In 2012, the iconoclastic Marxist philosopher Slavoj Zizek (20 12: 9) observed that, in the contemporary world, 'the chance to be exploited in a long-term job is now experi­enced as a privilege'. In a similar vein, The Economist (April 12, 2014) magazine lamented that '[s]teady jobs ... are hard to find'. The giant sporting goods finn, NIKE (n.d.: 56) acknowledged that:

The global economic crisis [from 2008] has had a devastating impact on worker welfare across the globe. In the apparel and footwear industry. mil­lions of jobs have been lost. For those fortunate enough to maintain employment many have seen their income decline .... In an effort to control costs. some factories have eliminated optional benefits.

Not surprisingly, Union Solidarity International (2014) lamented this trend: 'Precarious work is growing across the world: zero hours contracts, unpaid internships and fixed term, insecure work are becoming the norm .... We need to unite to ensure we have a future of secure work with dignity'.

Precarious Work

Kevin Hewison

Such observations by groups as diverse as unions, civil society activists, companies and financial media commentators have become increasingly common and reflect a shared awareness that significant change is taking place in workplaces. This change is associated with the decline of 'standard employment', as work identified as 'precarious' has expanded globally. Acknowledging this change, the study of labor and work has increasingly referred to 'precarious work' or 'precarity" amongst workers. The use of such terminol­ogy identifies work that exhibits uncertainty, instability, vulnerability and insecurity where employees are required to bear the risks of work (Kalleberg and Hewison, 2013a; Vosko. 2010). While there has been increased analyt­ical attention to these forms of work, studies of their development and critical policy, polit­ical and social impacts, extend over several decades. In that literature, a range of termi­nologies have been used, including: atypical, irregular or nonstandard work, work that is temporary or seasonal, casualization and part­time work, homeworking, self-employment,

1s Work

n Hewisor

:uup:;. as diverse a­ilS • ..:-ompanies an..: lh."Y"S ha' e bee olDie I retlecr a share.: change is raking

ILange is as sociaroc d employment·. a.~ oo..;,· has expanded this change. the bas increasing!~

n· or ·precari~ · oi such rermin...•l­

.bibits uncenain~­d in.security wher-e bear lhe risks .:-!

>L""'D. ~Ol3a: Vosl:o. J increa_.;ed anaJy::­tS of work. studie-,.

itica.l policy. poli:­~lend 0\er seYer..:..' a range oi rerrr::­..::luding: arypi.::L orL work that :s aliz.arion and ~ · self -employ men.:.

PRECARIOUS WORK 429

contracting-in, contracting-out and outwork­ing, informalization, t1exibilization and contingent employment (see Arnold and Bongiovi, 2013: 289). These related terms, some more descriptive than others, have tended to be subsumed in the concept of pre­carious work (see Standing, 2011 ).

A series of studies document the global expansion of precarious work, impacting workers in newly industrializing economies as well as the already industrialized economies of North America and Europe. Examining work in the United States, Kalleberg, Reskin and Hudson (2000) showed that temporary and part-time work is associated with low wages and poor access to employer-sponsored ben­efits such as health insurance and pensions. Kalleberg (20 11) has also detailed the decline in long-term security as precarious work has made workers more vulnerable in the US, identifying a polarization between 'good jobs' and 'bad jobs'. For Britain, McGovern, Smeaton and Hill (2004) found that non­standard employment part-time, temporary and fixed-term contracts - increase work­ers' exposure to the 'bad job' characteristics identified by Kalleberg and his associates. Webster, Lambert and Bezuidenhout (2008) demonstrated the use of insecurity to dis­cipline workers in Korea, South Africa and Australia. Several studies have shown the rapid expansion of contract work in Japan (see Allison 2013; Gottfried, 2009; Osawa et a!., 20 13). For the countries of the Asia­Pacific, Lee and Eyraud (2008) detailed the rapid advance of flexibilization and casual­ization. Both Vosko (2010) and Gottfried (2014) have indicated that the rise of precari­ous work has undermined the gendered social contracts that have been foundational for the standard employment relationship. Indeed, many of those who entered the labor market in low-paid casual, part-time and temporary work were women (Kalleberg, 2011: 46--47).

As might be gathered from this listing, and as the ILO (2012: 29) noted in a report on precarious work, 'the increase in inse­curity in employment is ubiquitous'. This ILO report documented significant rises in

'temporary employment, particularly fixed­term contracts, and agency work' in OECD countries from 1985 to 2007; for example, in Western Europe, temporary work increased by '115 per cent as compared to 26 per cent for overall employment'. The rates observed in 2007 across the countries of Western Europe varied considerably, from about 6 percent in Cyprus to almost 37 percent in Spain (ILO, 2012: 30). Looking beyond rich countries, the report concluded that the avail­able data showed precarious work expanding globally (ILO, 2012: 31-35). At the same time, the ILO observed that the extent, mean­ing and impacts of precarious work remained under debate, with no agreed definition of precarious employment.

With this brief accounting of the rise of precarious work, this chapter first examines the activist and academic lineages of 'pre­carious work', before turning to a discus­sion of how precarious work is debated and conceptualized in the academic literature. This is followed by an examination of the relationship between globalizing produc­tion and the expansion of precarious work. This leads to a discussion of some of the data on the extent of precarious work and the position of migrant workers. These sec­tions devote particular attention to the Asia economies, where the progress of precari­ous forms of work has impacted both rich and poor countries. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the debate on whether the rise of precarious work has resulted in the development of a new class identified as 'the precariat' .

ACTIVIST AND ACADEMIC LINEAGES OF PRECARIOUS WORK AND PRECARITY

Often when a new term is coined, it is an attempt to capture the essence of social changes in progress. Such terms, often broadly descriptive, will generally encapsu­late both the nature of the observed changes

430 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF THE SOCIOLOGY OF WORK AND EMPLOYMENT

and responses to them. In the case of work, the notions of 'precarious work' and 'precar­ity' carry with them meanings that identify the development of working situations that lack predictability and security and seem to mean increased vulnerability for workers. In the case of 'precarious work' and 'precar­ity', the use of these terms in academic work came with a considerable heritage in politi­cal struggles and activism, particularly in Europe.

Whilst the first uses of 'precarity' with reference to work have been traced to European responses to poverty and waged work in the 1950s and 1960s, the term gained considerable political traction in its associa­tion with the radical Autonomia political group that placed workers at the center of an Italian Marxist analysis influenced by Mario Tronti (1966; see also Wright, 2002). This approach identified the emergence of a new working-class politics that, if not opposed to standard, factory-based, work, wanted to reduce, sabotage or redefine it. In its more recent uses, it is argued that 'flex­ible' labor has moved from the periphery of Fordist production to take a position at the core of post-Fordist capital accumulation where 'immaterial labor' produces services that are not material or durable goods. This movement reflected on the major change in production - economic postmodernization which recognized that the decline of the bar­gaining capacity of labor leads to 'old forms of non-guaranteed labor' reconstituted as the dominant form of work (see Hardt and Negri, 2000: 297). The confluence of radi­cal politics and changes to the nature of pro­duction, work and social life more broadly, saw the terms 'precarious work' and 'pre­carity' taken up in European social move­ments, which used it as a broad cross-cutting issue, traversing work, labor and social life, to organize politically (Casas-Cortes, 2009: 327-329). For example, EuroMayDay is a 'web of media activists, labor organizers, migrant collectives convening each year in a different European city' that organizes around the slogan 'no borders, no workfare,

no precarity!' (EuroMayDay n.d.). Based on its 2004 declaration, the 2005 EuroMayDay adopted the rallying cry: 'Precarious people of the world let's unite and strike 4 a free, open, radical Europe' (EuroMayDay, 2004).

