Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
http://asr.sagepub.com/
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Additional services and information for American Sociological Review can be found at:
Subscriptions: http://asr.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://asr.sagepub.com/content/74/1/1.refs.html
The growth of precarious work since the 1970s has emerged as a core contemporary
concern within politics, in the media, and among researchers. Uncertain and
unpredictable work contrasts with the relative security that characterized the three
decades following World War II. Precarious work constitutes a global challenge that has
a wide range of consequences cutting across many areas of concern to sociologists.
Hence, it is increasingly important to understand the new workplace arrangements that
generate precarious work and worker insecurity. A focus on employment relations forms
the foundation of theories of the institutions and structures that generate precarious
work and the cultural and individual factors that influence people’s responses to
uncertainty. Sociologists are well-positioned to explain, offer insight, and provide input
into public policy about such changes and the state of contemporary employment
relations.
ork is a core activity in society. It is cen- tionships are as influential in people’s everyday
W tral to individual identity, links individu-
als to each other, and locates people within the
lives. Work also reveals much about the social
order, how it is changing, and the kinds of prob-
stratification system. Perhaps only kin rela- lems and issues that people (and their govern-
Direct correspondence to Arne L. Kalleberg, Duncan Gallie, Kevin Hewison, Randy Hodson,
Department of Sociology, CB # 3210 Hamilton Hall, Sandy Jacoby, Rob Lambert, Kevin Leicht, Peter
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Marsden, Ted Mouw, Frances Fox Piven, Barbara
Carolina 27599-3210 (Arne_Kalleberg@unc.edu). Reskin, Vinnie Roscigno, and especially Don
Revision of 2008 Presidential Address to the Tomaskovic-Devey, Steve Vallas, and Mike
American Sociological Association, delivered on Wallace, for their useful comments on earlier ver-
August 2, 2008 in Boston, MA. I thank Ivar Berg, sions, and Anne-Kathrin Kronberg for her help
Peter Cappelli, Dalton Conley, Dan Cornfield, with the graphics.
Downloaded from asr.sagepub.com at INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFC on October 28, 2010
AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, 2009, VOL. 74 (February:1–22)
2—–AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW
ments) must address. Accordingly, the study of for the nature of work, workplaces, and people’s
work has long been a central field in sociolo- work experiences, but also for many nonwork
gy, beginning with classical sociologists such as individual (e.g., stress, education), social (e.g.,
Durkheim (in his Division of Labor), Marx (in family, community), and political (e.g., stabil-
his theories of the labor process and alienation), ity, democratization) outcomes. It is thus impor-
and Weber (in his conceptualizations of bureau- tant that we understand the new workplace
cracy and social closure). arrangements that generate precarious work and
For several decades, both in the United States insecurity.
and worldwide, social, economic, and political I concentrate in this address on employment,
forces have aligned to make work more pre- which is work that produces earnings (or prof-
carious. By “precarious work,” I mean employ- it, if one is self-employed). Equating work with
ment that is uncertain, unpredictable, and risky pay or profit is of course a limited view, as
from the point of view of the worker. Resulting there are many activities that create value but are
distress, obvious in a variety of forms, reminds unpaid, such as those that take place in the
us daily of such precarity. The Bureau of Labor household. Given my focus largely on industrial
Statistics (BLS) estimates (and likely underes- countries, particularly the United States, I
timates) that more than 30 million full-time emphasize precarious employment in the formal
workers lost their jobs involuntarily between the economy.2
early 1980s and 2004 (Uchitelle 2006). Job
loss often triggers many unpleasant events,
such as loss of health insurance and enhanced REASONS FOR THE GROWTH OF
debt. Mortgage foreclosure rates have increased PRECARIOUS WORK IN THE UNITED
fivefold since the early 1970s (Hacker 2006). STATES
U.S. personal bankruptcy filings are at record It is generally agreed that the most recent era of
highs (Leicht and Fitzgerald 2007), and near- precarious work in the United States began in
ly two-thirds of bankruptcy filers reported a job the mid- to late-1970s. The years 1974 to 1975
problem (Sullivan, Warren, and Westbrook marked the start of macro-economic changes
2001).
(such as the oil shock) that helped lead to an
Precarious work, of course, is not necessar-
increase in global price competition. U.S. man-
ily new or novel to the current era; it has exist-
ufacturers were challenged initially by compa-
ed since the launch of paid employment as a
nies from Japan and South Korea in the
primary source of sustenance.1 Nevertheless, the
automobile and steel industries, respectively.
growth and obviousness of precarious work
The process that came to be known as neolib-
since the 1970s has crystallized an important
eral globalization intensified economic inte-
concern. Bourdieu (1998) saw précarité as the
root of problematic social issues in the twenty- gration, increased the amount of competition
first century. Beck (2000) describes the cre- faced by companies, provided greater opportu-
ation of a “risk society” and a “new political nities to outsource work to lower-wage coun-
economy of insecurity.” Others have called the tries, and opened up new labor pools through
events of the past quarter-century the second immigration. Technological advances both
Great Transformation (Webster, Lambert, and forced companies to become more competitive
Bezuidenhout 2008). globally and made it possible for them to do so.
Precarious work has far-reaching conse-
quences that cut across many areas of concern
to sociologists. Creating insecurity for many 2Employment precarity results when people lose
people, it has pervasive consequences not only their jobs or fear losing their jobs, when they lack
alternative employment opportunities in the labor
market, and when workers experience diminished
opportunities to obtain and maintain particular skills.
1 Classical social thinkers such as Marx, Weber, Other aspects of employment precarity are either
and Durkheim sought to explain the consequences of determinants or consequences of these basic forms
the precarity created by the rapid social change asso- of uncertainty, including income precarity, work inse-
ciated with the emergence of the market economy in curity (unsafe work), and representation precarity
the nineteenth century (see Webster et al. 2008:2–3). (unavailability of collective voice) (Standing 1999).
Changes in legal and other institutions medi- were assumed to work full-time for a particu-
ated the effects of globalization and technolo- lar employer at the employer’s place of work,
gy on work and employment relations (Gonos often progressing upward on job ladders with-
1997). Unions continued to decline, weakening in internal labor markets, was eroding (Cappelli
a traditional source of institutional protections 1999). Management’s attempts to achieve flex-
for workers and severing the postwar busi- ibility led to various types of corporate restruc-
ness–labor social contract. Government regu- turing, which in turn led to a growth in
lations that set minimum acceptable standards precarious work and transformations in the
in the labor market eroded, as did rules that nature of the employment relationship
governed competition in product markets. Union (Osterman 1999). This had, and continues to
decline and deregulation reduced the counter- have, far-reaching effects on all of society.
vailing forces that enabled workers to share in In addition to the changes discussed above,
the productivity gains that were made, and the the labor force became more diverse, with
balance of power shifted all the more heavily marked increases in the number of women, non-
away from workers and toward employers. white and immigrant workers, and older work-
The pervasive political changes associated ers. The increase in immigration due to
with Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980 accel- globalization and the reduction of barriers to the
erated business ascendancy and labor decline movement of people across national borders
and unleashed the freedom of firms and capi- has produced a greater surplus of labor today.
