NEW CAPITALISM? THE TRANSFORMATION OF WORK by Kevin Doogan
Mar 8th, 2010 by Conor McCabe
The title of New Capitalism? The Transformation of Work is slightly misleading: the book’s focus is not so much the transformation of work in recent years, but rather the distance between the discussion of work by academics, journalists, and politicians, and the material reality of work in the 21st century.
The nature of work is changing, but not for the reasons as popularly understood. Doogan explores these shifts through an engaging analysis of the secondary material available, as well as concise reference to his own research. This book also brings into sharp focus the uncritical use of right-wing assumptions by left-wing commentators and trade unionists, much to the detriment of their own position and of those they represent or support.
Doogan writes that New Capitalism? was prompted by the gap ‘between widespread perceptions of job insecurity and the actuality of employment stability.’ He found that while in terms of public discourse a consensus has been reached that job insecurity is the norm, in actual fact ‘job stability has not declined and that long-term employment has increased in many sectors of the advanced economies.’ He explains in great detail why this gap in perception and reality has come about, taking into account factors such as the rise of neoliberal management theories, the greater abstraction of representations of change within economies and societies, the exaggeration of ‘the mobility propensity of non-financial capital’, and the downplaying of the significant ‘role of the state in the workings of [a] market economy’.
In an analysis pertinent to Ireland’s current economic woes, Doogan challenges the myth of the powerless state, arguing that far from being unfortunate and passive recipients of the negative forces of Globalization, nation-states use Globalization as a bogey-man for the implementation of unpopular national policies relating to the national economy.
The construction of a world ‘out there’ beyond government control is central to the claims of nation states who have attempted to reduce the scope for social amelioration and the lowering of public expectations of social protection. They have forsaken Keynesian policies and embraced neoliberalism using globalization as a means of abrogating certain welfare obligations. This is a period of ’state denial’ in which big government absolves itself of certain welfare functions, by presenting itself as incapable of dealing with technological, demographic and global forces beyond its control. Thus the ‘myth of the powerless state’ is a central feature of neoliberal policy, yet ironically the state itself appears as chief myth maker.” (p.119)
The idea of the powerless nation-state is a ruse, a neoliberal foil, yet one used and accepted by the Left in almost every economic discourse relating to jobs and welfare. In America, for example, corporate greed and market irrationality has led to an enormous waste of resources, as well as job losses, yet ‘the unions appear to accept that outsourcing is the scourge of American labour.’ Doogan shows that outsourcing has had a limited effect on job losses at a national level; instead, jobs tend to be ‘outsourced’ from the northern to the southern states.
this does not stop the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) from stating in 2007 that ‘up to 14 million middle-class jobs could be exported out of America in the next ten years.’ Doogan argues that:
… the strength of the neoliberal perspective is abetted, almost perversely, byleft-wing commentators and trades union representatives who offer their own curiously sympathetic, but ultimately self-defeating approach to labour market restructuring [and whose] assessment of impact of institutional change is both pessimistic and self-limiting. The approach of the AFL-CIO to outsourcing in its campaign against outsourcing,must represent one of the more extreme examples of those who support the cause of labour yet are wedded to a perspective that can do little other than undermine its capacity to defend itself.’ (p.80)
Doogan is particularly strong in undermining the methods and fallacies of the neoliberal chorus. In a passage which could almost be a synopsis of recent Irish publishing, (for example, Follow the Money, Picking Up the Pieces, and Back from the Brink), Doogan writes:
Self-styled ‘management gurus’ become media friendly commentators on matters of technological change, economic trends or government policy. Other kinds of experts are also pressed into service in the contemporary representation of social transformation. Educationalists, psychologists, sociologists and economists, whether they are based in a university or in the head offices of financial institutions, lend credibility to the prevailing accounts of economic transformation, Overall there is an increasing sense that the boundaries between milieux, whether academic, corporate, government, think tank or the various mass media are being undermined.The transferability of these concepts across different sectors and milieux adds to their pervasiveness and their legitimacy. If the same story is told by journalists, academics, and management consultants its acceptance is greatly enhanced. The narrative format that can transcend media will prioritize particular rhetorical styyles. This narrative is expressed in the use of stylized facts, sound bites, attention grabbing headlines, memorable story lines, the stress on novelty and newsworthiness and anecdotal evidence that captures changes in lifestyle,and generational shifts in attitudes. Large concepts are expressed in small settings. The impact of global processes are emphasized in their ability to penetrate the minutiae of daily experiences influencing what we eat, read, wear or watch. The growing significance of the narratives of new capitalism has been sustained by shifts within social science, most obvious in the rise of postmodernism, which have licensed a lay understanding of contemporary social understanding and privileged ahistorical perspectives of social change… Commentators such as Beck and Giddens do not seek empirical support for their position, but seek to convince rhetorically by setting themselves up as more plausible and ‘common sense’ than other discredited accounts.’ (pp.40-41)
New Capitalism? challenges those narratives which seek to disengage economic forces from material reality. By focusing in on the Labour market - the ‘machine in the ghost’ as he phrases it - Doogan reiterates the fact seemingly forgotten by the left that Capital needs labour. As such, Capital cannot separate itself from labour, it cannot replicate itself in a virtual world. This need for labour is the Achilles heel of right-wing economic analysis, and should form the basis of any left-wing analysis of how the machine works.
There are so many other aspects of the book I have not covered, including its wonderful critique of popular assumptions about global capital, flexible labour markets, and technological change.
The last word to Doogan.
To understand new capitalism, at the end of the day, is to understand an ideological offensive, a mode of domination, as Bourdiueu suggests, that seeks to create uncertainty and anxiety and fear on the side of labour in order to guarantee its compliance. Accordingly, sympathetic commentators should recognise the risk of self-inflicted weaknesses created by the overstatement of capital mobility, job instability and powerlessness. A very different bargaining environment might pertain if unions accepted that capital is relatively immobile, and not inclined to relocate overseas in search of cheap labour. In addition to reducing the threat of withdrawl, if bargainers recognized the high value that companies actually place on labour retention, as witnessed by the persistence of job stability and the widespread increase in long-term employment,a more favourable environment for negotiation would arise. The fact that this does not occur suggests that the weaknesses on the side of labour are not structural but ideological.’ (p.214)
(New Capitalism? The Transformation of Work by Kevin Doogan. Available from Amazon here.)
Doogan challenges the myth of the powerless state, arguing that far from being unfortunate and passive recipients of the negative forces of Globalization, nation-states use Globalization as a bogey-man for the implementation of unpopular national policies relating to the national economy.
This looks good…..
Interesting point that, and, in a way the flipside of something I heard argues in a paper recently: the notion that global capital dissolves, or renders irrelevant national boundaries is exactly wrong - actually, global capital depends on the existence of states, and, crucially on their inequalities - so our tax rate, India’a standard of living, varying degrees of regulation and so on, determine how goods produced in one place can be sold somewhere else, and how the income can be ‘domiciled’ somewhere else again. If there really was ‘a global market’ then all that leverage would disappear.
One of the points Doogan makes, and which I failed to cover in the review, is that if finance really were global, then there shouldn’t be a global financial crisis. The financial problems of national economies should open up opportunities elsewhere. A crash in America, for example, should see a boom somewhere else in the world, with capital moving onto the next opportunity with all the ease of flight we constantly hear about. But, as we know, that isn’t the case. The material reality of capital is that it is rooted in national economies, even when it is speculating on those economies via bond markets.
It’s something that David Harvey and Michael Zweig talk about, that business and finance know all too well the power of nation-states and that’s why they do all they can to gain political control of them through the various non-ballot means - lobbying, bribery, intimidation, etc.
Doogan’s point also holds here, that the acceptance by the Left of the neoliberal ruse, that capital is rootless (and ruthless), only serves to make the recapture of the nation-state by capital all that much easier.
Of course in Ireland there is no “recapture”, as capital has always had this nation-state by the balls. In many ways, Ireland is the template for the future of Europe, and Europe’s citizens should be quite concerned about that little scenario.
Doogan’s point also holds here, that the acceptance by the Left of the neoliberal ruse, that capital is rootless (and ruthless), only serves to make the recapture of the nation-state by capital all that much easier.
Yes, indeed. There was an interesting exchange on Newsnight last night between a silly faux-intellectual hedge fund manager and the Danish PM, Rasmussen: Rasmussen accusing hedge fund guy and his ilk of bringing down Greece, whereas HFG said he was just gambling on his predictions of the wrong actions of politicians……… and in a way, the latter is closer to being right.
[…] March 10, 2010 Posted by WorldbyStorm in Economy, The Left. trackback Very interesting review by Conor over on Dublin Opinion of Kevin Doogan’s <em>New Capitalism: The […]
He found that while in terms of public discourse a consensus has been reached that job insecurity is the norm, in actual fact ‘job stability has not declined and that long-term employment has increased in many sectors of the advanced economies.
Soviet-era spokesmen also spoke with blithe assurance about Ukranian tractor production being up 500% (yet again) this month. But sometimes one must instead believe the facts staring one straight in the face. Nary a new tractor was seen for years within a 1000km of Kiev, neither can anyone deny the reality of job insecurity when faced with the absolute carnage in the labour market.
In past year, this economy has suffered a net loss of nearly 200,000 jobs (mine included recently, so I have some direct experience on which I speak). If you have trouble getting your head around the scale of this contraction, it would be equivalent to fully half the public sector suddenly being out on the street (and just not for a fun day of picketing neither). Some of these people will never, ever see a permanent job again in their working lives. I’m still in the optimistic early phase of unemployment and fully expect to be back up on the horse again soon, but I strongly suspect it’ll be a much less secure gig, probably on a fixed-term contract.
The credibility of left wing discourse is seriously damaged by this blatant reality-denial. First we were assured that we really weren’t seeing pay-cuts at all despite a shrinking pay packet. Now we’re told our jobs really were quite secure all along, we just never noticed. What next, denial that there’s a pension crisis in the private sector? No you can’t save for your own late poverty-stricken retirement, you must instead pay more tax now to ensure a comfortable early retirement for your elders and betters.
There is no denying that there has been a hugh contraction in the labour market in Ireland since the end of 2008, and I’m sorry to hear about your situation. However, to be fair to Doogan, the book was published in 2009, and it was written a good bit before that. So it doesn’t address the current crisis, only the longer trends over the decade before the end of 2008.
Hopefully, if he has time, Kevin Doogan will write something on the current crisis, and how his findings can be applied to it, or not, for Irish Left Review.
But here’s a personal story too. I work for an Irish company that was recently taken over by a significantly large MNC. The most apparent change was that the MNC had a large HR element, whereas the small Irish company had none. When we were briefed by the HR person we were told that the parent company wanted all employees to be permanent. They didn’t like contract workers, who they referred to as ‘contingency’ workers. That doesn’t mean that there are not plenty of ‘contingency’ workers in the place, but these are people who prefer to work on a contract basis anyway as they believe themselves to be ‘working for themselves’.
I lost my private sector job as well Joe, last year. Don’t know why you think everyone who disagrees with you HAS to be a public servant.
Of course, not every one of the 200,000 were private sector either. Thousands of public sector workers on contract lost their jobs as well. But for you it’s us private sector workers (including you and me) who are the victims. No-one else.
Think it says more about your level of analysis than anything else. And your terrible blindness to the bigger picture. Have you thought of ringing Joe Duffy about this one?
By the way, I remember you once commenting on how you were recently retired. It was on a post where you used your personal experience of being recently retired to make your point.
Another time, you were a teacher, when the discussion was on teaching.
Then you are in I.T. when THAT was the discussion piece.
Then, you said you’re a lecturer in a third level institution with a full-time secretary, a nice permanent position as you phrased it I believe. Again, it timely suited the discussion.
Now, today, you’re recently made redundant, from a teaching position it seems - a permanent teaching position, that’s somehow in the private sector - and now you’re looking for a job, just in time for a discussion on work and unemployment.
How convenient. How troll-esque.
Anyway, the number for liveline is: 1850 715 815
Pinch me please in case I’m still sleepwalking - but over the period covered by the book and over the past year what political/economic doctrine has presided over this shambles in Ireland and in the vast majority of other Western democracies ??? Not that driven by left wing discourse I suspect.
PS I’m another private sector foot soldier going through a third period of unemployment in a decade not some Public Sector cheerleader…