In mainstream academic work, one of the earliest analytical uses of 'precarious work' appeared in a collection edited by Rodgers and Rodgers (1989), and published by the International Labor Organization. This collection began with the observation that 'precarious forms of work' were not new, and concluded that the countries in their anthology had 'made significant progress towards eliminating or marginalizing these phenomena', due to the impact of collec­tive agreements and labor market regulation which had resulted in 'regular, protected jobs' that had 'come to dominate their industrial systems' (Rodgers, 1989: 1). Presciently, however, Rodgers also observed the rise of 'nonstandard' forms of work, defined as 'temporary, casual and part-time work, various forms of disguised or ille­gal wage employment, homeworking and moonlighting, self-employment and out­working' (Rodgers, 1989: I). At the time, the trends were uneven across the coun­tries studied. For example, the expansion in France and Germany had been limited, whereas in Italy, some 20 percent of GDP was estimated to come from workers with nonstandard forms of employment (Bettio and Villa, 1989: 173).

The trends identified in this 1989 collec­tion did not emerge in a political or economic vacuum. While the collection does not detail it, the impacts of the first oil price shock in 1973 and the social, political and cul­tural changes associated with the decline of Fordism were critical factors. So too was the rise of neoliberal economic policies fostered by the administrations of Margaret Thatcher in Britain (1979-90) and Ronald Reagan in the United States (1981-89).

These changes to national and inter­national political economies and to work resulted in a development and consolida­tion of 'precarious work' and 'precarity' in

activist and academi< early 2000s. In se\er: the first half of the ~ economic restructurin deep social and ecoO( siderable unemploym young people. The sc: and economic dov.nru US housing bubble i Wall Street crash of 2(

astating crises in Wf in massive unemplo~ period, those who c01

short term, poor! y pa felt vulnerable and d. that concentrated on 1

devalued by bus~ 'flexible' workers. a1

states that made deep fare systems.

One consequence that those impacted t to organize and pro ments blamed growu vulnerability on el and neoliberal ecooo activists attributed work to processes c tion, involving rem ity, stimulated by • profits and for redu tization, and the en: These policies were produce much emplc did, employers and more flexible labor 1

meant fewer benefit In the growth of d the concept of ·prec emotive in describil those living and wor and in jobs with no ity. This approach I carious work as as: and insecurities in • ing. Precarious w01 is often linked with tions and a rejectio employment relatio

DYMENT

1Day n.d.). Based on : 2005 EuroMayDay ·: ·Precarious people and strike 4 a free,

:uroMayDay, 2004). nic work, one of the )f ·precarious work' l edited by Rodgers and published by Organization. This

:be observation that ork · were not new, ~ countries in their ~ignificant progress marginalizing these e impact of collec­>r market regulation ·regular, protected to dominate their

.odgers, 1989: 1).

dgers also observed d' forms of work, asual and part-time ' disguised or ille-bomeworking and

'loyment and out-9: I ). At the time, 1 across the coun­ple. the expansion bad been limited,

~0 percent of GDP from workers with mployment (Bettio

n this 1989 collec­Xitical or economic tion does not detail rst oil price shock political and cul­

~~oith the decline of ors. So too was the ic policies fostered Margaret Thatcher Ronald Reagan in

91.

llional and inter­rues and to work ot and consolida-aod ·precarity· in

PRECARIOUS WORK 431

activist and academic discourses from the early 2000s. In several Western economies, the first half of the 2000s saw considerable economic restructuring, and this resulted in a deep social and economic malaise, and con­siderable unemployment, especially amongst young people. The series of financial crises and economic downturns, beginning with the US housing bubble in 2006, leading to the Wall Street crash of 2008, and a series of dev­astating crises in Western Europe, resulted in massive unemployment. Throughout this period, those who could get jobs found them short term, poorly paid and uncertain. Many felt vulnerable and deserted by trade unions that concentrated on the 'old' working class, devalued by businesses that preferred more 'flexible' workers, and ignored by troubled states that made deep cuts into shrinking wel­fare systems.

One consequence of this situation was that those impacted by these changes, began to organize and protest. The social move­ments blamed growing inequality and social vulnerability on elite-dominated politics and neoliberal economic policies. European activists attributed the rise of precarious work to processes of neoliberal globaliza­tion, involving remarkable capital mobil­ity, stimulated by a search for enhanced profits and for reduced costs, more priva­tization, and the erosion of social welfare. These policies were attacked for failing to produce much employment and, where they did, employers and states demanded ever more flexible labor markets, which, in turn, meant fewer benefits and stagnating wages. In the growth of these social movements, the concept of 'precarity' proved useful and emotive in describing the situation faced by those living and working without a safety net and in jobs with no stability or predictabil­ity. This approach has tended to view pre­carious work as associated with the losses and insecurities in welfare, health and hous­ing. Precarious work, especially in Europe, is often linked with the loss of social protec­tions and a rejection or loss of the standard employment relationship.

CONCEPTUALIZING PRECARIOUS WORK

One reason the concept of 'precarious work' resonates with researchers is that it permits a consideration of the changing nature of work and employment in ways that transcend the dichotomies such as the twinning of standard and nonstandard employment. The standard employment relationship was defined by Rodgers (1989: 1) as employment that 'incor­porated a degree of regularity and durability in employment relationships, protected workers from socially unacceptable practices and working conditions, established rights and obligations, and provided a core of social stability to underpin economic growth'. Later, Kalleberg, Reskin and Hudson (2000: 257-58) defined it as 'characterized by the exchange of a worker's labor for monetary compensation from an employer . . . with work done on a fixed schedule usually full-time - at the employer's place of busi­ness, under the employer's controL and with the mutual expectation of continued employ­ment'. These definitions of standard work give expression to the arrangements associ­ated with Fordist work regimes. Nonstandard work, as standard work's binary opposite, was described as 'employment relations other than standard, full-time jobs', such as 'part-time employment in an otherwise standard work arrangement, day labor and on-call work, temporary-help agency and contract-company employment, independent contracting, and other self-employment' (Kalleberg et a!., 2000: 258). The fact that 'not all nonstandard work was precarious and not all precarious work was nonstandard cut across this binary.

The standard/nonstandard opposition has been utilized with another binary: formal and informal economic sectors. Associated with economic . studies that draw on Lewis (1954) and his conception of 'unlimited' labor supplies, the informal sector results as workers leave the 'traditional' agricultural sector and move into urban labor markets.

430 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF THE SOCIOLOGY OF WORK AND EMPLOYMENT

and responses to them. In the case of work, the notions of 'precarious work' and 'precar­ity' carry with them meanings that identify the development of working situations that lack predictability and security and seem to mean increased vulnerability for workers. In the case of 'precarious work' and 'precar­ity', the use of these terms in academic work came with a considerable heritage in politi­cal struggles and activism, particularly in Europe.

Whilst the first uses of 'precarity' with reference to work have been traced to European responses to poverty and waged work in the 1950s and 1960s, the term gained considerable political traction in its associa­tion with the radical Autonomia political group that placed workers at the center of an Italian Marxist analysis influenced by Mario Tronti (1966; see also Wright, 2002). This approach identified the emergence of a new working-class politics that, if not opposed to standard, factory-based, work, wanted to reduce, sabotage or redefine it. In its more recent uses, it is argued that 'flex­ible' labor has moved from the periphery of Fordist production to take a position at the core of post-Fordist capital accumulation where 'immaterial labor' produces services that are not material or durable goods. This movement reflected on the major change in production - economic postmodemization which recognized that the decline of the bar­gaining capacity of labor leads to 'old forms of non-guaranteed labor' reconstituted as the dominant form of work (see Hardt and Negri, 2000: 297). The confluence of radi­cal politics and changes to the nature of pro­duction, work and social life more broadly, saw the terms 'precarious work' and 'pre­carity' taken up in European social move­ments, which used it as a broad cross-cutting issue, traversing work, labor and social life, to organize politically (Casas-Cortes, 2009: 327-329). For example, EuroMayDay is a 'web of media activists, labor organizers, migrant collectives convening each year in a different European city' that organizes around the slogan 'no borders, no workfare,

no precarity!' (EuroMayDay n.d.). Based on its 2004 declaration, the 2005 EuroMayDay adopted the rallying cry: 'Precarious people of the world let's unite and strike 4 a free, open, radical Europe' (EuroMayDay, 2004).