talists to pursue their unbridled interest. There are also growing gaps in earnings and
Deregulation and reorganization of employ- other indicators of labor market success between
ment relations allowed for the massive accu- people with different amounts of education.
mulation of capital. Political policies in the
United States—such as the replacement of wel- THE CONTEXT OF PRECARITY AND
fare with workfare programs in the mid-1990s— THE U.S. CASE
made it essential for people to participate in
paid employment, forcing many into low-wage Until the end of the Great Depression in the
jobs. Ideological shifts centering on individu- United States, most jobs were precarious and
alism and personal responsibility for work and most wages were unstable (Jacoby 1985).
family life reinforced these structural changes; Pensions and health insurance were almost
the slogan “you’re on your own” replaced the unheard of among the working classes before
notion of “we’re all in this together” (Bernstein the 1930s, and benefits (such as those associ-
2006). This neoliberal revolution spread glob- ated with experiments in welfare capitalism in
ally, emphasizing the centrality of markets and the early part of the twentieth century) were
market-driven solutions, privatization of gov- not presented as entitlements but depended on
ernment resources, and removal of government workers’ docility (Edwards 1979).
protections. The creation of a market-based economy in
The work process also changed, and in impor- the nineteenth century exacerbated precarity
tant ways, during this period. Increases in during this period. In The Great Transformation
knowledge-intensive work accompanied the (1944), Polanyi describes the organizing prin-
accelerated pace of technological innovation. ciples of industrial society in the nineteenth
Service industries continued to expand as the and twentieth centuries in terms of a “double
principal sources of jobs as the economy shift- movement” struggle. One side of the move-
ed from manufacturing-based, mass production ment was guided by the principles of econom-
to an information-based economy organized ic liberalism and laissez-faire that supported
around flexible production (Piore and Sabel the establishment and maintenance of free and
1984). flexible markets (i.e., the f irst Great
These macro-level changes led employers to Transformation). The other side was dominat-
seek greater flexibility in their relations with ed by moves toward social protections—pro-
workers. The neoliberal idea at the societal level tections that were reactions to the psychological,
was mirrored by the greater role played by mar- social, and ecological disruptions that unregu-
ket forces within the workplace. The standard lated markets imposed on people’s lives. The
employment relationship, in which workers long historical struggle over employment secu-
rity that emerged as a reaction to the negative ly and satisfying career narratives. The attain-
consequences of precarity ended in the victories ment of a basic level of material satisfaction
of the New Deal and other protections in the freed workers to emphasize other concerns in
1930s (Jacoby 1985). Figure 1 illustrates this evaluating whether their jobs were good, such
pendulum-like “double movement” between as opportunities for meaning, challenge, and
flexibility and security: free, flexible markets led other intrinsic rewards.
to demands for greater security in the 1930s Laws enacted during the 1930s (such as those
(Commons 1934) and now in the 2000s; regu- related to wage and hours legislation, minimum
lated markets led to demands by business for wage levels, and old-age and unemployment
more flexibility in the 1970s (Standing 1999). insurance) dramatically increased the number of
workers whose jobs provided employment secu-
THE INTERREGNUM PERIOD (1940S TO rity along with living wages and benefits
1970S) (Amenta 1998). Employers’ power over the
terms of employment was restricted by workers’
The three decades following World War II were right to bargain collectively (granted by the pas-
marked by sustained growth and prosperity. sage of the Wagner Act in 1935), along with
During this postwar boom, economic compen- increased government control over working
sation generally increased for most people, lead- conditions and employment practices.
ing to a growth in equality that has been The establishment of a new social contract
described as the “Great Compression” (Goldin between business and labor beginning in the
and Margo 1992). Job security and opportuni- 1930s solidified the growing security and eco-
ties for advancement were generally good for nomic gains of this period. The employment
many workers, enabling them to construct order- relationship became more regulated over time,
enforced by labor laws and the diffusion of Second, the service sector has become
norms of employer conduct. Health insurance increasingly central. This has resulted in a
became part of Walter Reuther’s UAW bargain changing mix of occupations, reflected in a
in 1949 and was then spread by employers to decline in blue-collar jobs and an increase in
nonunionized workers in an effort to forestall both high-wage and low-wage white-collar
more unionization. Combined with the full occupations. Market forces have also extended
blooming of Fordist production techniques and into services through the privatization of activ-
the United States’ dominance in world markets, ities that were previously done mainly in the
this ushered in an era of relatively full employ- household (e.g., child care, cleaning, home
ment, security, and sustained economic growth healthcare, and cooking). The growth of the
(Ruggie 1982). Stability and growth made pos- service sector has also enhanced the potential
sible the kinds of internalization of labor that for consumer–worker coalitions to influence
permitted the creation of firm internal labor work and its consequences.3 By contrast, in the
markets and ladders of upward mobility. The manufacturing economy, there was often a split
“organization man” (Whyte 1956), who worked between consumers and producers and the key
in large firms in the core sector of the econo- social relations were primarily defined as those
my (Averitt 1968), symbolized this phenome- among workers (labor solidarity) or between
non. labor and management (class conflict).
Third, layoffs or involuntary terminations
from employment have always occurred and
THE CONTEMPORARY PERIOD (1970S TO have fluctuated with the business cycle. The
THE PRESENT) AND THE DISTINCTIVENESS difference now is that layoffs have become a
OF PRECARITY TODAY basic component of employers’ restructuring
We now understand that the postwar period (up strategies. They reflect a way of increasing
until the mid-1970s) was unusual for its sus- short-term profits by reducing labor costs, even
in good economic times (although there is lit-
tained growth and stability. Precarious work
tle evidence that this strategy improves per-
today differs in several fundamental ways from
formance in the medium or long run [Uchitelle
that which characterized precarity in the pre-
2006]), and a means to undermine workers’
World War II period.
collective power.
First, there has been a spatial restructuring of
Fourth, in the earlier precarious period, there
work on a global scale, as geography and space
were strong ideologies (e.g., Marxism) that con-
have become increasingly important dimen- ceptualized what a world without market dom-
sions of labor markets, labor relations, and work ination would look like. These older theories are
(Peck 1996). Greater connectivity among peo- now largely discredited and we are operating in
ple, organizations, and countries, made possi- what amounts to an ideological vacuum, with-
ble by advances in technology, has made it out anything close to a consensus theory about
relatively easy to move goods, capital, and peo- the mechanisms fostering precarity and how to
ple within and across borders at an ever-accel- deal with its costs (Piore 2008).
erating pace. “Spatialization” (Wallace and Finally, precarious work was often described
Brady 2001) freed employers from conventional in the past in terms of a dual labor market, with
temporal and spatial constraints and enabled unstable and uncertain jobs concentrated in a
them to locate their business operations opti- secondary labor market (for a review, see
mally and to access cheap sources of labor. Kalleberg and Sørensen 1979). Indeed, precar-
Advances in information and communication ity and insecurity were used to differentiate
technologies allow capitalists to exert control jobs in the primary as opposed to secondary
over decentralized and spatially dispersed labor
processes. Moreover, the entry of China, India,
and the former Soviet bloc countries into the 3 Such coalitions’ potential for enhancing workers’
global economy in the 1990s doubled the size collective agency was demonstrated recently by the
of the global labor pool, further shifting the support members of the American Sociological
balance of power from labor to capital (Freeman Association provided to striking Aramark employees
2007). at the 2008 ASA meetings in Boston.
