2. Criticisms of John Dunlop’s Theory of Employment Relations While Dunlop's theory has been influential, it is not without its criticisms

. A key critique is its perceived rigidity and its failure to account for dynamic changes in the industrial landscape. Article 4 by Hyman (1994) criticizes the static nature of Dunlop’s framework, arguing that it underestimates the role of conflict and change within employment relations. Hyman contends that Dunlop’s theory, with its emphasis on system stability and rule-making, overlooks the inherently adversarial nature of labor-management relations, particularly in capitalist economies. Article 5 by Ackers (2014) furthers this critique by addressing the theory’s lack of attention to power asymmetries. Ackers argues that Dunlop’s model tends to portray the three actors as equal partners in the industrial relations system, thereby underestimating the dominance of employers and the state in shaping employment rules, often to the detriment of workers. Article 6 by Kelly (1998) provides a more fundamental critique, questioning the theory’s applicability in non-Western contexts. Kelly asserts that Dunlop’s theory is overly focused on Western industrialized nations, where institutionalized employment relations are more prevalent. The theory, according to Kelly, may not be as relevant in developing countries where informal employment and noninstitutionalized labor practices are more common.