Debates on international convergence and divergence in industrial relations have been altered by the economic crisis that started in 2008. In the previous decade, the debate had been shaped by Katz and Darbishire’s Converging Divergences (1999) and Hall and Soskice’s Varieties of Capitalism (2001). Both, if differently, pointed that international economic integration, by fostering national specialisation, was compatible with international institutional differences. A stress on path dependencies prevailed. Despite dissenting voices (e.g. Streeck and Crouch) who reminded of the possibility of change and of overarching capitalist tendencies, the terms of the debate remained on the extent to which national institutions were strong enough to avoid convergence: a matter of degree rather than of principle.

The crisis resulted in much wider views and doubts. Change appeared as more radical. On one side, the crisis’ apparent commonality suggested a global narrative: hence for instance Howell and Baccaro’s neoliberal convergence thesis. On the other side, the asymmetric effects of the crisis and the diversity of national responses have reminded of Gourevitch’s (1986) point on the return to previous traditional solutions at a time of difficulty, and additional diversity reflects the uneven balance of trade and power between creditor and debtor nations, resulting in new divergences between core nations, who can afford certain standards and national consensus, and peripheral ones (whether in Southern or Eastern Europe) forced to change into flexible and dependent economic systems.

The panel will present four papers with different empirically-grounded interpretations of the emerging trends.