In mainstream academic work, one of the earliest analytical uses of 'precarious work' appeared in a collection edited by Rodgers and Rodgers (1989), and published by the International Labor Organization. This collection began with the observation that 'precarious forms of work' were not new, and concluded that the countries in their anthology had 'made significant progress towards eliminating or marginalizing these phenomena', due to the impact of collec­tive agreements and labor market regulation which had resulted in 'regular, protected jobs' that had 'come to dominate their industrial systems' (Rodgers, 1989: 1 ). Presciently, however, Rodgers also observed the rise of 'nonstandard' forms of work, defined as 'temporary, casual and part-time work, various forms of disguised or ille­gal wage employment, homeworking and moonlighting, self-employment and out­working' (Rodgers, 1989: 1 ). At the time, the trends were uneven across the coun­tries studied. For example, the expansion in France and Germany had been limited, whereas in Italy, some 20 percent of GDP was estimated to come from workers with nonstandard forms of employment (Bettio and Villa, 1989: 173).

The trends identified in this 1989 collec­tion did not emerge in a political or economic vacuum. While the collection does not detail it, the impacts of the first oil price shock in 1973 and the social, political and cul­tural changes associated with the decline of Fordism were critical factors. So too was the rise of neoliberal economic policies fostered by the administrations of Margaret Thatcher in Britain (1979-90) and Ronald Reagan in the United States (1981-89).

These changes to national and inter­national political economies and to work resulted in a development and consolida­tion of 'precarious work' and 'precarity' in

acuvtst and academi .-:arly 2()(X)s. In se••a the first half of the : o::onomic restrucruril: deep social and ocoo ~iderable unemploym young people. The Sl

and economic do~~ L'S housing bubble 1

Wall Street crash of~ lStating crises in \\; in massive unemp~ period. those who oo short term. poorly pi1

ielt vulnerable and d that concentrated on devalued by busines ·flexible' workers. a states that made deqi fare systems.

One consequence that those impacted i to organize and pn: ments blamed gt'O"'Ii

'ulnerability on c and neoliberal ecOD activists attributed work to processes · tion, involving ren ity. stimulated by profits and for red! tization, and the er These policies wen produce much empl did, employers a.n1

more flexible labor meant fewer benefi In the growth of t

the concept of ·pm emotive in describi: those living and wo and in jobs with rH

ity. This approach carious work as a5

and insecurities in · ing. Precarious wo is often linked with tions and a rejecti( employment relati<

432 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF THE SOCIOLOGY OF WORK AND EMPLOYMENT

These urban markets see a 'coexistence of a small, well-organized formal sector char­acterized by relatively high earnings and attractive employment c~nditions with a large informal sector characterized by low and volatile earnings' (Gunther and Launov, 2012: 88). While some orthodox economists also associate the informal sector with the underground economy, it was long consid­ered that the informal sector would decline as labor supplies from rural areas tightened, which in tum would drive higher wages, bet­ter conditions and formalization (see Chen in this volume).

Such dichotomies have proven unfit for dealing with the complexities of global pro­duction and the changing nature of work, while the use of the term 'precarious' has been criticized for its lack of precision and for its incapacity to capture the definitional fuzziness associated with the many forms of work that reduce labor costs, increase flexibil­ity for employers and diminish labor's capac­ity for collective organization (see Kalleberg and Hewison, 2013a). In explaining precari­ous employment, Vosko (20 10: 2) defines it as 'work for remuneration characterized by uncertainty, low income, and limited social benefits and statutory entitlements'. She adds that this kind of work is:

shaped by the relationship between employment status (i.e. self- or paid employment), form of employment (e.g. temporary or permanent. part­time or full-time), and dimensions of labor market insecurity, as well as social context (e.g. occupa­tion, industry, and geography) and social location (or the interaction between social relations, such as gender, and legal and political categories, such as citizenship). (Vosko, 201 0: 2)

In both developed and developing economies, modem factories, once the locus of the stand­ard work relationship, now see teams of workers, often supplied by labor contractors, working alongside company employees. These different sets of workers, with diverse employers, receive different contracts, pay and benefits. Those employed by labor con­tractors may be on short-term contracts, with or without benefits, and lack opportunities for

promotion or progress within the contracting company. Some of these workers may be migrants, trainees or interns, and, according to their status, all subje{;t to different rules and remuneration, such as day rates, piece rates and monthly pay. Others may swap in and out of jobs, switching from the informal to the formal sector when a position opens, and then back again when the job is finished. Work completed in the informal sector - by homeworkers or in tiny workshops - may be critical for the production of parts for fac­tories where other workers assemble the parts (see Unni and Rani, 2008). In some cases, the household becomes a locus of production that produces for the market even into global supply chains - or supplies services for other individuals and households, often with women at the center of these operations (Chen, 2014). These examples indicate that the long-held binaries in the academic and policy literature cannot adequately conceptu­alize contemporary work.

These examples point to a further criti­cal aspect of precarious work - the ways in which globalization of production has changed the nature of work. Vosko and Clark (2009: 33), writing about Canada, note that 'processes of economic restructuring tied to globalization have led to the privatization of state enterprises, the removal of trade bar­riers, the deregulation of the economy, the decline of manufacturing and resource sec­tors, and the growth of the service sector'. Writing about Mexico and Argentina, Bay6n (2006: 125-26) highlights similar processes and identifies precarious work, unemploy­ment, poverty and inequality as resulting in 'social precarity', defined by 'differential access to ... education, health care and hous­ing opportunities ... ' (Bay6n, 2006: 126). Much of the literature on the rise of precari­ous work identifies these changes and deg­radations as linked with political, social and economic changes that began in the 1970s and are associated with the neoliberal policies of liberalization, deregulation and privatiza­tion that brought profound transformations to regulatory regimes.

While neoliben tested, they have , nance, having di~

of industrial capit< models of capitalis termed the 'goldei Fordist productior conception of a · standard work, Iii tract of embedded limited to the de vel and to male worke

GLOBAL PRODlJ PRECARIOUS W

Essentially, the iiDJ policies in a conte tion has provided ; production to dis ·Jocks' of the peric and standard wort.: era of neoliberaJ g} ciated with a remar ment that has s. spatially diversifi involving the appL edge. technolo~ a drivers of demand labor to increase cc ity and flexibility. in a global search can provide cost 1

..:ost reductions. 0 within global proc Humphrey and Sd been ·unrelenting. pressure on prices :'oqueeze leads bu\1

.ror new producer. -.:osts' (emphasis ac

Such competim expansion of hou md the expansion ._...mer 'informal' "'hich have consid ro Chen C!Ol4:

'fMENT

:bin the contracting ~ workers may be rns. and. according 1 to different rules lS day rates, piece ~Wet's may swap in ~ from the informal ~ a position opens, l.be job is finished.

tformal sector by odshops may be o of parts for fac­; assemble the parts 1. In some cases, the :s of production that - even into global ::s services for other 10lds. often with f these operations mples indicate that

l.be academic and lequately conceptu-

to a further criti­work the ways

of production has ~ Vosko and Clark t Canada, note that estructuring tied to l.be privatization of X>Val of trade bar­f the economy, the : and resource sec­the service sector'. li Argentina, Bay on s similar processes • work, unemploy­dity as resulting in ~ by 'differential :alth care and hous­~y6n. 2006: 126). the rise of precari­

~ changes and deg­:JOlitical, social and ~gan in the 1970s : neoliberal policies Ilion and privatiza­:t transformations to

PRECARIOUS WORK 433

While neoliberal policies have been con­tested, they have established a policy domi­nance, having displaced the Keynesianism of industrial capitalism, welfare and national models of capitalism. This period sometimes termed the 'golden age of capitalism' - saw Fordist production systems give rise to the conception of a 'standard work'. Even so, standard work, like the broader social con­tract of embedded liberalism, was generally limited to the developed countries of the West and to male workers.