labor market segments. Now, precarious work shed light on the mechanisms that are produc-
has spread to all sectors of the economy and has ing precarity and other changes in employment
become much more pervasive and generalized: relations.
professional and managerial jobs are also pre- Moreover, there is considerable measurement
carious these days. error in many of the indicators of precarious
work. For example, worker-displacement data
EVIDENCE OF THE GROWTH OF issued biennially by the BLS almost certainly
PRECARIOUS WORK IN THE UNITED undercount the number of people who lost their
STATES jobs involuntarily. This is due to the wording of
the question, which was developed in the early
There is widespread agreement that work and 1980s to measure primarily blue-collar dis-
employment relations have changed in impor- placement.4 Uchitelle (2006) argues that a more
tant ways since the 1970s. Still, there is some comprehensive indicator of whether people lost
disagreement as to the specif ics of these their jobs involuntarily would likely produce a
changes. Studies of individual organizations, biennial layoff rate averaging 7 to 8 percent of
occupations, and industries often yield different full-time workers, rather than the 4.3 percent that
conclusions than do analyses of the economy as the BLS reported from 1981 through 2003.
a whole. Peter Cappelli (1999:113) observes Nevertheless, we can glean several pieces of
that: evidence that precarious work has indeed
Those who argue that the change [in labor market increased in the United States.
institutions] is revolutionary study firms, espe-
cially large corporations. Those who believe the
change is modest at best study the labor market and
1. DECLINE IN ATTACHMENT TO
the workforce as a whole. While I have yet to meet EMPLOYERS
a manager who believes that this change has not There has been a general decline in the average
stood his or her world on its head, I meet plenty
of labor economists studying the aggregate work-
length of time people spend with their employ-
force who are not sure what exactly has changed. ers. This varies by specific subgroups: women’s
employer tenure has increased; while men’s has
The prominence of examples such as automo- decreased (although tenure levels for women
bile manufacturing and other core industries, remain substantially lower than those for men
where precarity and instability have certainly in the private sector). The decline in employer
increased, might account for some of the dif- tenure is especially pronounced among older
ferences between the perceived wisdom of man- white men, the group traditionally protected by
agers and the results obtained from data on the internal labor markets (Cappelli 2008; Farber
overall labor force. 2008).
The lack of availability of systematic, longi-
tudinal data on the nature of employment rela-
tions and organizational practices also makes it 2. INCREASE IN LONG-TERM
difficult to evaluate just how much change has UNEMPLOYMENT
really occurred. The U.S. government and other Not having a job at all is, of course, the ultimate
agencies, such as the International Labour form of work precarity.5 Long-term unemployed
Organization, often collect data on phenomena
only after they are deemed problematic. For
example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
4 The question asks: “Did you lose your job
did not begin to count displaced workers until
the early 1980s and did not collect information because a plant or office closed, your position was
abolished, or you had insufficient work?” (Uchitelle
on nonstandard work arrangements and con-
2006:211–12).
tingent work until 1995. Also, the Current 5 Commonly used measures of joblessness and
Population Survey’s measure of employer tenure unemployment fail to capture the full extent of pre-
changed in 1983, making it difficult to evalu- carious work because they neglect to consider work-
ate changes in job stability using this measure. ers who become discouraged (perhaps because work
In addition, there is a paucity of longitudinal is so precarious) and stop looking for a job. In addi-
data on organizations and employees that might tion, the number of people who work part-time (but
workers (defined as jobless for six months or from Fullerton and Wallace’s (2005) analysis of
more) are most likely to suffer economic and General Social Survey data, shows the trend in
psychological hardships. In contrast to earlier responses to the question: “How likely do you
periods, long-term unemployment remained think it is that you will lose your job or be laid
relatively high in the 2000s. The large propor- off?” (See also Schmidt 1999; Valetta 1999.)
tion of unemployed persons who found it diffi- The fluctuating line represents overall assess-
cult to obtain employment after the 2001 ments of job security, with higher values denot-
recession is likely due to both low rates of job ing greater perceived security. The
growth and challenges faced by workers in downward-sloping line shows the trend con-
industries such as manufacturing, where jobs trolling for the unemployment rate and other
have been lost (Mishel, Bernstein, and Shierholz determinants of insecurity. This line indicates
2009).
that perceived job security generally declined in
the United States from 1977 to 2002.
3. GROWTH IN PERCEIVED JOB INSECURITY These results may help explain the findings
Precarity is intimately related to perceived job of a 1995 survey by the New York Times
insecurity. Although there are individual dif- (1996:294), in which 75 percent of respondents
ferences in perceptions of insecurity and risk, felt that companies were less loyal to their work-
people in general are increasingly worried about ers than they used to be and 64 percent felt that
losing their jobs—in large part because the con- workers were less loyal to their companies.
sequences of job loss have become much more
severe in recent years—and less confident about 4. GROWTH OF NONSTANDARD WORK
getting comparable new jobs. Figure 2, derived ARRANGEMENTS AND CONTINGENT WORK
Employers have sought to easily adjust their
would prefer to work more hours) is at record levels workforce in response to supply and demand
in the United States (Goodman 2008). conditions by creating more nonstandard work
Figure 3. Contingent Work in Academia: Trends in Faculty Status, 1975 to 2005 (all degree-grant-
ing institutions in the United States)
Source: U.S. Department of Education, IPEDS Fall Staff Survey, compiled by the American Association of University
Professors.
index, released in April 2008, shows that people physically, psychologically, and moral-
Americans are now more pessimistic about their ly. The impact of uncertainty and insecurity on
economic situation than they have been at any individuals’ health and stress is well documented
point in the past 25 years (Krugman 2008). This (e.g., De Witte 1999). The experience of pre-
is due to both objective economic conditions and carity also corrodes one’s identity and promotes
a loss of confidence in economic institutions. anomie, as Sennett (1998) argues (see also
Economic inequality and insecurity in the Uchitelle 2006).
United States are exacerbated by relatively low Precarious work creates insecurity and oth-
rates of intergenerational income mobility, com- erwise affects families and households. The
pared with advanced economies such as number of two-earner households has risen in
Germany, Canada, and the Scandinavian coun- the United States over the past several decades,
tries (Mishel et al. 2007). Immigrants tradi- and these families have had to increase their
tionally have been forced to work in low-wage working time to keep up with their income
jobs, but today they are less likely to see the needs (Jacobs and Gerson 2004). Moreover,
promise of America as their forerunners did, due uncertainty about the future may affect cou-
largely to precarious work and the lack of oppor- ples’ decision making on key things such as the
tunities for upward mobility. timing of marriage and children, as well as the
number of children to have (Coontz 2005).
OTHER CONSEQUENCES OF PRECARIOUS Precarious work affects communities as well.
Precarious work may lead to a lack of social
WORK
engagement, indicated by declines in member-
Precarious work has a wide range of conse- ship in voluntary associations and community
quences for individuals outside of the work- organizations, trust, and social capital more
place. Polanyi (1944:73) argued that the generally (Putnam 2000). This may lead to
unregulated operation of markets dislocates changes in the structure of communities, as
people who lose their jobs due to plant closings may have to cover more of their educational
or downsizing may not be able to afford to live costs, leading them to graduate from college
in the community (although they may not be with more debt (Leicht and Fitzgerald 2007), if
able to sell their houses either, if the layoffs are they are able to attend college at all.
widespread). Newcomers may not set down Opportunities to obtain and maintain one’s
roots due to the uncertainty and unpredictabil- job skills to keep up with changing job require-
ity of work. The precarious situation may also ments are also precarious. Many workers are
spur natives’ negative attitudes toward immi- hard pressed to identify ways of remaining
grants. This all happens just as many commu- employable in a fast-changing economic envi-
nities experience an upsurge of new immigrants, ronment in which skills become rapidly obso-
both legal and illegal, who are more willing lete. Unlike workers of the 1950s and 1960s,
than other workers to work for lower wages and today’s workers are more likely to return to
to put up with poorer working conditions. school again and again to retool their skills as
they shift careers.
DIFFERENTIAL VULNERABILITY TO
PRECARIOUS WORK CHALLENGES FOR THE SOCIOLOGY
OF WORK, WORKERS, AND THE
People differ in their vulnerability to precarious
WORKPLACE
work, depending on their personality dynamics,
levels and kinds of education, age, family The growth of precarious work creates new
responsibilities, type of occupation and indus- challenges and opportunities for sociologists
try, and the degree of welfare and labor market seeking to explain this phenomenon and who
protections in a society (Greenhalgh and may wish to help frame effective policies to
Rosenblatt 1984). address its emerging character and conse-
For example, minorities are more likely than quences. The current theoretical vacuum in our
whites to be unemployed and displaced from understanding of both the mechanisms gener-
their jobs. Older workers are more likely to suf- ating precarity and possible solutions provides
fer from the effects of outsourcing and indus- an intellectual space for sociologists to explain
trial restructuring and be forced to put off the nature of precarious work and to offer pub-
retirement due to the inadequate performance lic policy solutions. To meet these challenges,
of their defined contribution plans or the fail- we need to revisit, reorient, and reconsider the
ing pension plans in their companies. core theoretical and analytic tools we use to
Education has become increasingly important understand contemporary realities of work,
as a determinant of life chances due to the workers, and the workplace.
removal of institutional protections resulting The first heyday of the sociology of work
from the decline of unions, labor laws, and other (under the label “industrial sociology”) in the
changes discussed above. The growing salience United States was during the 1940s, 1950s, and
of education is reflected in the rise in the col- part of the 1960s. Industrial sociology inte-
lege wage premium (relative to high school) in grated the study of work, occupations and organ-
the 1980s and 1990s (Goldin and Katz 2008; izations, labor unions and industrial relations,
Mishel et al. 2007) and the growing polarization industrial psychology and careers, and the com-
in job quality associated with education and munity and society (Miller 1984).8 It addressed
skill (Sørensen 2000). society’s major challenges and problems, many
But the growth of precarious work has made of which focused on industrial organizations,
educational decisions more precarious too. The productivity, unions, and labor–management
uncertainty and unpredictability of future work relations. Industrial sociologists explained work-
opportunities make it hard for students to plan
their educations. For example, what is the best
subject to major in to ensure occupational suc-
cess? Moreover, economically precarious situ- 8 This tradition is illustrated by the writings of
ations (even for those employed full-time) may Bendix (1956), Berg (1979), Form and Miller (1960),
make parents less comfortable investing in their Gouldner (1959), Hughes (1958), Lipset, Trow, and
children’s education. Correspondingly, children Coleman (1956), and Roy (1952).
ments are thus directed at the discipline of soci- cessions under threat of factory closures, cap-
ology as a whole, not to a particular specialty ital flight, and other forms of precarity (Vallas
area. 2006).
The more specific concept of employment
THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP contract is particularly valuable for theorizing
about important aspects of employment rela-
A cohesive study of precarious work should tions. Most employment contracts are infor-
build on the general concept of employment mal, incomplete, and shaped by social
relations. These relations represent the dynam- institutions and norms in addition to their for-
ic social, economic, psychological, and politi- mal, explicit features. Research by economists
cal linkages between individual workers and on incomplete contracts (e.g., Williamson 1985)
their employers (see Baron 1988). Employment and psychologists on psychological contracts
relations are the main means by which workers between employers and employees (Rousseau
in the United States have obtained rights and and Parks 1992) supplement sociological the-
benefits associated with work with respect to ories and provide bases for understanding the
labor law and social security. These relations dif- interplay among social, economic, and psy-
fer in the relative power of employers and chological forces that create and maintain pre-
employees to control tasks, negotiate the con- carious work. Differences among types of
ditions of employment, and terminate a job.10 employment contracts can also be used to define
Employment relations are useful for studying class positions, as Goldthorpe (2000) argues in
the connections between macro and micro lev- his conceptualization of service (professionals
els of analysis—a central feature of all sociol- and managers), labor (blue-collar), and inter-
ogy, not just the sociology of work (Abbott mediate employment contracts (see also
1993)—because they explicitly link individuals McGovern et al. 2008).
to the workplaces and other institutions where- Employment contracts vary between trans-
in work is structured. This brings together a actional (short-term, market based) and rela-
consideration of jobs and workplaces, on the one tional (long-term, organizational) (see Dore
hand, and individual workers, on the other. 1973; MacNeil 1980). The “double movement”
Moreover, employment relations are embedded between flexibility and security, described in
in other social institutions, such as the family, Figure 1, parallels to some extent the alternat-
education, politics, and the healthcare sector. ing predominance of market-based transactional
They are also intimately related to gender, race, and organizational/relational contracts, respec-
age, and other demographic characteristics of tively. A rise in the proportion of transactional
the labor force. contracts will likely be associated with greater
Changes in employment relations reflect the precarity, as such contracts reduce organiza-
transformations in managerial regimes and sys- tional citizenship rights and allow market power
tems of control. The first Great Transformation and status-based claims to become more impor-
was characterized by despotic regimes of con- tant in local negotiations.
trol that relied on physical and economic coer-
cion. The harsh conditions associated with the
THE CHANGING ORGANIZATIONAL
commodification of labor under market des-
CONTEXTS OF EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
potism led to a countermovement characterized
by the emergence of hegemonic forms of con- Employers sought to obtain greater flexibility by
trol that sought to elicit compliance and consent adapting their workforces to meet growing com-
(Burawoy 1979, 1983). The second Great petition and rapid change in two main ways.
