Since globalization has become
widespread, the “international division of labor” has only become more apparent
and acute. Class conflict theories would argue that this is not a fair division
of labor, but a pattern of international exploitation. In “The New Urban
Sociology,” Gottediener, Hutchinson, and Ryan begin to address Contemporary
Urban Sociology. In particular, the text defines the “international division of
labor” as “multinational corporations decide where to locate their activities
by choosing places around the globe that have cheap and compliant labor.” This
has been characterized, in the very modern era (or “the rise of the metr
opolis
era”/post WWII) as ‘outsourcing.’
This
‘outsourcing,’ or relocated of production sites of goods/headquarters of
services to foreign countries and staffing by foreign labor is much less benign
than the “international division of labor” as defined. With the chance of
straying in to Marxism, the international division of labor, where
multi-national corporations (MNCs) choose to locate where labor is cheap and
compliant is an understatement-can compliance be given in an area where workers
have no other economic opportunities and must work for a company with dangerous
working conditions and unfair pay? Consent is not the absence of saying no.
This
also brings up two other troubling concepts about global, and therefore urban,
development. The first of these is the “North-South Divide.” With the exception
of a few countries (such as Australia,) the Northern hemispheres of the world
are much more developed and considered “first world” while the South (Africa,
South America, Southeast Asia) are considered underdeveloped “poor” countries.
This has many ties to explanations that are not economic/development related
(see Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs and Steel”) yet where the North chooses to
develop and has historically developed plays an important role. Europe had
developed many modern urban cities and benefitted from the industrial
revolution, while many of the great cities of the ‘South’ (Egypt, Mesopotamia)
had seen their rise and fall many years before. Europe and North America went
from the Industrial Revolution to the Rise of the Metropolis, wherein they had
accumulated enough wealth to begin ‘outsourcing.’ Principles of capitalism are
to make a profit, which means that production costs must be cut-often through
peoples’ wages rather than product quality. Because the Global South did not
benefit from Industrial or Technological Revolutions, many of their populations
were poor, rural, or sustenance workers. They are prey to promising economic
opportunities, which often required moving to the cities for factory work and
sending money home to the family. The exploitation of the Global South by the
Global North is one factor in explaining global inequality and why rural poor
would move to urban developed centers in underdeveloped countries.
The description
of workers being “compliant labor” is also troubling, especially when the
author describes the condition of female workers. Overall, someone who is
living in destitution taking a job for a dangerous, exploitative company may
not be described as “compliance,” but rather as survival. This is parallel to
the idea that the absence of no indicates acquiescence (though this may be a
harsh comparison.) I do not doubt that there are movements to create unions and
fight for better working conditions, but these are made difficult through
repression and the controlling nature of an MNC that is the local economy, and has the power and money to pick up
elsewhere. These workers literally can not afford to lose these jobs.
The
author says that female workers are docile due to the structure of these poorer
societies. Ignoring the fact that there are matriarchal societies, it is good
to note the structural power men hold and how that affects women in the
economy. To describe the women as docile, however, is an insult to women across
the globe-women who are working bravely to provide for themselves and their
families, and who keep the world’s economy running. While I am not well versed
in unions in the Global South, there are female-headed and predominantly female
unions in underdeveloped countries, and their fight for workers’ rights is far
from docile.
See also:
http://faculty.ucc.edu/egh-damerow/global_south.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment