SocialistStudies/Étudessocialistes7(1/2)Spring/Fall2011:65‐94
Copyright©2011TheAuthor(s)
SPECIALISSUEONORGANIZINGFORAUSTERITY:THENEOLIBERALSTATE,REGULATING
LABOURANDWORKINGCLASSRESISTANCE
TheProductivityMantra
TheProfitMotiveVersusThePublicGood
DAVEBROAD
SocialPolicy,FacultyofSocialWork,UniversityofRegina,Canada.
Abstract Capital accumulation is the essence of production in capitalist society. Consequently, corporations are constantly driven and workers exhorted to increase productivity in the interest of raising profits. Economic slumps and recessions are used as reasons to argue that there is a productivity crisis and push for increasing productivity at the expense of wages, benefits and social programming, as we see with the post‐2007 Great Recession. This essay discusses these trends, theoretical and ideological arguments, and the need for a socialist alternative to the never‐ending push to increase productivity for capital accumulation at the expense of workers’ rights and social welfare. Résumé L’accumulation du capital est l’essence de la production dans les sociétés capitalistes. En conséquence, les entreprises sont constamment obligées et les ouvriers constamment exhortés à augmenter leur productivité dans le but d’augmenter les profits. Les ralentissements de l’économie et les récessions sont utilisés pour justifier l’argument qu’il y a une crise de productivité et pour pousser pour plus de productivité aux dépens des salaires et des avantages associés et des programmes sociaux, comme nous le voyons avec la Grande Récession depuis 2007. Cet article analyse ces tendances, les arguments théoriques et idéologiques, et le besoin d’une alternative socialiste à la pression sans cesse renouvelée à l’augmentation de la productivité pour favoriser l’accumulation du capital aux dépens des droits des travailleurs et des droits sociales. Keywords capitalism; productivity; work; social welfare Mots‐clés Capitalism; productivité; protection sociale; travail Dave Broad is a sociologist and Professor of Social Policy at the University of Regina, Saskatchewan. His publications include Dave Broad, Hollow Work, Hollow Society? Globalization and the Casual Labour Problem, and Dave Broad and Wayne Antony (eds.), Capitalism Rebooted? Work, Welfare and the New Economy (both Fernwood Publishing). David Broad est sociologue et professeur de politique social à l’University of Regina, Saskatchewan. Parmi ses publications, Dave Broad, Hollow Work, Hollow Society? Globalization and the Casual Labour Problem, et Dave Broad et Wayne Antony (dirs.), Capitalism Rebooted? Work, Welfare and the New Economy (Fernwood Publishing). SocialistStudies/Étudessocialistes:TheJournaloftheSocietyforSocialistStudies/RevuedelaSociétéd'étudessocialistes
www.socialiststudies.com
ISSN1918‐2821
SocialistStudies/Étudessocialistes7(1/2)Spring/Fall2011:65‐94
66 Sincetheglobaleconomicslowdownoftheearly1970swehavebeen
hearingfrombusinessesandgovernmentsthatoneofourmostserious
economicproblemsisadeclineinlabourproductivity.Indeed,muchofthe
recentdiscussiononglobalizationandtheso‐calledNewEconomyfocuses
ontheostensibleneedfornationsandbusinessestoincreasetheir
productivitytoenhancecompetitivenessintheworldmarket,acallthat
hasheightenedintheneoliberaleraafterthe1970s.Forexample,ina
recentarticleinCanada’snationalnewspaperTheGlobeandMail,Kevin
Lynch,formerclerkofthePrivyCouncilandsecretarytocabinet,tellsus
thatCanada’seconomyisperformingbadlybecauseweareheadedfora
“productivitytrap.”1InJulyof2010,TheGlobeandMailranaseriesof
articlesonCanada’s“productivitychallenge,”hasrunaseriesinitsGlobe
Investorcolumnonwhyinvestorsshouldcareaboutproductivity,and
morerecentlyacoverstoryinitsbusinesssectionontheso‐called
productivitytrap.2Themessageisthatoneofourbiggestwoesistheneed
toincreaseproductivityforglobalcompetitiveness.Inarguingthat
CanadianlabourislessproductivethanUSlabour,mainstreameconomists
andgovernmentcommentatorsomitanydiscussionofthefactthatthe
UnitedStateshasmovedtoanevenmore“flexible”labourmarketwith
higherlevelsofexploitationoflabourthanwehaveseeninCanada.US
uniondensityislower,employmentismoreprecarious,andwelfare
supportsaremeagerincomparisontoCanada.TheUSvisionistheone
thatneoliberalshaveforCanada,couchedintheargumentthatCanada
needshigherlevelsofproductivity.
Theargumentforincreasingproductivityisappliedtoproductionof
goodsandservices,includingpublicservices.Notsurprisingly,capitalist
governmentsandinternationalorganizations,suchastheInternational
MonetaryFund(IMF),theWorldBank,andtheWorldTradeOrganization
1
The Globe and Mail, Saturday, 30 January 2010. I recently spent a sabbatical leave in Australia, which has a national productivity commission with this stated mandate: “The Productivity Commission is the Australian Government's independent research and advisory body on a range of economic, social and environmental issues affecting the welfare of Australians. Its role, expressed simply, is to help governments make better policies in the long‐
term interest of the Australian community. As its name implies, the Commission's focus is on ways of achieving a more productive economy ‐ the key to higher living standards” (http://www.pc.gov.au/about‐us). A key topic in the run‐up to the 2010 Australian federal elections has been a debate on the need for increased productivity and “market effectiveness.” 2
The Globe and Mail, Wednesday, 15 September 2010. BROAD:TheProductivityMantra
(WTO),constantlyargueforincreasingproductivity.3Butlabourunions
tendtofallinlineaswell,andtheInternationalLabourOrganizationmade
productivitythefocusofitsWorldEmploymentReport2004‐05,repeating
thecommonargumentthatimprovementsinlivingstandardsare
contingentonincreasingproductivity(ILO2005).Thecurrentchantingof
theexhortationtoincreaseproductivityhasbecomeasortofmantra.
Corporaterestructuringsincethefinancialcrashof2007hasalso
focussedontheargumentthatweneedtoincreaselabourproductivity,
whilefailingbanksinvariouscountrieswerebeinggivenmillionsof
dollarsinbailouts,andexecutives,whoseactionshadcausedthecrash,
receivedlargebonuses.Meanwhile,workerswerebeinglaidoffandpeople
werelosingtheirhomesasthehousingbubbleburst.Statemonieswere
giventoChryslerandGeneralMotorstostaveoffcollapseoftheNorth
Americanautoindustry,whichhadbeenpoorlymanagedforyears,while
workerswerebeingtoldthatthebailoutswerecontingentonworkersin
CanadaandtheUnitedStatesmakingmajorconcessions.4Andnowthereis
acalltocutsocialprogramstopayforstatestimulusdeficits,eventhough
labourproductivityisactuallyupinmostOECDcountries(PollenandJay
2010).Thesupposedneedtoincreaselabourproductivityhasnowbecome
partofthepushforausterityinboththeprivateandpublicsectors.
Inthefollowingpages,Iwillconsiderhowthestandardnotionof
productivitycontinuestobeappliedinthepost‐1970sneoliberalera.The
post‐industrialsocietythesisonworkisconsideredasacontinuing
ideologicalbasisforthispractice.Thedegradationoflabourthesisisthen
examinedasacountertothatdominantideology.Whiletheessayis
primarilyatheoreticalexaminationofthesubject,Iwillprovidesome
empiricalillustrationsoftheimpactsofneoliberalnotionsofproductivity
andworkinthepublicservices,inrelationtosocialandpublicpolicy,the
workofhumanserviceworkers,andpromotionofthepublicgoodrather
thanthecapitalistprofitmotive.Theessaywillconcludewithsome
suggestionsforwhatBaran(1969)wouldcallamorerationallyoriented
society.
3
A search of these organizations’ websites reveals numerous articles dealing with issues of productivity and their relation to globalization and the New Economy. 4
Demands for worker concessions were being made despite the fact that newspapers like The Globe and Mail were reporting that labour costs only amounted to seven percent of the cost of production of an automobile. See also Albo, Gindon, and Panitch (2010). 67 SocialistStudies/Étudessocialistes7(1/2)Spring/Fall2011:65‐94
68 Productivity Crisis? Istherereallyacrisisofproductivity?Criticsnotethat,withadvanced
technologiesoflatecapitalism,weareproducingvastlymorewithfewer
workers.Aswell,thestandardnotionofproductivityitselfisproblematic,
especiallywhenappliedtopublicsectorhumanservices.Inthisessay,I
willprovideananalysisofthisproblembydrawingoninsightsfromthe
MonthlyReviewschoolofthought,particularlyaseriesofarticlesbyHarry
MagdoffandPaulSweezyinwhichtheseissueswereraisedthreedecades
ago(MagdoffandSweezy1979,1980;Magdoff1982a,1982b).The
purposeofthisessayistoarguethattheclaimsofaproductivitycrisisare
ideological,andtodescribethepurposeofthatideology.5Magdoffand
Sweezy(1979,12)tellusthattheconstantpushtoincreaseproductivity
“hasbecomeenshrinedasacardinalmythoftherulingideology.”Itisan
ideologicalargumentconstructedunderanumberofguises,mostrecently
aspartofglobalizationanditsNewEconomy,toexhortmoreworkat
lowerwagesoutoflabourforcesaroundtheworld.Wehaveseenthis
againwiththepost‐2007GreatRecession,andnowthestateausterity
drive(MagdoffandYates2009).Atthecoreofthisobsessionwith
productivityistheeconomisticnatureofproductionincapitalistsociety
(Marx1867;Amin1978),whichtendstofavourafocusonquantityover
qualityinproductionofgoodsandservices.
Contrarytotheargumentthatweneedtoconstantlyincrease
productivity,MagdoffandSweezy(1979,12)stated:“Wehavethe
productivityandtheresources,infact,toproduceallthatwouldbeneeded
toeliminatepovertyandprovideeveryonewithfullerandricherlives”and
giventheworld’sproblems,weshould“bemoreconcernedwithreducing
thanincreasingproductivity.”Thiswasarelevantargumentthirtyyears
ago,andisevenmoresotoday.EventheIMF(2002)tellsus:
During the 20th century, global average per capita income rose strongly, but with considerable variation among countries. It is clear that the income gap between rich and poor countries has been widening for many decades. The most recent World Economic Outlook studies 42 countries (representing almost 90 percent of world population) for which data are available for the entire 20th century. It reaches the conclusion that the output per capita has risen 5
However, as Quiggin (2010, 3) tells us, “Politically dominant elites don’t see themselves as acting ideologically and react with hostility when ideological labels are pinned on them. From the inside, ideology usually looks like common sense.” BROAD:TheProductivityMantra
appreciably but that the distribution of income among countries has become more unequal than at the beginning of the century. IftheIMF,oneoftheprominentinstitutionsentrustedafterWorldWarII
withprotectingandpromotingthecapitalistworldeconomy,readily
admitsthatglobalproductionandincomerosestronglyoverthe20th
Century,andthatunequaldistributionistheproblem,whydowesooften
hearthatthereisaproblemwitheconomicgrowthandlabour
productivity?Iftheglobaleconomyproducesmorecommoditiesthancan
easilybesoldontheworldmarket,6istherereallyacrisisofproductivity?
Whenweseecitiestryingtocopewiththepilesofgarbagespewedoutby
ourglobalconsumersociety(Brennan2003),whatlogicsayswemust
produceevenmore?Whyisthereanincessantdrivetoincrease
productivityinthefaceofmassivewealthalongsidepoverty,inequality,
socialandlabourmarketpolarization,environmentaldestructionand
waste?Andnowworkersareexpectedtomakemoreconcessions,and
citizensareexpectedtoacceptastateausteritydrive.
Arationalpersonmightwellconclude,alongwithMagdoffand
Sweezy,thatthecryofaproductivitycrisisisafalsealarm.7Forindividual
capitaliststhereisarationalitytoconstantlyincreasingproductivity,
becausetheymustcompetewithothercapitalistsformarketshare.They
arethusalwayssearchingforwaystocutproductioncostsandincrease
output,despitethefactthatmarketsmaybeglutted.But,asMarxpointed
out,thecapitalistsystemisrifewithcontradictions.However,fromthe
pointofviewofsatisfyinghumanneeds,thecapitalistlogicisirrational.As
thefinaldeclarationofTheWorldPeople’sConferenceonClimateChange
andtheRightsofMotherEarthheld20‐22April2010inCochabamba,
Boliviasoaptlystates:
The capitalist system has imposed on us the logic of competition, progress, and limitless growth. The regime of production and consumption seeks profit 6
We saw this problem in recent years with the stockpiling of commodities during the Asian economic slowdown and the problem of what economists call a “capital overhang” (Sweezy et al. 2002), and then again with the Great Recession following 2007 (Foster and Magdoff 2009). 7
Baran and Sweezy (1966) and other Monthly Review authors long ago established that there is a stagnation tendency under monopoly capitalism, but this is not the same as a productivity problem. The stagnation tendency relates, in fact, to a problem of overproduction and the tendency of the economy surplus to rise, so that there is a lack of sufficiently profitable investment opportunities, thus giving rise to all sorts of waste investment under monopoly capitalism. 69 SocialistStudies/Étudessocialistes7(1/2)Spring/Fall2011:65‐94
without limits, separating human beings from nature and imposing a logic of domination upon nature, transforming everything into commodities: water, earth, the human genome, ancestral cultures, biodiversity, justice, ethics, the rights of peoples, and life itself.8 70 Ifourconcernistopromotesocialdevelopmentandwell‐beingweshould
takeanapproachtoproductivityquitedifferentthanthestandardmarket‐
orientedone,inwhichproductivityisseentobeaquantitativeprocess,not
aqualitativeone,withafocusonoutputs,notoutcomes.Weshouldfocus
mainlyonwhatisbeingproducedandwhy,nothowmuch.Ourfocus
shouldbeonhumanneedsandhumanrights,whichwouldincludethe
rightofpresentandfuturegenerationstoacleanenvironmentbasedon
sustainabledevelopment(Foster2009).MagdoffandSweezy(1979,12)
tellusthattheconstantpushforgreaterproductivity“istosatisfythe
crazyrationalityofcapitalism”,notthepublicgood,andbringstomind
Galbraith’s(1994,52)commentonthe“massescapefromsanitybypeople
inpursuitofprofit.”Wecanaddthatthecurrentpushforstateausterity
hasnothingtodowiththepublicgood,butisintendedtoshifttheburden
oftheeconomiccrisisontothebacksoftheworkingclass.
What Is Productivity? Beforeturningtoourtheoreticaldiscussion,letusconsiderbrieflythe
problemsofdefiningandmeasuringproductivity.Webster’sNewWorld
Dictionary(1994)defines“productive”as“oforengagedinthecreatingof
economicvalues,ortheproducingofgoodsandservices.”ThePenguin
DictionaryofEconomicsdefines“productivity”as:
The relationship between the output of goods and services and the inputs of resources (factors of production) used to produce them. Productivity is usually measured by ratios of changes in inputs to changes in outputs using index numbers. For example, changes in labour productivity, the most common measure, are measured by an index of man‐hours divided by an index of output. ButthePenguinDictionarygoesontotellus:“Comparisonsbetween
labourproductivityindifferentsectorsoftheeconomy,forexample
betweencapital‐intensivemanufacturingandlabour‐intensiveservices,
needtobeinterpretedwithcareforthesamereason”(Bannocketal.1987,
8
Notes From The Editors, Monthly Review 62, no. 2 (June 2010). BROAD:TheProductivityMantra
330).Nevertheless,asMagdoffandSweezy(1979,1980)showedwhen
alarmbellswentoffaboutasupposedproductivityslowdownintheUS
economyinthe1970s,manyeconomistsandstateagenciesmadeexactly
thesemistakesofglossingoverdifferencesbetweenindustrieswith
differentlevelsofcapitalintensity,andbetweenmanufacturingand
services.MagdoffandSweezy(1980,6)tellusthattherearesomeservice
jobsthatareroutineandrepetitivewhereproductivitymeasuresmight
havesomemeaning,butgoontoask“howwouldonegoaboutmeasuring
theproductivityofafireman,anundertaker,ateacher,anurse,acashierin
asupermarket,ashort‐ordercook,awaiter,areceptionistinalawyer’s
office?”MagdoffandSweezy(1979,12)noteoneproblemisthatthe
qualitativeissointertwinedwiththequantitative.
What needs to be understood is that these data do not take account of the quality of the output; at best, they measure only quantity. Significant as this omission may be in the measurement of goods production, it is especially serious in the case of services. For example, the productivity of educational institutions rises as the class load of teachers is increased. But at the same time the quality of education is bound to decline since each teacher has to deal with more pupils and can devote less attention to each one. Are teachers then producing more or less? Similarly, the closing down of a hospital in a neighbourhood and the transfer of patients to a hospital in a distant area may appear to boost the productivity of the hospital workers, but at the cost of the quality of medical services. Measures of quantitative output in these and other service occupations are of necessity biased and can only have an ambiguous and limited significance. Overall,MagdoffandSweezy(1980,6)arguethat“thereisnosuchthingas
astraightforwardor‘true’measureofproductivity.”Theessenceoftheir
argumentwasthatthestandardmeasureofproductivityisflawednotonly
duetothecomplexityissuesraisedabove,butbecausethemeasureof
outputusedisonethatreliesonmarketprices.Thepresumptionisthat
labourinputintermsofhoursworkedcanbemeasuredinoutput
accordingtomarketpricesattainedforthegoodsorservicesproduced.But
astheypointedout,becausetheyareoftennotbasedonactualproduction
costs,marketpricesbearnoclearcorrespondencetomaterialorlabour
inputs.Thisapproachbecomesespeciallyproblematicwhenappliedtothe
services,becauseitisaquantitativemeasureandthereisnowayto
translatethequalitativenatureofmostserviceworkinquantitative
71 SocialistStudies/Étudessocialistes7(1/2)Spring/Fall2011:65‐94
72 terms.9Theissuebecomesevenmoreproblematicwhenappliedtopublic
servicesthatarenotintendedfortradeonthemarket.Inmeasuring
productivity,agenciessuchasStatisticsCanadaarecarefultodistinguish
whattheycallthebusinesssectorfromgovernmentandnon‐commercial
activities(StatisticsCanada2010;Baldwin2004).Butthishasnotstopped
someeconomistsandpoliticiansfromusingthestandarddefinitionof
productivityasanideologicalweapon,especiallyintheeraof
neoliberalismwhenderegulationandprivatizationofstateserviceshave
becomethenameofthegame,asthediscussionofhumanservicework
belowreveals.
MagdoffandSweezy(1982)alsoidentifiedtheissueofthe
increasingfinancializationofcapitalism.Withrespecttounderstanding
productivitycomestheproblemofdistinguishingtherealeconomyfrom
whatsomeeconomistscallthepapereconomy(Stanford1999).A
particularprobleminthecurrenteraofmonopolyfinancecapital,aswe
haveseenintherecentfinancialmeltdown,isthatmuchactivityonthe
stockmarkethasnothingtodowithproductionofactualgoodsand
services(FosterandMagdoff2009),whichfurthercomplicatesanyclear
understandingofproductivity.
Themainreasonwhyonenarrowdefinitionofproductivityholds
swayisbecauseoftheideologicaldominanceoftheclassicalliberal,and
nowneoliberal,theoryoftheeconomyandeconomicgrowth.Thestandard
definitionofproductivityisideologicallyderivedfromwhatcanbecalled
thegrowthimperativethatisendemictocapitalism(Altvater2002).The
drivetopromoteeconomicgrowthforcapitalaccumulationisincessant.As
Marx(1876,742)socolourfullyputitinthefirstvolumeofCapital,
“Accumulate,accumulate!ThatisMosesandtheprophets!”10Theresultis
anunderlyingeconomismincapitalism,andequationofdevelopmentwith
economicgrowthbyclassicalliberalandneoliberaltheorists.Thisissue
9
Those who have read Robert Persig’s (1974) Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values will recall that the theme of the book is the academic protagonist’s dilemma of trying to understand whether “quality” can even be defined, let alone measured. This philosophical problem led the protagonist to a mental breakdown, but apparently poses no problem for the economists of capitalism. 10
For Marx, productivity plays a significant role in capitalist’s drive to accumulate, thus the productiveness of labour is important and becomes contested terrain. As Wallerstein (2011, 32) puts it: “The driving underlying objective of capitalists in a capitalist system is the endless accumulation of capital, wherever and however this accumulation may be achieved. Since such accumulation requires the appropriation of surplus value, this drive precipitates the class struggle.” BROAD:TheProductivityMantra
causedamajordebateinthesociologyofdevelopmentinthe1970swhen
dependencyandworldsystemstheoristswerechallengingthepreceptsof
modernizationtheorists.
Animportantpartofthecritiqueofmodernizationtheorywasthat
economicgrowthwasbeingconflatedwithdevelopment.Inhisdiscussion
ofthisMason(1997,407)asks:“Whatwasdevelopment?”Heanswers:
“‘Development’wasthepromiseofuniversaleconomicgrowthalongthe
routespioneeredbytheleadingcountriesoftheWest.‘Growth’implied
steadyeconomicexpansionandsophisticationintheformof
industrialization.”11However,inthelate1960scriticalanalystshadnoted
thatgrowthisaquantitativeprocess,involvingmainlytheextensionofan
alreadyexistingstructureofproduction,whiledevelopmentsuggests
qualitativechange,thecreationofneweconomicandnon‐economic
structures.Thisdistinctionbecameimportantenoughincritiquesof
developmentthatinthe1970seventheWorldBankbegantopackageits
developmentassistanceprogramsasbeingmorethanjusteconomic
growth.WorldBankliteratureadoptedtheterminologyofa“basicneeds”
approachtodevelopmentbeingadvocatedbymanynon‐government
organizationsinthe1970s,whichdefinedbasicneedsasmovingbeyond
simplyfood,shelterandclothing(forexamples,seeWorldBank1980a,
1980b).ButthechangestoWorldBankprogrammingwerelargely
rhetorical,apracticewhichcontinueswiththeBankespousingpoverty
reductionasagoal,whileitfollowsitssisterinstitutiontheIMFin
promotingneoliberalstructuraladjustmentprogramsthatemphasize
privatizationofstateservicesandconcentrationonincreasingproductivity
topromoteeconomicgrowth(Black2007).Inshort,dependencytheory
haddefeatedmodernizationtheoryinacademia,butnotintherealmof
publicpolicy.
Withagrowingcrisisofglobalcapitalaccumulationafterthe1960s,
transnationalcorporations,theirrespectivestatesandsupportingfinancial
institutionswerealreadybeginningaresponsetothecrisisinwhatcame
tobecalledglobalizationinthe1990s.Sweezyetal.(2002,2)observe:
11
The core of the modernization argument was captured by W.W. Rostow (1991) in his book The Stages of Growth: A Non‐Communist Manifesto, first published in 1960, and subsequently republished in various editions. Rostow argues that there are five stages that societies go through in developing: (1) the traditional society, (2) the preconditions for take‐off, (3) the take‐off, (4) the drive to maturity, and (5) the age of high mass consumption. Not only is this depiction purely economistic, it encompasses the notion that production is for and should be measured as success in producing commodities for consumption, therefore the standard measure of productivity. 73 SocialistStudies/Étudessocialistes7(1/2)Spring/Fall2011:65‐94
74 “Thisnotable[post‐1960seconomic]slowdownhasalsotakenplace
alongsideamajorleapintechnology(theso‐calledNewEconomy)andthe
wideningglobalizationthatincreasedexploitationofthethirdworld.”This
involvedwhatsomeauthorscalledanewinternationaldivisionoflabour
(NIDL;Frobeletal.1980).
Accompanyingtheseeconomicchangeswerechangesinpublic
policywhich,withtherecessionsandlong‐waveeconomicdownturn,took
aturnagainstpost‐WorldWarIIKeynesianismandashifttowardsa
neoliberalfreemarketapproach(Teeple2000).TheelectionsofMargaret
ThatcherintheUnitedKingdomin1979andRonaldReaganintheUnited
Statesin1980markedashiftintheroleofstatesintheworldeconomy,
arguablyareturntounfetteredcapitalism,whichwasbeingespousedasa
goodthing.Intermsofpost‐WorldWarIIdevelopmenttheory,inofficial
policyandpracticethisbroughttheresurgenceoftheassumptionsof
modernizationtheory.Theneoliberal1980sthuswitnessedan
accelerationofthenewinternationaldivisionoflabour,andstatepolicies
ofprivatization,deregulationandcutbackstostatewelfareservices,now
beingpushedwithavengeancewiththeGreatRecessionausterity
campaign(Merret1996;Sears1999;McBride2005;BroadandHunter
2009).12Theneoliberaleraalsowitnessedarevivalofdiscussionsofpost‐
industrialsociety,whichunderliestheostensibleneedtocutproduction
costsandincreaseproductivitytoenhancecompetitiveness.
The Coming of Post‐Industrial Society? Intheearly1970s,changesproducingwhathasmorerecentlybeencalled
theNewEconomygaverisetonotionsthatindustrialcapitalismaswe
knewitwasbeingsuperseded.Oneofthebest‐knownworksfromthisera
isDanielBell’s(1973)bookTheComingofPost‐IndustrialSociety.Thegist
ofBell’sargumentwasthatnewtechnologieswereproducingashiftfroma
manufacturing‐basedsocietytoaservicesociety,thatblue‐collarworkers
oftheoldindustrialsocietywerebeingsupplantedby“knowledge
workers”inthepost‐industrialsociety,thatknowledgewastheascendant
formofcapitalrulingthissociety,andthatworkerswhopossessedthis
knowledgecapitalwouldbecomethefavouredclassinthisnewsociety.In
onesense,thiswasarepackagingoftheoldpost‐WorldWarIImainstream
12
The 8 November 2010 issue of Maclean’s magazine has a cover story entitled “Europe Throws A Tantrum: A Pampered Continent Protests the Rollback of Its Lavish Welfare State.” The propaganda against European labour and popular struggles and against the welfare state is obvious. BROAD:TheProductivityMantra
sociologicalnotionthatwewereallbecomingmiddleclass,amyththathas
resurfacedlatelywithright‐wingattemptstooutlawcollectivebargaining
inUSstateslikeOhioandWisconsin.13In1955Bellhimselfhadwritten
about“thedisintegrationofcapitalism,”butbythe1970shistunehad
changed(LavacaCollective2007).Thepost‐industrialsocietythesisalso
underpinsdiscussionsoftheNewEconomy.
AlaterversionofBell’sthesis,toutingthemeritsofthe“knowledge
society,”appearsinmanagementguruPeterDrucker’s(1993)bookPost‐
CapitalistSociety,withthediscussionmostrecentlysurfacingwithrespect
toknowledgeworkersintheinformationage.Drucker’sperspective,which
hasadecidedlyneoliberalslant,providesausefulsummaryoftheNew
Economythinkingthatlingerson,despitethe2001dot‐comcrashand
post‐2007recession(BroadandAntony2006).Hisbookalsocapturesand
appliestothesubjectofproductivitythethinkingofapost‐1970strend
calledtheNewPublicManagement(NPM)typifiedbytheworkofOsborne
andGaebler(1992).TheylisttenfeaturesofwhatiscalledNewPublic
Management:(1)thecatalyticroleofgovernment,(2)empowermentof
citizens,(3)efficiencyandeconomyinperformance,(4)emphasisongoals
ratherthanrules,(5)customer‐orientedgovernment,(6)competitive
government,(7)anticipatoryapproach,(8)enterprisinggovernment,(9)
decentralizationofauthority,and(10)emphasisonthemarket
mechanism.ThesefeaturesbelietheneoliberalbasisofNPMthinking,
emphasizingmarketliberalism,privatization,contractingout,andthe
conceptualizationofcitizensasconsumers.14ThefocusofNPMison
management,notpolicy,withanemphasisonproductivityandcost
effectiveness.ThesethemesareclearinDrucker’sdiscussionsof
productivity.
Drucker(1993,82)claims:
The new challenge facing the post‐capitalist society is the productivity of knowledge workers and service workers. To improve the productivity of knowledge workers will in fact require drastic changes in the structure of the organizations of post‐capitalist society, and the structure of society itself. Notingthatthreequarterstofourfifthsoftheworkforcesinthedeveloped
countriesareemployedintheservicesector,Drucker(ibid,83)exclaims:
13
Of course, the growing importance of white‐collar service workers had already been noted by Mills (1953) two decades before. 14
For a discussion of these traits of neoliberalism see Broad and Antony (1999). 75 SocialistStudies/Étudessocialistes7(1/2)Spring/Fall2011:65‐94
76 “Theirproductivity,ratherthantheproductivityofthepeoplewhomake
andmovethings,istheproductivityofadevelopedeconomy.Itis
abysmallylow[and]mayactuallybegoingdownratherthangoingup.”
Theneoliberalviewisclearlyseenincommentssuchas:“Thelowestlevel
ofproductivityoccursingovernmentemployment”,andinhisassertion
thatamainhindrancetoproductivitygrowthaftertheSecondWorldWar
wasdueto“stronglaborunionoppositiontoanythingthatwouldgivethe
workera‘managerialattitude,’letalone‘managerialresponsibility’”(ibid,
84,92).AccordingtoDrucker,havingamanagerialattitudeand
responsibilityiskeytoincreasingtheproductivityofknowledgeworkers,
andpresumablyalsolow‐levelserviceworkerslikeWal‐Martfloorstaff
whoarelabelled“salesassociates,”not“workers,”bytheiremployers.
ArgumentssimilartoDrucker’sappearintherecentarticlesfromThe
GlobeandMailcitedabove.
Druckerpromotestwomethods,alreadyinvogue,forincreasing
knowledgeandserviceworkers’productivity–teamworkandoutsourcing.
Followingthecommonpracticeinmanagementliteratureofusingsports
analogies,hediscussesseveraltypesofteamsthatmightbeappropriatein
differentworkcontexts.Whileadvocatingnotionsof“TotalQuality
Management”and“flexiblemanufacturing,”Druckeralsotendstoexplicitly
givemorecredencetotheScientificManagementprinciplesofTaylorism
thanmostrecentmanagementliteraturedoes.Moreover,Drucker(ibid,
90)tellsus:“Concentrationonjobandtaskisthelastprerequisitefor
productivityinknowledgeandservicework.”Hearguesforgettingridof
anytasksthatsidetrackordivertworkers:“Eliminatingsuchworkmaybe
thesinglebiggeststeptowardgreaterproductivityinbothknowledgeand
servicework.”Usingthecaseofhealthsectorwork,Druckerarguesforan
extremedivisionoflabourbygettingnurses,forexample,outofeverything
butpatientcare.15Theyshouldberelievedofallpaperworkand
housekeepingduties,whichshouldbeoutsourcedtocompaniesthat
specializeinsuchworkand,therefore,havemorestakeinincreasing
productivityinthoseareasofworkaswell.Itisinterestingtocompare
Drucker’sthinkingtothatofMagdoffandSweezycitedabove.Weshould
15
The Disney Corporation has recently gotten into this business, with its human resources people delivering seminars to health care and educational institutions on how the successes of Disney can be applied to other service industries. Service users are no longer patients and students, but consumers or, in Disney’s lexicon, “guests.” So these industries can benefit from Disney’s theory of “guestology.” My own public educational institution has participated in these Disney workshops. BROAD:TheProductivityMantra
noteaswellthat,atthesametimeDruckerwaswriting,criticalauthors
weretakingaquitedifferentviewoftherestructuringthatwasgoingonin
healthcare(forexamples,seeArmstrongetal.1994;Armstrongand
Armstrong2008).
Drucker(1993,93,95)referstotheuseofoutsourcingtoincrease
serviceworkers’productivityas“revolutionary,”stating:“Outsourcingis
necessarynotjustbecauseoftheeconomicsinvolved.Itisnecessary
becauseitprovidesopportunities,income,anddignityforservice
workers.”Hefurthersaysthemanagersofoutsourcedcompanies“are
willing,eveneager,todothehardworkneededtoimproveproductivity.
Aboveall,theytakethepeoplewhodosuchworkseriouslyenoughto
challengethemtotaketheleadinimprovingtheirworkandits
productivity”(ibid,95).ButfollowingDrucker’sowndescription,this
soundsliketheoldtacticofspeedup,withcasestudiesrevealingmuchof
thisoutsourcedserviceworktobelowpaidandinsecure,andproviding
littleopportunityordignityfortheworkersinvolved(AguiarandHerod
2006;PupoandThomas2009).Druckerhimselfdefinesthisworkaslow
paidandlowskilled,andsuggeststhatweneedtonarrowthegapbetween
highpaid,highstatusknowledgeworkandlowpaid,lowstatusservice
workinordertoavert“anewclassconflict.”Butthisistoooftenbeing
donebyloweringthepayandstatusofhigh‐statuswork–sometimes
creatingmorecasuallabour,othertimesexhortingunpaidovertimeoutof
workers(Broad2000;BroadandAntony2006).
WhilenotingthatintheTayloristnotionofmanufacturingworkthe
workerservesthemachine,Drucker(1993,85)says:
In knowledge work, and in practically all service work, the machine serves the worker. The task is not given; it has to be determined. The question, ‘What are the expected results from this work?’ is almost never raised in traditional work study and Scientific Management. But it is the key question in making knowledge workers and service workers more productive. AsInotedabove,thissignalsasignificantprobleminapplyingthe
standardnotionofproductivitytoservicework,especiallyhumanservices.
Drucker’sformulationisnotveryfruitfulhere,becausehetendstoconflate
outcomes(results)withoutputs,meaningthedrivetoincreasethe
quantityofworkdoneinagivenhourofwork,aswiththestandard
definitionofproductivity,thusrevealingthatDruckerisnotreally
envisioningapost‐capitalistsociety.Anddespitethepromiseofthenew
technologies,theytendtobeappliedwiththegoalofincreasingthe
77 SocialistStudies/Étudessocialistes7(1/2)Spring/Fall2011:65‐94
78 quantityofoutput,inbothgoodsandservicesproduction,oftendisplacing
workersintheprocess.Acommoncomplaintbyworkersregardinguseof
thenewtechnologiesinworkplacerestructuring,aswiththeJapanese
notionof“kaizen”(continuouslystrivingforgreaterproductivity),isthat
workersoftenfindtheireffortsonworkteamstoberewardedby
managementreducingthenumberofworkersasoutputincreases(Schenk
andAnderson1996,1999;Huws2003,2006).This,ofcourse,isjust
anotherformofspeedup.Symptomatically,alongwiththis,globalization
hasbroughtarevivaloflabour‐intensivesweatshopsandinformal
economyintheFirstandThirdWorlds(Sassen1998;TabakandCrichlow
2000).
The Degradation of Labour TheyearafterDanielBell’sTheComingofPost‐IndustrialSocietywas
publishedcameanotherbookwitharadicallydifferentreadingofthe
emergingtrends.ThiswasHarryBraverman’s(1974)LaborandMonopoly
Capital.BravermanrevisitedMarxandEngels’theoriesaboutcapitalist
societyand,usingthesubtitleof“TheDegradationofWorkinthe
TwentiethCentury,”observedthatchangesinproductionwerenot
producingaqualitativelynewformofsociety,norwasthelotofmost
workersbecomingpleasurableandstimulating.Late20thCentury
monopolycapitalismwas,infact,producingbotholdandnewformsof
degradedlabour.Therearestillexploitedblue‐collarworkersabout,and
manyofthenownumericallydominantserviceworkersfindthemselvesin
degradedand/ordeskilledjobsituations(AguiarandHerod2006;Pupo
andThomas2009).Braverman’sworkwaswidelydiscussedanddebated,
initiatinganewwaveofmarxianlabourprocessandlabourmarket
studies.OnethingthatBravermannotedwasthecontinuingadaptationin
late20thCenturycapitalismoftheprinciplesofScientificManagement
developedbyFrederickTaylorinthelate1800s.Bravermanwas
successfulinshowingthatthefundamentalprinciplesofcapitalismstill
impactedstructuresofwork.Toomuchworkstillinvolvesalienated
labour,withlevelsofstressandnegativehealthoutcomesrunning
rampant(Rinehart2006).Indiscussingthegrowthof“secondjobs,”
Braverman(1975)alsoforesawthecasualizationoflabourasanother
meansofcuttingcostsandincreasinglabourproductivity,andthegrowth
ofthisprecariousemploymenthasincreasedgreatlysinceBraverman
wroteaboutitin1975(Broad2000;PupoandThomas2009).
InadditiontoMarxiststudiesofworklikethatofBraverman,there
cametheemergenceofsocialdemocraticresponsestoBell’spost‐
BROAD:TheProductivityMantra
industrialsocietythesiswiththecounterargumentthat“manufacturing
matters,”thattherealbaseofproductivegrowthisfoundingoods
production,notservices.Oneofthebest‐knownworksinthisgenreis
Cohen’sandZysman’s(1987)ManufacturingMatters:TheMythofthePost‐
IndustrialEconomy.Thisargumentcontinuesindebatesaboutthereal
economyversusthepapereconomy(Stanford1999).16
Turningtothemuch‐celebratedimpactofdigitaltechnologieson
productivitygrowth,weseethattheserviceshaveapparentlycontributed
little.Sweezyetal.(2001,6‐7)citestudiesshowing“thattheeffectof
digitaltechnologyonproductivitywassmallonthewhole;suchadvanceas
therewastookplacealmostentirelyinthemanufactureofdurablegoods.”
Theyconclude:“Thedigitalrevolutioncertainlyisatechnological
revolutionwithwidespreadeffects;theimportantthingfromaneconomic
standpoint,however,isthatitisnotepoch‐making,asinthecaseofthe
steamengine,therailroad,andtheautomobile.”
Therewasclearlyeconomicexpansioninthe1990sbasedonboth
anincreaseinprofitratesandinvestmentinnewinformationtechnologies.
But,asKotz(2003,23)explains:“Itwasthehistoricalreversal,after1973,
ofthelongpost‐SecondWorldWartrendofrisingrealwages,andits
replacementbyatrendofdecliningwages,thatisthemainfactor
accountingforthelong‐termriseintherateofprofitsinthe1990s.”He
furtherargues:“Neoliberalrestructuringbetweenthelate1970sandthe
1990scanindeedclaimcreditforthis”(ibid).Neoliberalregimesreduced
thebargainingpowerofworkersbyattackingtradeunions,deregulating
businessandloweringbarrierstointernationaltradeandinvestment.
“Thisisnottheaspectofneoliberalismthatitsadvocatesadvertise,butit
waseffectiveinraisingtherateofprofit”(ibid).Theprofitrateincrease
wasalsoassistedbycutstotaxesoncapital,aspartoftheneoliberalshift
ofstatefunctioningawayfromKeynesiansocialwelfaretomoreexplicitly
promotingcapitalaccumulation,includingprivatizationandderegulation
oftheeconomy.Significantinthisshifthasbeentheaformentioned
increasingfinancializationofcapitalism(MagdoffandSweezy1982).
Withneoliberalism,weareconstantlybeingtoldthatwemust
improveourindividualandcollectiveproductivitytobemorecompetitive
ontheglobalmarket.Intheworkplacethismeansconstantlypushing
workerstoexceedproductiontargetsby“re‐engineering”production
processes.Meanwhile,neoliberalgovernmentshaveshiftedfromthe
16
Internet web search reveals a variety of sites, supported by both business and labour, devoted to the theme that “manufacturing matters.” 79 SocialistStudies/Étudessocialistes7(1/2)Spring/Fall2011:65‐94
80 Keynesianeratrendtowardsensuringsocialrightstopromoting
individual“responsibilities,”sothatsocialassistanceisbeingreplacedby
“workfare”asweallarebeingexhortedtoincreaseoureconomic
productivity(BroadandAntony1999;BroadandHunter2009).Wehave
witnessedarecommodifictionoflabourandthestate,whichhadbeen
decommodifiedtosomedegreeundertheKeynesianwelfarestate(Esping‐
Andersen1990;Teeple2000).Butwiththeconstantpushtowards
commodificationofeverythingundercapitalism(Wallerstein1995;Broad
andHunter2009),themarketlogichasbeenre‐appliedtothestateunder
neoliberalism.Sonotjustderegulation,privatizationandcontractingout
occur,butthelogicofprivatesectoraccumulationisappliedtothepublic
sector,asseenwithNewPublicManagement.Mostrecently,theattackon
socialwelfarecomesintheneoliberalpushforausteritymeasurestopay
forstatebailoutsofcapital.Centraltothisisthedrivetoincrease
productivityinprivateandpublicsectors.Atmyownuniversitythesearch
for“efficiencies”hasbecomeverypopularamongsttheadministration.
Productivity in the Social Services ItwasnotedinthediscussionofDrucker’swritingsabovethat,despite
cautionsbycriticalanalystslikeMagdoffandSweezy,thestandardnarrow
notionofproductivitycommonlyappliedtothemanufactureof
commoditiesisoftenappliedtoproductionofservices,includingpublic
services.Whatdoesthismeanfortheworkersandtheservicesthey
provide?Studiesoftechnologicalchangeandrestructuringofhuman
serviceworkinmyhomeprovinceofSaskatchewan,Canadaandelsewhere
leadtotheconclusionthat,despitefrequentworkerempowerment
rhetoric,atop‐downapproachtoincreasingtheoutputofworkersper
hourisgenerallyusedwhenemployerstalkaboutincreasingproductivity
inthesocialservices.17Hereagain,productivityisseentobeaquantitative
process,notaqualitativeone,withafocusonoutputsnotoutcomes.Itis
notamatterofwhetherservicespeopleneedarebeingprovidedwell,so
muchasamatterofwhethercaseloadsandcostshavebeenreducedas
partoftheongoingneoliberalstateausterityagenda.Weseeherean
17 My discussion here is based on secondary sources cited below, and primary research. The primary data presented below is drawn from interviews with provincial and federal human service workers in the province of Saskatchewan, Canada inquiring into their conditions of work and how notions of productivity are applied to restructuring that work. This research was conducted in the early and mid 2000s. See, for example, Foley and Miller (2009). BROAD:TheProductivityMantra
extensionoftheapplicationofScientificManagementprinciplestosocial
servicework.AsBraverman(1974,309)noted:
From the beginning, office managers held that all forms of clerical work, not just routine or repetitive ones, could be standardized and “rationalized.” For this purpose they undertook elaborate studies of even those occupations which involved little routine, scores of different operations each day, and the exercise of judgement.... In this way, management began to assert in the office its hitherto unused or sporadically exercised right of control over the labour process. Beginninginthe1970s,observersnotedthatthelabourprocessof
humanserviceworkerswasbeingrestructuredusingTayloristmethods.
Socialworkers,forexample,foundthattheirworkwasbeingpacedand
specifictasksclassifiedaccordingto“casecharacteristics”and“client
types.”Patry(1978)examinedapioneeringventurealongtheselinesthat
beganinTexasinthemid1970s,andhasnowspreadthroughoutNorth
AmericaandEurope.InTexas,anindustrialengineeringfirm,Interlock,
washiredbythestategovernmenttorestructuretheworkofsocial
workers.Thegoalwas,“inthewordsofitsproponents,anextensionofthe
classicalindustrialdefinitionofproductivity(outputoverinput)tothesocial
services”(ibid,31).Patry(ibid,35)says:“Oneoftheengineersworkingon
theprojectcomplainedtomethatpresentlyworkers‘shownorespect
whatsoeverforproductivity,’spendingasmuchtimeasisneededtotake
careofanindividualclient’sneeds.Obviously,thishadtobechanged.”
SimilartowhatDruckeradvocatedfornurses,Interlockwentabout
restructuringby:(1)standardizingworkmethods,breakingitdowninto
clericalfunctionsandpersonalinteractionbetweensocialworkersand
clients;(2)analyzinganumberof“casecharacteristics”;(3)runninga
multipleregressionanalysisontheresultingdatatodiscoverprocessing
time;and(4)developinga“caseclassificationscheme”forclassifying
clientsintofourdistinctgroupswithassignedprocessingtimes.The
objectivewastostandardizethetimeworkersdevotedtoparticularclients
accordingtothecaseclassificationscheme.Theworkers’timewasfurther
dividedinto“productive”and“non‐productive”time,andchartedonan
“actualproductivechart.”Patry(ibid,36)wastoldthatthekeytothestudy
“waswhatwastermedthe‘PrincipleofEconomicMotion,’thatis,the
shiftingoflow‐levelskillstoclerksandthede‐skillingandfragmentationof
socialworkerfunctions.”Theoverallgoalwastocutcostsbyreducingthe
numberofworkersneededandbycuttingcaseloads.Thisapproachhas
81 SocialistStudies/Étudessocialistes7(1/2)Spring/Fall2011:65‐94
sincebeenappliedacrossthehumanservices,withtheworkincreasingly
madetofitthenewcomputerprograms,sometimesthroughcall‐centre
servicesratherthanperson‐to‐personservices.18And,asinmanyareasof
work,harnessingworkerstothenewmachinesoftenmeansthattheyare
beingtiedupinadministrativemachine‐tending,attheexpenseofworking
withclients.Inthisregard,Druckeriscertainlywrongthattheapplication
ofnewtechnologiestoserviceworkservestheworkers.
Withneoliberalism,thiskindofstaterestructuringbecame
standardpracticeinthe1980sand1990s.Jonesprovidesacasestudyof
itsimpactonsocialworkersinGreatBritainunderMargaretThatcher,and
continuingunderTonyBlair’sNewLabour(Jones2001).Inadditionto
restructuringworkprocessesalonglinesthatDruckerwouldapprove,
BritishsocialworkershavebeensubjecttowhatParkerandSlaughter
(1994),intheirUS‐basedstudiesofthere‐engineeringofwork,call
“managementbystress.”Oneresultisthat,withhighcaseloadsand
insufficientnumbersofworkers,harriedworkersrequireaseemingly
inordinatenumberofsickleaves.Similartothesituationinhealthcare
discussedabove,Jones(2001,551)says:
Social workers talked of how commonplace it was to see colleagues in tears. I heard stories of social workers throwing all their papers on to the floor and walking out, of people locking themselves in rooms or just disappearing from the office for hours on end. Going sick for some time each week or month seemed routinized in many agencies and was one of the most cited examples of a stress survival strategy. 82 Meanwhile,theworkisincreasinglybeingcontractedout.Onesocial
workertoldJones(2001,552):
We are now much more office based. This really hit home the other day when the whole team was in the office working at their desks. We have loads more forms which take time to complete. But we social workers also do less and less direct work with clients. Increasingly the agency buys in other people to do the direct work and we manage it. InourowninterviewswithsocialworkersinSaskatchewanwehave
frequentlyheardthecomplaint:“Wedon’tgettodosocialwork,wejust
processpeople!”Astudyofthesituationofsocialworkersinthreeservice
18
We have seen this in the case of Saskatchewan, and in other jurisdictions as well. BROAD:TheProductivityMantra
agenciesinOntariorevealedsimilarproblemsresultingfromfunding
cutbacksandoverwork(Bainesetal.2002).Acommunitycareworkerin
BritaintoldJones(2001,554):
Social work is more and more about numbers with managers wanting to hit so many targets which involves turning cases over quickly. They want a case in, sorted and pushed out. We have many unallocated cases so there is great pressure on everyone to take the maximum number of cases. I think the emphasis on turnover is cosmetic, to make it seem that we are giving a service to the public. But we don’t give anything. We have nothing to give. Twothemesaroseinourinterviewswithstatesocialworkersin
Saskatchewan:(1)theirworkloadistoogreat;and(2)thedepartmentand,
consequently,socialworkers’workisbudgetdriven.Whenaskedifthey
arefindinglesstimeto“dosocialwork,”oneworkersaid:“Well,actually,
managementwillsaytheyarehavingusdomoresocialwork,thatthe
caseloadshavebeenlowered.Myexperienceisthatisnotwhatthereality
is.Yes,ourcaseloadsmaybeafewlower,butadministrativelyweare
swamped.”And,aswiththeBritishcase,Saskatchewansocialworkersalso
copewithstressbytakingsickleaves.
Theneoliberalobsessionwithbudgetshasanobviousimpactonall
thesocialworkersweinterviewed.Onesaid:“Ithinkpartofthereasonwe
areswampedisthatourdepartmentisdrivenbyfinance.”Another
commented:“Thepeoplemakingthepolicychangeshavebeenremoved
fromthefrontlinesolongtheydon’tknowreality.Theirbottomlineis
moneyandstatsanditdoesn’tfilterdowntousinwhatweneed.”Athird
noted:“Theymeasuresuccessbyclosingcases.”Jones(2001)notedthat
Britishgovernmentshavebeeninfatuatedwiththeideaofgettingwelfare
recipientsintowagedemploymentasquicklyaspossible,andthisholdsfor
Saskatchewangovernmentsaswell.Oneworkerweinterviewedsaid:“The
focusistogetpeopleouttowork.Butiftherearenojobsforthemaftera
certainperiodtheywillrevertbacktowheretheywere.”So,aproposof
neoliberalism,itisnotaqualityoutcomethatisthemeasureofsuccess,but
aquantitativemeasureofthenumbersofclientsremovedfromthestate’s
welfareroles.
Mostrecently,theConservativegovernmentinGreatBritainhas
begunanaggressiveattackonthewelfarestate,partofitsausteritydrive
tocutbudgetsandpushserviceusersontotheinhospitablelabourmarket.
SocialworkersintheUKareprotestingthesemoves,bothbecauseofthe
impactontheirwork,andbecauseoftheerosionofservices(Stringer
83 SocialistStudies/Étudessocialistes7(1/2)Spring/Fall2011:65‐94
84 2010;Hamer2010;Sorman2010;McGregor2010).InSaskatchewan,the
conservativeSaskatchewanPartygovernmentisbusyinstitutingan
austerityprogramusingwhatitcallsthe“leanmethodology,”whichfits
withtheNewPublicManagementnotionofgovernment.InitsMarch2010
budgettheSaskatchewangovernmentannounceda15percentcutto
publicserviceemploymentoverfouryears.Thenegativeimpacton
employmentandabilityofsocialworkersintheprovincetodeliver
serviceswillbeobvious(CBCNews2010a;CBCNews2010b).
