This article asks whether the analogy between state and firm is a promising strategy for promoting workplace democracy and provides a negative answer, explaining why analogical arguments are not a good strategy for justifying workplace democracy. The article contends that the state-firm analogy is misguided for at least three reasons: (1) it is structurally inconclusive, (2) it is based on a category mistake, and (3) it leads us away from the central question we should ask, which is: What would concretely imply, and what is required, in order to democratize the workplace? I begin by offering an interpretation of the state-firm analogy which shows that use of the analogical argument in Dahl's justification of workplace democracy engenders excessive and unnecessary theoretical costs which bear negatively on his conclusion. I then proceed to examine more recent contributions to the debate and show that supporters and critics of the state-firm analogy alike do not advance our understanding of the analogical argument. In the last part of the article I provide a general theoretical explanation of why arguments based on the state-firm analogy are not good candidates for defending workplace democracy.
Roberto Frega is permanent researcher at the CNRS (French National Center for Scientific Research) in Paris. His areas of specialization is political philosophy, with a focus on democratic theory. He has published two books on political epistemology (Voci della ragione, Quodlibet, Macerata, 2009; Les sources sociales de la normativitè, Vrin 2013), and a book on moral and political philosophy (Practice, Judgment, and the Challenged of Moral and Political Disagreement. A pragmatist Account, Lexington, Lanhan, Md. 2012). His latest book, The Democratic Project, is forthcoming with Palgrave Macmillan (2019). His articles have appeared in international journals such as The European Journal of Political Theory, Constellations, Critical Horizons, Social theory and Practice, Metaphilosophy, Thesis Eleven, The Southern Journal of Philosophy, The Review of International Studies, Critical Review of international social and political philosophy. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Forde, Chris, GarySlater and David ASpencer. 2006. “Fearing the worst? Threat, participation and workplace productivity.” Economic and Industrial democracy 27(3): 369–398.10.1177/0143831X06065961)| false
Freeman, Steven. 2007. “Effects of ESOP adoption and employee ownership: Thirty years of research and experience.” Graduate Division, School of Arts and Sciences Center for Organizational Dynamics Working Paper 07-01.
Freeman, Steven. 2007. “Effects of ESOP adoption and employee ownership: Thirty years of research and experience.” Graduate Division, School of Arts and Sciences Center for Organizational Dynamics Working Paper 07-01.)| false
Karasek, Robert A.2004. “Job socialization: The carry-over effects of work on political and leisure activities.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 24(4): 284–304.10.1177/0270467604267544)| false
Pircher Verdorfer, Armin and Wolfgang GWeber. 2016. “Examining the link between organizational democracy and employees’ moral development.” Journal of Moral Education 45(1): 59–73.10.1080/03057240.2015.1136600)| false
Weber, Wolfgang G, ChristineUnterrainer and Birgit ESchmid. 2009. “The influence of organizational democracy on employees’ socio-moral climate and prosocial behavioral orientations.” Journal of organizational behavior30(8): 1127–1149.
Weber, Wolfgang G, ChristineUnterrainer and Birgit ESchmid. 2009. “The influence of organizational democracy on employees’ socio-moral climate and prosocial behavioral orientations.” Journal of organizational behavior 30(8): 1127–1149.10.1002/job.615)| false
Yeoman, Ruth. 2014. Meaningful work and workplace democracy: A philosophy of work and a politics of meaningfulness. Houndmills, Balsingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781137370587)| false