GLOBAL PRODUCTION, PRECARIOUS WORK

Essentially, the implementation of neoliberal policies in a context of enhanced globaliza­tion has provided a framework for capitalist production to disengage from the spatial 'locks' of the period of embedded liberalism and standard work (see Harvey, 2001). The era of neoliberal globalization has been asso­ciated with a remarkable expansion of invest­ment that has seen production become spatially diversified through innovations involving the application of capital, knowl­edge, technology and logistics. These are the drivers of demands for states, business and labor to increase competitiveness, profitabil­ity and flexibility. Competition has resulted in a global search for production sites that can provide cost reductions, notably wage cost reductions. Competitive cost reduction within global production networks has, as Humphrey and Schmitz (2001: 12) observe, been 'unrelenting, leading to a downward pressure on prices. . .. The resulting profit squeeze leads buyers to scout continuously for new producers who offer lower labor costs' (emphasis added).

Such competitive pressures lead to the expansion of household-based production, and the expansion of 'self-employment' and other 'informal' employment, categories which have considerable overlap. According to Chen (2014: 5), home-based workers

'represent a significant share of urban employ­ment in some countries, particularly for women and especially in Asia'. She cites data for India and Pakistan, where home-based workers account for 14 percent and 4 percent of total urban employment and 32 percent and 31 percent of women's urban employment respectively. For 2013, the Gallup organiza­tion reported that almost 30 percent of the global workforce was 'self-employed'. By region, the highest rates were in Southeast Asia (41 percent of the workforce), East Asia (39 percent) and Sub-Saharan Africa (36 percent), while the lowest rates were in North America (7 percent) and the European Union (I 0 percent). Worldwide, the self­employed are poorer and less educated than the population in which they reside. In these circumstances, the Gallup report states that self-employment is likely to be a necessity rather than an opportunity (Ryan, 2014).

Some analysts identify the development of global production networks, and their incor­poration of flexible labor practices, as essen­tially coercive processes (see Chang, 2006). These networks demand that supplier firms and states compete for investment while workers must compete for jobs in more flex­ible labor markets. As well as markets, raw materials, tax benefits and the like, states advertise their ability to provide a flexible investment environment, and this invariably includes declarations about disciplined, cheap or skilled workers. Such approaches have been implemented so broadly that they are now seen as 'natural' policies: considered as essential and even natural. Individual states, <ieclaring their governments investment­friendly, compete with regulatory innovation in labor markets.

States not only compete in areas such as fiscal, tax, investment and industry poli­cies, but also in labor policies. Indeed, such policies are regularly measured for their 'flexibility' and 'business friendliness', including the World Economic Forum's (2011) Competition Index. In labor markets, collective bargaining is limited or controlled as 'market distorting'. Regulated benefits,

434 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF THE SOCIOLOGY OF WORK AND EMPLOYMENT

worker protections and national labor laws may be identified as 'rigidities' and 'costs' to be limited, reduced or dismantled, often in the name of generating employment. Importantly, employers afso adopt firm- and industry-level practices that constrain unions and collective bargaining. These measures include coercion, often backed by the state; legal actions against unions. labor leaders and workers; the creation of company unions that are indistinguishable from management; and the bribing of union and state officials (see Chang, 2006). The result is often a flexibilization regime encompassing dereg­ulation and re-regulation over all aspects of production and employment relations (Tjandraningsih and Nugroho, 2008: 1-2). This flexibilization regime does not require state deregulation as much as new forms of regulation and institutional arrangements that promote labor markets which are com­petitive, productive and flexible. In this, states and capital converge in measures that require a thoroughgoing commodification of work, resulting in the advance of precarious work.

It may seem obvious that cost reduction strategies would spur the use of precarious work. Indeed, in many of the earliest studies of contingent work, a term used in the US to denote the use of labor only in response to demand, it was suggested a prime motiva­tion was to control costs by reducing the time that paid workers were idle or working below capacity. Another motivation was to reduce the cost of labor and benefits as well as the cost of laying workers off (see Polivka and Nardone, 1989: 12-13). The desire to better control labor often portrayed as a search for more flexible labor markets - has also had a significant impact. Levels of unioniza­tion, collective bargaining arrangements and workplace regulation have each been iden­tified as important factors affecting invest­ment decisions (see Cooke, 2001). Likewise, Evans and Gibb (2009: 40-41) argue that the rise in precarious work has three motivations: first, hourly wage costs are reduced; second, dismissing workers when product demand

falls reduces fixed costs; and third. beyond costs, ideology is involved.

ASSESSING THE EXTENT OF PRECARIOUS WORK

As already noted, the use of 'precarious work' comes with some methodological issues. The very fuzziness of the term, which makes it attractive to activists and analysts alike, also makes measuring the extent of precarious work a difficult task. Not least, these difficulties involve problems using statistics that are collected using definitions of work that carry the conceptual baggage of bygone eras. For example, the data reported above for Western Europe showed signifi­cant increases in 'temporary work', yet this category does not constitute all of the forms of work considered precarious (ILO, 2012: 30).

Recent studies on Asia illustrate the chal­lenges in assessing the extent of precarious work. With Asia emerging as the world's factory, accounting for more than 20 per­cent of global manufacturing value added in 2012, precarious work has become a criti­cal challenge (UN Industrial Development Organization, 2013: 27). With the exception of Thailand, all of the other countries shown in Table 23.1 display an increased reliance on precarious forms of employment. The figures presented in the table are drawn from multiple official sources using different defi­nitions of what constitutes precarious work. Earlier data for Vietnam and China data is unavailable, yet the breaking of the previous socialist social contract in areas of employ­ment and welfare suggests that forms of pre­carious work have expanded substantially (see Arnold, 2013; Zhou, 2013).

In the wealthy economies of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, considerable attention has been paid to dispatched workers. These are workers employed by third-party companies or agencies who are supplied to other com­panies under contract. Dispatched workers

Table 23.1 GDP 1111

Country GDPIG (currer;

Japan 46.rn 5. Korea 22.59(J

Taiwan 20,321!

China 6.181!

Thailand 5.48Cl

Indonesia 3,551

Sri lanka 2.913 Philippines 2.581

Vietnam 1,59E

India 1,48!

Notes: • 2000; b 1005: :

Sources: Data in the tal

are recognized as Japan, 'irregular· standard' in Tai~· also seen for the (J

The economies c of industrializ.ati and cultural traje important feat:un vary, with large 1

workers importa.nl incoming migtaJ for Thailand. ancj

especially signifi Lanka and lndoo many of these e a rapid transitic production to ind

These change using the availaJ changing wod example. China a provided reliable of rural migrants sons, in India an precarious worl;e

tural work and tbi changes to regul;l statistics are repo1

is a useful exaniJ In Table 23.1

the trend of inc

'ME NT

and third, beyond

n ll

JSe of 'precarious .e methodological ; of the term, which 1:1\ists and analysts Iring the extent of ult taSk. Not least, ·e problems using ~ using definitions oceptual baggage of e. the data reported pe showed signifi­rporary work', yet :oostitute all of the ~ precarious (ILO,

:t illustrate the chal­:xtent of precarious ing as the world's more than 20 per­Iring value added in bas become a criti­J.Strial Development . With the exception ber countries shown n increased reliance f employment. The (able are drawn from using different det1-tes precarious work. n and China data is aking of the previous in areas of employ­

>tS that forms of pre­)allded substantially L 2013). mies of Japan, South iderable attention has I workers. These are lird-party companies pplied to other com­Dispatched workers

PRECARIOUS WORK 435

Table 23.1 GDP and precarious work, most recent data

Counuy GOP/capita Precarious Formal, regular, Increase in Union density, Union density, (current US$) work{%) permanent or precarious work, 1990 2010

standard work (%) 1995-2010 (%)

Japan 46,720 33.7 66.3 25 25.2 15.5

S. Korea 22,590 34.2 65.8 14 18.4 10.1

Taiwan 20,328 8.8 91.2 72 43.3 37.3 China 6,188 60.4 39.6 n.a. 90.8 61.5• Thailand 5,480 62.3 37.7 -25 11.0 3.3 Indonesia 3,557 65.8 34.2 15 14.Qb 3.6 Sri lanka 2,923 62.6 37.4 2.5 20.0' 20.0 Philippines 2,587 77.0 23.0 10 29.7 18.7

Vietnam 1,596 73.7 26.3 n.a. n.a. 40.0 India 1,489 94.3 5.7 17 26.6 6.3

Notes: • 2000; b 2005;' 1995.