Unfortunately,neitherfrontlineworkersnortheirclientsare
usuallyaskedwhatshouldbedonetoimprovehumanserviceworkers’
abilitytoprovidequalitypublicservices(McKenzieandWharf2010).One
oftheparticipantsinourstudysaid:“Wearesurveyedtodeathandweare
saying,‘Listentothefrontlinestaff,’anditisstillnotbeingdone.”Asinthe
TexascasestudiedbyPatry(1978),movestorestructurethelabour
processoftheseworkersisatop‐downprocessinvolvingoutside
consultantswithclearlyquantitativenotionsofproductivitysuperseding
qualitativeconcernswithservicedelivery.Thistakesusbacktothe
questionofwhenthedrivetoincreaseproductivityiseversatisfied.
Conclusion: How Much Is Enough? Thequestionthatclearlyarisesishowmuchproductivityisenough?This
questionbecomesespeciallyurgentinlightoftheglobalecologicalcrisis
(Foster2009).Someimportantworkhasbeendoneindevelopingnew
waystoconceptualizeaneconomythatwouldsatisfyhumanneedsand
environmentalsustainability.Suzuki(1989,1998)hasarguedfor
utilizationofeconomicindicatorsotherthangrossnationalproduct(GNP)
orgrossdomesticproduct(GDP)asthemeasuresforeconomic
performance.Hearguesthatweneedameasurethatdoesnotfocusjuston
economicgrowthinaquantitativeway,butamorequalitativeapproach
thatincludescalculatingnegativepointsforsuchthingsasenvironmental
costs.Colman(1999;Colmanetal.1999)andothershavearguedthatthe
oldmeasuresshouldbereplacedbya“genuineprogressindicator”(GPI),
whichtakesintoaccountpaidandunpaidworkandthequestionof
whetherhumanneedsarebeingmet.19Manyauthorsinthesociologyof
workhavearguedthatweneedasocio‐economicsystemthatgives
genuineprioritytotheneedsofworkersandtheirconditionsofwork.The
imperativeofourcurrentsocio‐economicsystemforpromoting
19
These and other proposals were recently discussed by participants at the recent degrowth conference held in Paris in April 2008 (Kennedy 2010a). BROAD:TheProductivityMantra
accumulationofcapitalasitsmaingoaltendstosubvertattemptsto
articulateandimplementalternativeapproachestoeconomic
development.Butthereiscontinuingadvocacyofmorehumanlyand
ecologicallysensibleapproachesinforasuchastheWorldSocialForum
andtherecentconferenceson“degrowth”inParisandBarcelona(Kennedy
2010a,2010b).But,ofcourse,Foster(2011)correctlyasksifdegrowthis
evenpossibleundercapitalism.
Astotheobsessionwithworkerproductivity,wemuststressthat
peopledonothavesolelyworklives,butpersonallivesaswell.Most
peopledonotconsciouslychooseto"livetowork,"butwouldrather"work
tolive."However,thisnotioniscontrarytotheneoliberalidealsofour
currentsocio‐economicsystem,inwhichpeopleareviewedonlyas
"economicbeings"–asproducersandconsumers.Thisnotionistakento
theextremeinanarticleonhomelessnesspublishedintheJournalof
BusinessResearch,whereinhomelessnessisseentobeaproblemprimarily
becausethehomelessmakepoorconsumers(Hill1994).Butwhatifwe
suggestthathumanbeingsarenot"borntoshop"?This,ofcourse,isa
questionthatcannotbeentertainedwithinthedominantideologythat,
alongwithgivingustheProtestantworkethic,construeshumanbeingsas
homoconsumens.BaranandSweezy(1966)wroteabouttheincredible
wasteundermonopolycapitalism,andMagdoffandSweezyrepeatedthis
themeinthearticlesonproductivitycitedabove.Braverman(1974)wrote
abouttheexpansionof“theuniversalmarket,”andWallerstein(1995)has
referredtotheongoing“commodificationofeverything.”Inthemid‐1970s
socialpsychologistWilliamLeiss(1976)publishedapenetratingstudy
entitledTheLimitstoSatisfaction,onthegrowinginabilityofpeopleto
distinguishwantsfromneedsduetotheconstantbarrageofadvertising
andmarketing.Sincethemid1970sthisissuehasbecomeevenmore
problematic,tothedetrimentofhumanityandtheplanet.Weshouldnote,
ofcourse,thatcapitalhasbeenquicktojumponthisissueandlauncha
waveofgreenmarketing(Dardozzi2010).
Ithasbeennotedbeforethatcapitalismisanirrationalsystem,
withanideologythatbothveilsthetruepurposeofproductionincapitalist
society,andforeclosesdiscussionofalternatives(Baran1969;McChesney
andFoster2010).BasedontheconceptualworkofMarxandEngels,
Colletti(1972)explainshowideologicalsystemshavebeenused
historicallybyrulingpowerstoobfuscatethemannerinwhichhierarchical
socialstructuresbenefitthedominantclassesthroughexploitationand
oppressionoftheworkingclasses.Inthissense,trueliberationwould
includeremovingideologicalstructuressothatpatternsofsocialrelations
85 SocialistStudies/Étudessocialistes7(1/2)Spring/Fall2011:65‐94
86 areapparent.Thisisoneofthesignificantchallengesfacingus,particularly
inthematurecapitalistcountrieswherepeoplehavebeensoboughtinto
thecapitalistmarketsystem.Amin(1980)discusseshowpeopleare
subjecttoeconomicalienationundercapitalism.Soaprocessof
disalienationisrequiredforhumanliberation.
Animportantthingweneedtodoispointoutthehistorical
specificityofcapitalism.Inthelongrunofhistory,thedrivetoworklonger
hoursandproduceincreasinglymoreisarelativelyrecentphenomenon,a
productofcapitalismanditsIndustrialRevolution.PriortotheIndustrial
Revolutionpeopleworkedlonghoursincertainseasons,butalsohadslack
times.Infact,habituatingpeopletowagelabourandpunchingtheclock
wasalongcoerciveprocessthatentailedagooddealofwhatisnowcalled
socialre‐engineeringbysomeauthors.20Somewouldarguethatthe
increasestoproductionbroughtbytheIndustrialRevolutioninitiallydid
requireincreasinglabourintensityandlongerhoursofwork,though
othersquestionthisnotion(Noble1995).Butwiththecurrentglobal
capacityforproduction,theideathatpeopleneedtoworkharder,and
oftenovertime,isludicrous.Thisisespeciallyevidentwhenwesee
productionincreasescontinuealongsideincreasingunemploymentand
underemployment–whathasbeencalled“joblesseconomicgrowth”
(Barnett1993).TheILOhasdeclaredthistobeoneofthemostsignificant
outcomesofthemostrecentrecession,alongwiththeinferiorqualityof
muchworkthroughouttheworld.21
Sincewearenowabletoproducephenomenallymoregoodsand
serviceswithfewerworkersduetonewtechnologies,perhapsit’sfinally
timetofollowPaulLafargue’s(1883)leadandproposesomethingabitoff
beat.Whydon'tweallworklessandproduceless?Let'sallworkparttime,
butonour(i.e.human)terms.Isthisacrazyidea?Inthecurrentpolitical‐
economicclimateitwouldseemso.Butinthelongrunofhistoryitmakes
perfectsense.It’stimetoredefinenotionsofproductivity,andshowthat
currentnotionsofworkingtimeas“standard”and“non‐standard”are
historicalconstructsandnotwritteninstone.InEurope,tradeunionshave
presentedthedemandforafour‐dayworkweekasanextensionofthe
historicalstruggleforshorterhours(Hayden1999,2003).LabourinNorth
Americaisabitbehindinthisstruggle,buttheideahasgainedinterest.
Perhapsthecurrentdilemmaisoneofalossofhuman(e)values.
Weareconstantlytoldbybusinessleadersandgovernmentsthatwe
20
21
On habituation of workers to the clock see Thompson (1967) and Menzies (2005). See the ILO website, www.ilo.org, for various statements and studies of these issues. BROAD:TheProductivityMantra
cannotdothisorthat,orcannotaffordthisorthat,becauseofthe
economy.Thiscryhasreachedfeverpitchwiththecurrentneoliberalpush
forausterity.FormerCanadianPrimeMinisterPaulMartinoncetoldus
thatgovernmentsmustcuttheirspendingbecausehavingdeficitsviolates
“thelawsofcapitalmarkets”–asifthesearenaturallawsakintothelawof
gravity.22Buttheyarenot.Economiesandeconomiclaws,iftheyexist,are
humaninventions.Theyserve(atleastsome)humanpurposes.Andifthey
arenotservinguswell,wecanchangethem,anddevelopnewwaysof
doingthings.
Ifhumanvaluesaretobecentraltoourmodel,theeconomymust
bere‐invented.Wemustbegintoaskonceagainwhywework.Workmust
beseentohavevaluebeyondproducingcommoditiesforprofit.Wemust
seeworkasameanstoimproveourhumanlives.Soworkmustbesocially
useful,notharmful,andmusthaveintrinsicvalue.Thereareplentyof
academicstudiesandgovernmentreportsthatrecognizethisissueand
articulatealternatives,butittakespoliticalactionandpoliticalwilltosee
resultsinpractice.23
Asforpublicservices,weneedtore‐asserttheideaofsocialwelfare
andtheglobalcommons.Ourgoalshouldbetoenhancetheroleof
governmentinpromotingsocialdevelopmentandwell‐being.Thismeans
counteringneoliberalismanddevelopingnewpolicyandprogramsto
deliverbettereducation,healthcareandsocialservicesforthepublic.For
humanserviceworkers,thisimpliesbeinggenuinelyinvolvedinthe
planninganddevelopmentofservices,andprovidingsufficientpersonnel
andresourcestodeliverqualityservices.Inresponsetoneoliberal
objectionsthatwecannotaffordtodoso,wemustreplythatgovernments
seemtobeabletofindplentyofresourcestogivefinancialassistanceand
taxbreakstocorporations,tobuildarmamentsandfightwars,andto
“explore”outerspace,whileglobalspaceandhumaninnerspaceistoo
oftenallowedtofesteranddecay.
