Italy: The consequences of outsourcing for terms

Setting the Scene: Outsourcing in Public

associated with industrial relations structures and institutions, including

The Research Questions and Challenges

sector (and accordingly, their distinctive regulation of labour), has had

Approach and Research Design

The comparative analysis is based on a multilevel framework developed

(25 in Italy, 26 in Denmark and 24 in Britain) complemented by docu-

to these pressures. Hence, the contribution of the book stems from an

Marketisation and Neoliberal Trajectory

on pre-existing coalitions and institutionally shaped interests, will con-

sector deficits and severe macroeconomic constraints pushed governments

The influence of neoliberal ideas based on the monetarist paradigm

The Ping-Ponging Debate on Convergence vs

private sector regimes, differences in labour governance styles across the

The Role of the State in Public Services

Bordogna 2013; Bordogna 2008). As a result, public sector employment

‘hollowing out thesis’, which provides a useful framework for investigat-

thereby stemming the discretion of both public and private employers

Structure of the Book

perspective and integrates them into an overall conclusion. It starts with a

Frendreis, J. P. (1983). Explanation of variation and detection of covariation:

Holst, H. (2014). ‘Commodifying institutions’: Vertical disintegration and insti-

Pollitt, C. (2002). Clarifying convergence: Striking similarities and durable dif-

Vaughan-Whitehead, D. (Ed.). (2013). Public sector shock: The impact of policy

An Introductory Administrative Overview

his introduction to jesus.

With this important event of the introduction of Simon to Jesus,

The next direct account given in the Bible, of any event

1. Matthew, in his fourth chapter, says that Jesus, after leaving

2. Mark, in his first chapter, makes it appear as if, immediately

3. Luke has given us a view of the circumstances, very different,

4. John takes no notice whatever of this scene by the lake of

Taking up the apostolic history, then, where it is left by John, as

Leaving Nazareth, Jesus had come to Capernaum, at the

♦ “visiter” replaced with “visitor”

“Launch out.”――Luke v. 4. Επαναγαγε, (Epanagage,) the same word which occurs in

On this journey, they saw some of his most remarkable miracles,

You might also like

3F United Federation of Danish Workers

ISP Internal Stability Pact