Transformation has seen a shift to hegemonic Some took the “high road” by investing in their
despotism, whereby workers agree to make con- workers through the use of relational employ-
ment contracts, creating more highly-skilled
jobs, and enhancing employees’ functional flex-
10 About 90 percent of people in the United States ibility (i.e., employees’ ability to perform a vari-
work for someone else. Even self-employed people ety of jobs and participate in decision making).
can be considered to have “employment relations” Other firms—far too many in the United States
with customers, suppliers, and other market actors. compared with other countries such as Germany
during this period left workers without a strong are likely to be more effective than those based
collective voice in confronting employers and solely on work. This reflects the shift in the
politicians. axis of political mobilization from identities
Nevertheless, as Hodson (2001:50) argues, based on economic roles (such as class, occu-
“workers are not passive victims of social struc- pation, and the workplace), which were con-
ture. They are active agents in their own lives.” ducive to unionization, to axes based on social
Workers can resist management strategies of identities such as race, sex, ethnicity, age, and
control and act autonomously to give meaning other personal characteristics (Piore 2008).
to their work. Some unions, such as the Service Employees
Studying the employment relationship forces International Union, have adopted this kind of
us to consider explicitly the interplay between strategy. Other movements that represent alter-
structure and agency. This helps us rethink natives to unions organized at the workplace
worker agency by explaining how workers influ- include Industrial Area Foundations, commu-
ence the terms of the employment relation, and nity-based organizations, and worker centers.
it can “bring the worker back in” to explanations The fusion of labor movements with commu-
of work-related phenomena (Kalleberg 1989). nity-based social movements highlights the
We need to understand how workers exercise growing importance of the local area, rather
agency both individually and collectively. than the workplace, as the basis for organizing
Given the increasing diversity of the labor in the future (see Turner and Cornfield 2007).
force, workers’ agendas and activities are like- Consumer–producer coalitions also illustrate
ly to be highly variable and unpredictable, often forms of interdependent power (Piven 2008).
having creative and spontaneous effects. In the In addition, occupations are becoming
current world of work, where workers are like- increasingly important as sources of affiliation
ly to be left on their own to acquire and main- and identification (Arthur and Rousseau 1996).
tain their skills and to identify career paths They are useful concepts for describing the
(Bernstein 2006), we need a better understand- institutional pathways by which workers can
ing of the factors that influence personal agency organize to exercise their collective agency
and its forms. across multiple employers (Damarin 2006;
We also need to be aware of and appreciate Osnowitz 2006). Theories of stratification, such
new models of organizing and strategies of as “disaggregate structuration” (Grusky and
mobilization that are likely to be effective in Sørensen 1998), take organized occupations as
light of the increased precarity of employment the basic units of class structures.13 A focus on
relations. Collective agency is essential to build- employment relations helps clarify the process-
ing countermovements, yet Polanyi (1944) es of social closure by which occupational
undertheorized how such movements are con- incumbents seek to obtain greater control over
structed, as he provided neither a theory of their activities (Weeden 2002).
social movements nor a theory of sources of
power (Webster et al. 2008). Research on “labor PRECARITY AND INSECURITY AS GLOBAL
revitalization” is one scholarly expression of CHALLENGES
the growing emphasis on collective agency.
Cornfield and his colleagues, for example, show Precarious work is a worldwide phenomenon.
that labor unions are strategic institutional actors The most problematic aspects of precarious
that advance workers’ life chances by organiz- work differ among countries, however, depend-
ing them, engaging in collective bargaining, ing on countries’ stage of development, social
and shaping the welfare/regulatory state through institutions, cultures, and other national differ-
legislative lobbying and political campaigns ences.
(e.g., Cornfield and Fletcher 2001; Cornfield
and McCammon 2003).
Moreover, as Clawson (2003) argues, mod- 13Evidence that between-occupation differences
els of fusion that tie labor movements and labor account for an increasing part of the growth in wage
organizing to other social movements—such inequality in the United States since the early 1990s
as the women’s movement, immigrant groups, (Mouw and Kalleberg 2008) underscores the salience
and other community-based organizations— of occupations.
In developed industrial countries, the key identify precarity as a part of neoliberal glob-
dimensions of precarious work are associated alization, involving greater capital mobility, the
with differences in jobs in the formal economy, search for flexibility and lower costs, privati-
such as earnings inequality, security inequality zation, and attacks on welfare provisions.
and vulnerability to dismissals (Maurin and All industrial countries are faced with the
Postel-Vinay 2005), and nonstandard work basic problem of balancing security (due to pre-
arrangements.14 In transitional and less devel- carity) and flexibility (due to competition), the
oped countries (including many countries in two dimensions of Polanyi’s “double move-
Asia, Africa, and Latin America), precarious ment.” Countries have tried to solve this dilem-
work is often the norm and is linked more to the ma in different ways and their solutions provide
informal15 than the formal economy and to potential models for the United States. Some
whether jobs pay above poverty wages.16 Indeed, countries adopted socialism to deal with the
most workers in the world find themselves in the uncertainties associated with rapid social
informal economy (Webster et al. 2008).17 change. But by the late 1980s, this system was
The term “precarity” is often associated with discredited and capitalism became the dominant
a European social movement. Feeling devalued economic form. The question now is what kinds
by businesses, powerless due to the assault on of institutional arrangements should be put in
unions, and struggling with a shrinking wel- place to reduce employers’ risks and employees’
fare system, European workers became increas- insecurity. The degree to which employers can
ingly vulnerable to the labor market and began shift risks to employees depends on workers’ rel-
to organize around the concept of precarity as ative power and control. As Gallie (2007) and
they faced living and working without stabili- his colleagues show (see also Burawoy 1983;
ty or a safety net. European activists generally Fligstein and Byrkjeflot 1996), different
employment regimes (e.g., coordinated market
economies such as Germany and the
14 It is likely that the growing precarity of work in Scandinavian countries versus liberal market
the United States and other advanced industrial coun- economies such as the United States and the
tries has led more people to try to make a living in United Kingdom) produce different solutions.
the informal sector. The evidence on this is poor, as The relationship between precarity and eco-
it is hard to collect data on activities in the informal nomic and other forms of insecurity will vary
sector for representative populations. Official meas- by country depending on its employment and
ures of work generally emphasize paid work in the social protections, in addition to labor market
formal sector of the economy. Qualitative studies conditions. It is thus insecurity, more than
are likely to be especially valuable in studying work employment precarity, that varies among coun-
in the informal economy. tries. This corresponds to the distinction between
15 See Ferman (1990) for a discussion of the infor-
job insecurity and labor market insecurity:18
mal or irregular economy.
16 For example, the International Labour workers in countries with better social protec-
Organization (2006:1) estimates that “in 2005, 84 per- tions are less likely to experience labor market
cent of workers in South Asia, 58 percent in South- insecurity, although not necessarily less job
East Asia, 47 percent in East Asia .|.|. did not earn insecurity (Anderson and Pontusson 2007).
enough to lift themselves and their families above the The Danish case illustrates that even with
US$2 a day per person poverty line.” Moreover, the increased precarity in the labor market, local
ILO estimates that informal nonagricultural workers politics may produce post-market security. In
make up 83 percent of the labor force in India and Denmark, security in any one job is relatively
78 percent in Indonesia (see also International Labour low, but labor market security is fairly high
Organization 2002). This scale of precarity differs because unemployed workers are given a great
dramatically from that found in the formal economy
in the United States and other industrial countries.