Thecentralprobleminpromotingsocialchangeisoneofdealing
withthestructureofthecapitalistworldsystemwithitsnewinternational
divisionoflabour.Wemustkeepinmindthatitisstillacapitalistsocio‐
economicsystem,notsomepost‐industrialorpost‐modernutopia.Itisthe
incessantdrivetoaccumulatecapitalinherentinthissystemthatsayswe
havetoproducemore,faster,andatlowercostsoflabourandresources,
22
The Globe and Mail, 18 October 1994. In Canada we have seen countless government commissions and reports that too often sit and collect dust. 23
87 SocialistStudies/Étudessocialistes7(1/2)Spring/Fall2011:65‐94
88 withnoapparentendinsight.Undercapitalismthequestionof“howmuch
isenough”hasnoanswer.Butsincecirca1970wehavebeenina
structuralcrisisoftheworldcapitalistsystem.Atpresent,right‐wing
politicaleconomictendenciesprevailintheworldsystem,butthecrisis
openswindowsofopportunityforthoseontheleft.
Wallerstein(2011)sayswearecurrentlywitnessingacontest
betweentwoforces.OneincludesproponentsofthespiritofDavos(the
WorldEconomicForum),whowantadifferentsystem,butonethatretains
theessentialfeaturesofcapitalism–hierarchy,exploitationand
polarization.TheotherincludesproponentsofthespiritofPortoAlegre
(theWorldSocialForum),whowantarelativelydemocraticandrelatively
egalitariansystem.Takingthesideofthesecondgroup,Wallerstein(2011,
37)suggestssomeshort‐termandmedium‐termactionswecantake:“In
theshortterm,oneconsiderationtakesprecedenceoverallothers–
minimizethepain.”Thismeansdoingallwecantohelpthosesuffering
undercurrentconditions.Atthesametime,weneedtomaintainthefive
medium‐termgoalsof(1)emphasizingseriousintellectualanalysis,and
notjustbyintellectuals,(2)rejectingeconomicgrowthandreplacingit
withdecommodification,(3)creatinglocalandregionalself‐sufficiencies
aspartofan“alterglobalization”movement,(4)endingtheexistenceof
foreignmilitarybasesandstoppingwasteoftheworld’sresourceson
militaryuses,and(5)endingfundamentalsocialinequalities.Henotes,of
course,thateverythingiscontingentuponavoidingthe“pending
supercalamities”ofirrevocableclimatechange,vastpandemics,and
nuclearwar(seealsoWallerstein1998;Amin2008,2011).
Inpromotingfundamentalsocialtransformationwemustfocuson
qualityoflife,notquantity.Wemustbeginwiththequestion"Whatarewe
producingandwhy?"Inoppositiontocapitalism,wemustadvocatean
economythatpromoteshumanneedswithoutputtingunduestressonthe
naturalworld.Inshort,asocialisteconomicprogramisrequiredtodevelop
ideassuchasthosediscussedabove.Othershaveoutlinedsuggestionsfor
carryingoutsuchaprogramthatareworthconsidering.Developmentsin
countriessuchasCuba,VenezuelaandBoliviaregardingsocialpriorities
andsustainabledevelopmentareencouraging(Hart‐Landsberg2010).
Ultimately,astheseandothercasesshow,improvementsinlivingand
workingconditionswillresultfromthestrugglesofsocialmovements
fightingforsocialrights.Andthiswillrequirecreationofagenuinelynew
economythatfavourspeopleandtheirenvironmentoverproductionfor
thesakeofproductionandconsumptionforthesakeofconsumption.Itis
BROAD:TheProductivityMantra
clearlypasttimetoreplacethegrowth‐orientedmodelofcapitalist
productionwithamodelofecologicalandhumanesustainableproduction.
References Aguiar,LuisL.M.andAndrewHerod(eds.).2006.TheDirtyWorkofNeoliberalism:
CleanersintheGlobalEconomy.Oxford:BlackwellPublishing.
Albo,Greg,SamGindonandLeoPanitch.2010.InAndOutOfCrisis:TheGlobalFinancial
MeltdownandLeftAlternatives.Oakland,CA:PMPress.
Altvater,Elmer.2002.“TheGrowthObsession.”InTheSocialistRegister2002,ed.Leo
PanitchandColinLeys,73‐92.NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress.
Amin,Samir.1978.TheLawofValueandHistoricalMaterialism.NewYork:Monthly
ReviewPress.
Amin,Samir.1980.ClassandNation:HistoricallyandIntheCurrentCrisis.NewYork:
MonthlyReviewPress.
Amin,Samir.2008.TheWorldWeWishToSee:RevolutionaryObjectivesintheTwenty‐First
Century.NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress.
Amin,Samir.2011.“HistoricalCapitalismInDecline:TheTricontinentalMissionof
Marxism.”MonthlyReview62,no.9:1‐18.
Armstrong,Patetal.1994.TakeCare:WarningSignalsforCanada’sHealthSystem.
Toronto:GaramondPress.
Armstrong,PatandHughArmstrong.2008.AboutCanada:HealthCare.Halifax:Fernwood
Publishing.
Baines,Donnaetal.2002.ImprovingWorkOrganizationtoReduceInjuryandIllness:Social
Services,Stress,ViolenceandWorkload,FinalReport.Hamilton,ON:Institutefor
WorkinaGlobalSociety.
Baldwin,JohnR.2004.“Productivity:TheEvolutionofStatisticsCanada’sProgram.”
EconomicAnalysisMethodologyPaperSeries:NationalAccounts,CatalogueNo.
11F0026MIE–No.002.
Bannock,Graham,R.E.BaxterandEvanDavis(eds.).1987.ThePenguinDictionaryof
Economics.Harmondsworth:PenguinBooks.
Baran,PaulA.1969.TheLongerView:EssaysTowardaCritiqueofPoliticalEconomy.New
York:MonthlyReviewPress.
Baran,PaulA.andPaulM.Sweezy.1966.MonopolyCapital:AnEssayontheAmerican
EconomicandSocialOrder.NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress.
Barnet,RichardJ.1993.“TheEndofJobs:EmploymentisOneThingtheGlobalEconomyis
NotCreating,”Harper’sMagazine,no.287(September):47‐52.
Bell,Daniel.1973.TheComingofPost‐IndustrialSociety.NewYork:BasicBooks,.
Black,Maggie.2007.TheNo‐NonsenseGuidetoInternationalDevelopment.Toronto:
BetweenTheLines.
89 SocialistStudies/Étudessocialistes7(1/2)Spring/Fall2011:65‐94
Brennan,Teresa.2003.GlobalizationAndItsTerrors:DailyLifeintheWest.London:
Routledge.
Braverman,Harry.1974.LabourandMonopolyCapital:TheDegradationofWorkinthe
TwentiethCentury.NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress.
Braverman,Harry.1975.“TheDegradationofWorkintheTwentiethCentury.”Monthly
Review34,no.1:1‐13.
Broad,Dave.2000.HollowWork,HollowSociety?GlobalizationandtheCasualLabour
Problem.Halifax:FernwoodPublishing.
Broad,DaveandWayneAntony(eds).1999.CitizensOrConsumers?SocialPolicyina
MarketSociety.Halifax:FernwoodPublishing.
Broad,DaveandWayneAntony(eds.).2006.CapitalismRebooted?Work,Welfareandthe
NewEconomy.Halifax:FernwoodPublishing..
Broad,DaveandGarsonHunter.2009.“Work,WelfareandtheNewEconomy:The
CommodificationofEverything.”InInterrogatingTheNewEconomy:Restructuring
Workinthe21stCentury,eds.NoreneJ.PupoandMarkP.Thomas,21‐42.Toronto:
UniversityofTorontoPress.
CBCNews.2010a.“SaskatchewanCutsJobs,Spending.”24March2010.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2010/03/24/sk‐main‐budget‐
1003.html.
90 CBCNews.2010b.“UnionHeadFuriouswithProposedCivilServiceCuts.”17March2010.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2010/03/17/sk‐bymoen‐
reduction‐1003.html.
Cohen,StephenS.andJohnZysman.1987ManufacturingMatters:TheMythofthePost‐
IndustrialSociety.NewYork:BasicBooks.
Colletti,Lucio.1972.FromRousseautoLenin:StudiesinIdeologyandSociety.NewYork:
MonthlyReviewPress.
Colman,Ronald.1999.“HowDoWeMeasureProgress?”ShambhalaSun.
http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1
871&Itemid=0.
Colman,Ronaldetal.1999.WhyBiggerIsn’tBetter:TheGenuineProgressIndicator–1999
Update.http://www.rprogress.sorg/pubs/gpil1999/gpi1999.
Dardozzi,Jeff.2010.“TheIndiscreetBanalityoftheBourgeoisie:TheChurchofLEED.
PassiveHouse,andtheDangersofGoingGreen.”MonthlyReview62,no.7:49‐56.
Drucker,PeterF.1993.Post‐CapitalistSociety.NewYork:HarperCollins.
Esping‐Andersen,Gosta.1990.TheThreeWorldsofWelfareCapitalism.Princeton:
PrincetonUniversityPress.
Foley,JaniceandGloriaMiller.2007.“Empowered?TheExperienceofaGroupofFederal
GovernmentEmployees.”InRedefiningProductivityforSocialDevelopmentand
Well‐Being,eds.FionaDouglasandGloriaGeller,95‐118.Regina:Universityof
Regina,SocialPolicyResearchUnit.
BROAD:TheProductivityMantra
Foster,JohnBellamy.2009.TheEcologicalRevolution:MakingPeacewiththePlanet.New
York:MonthlyReviewPress,.
Foster,JohnBellamy.2011.“CapitalismandDegrowth–AnImpossibilityTheorem.”
MonthlyReview62,no.8:26‐33.
Foster,JohnBellamyandFredMagdoff.2009.TheGreatFinancialCrisis:Causesand
Consequences.NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress.