Sources: Data in the table are drawn from Hewison and Kalleberg (2013) and Kalleberg and Hewison (2013b).

are recognized as 'nonregular' employees in Japan, 'irregular' in South Korea and 'non­standard' in Taiwan. Such variable terms are also seen for the other countries in Table 23.1. The economies of Asia vary in their levels of industrialization and in their historical and cultural trajectories. This means that the important features of precarious work will vary, with large numbers of internal migrant workers important in China and Vietnam, while incoming migrant workers are significant for Thailand, and outgoing migrant workers especially significant for the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Indonesia. In addition, like India, many of these economies are experiencing a rapid transition from agricultural-based production to industry and services.

These changes and developments make using the available statistical reporting on changing work patterns cha1lenging. For example, China and Vietnam have not always provided reliable data regarding the situation of rural migrants in cities. For different rea­sons, in India and Thailand, the reporting of precarious workers is tightly tied to agricul­tural work and the informal sector. In addition, changes to regulation have impacted how the statistics are reported. In this context, Thailand is a useful example.

In Table 23.1, the notable exception to the trend of increasing precarious work is

Thailand, where the ofticial data show a substantial decline in precarious work. As with all of the other jurisdictions surveyed, 'precarious work' is not a term that is com­monly used by Thailand's government, its researchers or labor activists. Instead, several terms, often not mutually exclusive, describe employment that is not 'regular', 'formal' or 'standard'. In addition, Thailand's National Statistical Office (NSO) uses a definition of 'employed' that has shifted the age of those considered 'employed persons' from 13 to 15 years of age and over and includes anyone who has worked for at least one hour a month for wages/salaries, profits, dividends or any other payment, or who has received a regu­lar salary from an employer but did not work, and unpaid family workers (see Hewison and Tularak, 2013). This definition is so broad

)hat it sheds little light on the extent of pre­carious work.

However, when the NSO reports on the informal sector, a better sense of precari­ous work is obtained. Yet even this defin­ition has changed due to regulatory reform. In the official surveying, workers in the informal sector· were once considered to be own-account workers. private employees and unpaid family workers in business estab­lishments with fewer than 10 employees. However, the expansion of a state-sponsored

436 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF THE SOCIOLOGY OF WORK AND EMPLOYMENT

and compulsory social security scheme has been expanded to include workers in 'infor­mal employment'. Essentially referring to agriculture and the urban informal sector, the NSO has come to officially define such workers as being 'employed persons who have not been protected under social secu­rity' (NSO, 2011: 2). The result is that this definition of 'informal employment' means that those 'outside the social security sys­tem' become a proxy for precarious wor~ers. It is this changing definition and the impact of welfare regulation that accounts for the decline in precarious work for Thailand seen in Table 23.1.

Despite these differences in terminology and definitions, the data collected in Table 23.1 indicates an expansion of precarious work throughout the region. In Japan, this is certainly the case. As global competition has expanded, Japanese firms have used various cost-cutting measures to maintain profitability. These measures have included reducing the wage bill. The result is that com­panies have hired fewer 'standard' workers and increased the number of 'non-regular' workers. The increase has been dramatic in a society that has long promoted 'lifetime employment'. In 1984, 15.3 percent of the labor force was classified as non-regular, but by 2008 this number had increased to 34.1 percent (Osawa et al., 2013). Gottfried (2014: 465) points out that these changes began in a period prior to the onset of Japan's economic torpor in the 1990s and concludes that the rise of a sharp dualism in the Japanese labor mar­ket and the decline of the enterprise-based welfare system are shattering the 'corporate­centred male-breadwinner reproductive bar­gain'. As indicated in Table 23.1, Taiwan's increase in precarious work has been rela­tively small in absolute numbers yet large in percentage terms. Part-time, fixed-term tem­porary (on contracts of three months or less) and dispatched workers numbered 224,554 in 2001, and this had expanded to 924,000 by 2010 (Hsiao, 2013: 378). South Korea has seen dramatic increases in precarious work. In 2011, almost 6 million, or more than a

third of all workers, were officially limited­term, part-time or atypical workers (Shin, 2013: 339, 343).

In Europe, considering the 28 countries in Eurostat databases, the expansion of 'non­standard' work has seen part-time employ­ment expand from about 16 percent in 2003 to 20.2 percent in 2012, limited duration con­tracts expand from 12.3 percent to 13.8 per­cent, and own-account workers increase from 9.5 percent to 10.2 percent over the same period. Such data suggest a steady but lim­ited increase in precarious work, although, as Stone (2012) demonstrates, women, young workers and those aged more than 45 years are over-represented in these categories of work. The same patterns are seen in North America. Recent studies have also indicated that 'self-employment' is growing rapidly as unemployment remains high and as pre­carious work expands. For example, whereas the number of 'employees' has grown only slowly in the US and Britain since 2000, the rates of self-employment have increased by 40 percent and 50 percent, respectively (The Economist, April 12, 2014).

It is noteworthy that many of these increases in precarious work have taken place in contexts where firm-level and industry-based employment practices have both become more flexible in ways that have tended to reduce and limit collective organ­ization by workers. Recent research indicates that advanced capitalist economies have seen both an expansion of precarious work and a decline in collective bargaining coverage and union density. Examining ten advanced indus­trial countries, Stone (2012: 33) observes a generalized increase in various 'nonstandard' employment categories and notes declines in union density in nine of these countries between 1970 and 2005 - the exception is Germany. Stone (20 12: 31) points to steep declines in collective bargaining coverage from the mid-1980s in seven of these coun­tries and acknowledges that the causal direc­tion in the relationship between declining union density and 'standard' employment is not yet established. Clearly, the relationships

between flexibili..z; union density anc areas requiring flo

The consideral work and workpl directed anenti011 ous work. Resear carious employee! are more likely 1

or dangerous job paid less while h to access wori.:pla fits. In addition.. of Ontario (n.d. 1

work can also ha'l For example. pr-e involve physicall~­or dirty work thai safety risks. 1besi the stress that coo curity. the tendenc hold multiple j~ hours. and limited can also have ad and communities. options where bel government are liJ

MIGRANTWOI

An important asp work has been the work. The scale o migration for w01

the hundreds of n over recent decadi patterns being Sll

where migrants sc 2005). Whether il Cnited States. Ca Thailand or inte areas to manufac1 vast majority of 1

jobs in services a often relatively IX

The Law Cou found that recent u

•ENT

:Jitlk-ially limited-1 v.od:ers (Shin.

~ 2S countries in pansion of ·non-111111-tirne emplo~­f) percent in 2003 ired duration con­rcent to 13.8 per­l.:as increase from ot 0\ er the same a steady but hm­•od. although. as :i.. women. young 10re than -+5 years ~ categories oi are seen in ~orth aYe also indicated

growing rapidly . high and as pre­example. whereas

1 • has grown on! y lin since 2000. the base increased by . respectively (The I.

many of these vood: have taken e finn-level and nt practices have ~ in ways that ha\·e 11 collective organ­t research indicates ooomies have seen :arious work and a i:ning coverage and en advanced indus-12: 33 l observes a ricus ·nonstandard" IDd notes declines of these countries

the exception is ; 11 points to steep ~rgaining coverage "·en of these coun-131 the causal direc­between declining m:f employment is 1~. the relationships

PRECARIOUS WORK 437

between flexibilization, precarious work, and union density and collective bargaining are areas requiring further comparative research.

The consideration given to changes in work and workplace arrangements has also directed attention to the impacts of precari­ous work. Research has indicated that pre­carious employees work longer, often harder, are more likely to have low-skilled, dirty or dangerous jobs, and almost always get paid less while having fewer opportunities to access workplace or even statutory bene­fits. In addition, as the Law Commission of Ontario (n.d.) acknowledges, precarious work can also have negative health outcomes. For example, precarious work is likely to

involve physically demanding and dangerous or dirty work that has increased health and safety risks. These risks are compounded by the stress that comes from employment inse­curity, the tendency for precarious workers to hold multiple jobs, working irregular or long hours, and limited legal protections. Bad jobs can also have adverse impacts for families and communities. Low pay can reduce health options where benefits from employers and government are limited.