17 This does not necessarily mean that standards of
living have declined in all countries. While informal 18 This is similar to the distinction between “cog-
and precarious work is likely to be relatively high in nitive” job insecurity (the perception that one is like-
China, for example, it is also likely that security and ly to lose one’s job in the near feature) and “affective”
prosperity have improved in China over the past sev- job insecurity (whether one is worried about losing
eral decades. the job) (Anderson and Pontusson 2007).
deal of protection and help in finding new jobs ing some of the flexibility that employers need
(as well as income compensation, education, to compete in a global marketplace. Policies
and job training). This famous “flexicurity” should also seek to create and stimulate the
system combines “flexible hiring and firing growth of nonprecarious jobs whenever possi-
rules for employers and a social security system ble.
for workers” (Westergaard-Nielsen 2008:44).
As the pendulum of Polanyi’s double move-
The example of flexicurity suggests there is
ment swings again toward the need for social
good reason to be optimistic about the effica-
cy of appropriate policy interventions for protections to alleviate the disruptions caused
addressing problems of precarity. by the operation of unfettered markets, we can
draw lessons from the policies adopted under the
PRECARITY, INSECURITY, AND New Deal to address precarity in the 1920s and
PUBLIC POLICY 1930s.
immigration and migration, political polariza- Anderson, Christopher J. and Jonas Pontusson. 2007.
tion, and so on. “Workers, Worries and Welfare States: Social
The structural changes that have led to pre- Protection and Job Insecurity in 15 OECD
carious work and employment relations are not Countries.” European Journal of Political Research
46(2):211–35.
fixed, nor are they irreversible, inevitable con-
Aoki, Masahiko, Bo Gustafsson, and Oliver
sequences of economic forces. The degree of Williamson, eds. 1990. The Firm as a Nexus of
precarity varies among organizations within the Treaties. London, UK: Sage Publications.
United States, depending on the relative power Aronowitz, Stanley. 2001. The Last Good Job in
of employers and employees and the nature of America: Work and Education in the New Global
their social and psychological contracts. Technoculture. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Moreover, the wide variety of solutions to the Littlefield.
twin goals of flexibility and security adopted by Arthur, Michael B. and Denise M. Rousseau, eds.
different employment regimes around the world 1996. The Boundaryless Career: A New
underscores the potential of political, ideolog- Employment Principle for a New Organizational
Era. New York: Oxford University Press.
ical, and cultural forces to shape the organiza-
Averitt, Robert T. 1968. The Dual Economy: The
tion of work and the need for global solutions. Dynamics of American Industry Structure. New
The challenges—and opportunities—for York: Norton.
sociology are to explain how various kinds of Barley, Stephen R. and Gideon Kunda. 2001.
employment relations are created and main- “Bringing Work Back In.” Organization Science
tained, and what mechanisms (which are 12:76–95.
amenable to policy interventions in varying ———. 2006. Gurus, Hired Guns and Warm
degrees) are consistent with various public poli- Bodies: Itinerant Experts in a Knowledge
cies. We need to understand the range of new Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
workplace arrangements that have been adopt- Press.
Baron, James N. 1988. “The Employment Relation
ed and their implications for both organiza-
as a Social Relation.” Journal of the Japanese and
tional performance and individuals’ well-being. International Economies 2:492–525.
A holistic, interdisciplinary social science Beck, Ulrich. 2000. The Brave New World of Work.
approach to studying work, which elaborates on Malden, MA: Blackwell.
the variability in employment relations, has the Bendix, Reinhard. 1956. Work and Authority in
potential to address many of the significant Industry: Ideologies of Management in the Course
concerns facing our society in the coming years. of Industrialization. New York: Wiley.
Berg, Ivar. 1979. Industrial Sociology. Englewood
Arne L. Kalleberg is Kenan Distinguished Professor Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
of Sociology at the University of North Carolina at Bernstein, Jared. 2006. All Together Now: Common
Chapel Hill. He has published 10 books and more Sense for a New Economy. San Francisco, CA:
than 100 journal articles and book chapters on top- Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
ics related to the sociology of work, organizations, Bourdieu, Pierre. 1998. “La précarité est aujourd’hui
occupations and industries, labor markets, and social partout.” Pp. 95–101 in Contre-feux. Paris, France:
stratification. His most recent books are The Liber-Raison d’agir.
Mismatched Worker (2007) and Ending Poverty in Braverman, Harry. 1974. Labor and Monopoly
America: How to Restore the American Dream (co- Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth
edited with John Edwards and Marion Crain, 2007). Century. New York: Monthly Review Press.
He is currently finishing a book about changes in job Breen, Richard. 1997. “Risk, Recommodification
quality in the United States as well as examining the and Stratification.” Sociology 31(3):473–89.
global challenges raised by the growth of precarious Burawoy, Michael. 1979. Manufacturing Consent:
work and insecurity. Changes in the Labor Process under Monopoly
Capitalism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
REFERENCES
———. 1983. “Between the Labor Process and the
Abbott, Andrew. 1993. “The Sociology of Work and State: The Changing Face of Factory Regimes
Occupations.” Annual Review of Sociology under Advanced Capitalism.” American
19:187–209. Sociological Review 48:587–605.
Amenta, Edwin. 1998. Bold Relief: Institutional Cappelli, Peter. 1999. The New Deal at Work:
Politics and the Origins of Modern American Managing the Market-Driven Workforce. Boston,
Social Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Press. ———. 2008. Talent on Demand: Managing Talent
in an Age of Uncertainty. Boston, MA: Harvard Economy.” Pp. 119–40 in The Nature of Work:
Business School Press. Sociological Perspectives, edited by K. Erikson and
Clawson, Dan. 2003. The Next Upsurge: Labor and S. P. Vallas. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
the New Social Movements. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press. Fligstein, Neil and Haldor Byrkjeflot. 1996. “The
Commons, John R. 1934. Institutional Economics: Logic of Employment Systems.” Pp. 11–35 in
Its Place in Political Economy. New York: Social Differentiation and Stratification, edited
Macmillan. by J. Baron, D. Grusky, and D. Treiman. Boulder,
Coontz, Stephanie. 2005. Marriage, a History: From CO: Westview Press.
Obedience to Intimacy or how Love Conquered Form, William H. and Delbert C. Miller. 1960.
Marriage. New York: Viking. Industry, Labor and Community. New York: Harper
Cornfield, Daniel B. and Bill Fletcher. 2001. “The and Row.
U.S. Labor Movement: Toward a Sociology of Freeman, Richard B. 2007. “The Great Doubling: The
Labor Revitalization.” Pp. 61–82 in Sourcebook of Challenge of the New Global Labor Market.” Pp.
Labor Markets: Evolving Structures and Processes, 55–65 in Ending Poverty in America: How to
edited by I. Berg and A. L. Kalleberg. New York: Restore the American Dream, edited by J. Edwards,
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. M. Crain, and A. L. Kalleberg. New York: The
Cornfield, Daniel B. and Holly J. McCammon, eds. New Press.