Frobel,Folker,JurgenHeinrichsandOttoKreye.1980.TheNewInternationalDivisionof
Labour:StructuralUnemploymentinIndustrializedCountriesandIndustrializationin
DevelopingCountries.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Galbraith,JohnKenneth.1984.AShortHistoryofFinancialEuphoria.NewYork:Penguin
Books.
Hamer,Katherine.2010.“BritishPMSaysVolunteerismEngagesthePopulace;UnionsSay
It’saWaytoCutJobs,”TheGlobeandMail,Thursday,14October2010:A16.
Hart‐Landsberg,Martin.2010.“ALBAandthePromiseofCooperativeDevelopment,”
MonthlyReview62,no.7:1‐17.
Hayden,Anders.1999.SharingtheWork,SparingthePlanet:WorkTime,Consumptionand
Ecology.Toronto:BetweenTheLines.
Hayden,Anders.2003.“InternationalWork‐TimeTrends:TheEmergingGapinHours,”
JustLabour2(Spring):23‐35.
Hill,RonaldP.1994.“ThePublicPolicyIssueofHomelessness:AReviewandSynthesisof
ExistingResearch.”JournalofBusinessResearch30:5‐12.
Huws,Ursula.2003.TheMakingoftheCybertariat:VirtualWorkinaRealWorld.New
York:MonthlyReviewPress.
Huws,Ursula.2006.“WhatWillWeDo?TheDestructionofOccupationalIdentitiesinthe
‘Knowledge‐BasedEconomy.’”MonthlyReview57,no.8:19‐34.
ILO(InternationalLabourOrganization).2005.WorldEmploymentReport2004‐05:
Employment,ProductivityandPovertyReduction.Geneva:InternationalLabour
Organization.
IMF(InternationalMonetaryFund).2002.“Globalization:ThreatOrOpportunity?”
http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/ib/2000/041200to.htm.
Jones,Chris.2001.“VoicesfromtheFrontLine:StateSocialWorkersandNewLabour.”
BritishJournalofSocialWork31,no.4:547‐62.
Kennedy,Judy.2010a.“CampaignforFair,SustainableEconomyIsGainingGround.”The
CCPAMonitor17,no.1:13.
Kennedy,Judy.2010b.“VitalDegrowthMovementBoostedatBarcelonaConference:
ChallengeDaunting,ButEconomicGrowthMustBeStopped.”TheCCPAMonitor17,
no.2:18‐19.
Kotz,David.2003.“NeoliberalismandtheU.S.EconomicExpansionofthe‘90s.”Monthly
Review54,no.11:15‐33.
Lafargue,Paul.1883TheRighttobeLazy.NewYork:CharlesH.KerrPublishing.
91 SocialistStudies/Étudessocialistes7(1/2)Spring/Fall2011:65‐94
LavacaCollective.2007.SinPatron:StoriesFromArgentina’sWorker‐RunFactories.
Chicago:HaymarketBooks.
Leiss,William.1976.TheLimitsToSatisfaction:AnEssayontheProblemofNeedsand
Commodities.Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress.
Magdoff,Fred,andMichaelD.Yates.2009.TheABCsoftheEconomicCrisis:WhatWorking
PeopleNeedtoKnow.NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress.
Magdoff,Harry.1982a.“MeasuringProductivity:TheEconomists’NewClothes.”The
Nation234,no.12:359‐361.
Magdoff,Harry.1982b.“AStatisticalFiction.”TheNation235,no.2:47‐48.
Magdoff,Harry,andPaulM.Sweezy.1979.“ProductivitySlowdown:AFalseAlarm.”
MonthlyReview31,no.2:1‐12.
Magdoff,HarryandPaulM.Sweezy.1980.“TheUsesandAbusesofMeasuring
Productivity.”MonthlyReview32,no.2:1‐9.
Magdoff,Harry,andPaulM.Sweezy.1982.“FinancialInstability:WhereWillItAllEnd?”
MonthlyReview34,no.6:20‐25.
Mason,Mike.1997.DevelopmentandDisorder:AHistoryoftheThirdWorldSince1945.
Toronto:BetweenTheLines.
Marx,Karl.1976.Capital:ACritiqueofPoliticalEconomy,VolumeI.Harmondsworth:
PenguinBooks/NewLeftReview.
92 McBride,Stephen.2005.ParadigmShift:GlobalizationandtheCanadianState.Halifax:
FernwoodPublishing.
McChesney,RobertW.andJohnBellamyFoster.2010.“Capitalism,theAbsurdSystem:A
ViewfromtheUnitedStates.”MonthlyReview62,no.2:1‐16.
McGregor,Kristy.2010.“WillSocialWorkersGoOnStrike?TheyJustMight….”Community
Care.http://www.communitycare.co.uk/blogs/social‐work‐blog/2010/09/strong‐
words‐from‐fighting‐mon.html.
McKenzie,BradandBrianWharf.2010.ConnectingPolicytoPracticeintheHuman
Services.Toronto:OxfordUniversityPress.
Menzies,Heather.2005.NoTime:StressandtheCrisisofModernLife.Vancouver:Douglas
andMcIntyre.
Merret,ChristopherD.1996.FreeTrade:NeitherFreeNorAboutTrade.Montreal:Black
RoseBooks.
Mills,C.Wright.1953.WhiteCollar:TheAmericanMiddleClasses.NewYork:Oxford
UniversityPress.
Noble,DavidF.1995.ProgressWithoutPeople:NewTechnology,Unemployment,andthe
MessageofResistance.Toronto:BetweenTheLines.
O’Hara,Bruce.1993.WorkingHarderIsn’tWorking:ADetailedPlanforImplementinga
Four‐DayWorkweekinCanada.Vancouver:NewStarBooks.
Osborne,DavidandTedGaebler.1992.ReinventingGovernment:HowTheEntrepreneurial
SpiritIsTransformingthePublicSector.Readng,MA:Addison‐WesleyPublishing.
BROAD:TheProductivityMantra
Parker,MikeandJaneSlaughter.1994.WorkingSmart:AUnionGuidetoParticipation
ProgramsandRe‐engineering.Detroit:LaborNotes.
Patry,Bill.1978.“TaylorismComestotheSocialServices.”MonthlyReview30,no.5:30‐
37.
Persig,Robert.1974.ZenandtheArtofMotorcycleMaintenance:AnInquiryIntoValues.
NewYork:BantamBooks.
Pollen,RobertandPaulJay.2010.“ProductivityIsUp,SoWhyCutSocialPrograms?”
MRZINE,18July2010.http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/pollin180710.html.
Pupo,NoreneJ.andMarkP.Thomas(eds.).2009.InterrogatingTheNewEconomy:
RestructuringWorkinthe21stCentury.Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress.
Quiggin,John.2010.ZombieEconomics:HowDeadIdeasStillWalkAmongUs.Princeton:
PrincetonUniversityPress.
Rinehart,JamesW.2006.TheTyrannyOfWork:AlienationandtheLabourProcess.
Toronto:ThompsonNelson.
Rostow,W.W.1991.TheStagesofGrowth:ANon‐CommunistManifesto.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Sassen,Saskia.1998.GlobalizationandItsDiscontents:EssaysontheNewMobilityof
PeopleandMoney.NewYork:NewPress.
Schenk,ChrisandJohnAnderson(eds.).1995.Re‐ShapingWork:UnionResponsesto
TechnologicalChange.Toronto:OntarioFederationofLabour.
Schenk,ChrisandJohnAnderson(eds.).1999.Re‐ShapingWork2:Labour,theWorkplace
andTechnologicalChange.Toronto:GaramondPress.
Sears,Alan.1999.“The‘Lean’StateandCapitalistRestructuring:TowardsaTheoretical
Account.”StudiesInPoliticalEconomy59:91‐114.
Sorman,Guy.2010.“TheWelfareState,RIP.”TheGuardian,Sunday,17October2010.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/17/welfare‐state‐rest‐in‐
peace.
Stanford,Jim.1999.PaperBoom:WhyRealProsperityRequiresaNewApproachto
Canada'sEconomy.Toronto:JamesLorimer.
StatisticsCanada.2010.“ProductivityMeasuresandRelatedVariables–National
(Annual).”http://www.statcan.gc.cgi‐
bin/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey&SDDS=1402&lang=en&db=imdb&adm=8&
dis=2.
Stringer,David.2010.“BritonsToldtoBraceforAusterityDrive,”TheGlobeandMail,
Thursday,7October2010:A14.
Suzuki,David.1989.InventingTheFuture.Toronto:Stoddard.
Suzuki,David.1998.EarthTime:Essays.Toronto:Stoddard.
Sweezy,PaulM.etal.2001.“TheNewEconomy:MythandReality.”MonthlyReview52,no.
11:1‐15.
93 SocialistStudies/Étudessocialistes7(1/2)Spring/Fall2011:65‐94
Sweezy,PaulM.etal.2002.“TheNewFaceofCapitalism:SlowGrowth,ExcessCapital,and
aMountainofDebt.”MonthlyReview53,no.11:1‐14.
Tabak,FarukandMichaelineA.Crichlow(eds.).2000.Informalization:Processand
Structure.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.
Teeple,Gary.2000.GlobalizationandtheDeclineofSocialReform:IntotheTwenty‐First
Century.Toronto:GaramondPress.
Thompson,E.P.1967.“Time,Work‐Discipline,andIndustrialCapitalism.”PastandPresent
38:56‐97.
Wallerstein,Immanuel.1995.HistoricalCapitalismandCapitalistCivilization.London:
VersoBooks.
Wallerstein,Immanuel.1998.Utopistics:Or,HistoricalChoicesoftheTwenty‐firstCentury.
NewYork:TheNewPress.
Wallerstein,Immanuel.2011.“StructuralCrisisintheWorld‐System:WhereDoWeGo
fromHere?”MonthlyReview62,no.10:31‐39.
Webster’sNewWorldDictionary,ThirdCollegeEdition.1994.NewYork:PrenticeHall.
WorldBank.MeetingBasicNeeds:AnOverview.1980a.Washington,DC:WorldBank.
WorldBank.PovertyandBasicNeeds.1980b.Washington,DC:WorldBank.
94