A/HRC/34/57 48. Possibly as a reaction to such research findings, OECD has, in recent years, adopted a less pronounced policy stance on this matter. For instance, in a study carried out in 2006, OECD researchers found “no significant impact of employment protection legislation on aggregate unemployment” but some evidence that “highly centralized and/or coordinated wage bargaining systems” were estimated to be associated with lower unemployment. 78 In addition, a comprehensive review published by the World Bank concluded that labour market institutions had positive distributional effects, while the effects on economic efficiency appeared modest, “with most studies showing no effect or small negative effects but some finding positive effects”. 79 Furthermore, IMF research has also become more nuanced over time, with a recent report finding that labour market regulation had no “statistically significant effects on total factor productivity”. 80 49. Overall, research suggests that the economic implications of labour legislation are significantly complex, vary across countries and economic sectors and can, more importantly, even increase economic efficiency, depending on the context. In many cases, factors other than labour standards seem to play a stronger role in influencing economic outcomes. The economic case for dismantling labour standards, including in the area of collective bargaining and dismissal protection, is, hence, weak. 50. This finding is also important from a human rights point of view. If encroaching on labour rights does not have any justifiable benefits, even for rights holders who are outside the labour market, and if downsizing labour rights does not lead to enhanced enjoyment of economic and social rights for all, such retrogressive measures cannot be considered as permissible and justifiable responses to financial and economic crises. B. Economic effects of the deregulation of labour law in the context of economic adjustment 51. Empirical findings overall do not seem supportive of the claim that labour law deregulation fosters recovery after economic crises. Indeed, the evidence seems to be more in line with the argument that “pressure towards labour market flexibilization, aimed at boosting export-led growth, will eventually lead to lower consumption, net exports and employment” at the global level.81 52. Evidence from Latin America suggests that reforms that deregulated individual and collective labour law in Argentina, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Uruguay in the 1980s and 1990s, led neither to less informal employment nor reduced employment instability, which saw an increase during that period.82 Indeed, in several Latin American countries, the weakening of employment protection legislation appears to have 78 79 80 81 82 Andrea Bassanini and Romain Duval “The determinants of unemployment across OECD countries: reassessing the role of policies and institutions”, OECD Economic Studies, No. 42, 2006/1 (2006), p. 46. Gordon Betcherman, “Labor market institutions: a review of the literature”, Background paper for the 2013 World Development Report (November 2012), p. 41. IMF, World Economic Outlook: Uneven Growth — Short- and Long-term Factors (April 2015), p. 105. Jeronim Capaldo and Alex Izurieta, “The imprudence of labour market flexibilization in a fiscally austere world”, International Labour Review, vol. 152, No.1 (2013), p. 24. Lydia Fraile, “Lessons from Latin America’s neo-liberal experiment: an overview of labour and social policies since the 1980s”, International Labour Review, vol. 148, No. 3 (September 2009), pp. 220 and 224; Alfredo F. Calcagno, “Ajuste estructural, costo social y modalidades de desarrollo en América Latina”, in El ajuste estructural en América Latina. Costos sociales y alternativas (Buenos Aires, Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales, 2001), pp. 80-81; also E/C.12/1/Add.38. 17