Purpose: Unions act as intermediaries and mediators between their members and governance actors and can assume a central role in policy formulation within their respective professional domains. These unions are capable of engaging in all three arenas of legislation, implementation, and oversight and, by aligning with the government’s overarching policies, can become the leading authority within their field. In today’s context, unilateral policy development and implementation by the state, without involving stakeholders, is—if not entirely impossible—ineffective and inefficient. Therefore, the manner in which unions interact within the political and economic landscape plays a crucial role in determining the effectiveness and efficiency of the formulated policies. The present study seeks to examine the factors contributing to ineffective interactions between unions and other governance actors and to propose strategies for establishing effective engagements between them.
Methodology: This study employs a qualitative approach using the grounded theory methodology (Glaser’s emergent strategy). Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 27 experts associated with unions and governance institutions. The collected data were analyzed through open, axial, and theoretical coding. Subsequently, by utilizing secondary data and relevant literature, a conceptual model of the research was developed.
Findings: The findings indicate that several factors contribute to the ineffective interaction between unions and other governance actors. Legal and regulatory factors include the inefficiency of existing laws and regulations, their outdated and fragmented nature, and the absence of proper enforcement mechanisms. Structural factors involve organizational and financial weaknesses of unions, their excessive multiplicity, fragile internal structures, and the lack of comprehensive mandates. Member-related factors include inactivity, limited participation, lack of awareness regarding available capacities, and excessive expectations. Political and economic contingencies include the absence of a clear governmental strategy toward unions and distrust of the private sector. Moreover, cultural and social factors—such as prevailing cultural challenges and suspicion toward unions—as well as historical fluctuations in their development, influence these relationships. These conditions lead to inefficiencies in the policy-making process, inadequate utilization of the unions’ potential, and the emergence of socio-economic distortions. To overcome these challenges, the study proposes several strategies: revising and consolidating laws and regulations with the participation of unions; strengthening the organizational and financial capacities of unions; merging and forming stronger institutions; reconsidering economic policies; promoting cultural development; leveraging media and academic resources; building trust; and redefining the role of unions in society and the policy-making process. The proposed model emphasizes that unions can play active roles throughout all stages of the policy-making cycle, including the identification and articulation of public issues, participation in policy formulation, involvement in implementation, and engagement in policy evaluation. Achieving this requires a supportive legal framework, robust and efficient structures, and the establishment of trust-based and interactive relationships with other governance actors.
Conclusion: The overall conclusion of the study suggests that effective interaction between unions and governance actors facilitates the optimal use of capacities, reduces deficiencies in the policy-making process, and helps mitigate certain socio-economic challenges. The study further recommends the development of a national strategic document to strengthen the position of unions and institutionalize their role in governance. One of the study’s limitations is the lack of participation by certain key institutions—particularly the judiciary—which may be addressed in future research.