MIGRANT WORKERS

An important aspect in the rise of precarious work has been the expansion of migration for work. The scale of internal and international migration for work is enormous, totaling in the hundreds of millions, a massive increase over recent decades, with particular gendered patterns being seen for particular sectors where migrants seek work (Jolly and Reeves, 2005). Whether it is Latinos moving to the United States, Cambodians seeking work in Thailand or internal migrants from rural areas to manufacturing zones in China, the vast majority of these migrants are finding jobs in services and manufacturing that are often relatively poorly paid and precarious.

The Law Commission of Ontario (n.d.) found that recent migrants to Canada have been

disproportionately impacted by precarious work, and are more likely to be self-employed due to a lack of other job opportunities. In China, rural migrants to cities tend to be residentially segregated in disadvantaged neighborhoods and with limited access to state-sponsored welfare. Recent research concludes, 'it is abundantly clear that migrant workers [from rural origins] are still not receiving their full complement of insurance entitlements, as well as being paid less for their productive characteristics compared to urban workers' (Lee, 2012: 469). Similarly, migrant workers arriving in Portugal, mainly from Africa, suffer occupational skills down­grading compared with locals and, hence, even further reduced wages (Carneiro, et al., 2012).

In the US, data on migrants from Mexico showed that 'the labor market status of legal immigrants has deteriorated significantly in recent years as larger shares of the migrant workforce came to lack labor rights, either because they were undocumented or because they held temporary visas that did not allow mobility or bargaining over wages and work­ing conditions' {Gentsch and Massey, 2011: 875). In Singapore and Malaysia there has been a heavy reliance on migrant workers; the low-skilled migrants can find themselves contracted and illegally sub-contracted into jobs that evade the country's labor regula­tions and result in poor wages, abuse and ille­gal exactions by employers (Devadason and Chan, 2014; Ong, 2014). Poorly paid migrant workers in Thailand have struggled with low wages, language barriers, dangerous working

, conditions, abuse, and a lack of legal rights (see Arnold and Hewison, 2005; Eberle and Holliday, 2011).

If migrants enter the country illegally, their position is often amongst the most precarious of workers. They are exploited in terms of gender, race, nationality, regulatory discrimi­nation, wages, and by their limited access to basic state protections. They also are subject to the whims of policy and politics, as has been seen in South Korea, where migrant workers have experienced state crackdowns

438 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF THE SOCIOLOGY OF WORK AND EMPLOYMENT

and round-ups leading to compulsory depor­tation (Kim, 2012).

PRECARIOUS WORK AND THE 'PRECARIAT'

While the use of the terms 'precarious work' and 'precarious employment' has expanded, there has been debate regarding the social location of precarious workers. Standing's (2011) term 'the precariat' has attracted con­siderable attention. On the first page of his book, Standing (2011: i} states that the pre­cariat is 'a new group in the world, a class-in­the-making'. However, Standing rejects the idea that the precariat is the working class, arguing that this class is a part of an old class system that has been shattered in recent decades (Standing, 2011: 6). While Standing (20 11: 8) suggests that the 'precariat has class characteristics', he claims 'it has none of the social contract relationships of the proletariat, whereby labor securities were provided in exchange for subordination and contingent loyalty, the unwritten deal under­pinning welfare states'. Standing's conten­tion that the precariat is a potentially dangerous class is drawn from his historical reading that, in the old class system, the lumpenproletariat was attracted to populism and fascism. Observing parallels with the precariat, he warns that 'unless the precariat is understood, its emergence could lead soci­ety towards a politics of inferno' (Standing, 2011: i).

As Standing (2011: 9) acknowledges, he is not particularly innovative in his use of the terms 'precariat' and 'precarity' in English, tracing them back to the 1980s when they were used to describe seasonal workers. As noted earlier, precarity was later associated with social movements such EuroMayDay and 'Beyond the ESF' (European Social Forum), with the latter hosting the first Assembly of the Precariat (see Wainwright and Reyes, 2004). Casas-Cortes (2009: 236) delineates the social movement use of the

term, referring to Chainworkers, an Italian collective, that in 2004 described a struggle and conceptualization that is immediately recognizable:

The precariat is to post-Fordism what proletariat was to Fordism: flexible, temporary, part-time, and self-employed workers are the new social group which is required and reproduced by the neoliberal and postindustrial economic transformation. It is the critical mass that emerges from globalization, while demolished factories and neighborhoods are being substituted by offices and commercial areas. They are service workers in supermarkets and chains, cognitive workers operating in the infor­mation industry, [etc]. Our lives become precarious because of the imperative of flexibility.

This political use of 'precariat' draws on ear­lier work that identified the rise of digital technologies and work related to this that saw the emergence of 'new media' workers who were identified with new designations such as 'technobohemians' or as 'net slaves' or the 'cybertariat'. Gill's question in the title of her report 'Technobohemians or the new Cybertariat?' captures a view that technology might release workers from the drudgery of standard work. The counter-position was that, for many workers, a new 'digital disciplining' saw them being proletarianized (Gill, n.d.). Clearly, the mixing of the terms 'cyber' and 'proletariat' is a construction that is repro­duced in the conceptualization of 'precariat'.

Standing's identification of the precariat as a new class or global class-in-the-making has attracted considerable critical commentary. Breman (2013) argues that Standing is too generalized in his definition and examples, and misses historical nuance and regional variation in the patterns of work and pre­cariousness. He argues that the precariat is not a new or distinctive class and shares much with the proletariat. Seymour (2012) argues that the concept lacks specificity and acts 'as a kind of populist interpellation', while acknowledging its usefulness for anti­capitalist movements. He points out that inse­curity has long been at the core of capital-labor relations. Seymour also criticizes Standing's definition of the precariat, which is made in

terms of a compa of the characteris the 'golden age c

The critics a empirical and tb ing a precariaL important feanrr and early twenty ingly workers an: ations where tbi manage the risks and businesses a1

workplaces in v. • tainty. instability expanding and l ture of global pre

LABOR ORGAI PRECARIOUS,

Individualizing r from employers their families ha labor organizati< As noted abo' e_ and rising insa: workers and to with unionizatio limit labor mar\;

new strategies developing. Whi siderably by re political and his points may be o

An approach support in Wes: curity. most oo Employment ~

to enhance lab maintaining em fare safety nets. win policy. it 1: ambiguous. sut biased to emplo to address the ~ and Keune. .:!< Europe ha,·e be

DYMENT

oworkers, an Italian described a struggle that is immediately

'ere sm what proletariat !""":x:Jrary, part-time, and ;; :"e new social group :c...ced by the neoliberal -··= ~ransformation. It is '"QeS from globalization, ; a'lo ne1ghborhoods are sa~ a commercial areas. ; ~. supermarkets and :::oeating in the infor­.·.es become precarious

o" flexibility

cariaf draws on ear­l the rise of digital related to this that Jew media' workers rh new designations JS. or as 'net slaves' ; question in the title 11emians or the new .iew that technology om the drudgery of er-position was that, 'digital disciplining' ianized (Gill, n.d.). e terms 'cyber' and ction that is repro­:ation of 'precariat'. 111 of the precariat as s-in-the-making has ritical commentary. ilat Standing is too tion and examples, lanCe and regional of work and pre­that the precariat

ie class and shares LL Seymour (20 12) liCks specificity and tlist interpellation', usefulness for anti­points out that inse­:ore of capital-labor riticizes Standing's ~ which is made in

'

PRECARIOUS WORK 439

terms of a comparison with an idealized view of the characteristics of the proletariat during the 'golden age of capitalism'.

