Economic Democracy and Unemployment in the Digital Age

A Sociolegal Study of Finland and Germany

Authors

  • Zaini Muchlis Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta, Bantul, Indonesia
  • Muhammad Aunurrahim Mas'ad Saleh Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia, Bandar Baru Nilai, Malaysia
  • Niken Ayu Permatasari Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
  • M Roki Maulana Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN) Maulana Malik Ibrahim Malang, Malang, Indonesia
  • Aditya Putra Harwanto Universitas Negeri Malang, Malang, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59001/pjls.v3i2.274

Keywords:

digitalisation, Economic Democracy, Finland, German, unemployment

Abstract

This article examines how Finland and Germany integrate the principles of economic democracy within their legal frameworks to address unemployment challenges in the digital era. Digitalisation and globalisation have intensified unemployment as a multidimensional issue, linked to justice, inclusiveness, and human rights. The study explores legal mechanisms employed by these nations to uphold economic democracy and mitigate unemployment. Finland’s universal welfare model prioritises inclusiveness through comprehensive social support, while Germany’s social market economy achieves a balance between market flexibility and contribution-based protections. Both countries tackle digital challenges, including automation and unequal access to technology, by strengthening labour rights, promoting workforce education and retraining, and enhancing social protections. This comparative legal analysis highlights how robust legal systems can address the socio-economic impacts of digitalisation and provide a model for inclusive economic policies.

References

Alter, K. J. (2020). The future of international law and the importance of domestic legal systems: Germany as a case study. Oxford University Press.

Alter, K. J. (2020). When and how to legally challenge economic globalization: A comment on the German Constitutional Court’s false promise. International Journal of Constitutional Law.

Arajärvi, P. (2018). Social security law in Finland. Kluwer Law International.

Banakar, R., & Travers, M. (2005). Theory and method in socio-legal research. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

Bosch, G., & Charest, J. (2008). Vocational training and the labour market in liberal and coordinated economies. Industrial Relations Journal, 39(5), 428–447.

Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. WW Norton & Company.

Castells, M. (2010). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Clasen, J., & Clegg, D. (2011). Regulating the risk of unemployment: National adaptations to post-industrial labour markets in Europe. Oxford University Press.

Cotterrell, R. (1992). The sociology of law: An introduction. London: Butterworths.

Danugroho, A. (2024). Refleksi ketahanan ekonomi pasca pandemi: Menggaungkan relevansi ekonomi Pancasila bagi generasi milenial. Jurnal Penelitian Mahasiswa Ilmu Sosial, Ekonomi, dan Bisnis Islam (SOSEBI), 4(1), 64. https://doi.org/10.21274

Eichhorst, W., & Marx, P. (2015). Non-standard employment in post-industrial labour markets. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton University Press.

Flick, U. (2018). An introduction to qualitative research (6th ed.). London: SAGE Publications.

Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254–280.

Greve, B. (2020). Welfare, populism, and welfare chauvinism. Bristol University Press.

Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Haleem, A., et al. (2022). Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review. KeAi Communications Co., 227.

Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (2001). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford University Press.

Halliday, T. C., & Carruthers, B. G. (2007). Globalization of law: The social construction of legal fields. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Harjadi, D., & Fitriani, K. (2024). Transformasi pemasaran di era digital: Strategi pengembangan UMKM di Indonesia. Cirebon: PT Arr Rad Pratama.

Iscan, E. (2021). An old problem in the new era: Effects of artificial intelligence to unemployment on the way to Industry 5.0. Journal of Yasar University, 80.

Kaime, T. (2009). The African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child: A socio-legal perspective.

Kangas, O., & Kvist, J. (2019). Nordic welfare states in the 21st century: Theories, reforms and challenges. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Kholis, M. A., et al. (2023). Fikih ekonomi kontemporer. Empatdua.

Korpi, W., & Palme, J. (1998). The paradox of redistribution and strategies of equality: Welfare state institutions, inequality, and poverty in the Western countries. American Sociological Review, 66, 661–687.

Kusnanto, et al. (2019). Transformasi era digitalisasi masyarakat kontemporer. Ponorogo: Uwais Inspirasi Indonesia.

Kärrylä, I. (2021). Democracy and the economy in Finland and Sweden since 1960. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lubis, N. S., & Nasution, M. I. P. (2023). Perkembangan teknologi informasi dan dampaknya pada masyarakat. Jurnal Multidisiplin Saintek, 1(12).

Marat, E., & McCarthy, L. A. (2020). Justice, crime and citizenship in Eurasia: A socio-legal perspective. Europe-Asia Studies, 73(1).

Nasution, S., et al. (2024). Peranan koperasi dalam perekonomian Indonesia. As-Syirkah: Islamic Economics & Financial Journal, 3(2), 526. https://doi.org/10.56672/assyirkah.v3i2.160

Nonet, P., & Selznick, P. (2001). Law and society in transition: Toward responsive law. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

O’Neill, M. (2020). Economic democracy: Theory and practice in the 21st century. Cambridge University Press.

OECD. (2023). Economic outlook. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Piattoeva, N., & Nelli, K. (2010). Trust in education and law: Finnish perspectives. Nordic Studies in Education, 30(3), 205–218.

Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Rodrik, D. (2011). The globalization paradox: Democracy and the future of the world economy. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Schwab, K. (2017). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. New York: Crown Business.

Sen, A. (1999). Beyond the crisis: Development strategies in Asia. Institute of Southeast Asian.

Soltmann, B., et al. (2021). Unemployment insurance and labour market policies in Germany. International Labour Review, 160(3), 345–364.

Stiglitz, J. E. (2015). Rewriting the rules of the American economy: An agenda for growth and shared prosperity. WW Norton & Company.

Storgaard, A., et al. (2023). Introduction. Access to justice from a multi-disciplinary and socio-legal perspective: Barriers and facilitators. Oñati International Institute for the Sociology of Law Avenida.

Sumitro, W., et al. (2017). Hukum Islam dan hukum Barat: Diskursus pemikiran dari klasik hingga kontemporer. Malang: Setara Press.

Syamsiyah, S. (2021). Kepemimpinan kepala sekolah dalam. Magister Manajemen Pendidikan Uniska Mab, 1(1), 152.

Zekoll, J., & Wagner, G. (2018). Adaptation and legal evolution in the age of globalization. Harvard Law Review, 131(5), 1285–1304.

Downloads

Published

2024-12-25

Issue

Section

Articles