2003. Labor Revitalization: Global Perspectives Fullerton, Andrew S. and Michael Wallace. 2005.
and New Initiatives. Amsterdam: Elsevier. “Traversing the Flexible Turn: U.S. Workers’
Damarin, Amanda Kidd. 2006. “Rethinking Perceptions of Job Security, 1977–2002.” Social
Occupational Structure: The Case of Web Site Science Research 36:201–21.
Production Work.” Work and Occupations Gallie, Duncan, ed. 2007. Employment Regimes and
33(4):429–63. the Quality of Work. Oxford, UK: Oxford
Davis-Blake, Alison and Joseph P. Broschak. University Press.
Forthcoming. “Outsourcing and the Changing Goldin, Claudia and Lawrence F. Katz. 2008. The
Nature of Work.” Annual Review of Sociology. Race between Education and Technology.
Davis-Blake, Alison, Joseph P. Broschak, and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Elizabeth George. 2003. “Happy Together? How Goldin, Claudia and Robert A. Margo. 1992. “The
using Nonstandard Workers Affects Exit, Voice, Great Compression: The Wage Structure in the
and Loyalty among Standard Employees.” United States at Mid-Century.” Quarterly Journal
Academy of Management Journal 46:475–86. of Economics cvii:1–34.
De Witte, Hans. 1999. “Job Insecurity and Goldthorpe, John. 2000. On Sociology: Numbers,
Psychological Well-Being: Review of the Narratives, and the Integration of Research and
Literature and Exploration of Some Unresolved Theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Issues.” European Journal of Work and Gonos, George. 1997. “The Contest over ‘Employer’
Organizational Psychology 8(2):155–77. Status in the Postwar United States: The Case of
DiTomaso, Nancy. 2001. “The Loose Coupling of Temporary Help Firms.” Law & Society Review
Jobs: The Subcontracting of Everyone?” Pp. 31:81–110.
247–70 in Sourcebook of Labor Markets: Evolving Goodman, Peter S. 2008. “A Hidden Toll on
Structures and Processes, edited by I. Berg and A. Employment: Cut to Part Time.” New York Times,
L. Kalleberg. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum July 31, pp. C1, C12.
Publishers. Gouldner, Alvin W. 1959. “Organizational Analysis.”
Dore, Ronald. 1973. British Factory–Japanese Pp. 400–28 in Sociology Today, edited by R. K.
Factory: The Origins of National Diversity in Merton, L. Broom, and L. S. Cottrell. New York:
Industrial Relations. London, UK: Allen and Basic Books.
Unwin. Greenhalgh, Leonard and Zehava Rosenblatt. 1984.
Edwards, Richard. 1979. Contested Terrain: The “Job Insecurity: Toward Conceptual Clarity.” The
Transformation of the Workplace in the Twentieth Academy of Management Review 9(3):438–48.
Century. New York: Basic Books. Grusky, David B. and Jesper B. Sørensen. 1998.
Epstein, Cynthia Fuchs. 1970. Woman’s Place: “Can Class Analysis Be Salvaged?” American
Options and Limits in Professional Careers. Journal of Sociology 103:1187–1234.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Hacker, Jacob. 2006. The Great Risk Shift. New York:
Farber, Henry S. 2008. “Short(er) Shrift: The Decline Oxford University Press.
in Worker-Firm Attachment in the United States.” Harrison, Ann E. and Margaret S. McMillan. 2006.
Pp. 10–37 in Laid Off, Laid Low: Political and “Dispelling Some Myths about Offshoring.”
Economic Consequences of Employment Academy of Management Perspectives 20(4):6–22.
Insecurity, edited by K. S. Newman. New York: Hochschild, Arlie. 1983. The Managed Heart: The
Columbia University Press. Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley,
Ferman, Louis A. 1990. “Participation in the Irregular CA: University of California Press.
Hodson, Randy. 2001. Dignity at Work. Cambridge, Postindustrial Peasants: The Illusion of Middle-
UK: Cambridge University Press. Class Prosperity. New York: Worth Publishers.
Hughes, Everett C. 1958. Men and their Work. Lipset, Seymour Martin, Martin Trow, and James S.
Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Coleman. 1956. Union Democracy. New York:
International Labour Organization. 2002. Women Free Press.
and Men in the Informal Economy: A Statistical MacNeil, Ian R. 1980. The New Social Contract: An
Picture. Geneva: International Labour Office. Inquiry into Modern Contractual Relations. New
———. 2006. Realizing Decent Work in Asia. Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Fourteenth Asian Regional Meeting, Busan, Korea, Mandel, Michael J. 1996. The High-Risk Society:
August to September. Geneva: International Peril and Promise in the New Economy. New York:
Labour Off ice (www.ilo.org/public/english/ Random House.
standards/relm/rgmeet/asia.htm). Maurin, Eric and Fabien Postel-Vinay. 2005. “The
Jacobs, Jerry A. 1989. Revolving Doors: Sex European Job Security Gap.” Work and
Segregation and Women’s Careers. Stanford, CA: Occupations 32:229–52.
Stanford University Press. McCall, Leslie. 2001. Complex Inequality: Gender,
Jacobs, Jerry A. and Kathleen Gerson. 2004. The Class and Race in the New Economy. New York:
Time Divide: Work, Family, and Gender Inequality. Routledge.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. McGovern, Patrick, Stephen Hill, Colin Mills, and
Jacoby, Sanford M. 1985. Employing Bureaucracy: Michael White. 2008. Market, Class, and
Managers, Unions, and the Transformation of Work Employment. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
in the 20th Century. New York: Columbia Press.
University Press. Miller, Delbert C. 1984. “Whatever Will Happen to
———. 2001. “Risk and the Labor Market: Societal Industrial Sociology.” The Sociological Quarterly
Past as Economic Prologue.” Pp. 31–60 in 25:251–56.
Sourcebook of Labor Markets: Evolving Structures Mishel, Lawrence, Jared Bernstein, and Sylvia
and Processes, edited by I. Berg and A. L. Allegretto. 2007. The State of Working America
Kalleberg. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum 2006/2007. Ithaca, NY: ILR/Cornell University
Publishers. Press.
Kalleberg, Arne L. 1989. “Linking Macro and Micro Mishel, Lawrence, Jared Bernstein, and Heidi
Levels: Bringing the Workers Back into the Shierholz. 2009. The State of Working America
Sociology of Work.” Social Forces 67:582–92. 2008/2009. Ithaca, NY: ILR/Cornell University
———. 2000. “Nonstandard Employment Press.
Relations: Part-Time, Temporary, and Contract Mouw, Ted and Arne L. Kalleberg. 2008.
Work.” Annual Review of Sociology 26:341–65. “Occupations and the Structure of Wage Inequality
———. 2001. “Organizing Flexibility: The Flexible in the United States, 1980s–2000s.” Unpublished
Firm in a New Century.” British Journal of paper, Department of Sociology, University of
Industrial Relations 39:479–504. North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Kalleberg, Arne L. and Peter V. Marsden. 2005. New York Times. 1996. The Downsizing of America.
“Externalizing Organizational Activities: Where New York: Times Books.
and How U.S. Establishments Use Employment Noble, David F. 1977. America by Design: Science,
Intermediaries.” Socio-Economic Review Technology, and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism.
3:389–416. New York: Knopf.