The critics agree that while there are empirical and theoretical issues with defin­ing a precariat, Standing has identified an important feature of late twentieth-century and early twenty-first-century work: increas­ingly workers are being made to labor in situ­ations where the workers themselves must manage the risks of their employment. States and businesses arrange and manage work and workplaces in ways which have led to uncer­tainty, instability, vulnerability and insecurity expanding and becoming an important fea­ture of global production.

LABOR ORGANIZING AND PRECARIOUS WORK

Individualizing risk by shifting responsibility from employers and the state to workers and their families has important implications for labor organization and collective bargaining. As noted above, changes in global production and rising insecurity are used to discipline workers and to limit collective bargaining, with unionization considered by employers to limit labor market flexibility. In this context, new strategies for organizing have been developing. While these strategies vary con­siderably by region and social, economic, political and historical context, some general points may be considered.

An approach that has gained some policy support in Western Europe has been flexi­curity, most notably through the European Employment Strategy. Flexicurity seeks to enhance labor market flexibility while maintaining employment security and wel­fare safety nets. While seeming to be a win­win policy, it has been criticized as costly, ambiguous, subject to political capture and biased to employers, as well as for failing to address the issue of deregulation (Burroni and Keune, 2011). Progressive unions in Europe have been interested in both national

and region-wide re-regulation that secures minimum standards, recognizing that unions themselves must change to better incorporate precarious workers and their interests. The emphasis has been on collective bargain­ing within plants, nationally and regionally, that addresses these interests, and extensive political lobbying (Mehrens, 2011: 78-80). Similar strategies have been adopted by some unions in Asia (Deyo, 2012).

Collective action strategies have also involved both unions and non-governmental organizations. In Thailand, there have been some successes as unionized workers have struck firm-level agreements with transna­tional employers that inc Jude contracted workers from agencies, drawing on support from workers in the companies' plants in the United States (Hewison and Tularak, 2013). In Latin America, unions have achieved simi­lar success, although in buyer-driven supply chains the effective alliances have been with activist and transnational consumer move­ments in the United States (Anner, 2011 ). Precarious workers have also been shown to organize alternative labor movements that seek social welfare gains. In India, this has involved using the power of their votes and citizenship rights to address politicians and governments rather than employers (Agarwala, 2013).

CONCLUSION

The expansion of global production and of precarious work suggests attention to a

, number of issues and questions. While these will necessarily vary by jurisdiction, some broad areas of future research can be identi­fied. The nature and extent of precarious work remains impressionistic, and it is impor­tant that more research be conducted that allows for a clearer enumeration of the extent of precarious work. The impacts of insecurity are felt globally and yet workers' perceptions of precarity and vulnerability are not well studied. Likewise, the experiences and strug­gles of precarious workers need to be better

440 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF THE SOCIOlOGY OF WORK AND EMPlOYMENT

understood in terms of disaggregated impacts and perceptions by gender, age, work status, industry and national/regional location. More research is also needed to understand the legislation and forms or' contracts and non­contracts that face workers and structure employment, and to understand the barriers to regularizing status. Insecurity in employment has also been expanding to include profes­sions and services once considered immune to outsourcing, insourcing and contracting, and more research is necessary in order to better understand these changes. In addition, further studies of business models and employment agencies at different locations in supply and service chains (e.g. buyer vs. sup­plier chains, bottom vs. top of the chain) will also allow a better reflection on worker responses and collective organization and action. Finally, risk needs to be studied in the context of policy and worker responses, examining employment rights and citizenship rights as workers and their organizations deal with states rather than employers in terms of minimum standards, flexicurity, univeralism and political processes. Such research will be most valuable if it involves deep analysis of individual cases that allow for comparative and cross-regional analysis.

A recent World Bank report examining the Asia-Pacific region argues that 'vulnerable' employment tends to be more common in countries where institutions and governance are weakest (Packard and Nguyen, 2014: 35). This view is inclined to obscure the fact that precarious work is a common feature of all economies, irrespective of regulatory robust­ness. Analysts have demonstrated that precari­ousness is not a result of limited regulation but of specific decisions made about the nature of regulation (see Gottfried, 2014: 474).

Precarious work has always been a fea­ture of capitalist economies. What motivates attention to precarious work in the contempo­rary epoch is the recognition that, at least in Western Europe and some of the major Asian economies, the historical efforts to reduce vulnerability are being undone. The progress was a response to the power of labor. In the

West, collective agreements and labor market regulation developed the 'standard employ­ment relationship' to ensure stability in the Cold War era. In Japan, lifetime employment was in part a strategy for defeating left-wing unions. That resulting relationship between capital, labor and the state incorporated the regularity and durability in employment that Rodgers (1989: I) identified as protecting workers from exploitation, and established a social contract of rights and obligations that underpinned stability and economic expan­sion. These arrangements were, however, quite limited, restricted to relatively wealthy economies and aimed at unionized men.

As the twentieth century ended, the need for such social contracts was undermined by changes to global politics and production. The end of state socialism meant that global production and markets have dominated, yet the demise of these social contracts has meant the re-regulation of work so that it is flexible. Flexibility has resulted in uncer­tainty, instability, vulnerability and insecu­rity. Where states and businesses once carried some of the risks of work, now workers and their families and communities bear the risks associated with precarious work.

REFERENCES

Agarwala, R. 2013. Informal Labor, Formal Politics, and Dignified Discontent in India, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Allison, A. 2013. Precarious Japan, Durham: Duke University Press.

Anner, M. 2011. Solidarity Transformed: Labor Responses to Globalization and Crisis in Latin America, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Arnold, D. 2013. 'Social Margins and Precarious Work in Vietnam'. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(3): 468-487.

Arnold, D. and J. Bongiovi. 2013. 'Precarious, lnformalizing, and Flexible Work: Transforming Concepts and Understandings'. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(3): 289-308.

Arnold, D. and K. Hewison. 2005. 'Exploitation in Global Supply Chains: Burmese Workers in

Mae Sot'. Joor 35(3): 319-340.

Bay6n, M. 2006. ·s Argentina: Trera: Trajectories'. Cf'

Bettio, F. and P_ v·; and Disguised .,.., G. Rodgers a"'d Jobs in Labou• Growth of Aryo Europe, pp. 149 Institute for laO(

Breman, J. 2013. ' Review, 84 \n.s

Burroni, L. and M. Conceptual C rr: Industrial Rela;;o

Carneiro, A., N. P.: 'Immigrants ar " Fare and \'/ ... ~, Economics, 25 ·

Casas-Cortes, M. : Sites of Kno.•,•;e Work, the Fate c in a Globahz;ng : dissertat1on. :._,­Chapel Hill.

Chang, D 2006. Labour in Gioc.a Portrait of S:-r....; China: As1a ~.'CI'

Chen, M. (2C14 ,,

Study Secor .:?e Cambndge ·,•,;y Globaliz;rg a~-:::

:::ooke, W 2C.C ar1d WorkO'a::e ( ''lvestmen a­C ountnes ·-::-eo Resources ·~a~..l

:::e.aaason. E a.'"~

a"d La·,..,'S Reg.. '.'alays.a A. C· Conterr.oora!'"_. ~

F 2012 ;;:e'l :"aca Cc·~-e •

:::.:: .... e. t~ a .... : .:::a t1ca =---·a 3-Jii'~a :"'"' ::-.a-:

=-·:ll.'ayJa~ - 1

:: _ ~ .':.ayua:. • 'a'E!

LOYMENT

Ients and labor market lie ·standard employ­nsure stability in the lifetime employment

x defeating left-wing relationship between Ule incorporated the ~· in employment that ntified as protecting on. and established a ; and obligations that od economic expan­~ts were, however, to relatively wealthy : unionized men. tury ended, the need > was undennined by tics and production. ;m meant that global ts have dominated, social contracts has of work so that it is ; resulted in uncer­rability and insecu­sinesses once carried ri.:.. now workers and unities bear the risks lS work.

Ymal Labor, Formal D1scontent in India, University Press. )US Japan, Durham:

· Transformed: Labor on and Crisis in Latin Un1versity Press. >rg~ns and Precarious merican Behavioral 7

' 2013. 'Precarious, ! Work: Transforming andings'. American

289-308. . 2005. 'Exploitation Burmese Workers in

.i.