Kalleberg, Arne L. and Aage B. Sørensen. 1979. Osnowitz, Debra. 2006. “Occupational Networking
“Sociology of Labor Markets.” Annual Review of as Normative Control: Collegial Exchange among
Sociology 5:351–79. Contract Professionals.” Work and Occupations
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1977. Men and Women of the 33(1):12–41.
Corporation. New York: Basic Books. Osterman, Paul. 1999. Securing Prosperity: How the
Krugman, Paul. 2007. The Conscience of a Liberal. American Labor Market Has Changed and What
New York: W.W. Norton. To Do about It. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
———. 2008. “Crisis of Confidence.” New York Press.
Times, April 14, p. A27. Padavic, Irene. 2005. “Laboring under Uncertainty:
Kuttner, Robert. 2007. The Squandering of America: Identity Renegotiation among Contingent
How the Failure of our Politics Undermines our Workers.” Symbolic Interaction 28(1):111–34.
Prosperity. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Peck, Jamie. 1996. Work-Place: The Social
Laubach, Marty. 2005. “Consent, Informal Regulation of Labor Markets. New York: The
Organization and Job Rewards: A Mixed Method Guilford Press.
Analysis.” Social Forces 83(4):1535–66. Pfeffer, Jeffrey and James N. Baron. 1988. “Taking
Leicht, Kevin T. and Scott T. Fitzgerald. 2007. the Workers Back Out: Recent Trends in the
Structuring of Employment.” Research in Risk and Opportunity in the New Economy. Ithaca,
Organizational Behavior 10:257–303. NY: Cornell University Press.
Piore, Michael J. 2008. “Second Thoughts: On Sørensen, Aage B. 2000. “Toward a Sounder Basis
Economics, Sociology, Neoliberalism, Polanyi’s for Class Analysis.” American Journal of Sociology
Double Movement and Intellectual Vacuums.” 105:1523–58.
Presidential Address, Society for the Advancement Standing, Guy. 1999. Global Labour Flexibility:
of Socio-Economics, San Juan, Costa Rica, July Seeking Distributive Justice. New York: St.
22. Martin’s Press.
Piore, Michael J. and Charles Sabel. 1984. The Sullivan, Teresa A., Elizabeth Warren, and Jay
Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Lawrence Westbrook. 2001. The Fragile Middle
Prosperity. New York: Basic Books. Class: Americans in Debt. New Haven, CT: Yale
Piven, Frances Fox. 2008. “Can Power from Below University Press.
Change the World?” American Sociological Review Sunstein, Cass R. 2004. The Second Bill of Rights:
73:1–14. FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need it
Polanyi, Karl. 1944. The Great Transformation. New More than Ever. New York: Basic Books.
York: Farrar and Rinehart, Inc. Tomaskovic-Devey, Donald. 1993. Gender and
Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse Racial Inequality at Work: The Sources and
and Revival of American Community. New York: Consequences of Job Segregation. Ithaca, NY:
Simon and Schuster. ILR Press.
Reskin, Barbara F. 2003. “Including Mechanisms in Turner, Lowell and Daniel B. Cornfield, eds. 2007.
our Models of Ascriptive Inequality.” American Labor in the New Urban Battlegrounds: Local
Sociological Review 68:1–21. Solidarity in a Global Economy. Ithaca, NY: ILR
Reskin, Barbara F. and Patricia A. Roos. 1990. Job Press.
Queues, Gender Queues: Explaining Women’s Uchitelle, Louis. 2006. The Disposable American:
Inroads into Male Occupations. Philadelphia, PA: Layoffs and their Consequences. New York: Alfred
A. Knopf.
Temple University Press.
United States Department of Education. IPEDS Fall
Rousseau, Denise M. and Judi McLean Parks. 1992.
Staff Survey, compiled by the American
“The Contracts of Individuals and Organizations.”
Association of University Professors
Research in Organizational Behavior 15:1–43.
(http://www.aaup.org/NR/rdonlyres/9218E731-
Roy, Donald. 1952. “Quota Restriction and
A68E-4E98-A378-12251FFD3802/0/
Goldbricking in a Machine Shop.” American
Facstatustrend7505.pdf).
Sociological Review 57(5):427–42.
Valetta, Robert G. 1999. “Declining Job Security.”
Ruggie, John Gerard. 1982. “International Regimes,
Journal of Labor Economics 17:s170–s197.
Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism Vallas, Steven Peter. 1999. “Rethinking Post-Fordism:
in the Postwar Economic Order.” International The Meaning of Workplace Flexibility.”
Organization 36(2):379–415. Sociological Theory 17:68–101.
Schama, Simon. 2002. “The Nation: Mourning in ———. 2006. “Empowerment Redux: Structure,
America; a Whiff of Dread for the Land of Hope.” Agency, and the Remaking of Managerial
New York Times, September 15. Authority.” American Journal of Sociology
Schmidt, Stefanie R. 1999. “Long-Run Trends in 111(6):1677–1717.
Workers’ Beliefs about Their Own Job Security: Wallace, Michael and David Brady. 2001. “The Next
Evidence from the General Social Survey.” Journal Long Swing: Spatialization, Technocratic Control,
of Labor Economics 17:s127–s141. and the Restructuring of Work at the Turn of the
Sennett, Richard. 1998. The Corrosion of Character: Century.” Pp. 101–33 in Sourcebook of Labor
The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Markets: Evolving Structures and Processes, edit-
Capitalism. New York: W.W. Norton. ed by I. Berg and A. L. Kalleberg. New York:
Silver, Beverly J. 2003. Forces of Labor: Workers’ Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Movements and Globalization since 1870. Webster, Edward, Rob Lambert, and Andries
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bezuidenhout. 2008. Grounding Globalization:
Simpson, Ida Harper. 1989. “The Sociology of Work: Labour in the Age of Insecurity. Oxford, UK:
Where Have the Workers Gone?” Social Forces Blackwell.
67:563–81. Weeden, Kim A. 2002. “Why Do Some Occupations
Smith, Vicki. 1990. Managing in the Corporate Pay More than Others? Social Closure and
Interest: Control and Resistance in an American Earnings Inequality in the United States.”
Bank. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. American Journal of Sociology 108:55–101.
———. 1997. “New Forms of Work Organization.” Westergaard-Nielsen, Niels, ed. 2008. Low-Wage
Annual Review of Sociology 23:315–39. Work in Denmark. New York: Russell Sage
———. 2001. Crossing the Great Divide: Worker Foundation.
Whyte, William H. 1956. The Organization Man. Creation in Capitalist Economies.” Presentation at
New York: Simon and Schuster. the 103rd Annual Meetings of the American
Williamson, Oliver. 1985. The Economic Institutions Sociological Association, panel on “Globalization
of Capitalism. New York: The Free Press.
and Work: Challenges and Responsibilities,”
Wilson, William J. 1978. The Declining Significance
Boston, MA, August.
of Race: Blacks and Changing American
Institutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Zuboff, Shoshana. 1988. In the Age of the Smart
Press. Machine: The Future of Work and Power. New
Wright, Erik Olin. 2008. “Three Logics of Job York: Basic Books.