PRECARIOUS WORK 441

Mae Sot'. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 35(3): 319-340.

Bay6n, M. 2006. 'Social Precarity in Mexico and Argentina: Trends, Manifestations and National Trajectories'. CEPAL Review, 88: 12 5-143.

Bettio, F. and P. Villa. 1989. 'Non-Wage Work and Disguised Wage Employment in Italy'. In G. Rodgers and J. Rodgers (eds), Precarious Jobs in Labour Market Regulation: The Growth of Atypical Employment in Western Europe, pp. 149-178. Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies.

Breman, J. 2013. 'A Bogus Concept?' New Left Review, 84 (n.s.): 130-138.

Burroni, L. and M. Keune. 2011. 'Fiexicurity: A Conceptual Critique'. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 17(1): 75-91.

Carneiro, A., N. Fortuna and J. Varejao. 2012. 'Immigrants at New Destinations: How They Fare and Why'. Journal of Population Economics, 25: 1165-1185.

Casas-Cortes, M. 2009. 'Social Movements as Sites of Knowledge Production: Precarious Work, the Fate of Care and Activist Research in a Globalizing Spain'. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Chang, D. 2006. 'Preface'. In D. Chang (ed.), Labour in Global/sing Asian Corporations: A Portrait of Struggle, pp. v-viii. Hong Kong, China: Asia Monitor Resource Centre.

Chen, M. (2014) Informal Economy Monitoring Study Sector Report: Home-Based Workers, Cambridge: Women in Informal Employment: Globalizing and Organizing.

Cooke, W. 2001. The Effects of Labour Costs and Workplace Constraints on Foreign Direct Investment among Highly Industrialized Countries'. International Journal of Human Resources Management, 12(5): 697-716.

Devadason, E. and W. Chan, 2014. 'Policies and Laws Regulating Migrant Workers in Malaysia: A Critical Appraisal'. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 44(1 ): 19-3 5.

Deyo, F. 2012. Reforming Asian Labor Systems, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Eberle, M. and I. Holliday. 2011. 'Precarity and Political lmmobilisation: Migrants from Burma in Chiang Mai, Thailand'. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 41(3): 371-392.

EuroMayDay. n.d. 'What's EuroMayDay?' EuroMayDay Website, http://vvww.euromayday. org/about.php (accessed 20 August 2014)

EuroMayDay. 2004. 'Middlesex Declaration of Europe's Precariat 2004'. http://www.euro­mayday.org/2005/middle. php (accessed 6 May 2014).

Evans, J. and E. Gibb. 2009. Moving from Precarious Employment to Decent Work. Geneva: International Labor Organization, Global Union Research Network Discussion Paper No. 13.

Gentsch, K. and D. Massey. 2011. 'Labor Market Outcomes for Legal Mexican Immigrants under the New Regime of Immigration Enforcement'. Social Science Quarterly, 92(3): 875-893.

Gill, R. n.d. Technobohemians or the New Cybertariat? New Media Work in Amsterdam a Decade after the Web. Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.

Gottfried, H. 2009. 'Japan: The Reproductive Bargain and the Making of Precarious Employment'.ln L Vosko, M. MacDonald and I. Campbell (eds), Gender and the Contours of Precarious Employment, pp. 76-91 . London: Routledge.

Gottfried, H. 2014. 'Precarious Work in Japan: Old Forms, New Risks?' Journal of Contemporary Asia, 44(3): 464-478.

Gunther, I and A. Launov. 2012. 'Informal Employment in Developing Countries. Opportunity or Last Resort?' Journal of Development Economics, 97( 1 ): 88-98.

Hardt, M. and A. Negri. 2000. Empire, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Harvey, D. 2001. 'Globalization and the "Spatial Fix'". Geographische Revue, 2: 23-30.

Hewison, K. and A. Kalleberg, eds. 2013. 'Precarious Work and Flexibilization in South and Southeast Asia'. Special issue of American Behavioral Scientist, 57(4): 395-530.

Hewison, K. and W. Tularak. 2013. 'Thailand and Precarious Work: An Assessment'. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(4): 444-467.

Hsiao, M. 2013. 'Precarious Work in Taiwan: A Profile'. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(3): 373-389.

Humphrey, J. and H. Schmitz. 2001. Governance in Global Value Chains. IDS Bulletin, 32(3): 1-16.

ILO. 2012. Fro'm Precarious Work to Decent Work. Outcome Document to the Workers' Symposium on Policies and Regulations to Combat Precarious Employment. Geneva: International Labour Office.

442 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF THE SOCIOLOGY OF WORK AND EMPLOYMENT

Jolly, S. and H. Reeves. 2005. Gender and Migration, Brighton: BRIDGE, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.

Kalleberg, A. 2011. Good Jobs, Bad Jobs: The Rise of Polarized and Precarious Employment Systems in the United States, 1970s to 2000s. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Kalleberg, A. and K. Hewison. 2013a. 'Precarious Work and the Challenge for Asia'. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(3): 271-288.

Kalleberg, A. and K. Hewison, eds. 2013b. Special issue of American Behavioral Scientist. 57(3): 271-389.

Kalleberg, A., B. Reskin and K. Hudson. 2000. 'Bad Jobs in America: Standard and Nonstandard Employment Relations and Job Quality in the United States'. American Sociological Review, 65(2): 256-278.

Kim, N-K. 2012. 'The Migrant Workers' Movement in the Democratic Consolidation of Korea'. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 42(4): 676-696.

Law Commission of Ontario. n.d. 'Quick Facts About Vulnerable Workers and Precarious Work'. Toronto: Law Commission of Ontario. http://www.lco-cdo.org/enlvulnerable-workers­interim-report-quick-facts (accessed May 29, 2014).

Lee, L. 2012. 'Decomposing Wage Differentials between Migrant Workers and Urban Workers in Urban China's Labor Markets'. China Economic Journal, 23(2): 461-470.

Lee, S. and F. Eyraud. 2008. Globalization, F/exibilization and Working Conditions in Asia and the Pacific. Oxford: Chandos.

Lewis, W 1954. 'Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labour'. The Manchester School, 22, May, pp. 139-192.

Marshall, A. 1989. 'The Sequel of Unemployment: The Changing Role of Part­time and Temporary Work in Western Europe'. In G. Rodgers and J. Rodgers (eds), Precarious Jobs in Labour Market Regulation: The Growth of Atypical Employment in Western Europe, pp. 17-48. Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies.

McGovern, P., D. Smeaton and S. Hill. 2004. 'Bad Jobs in Britain: Nonstandard Employment and Job Quality'. Work and Occupations, 31(2): 225-249.

Mehrens, K. 2011. 'Precarious Work in the EU What Can Trade Unions Do?' In P. Herrmann and S. Kalaycioglu (eds), Precarity - More

than a Challenge of Social Security Or: Cyncism of EU's Concept of Economic Freedom, pp. 75--82. Bremen: Europaischer Hochschulverlag.

NSO. (20 11 ). Statistical Yearbook 2010, Bangkok, Thailand: National Statistical Office.

NIKE, Inc n.d. Corporate Responsibility Report FY 07 08 09, Portland: NIKE, Inc.

Ong, Y. 2014. 'Singapore's Phantom Workers'. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 44(3): 443-463.

Osawa, M., M. Kim and J. Kingston. 2013. 'Precarious Work in Japan'. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(3): 309-334.

Packard, T. and T. Nguyen. 2014. East Asia Pacific at Work: Employment, Enterprise, and Well-being. Washington DC: World Bank.

Polivka, A. and T Nardone. 1989. 'On the Definition of "Contingent Work"'. Monthly Labour Review, December, pp. 9-16.

Rodgers, G. 1989. 'Precarious Work in Western Europe: The State of the Debate'. In G. Rodgers and J. Rodgers (eds), Precarious Jobs in Labour Market Regulation: The Growth of Atypical Employment in Western Europe, pp. 1-16. Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies.

Rodgers, G. and J. Rodgers, eds. 1989. Precarious Jobs in Labour Market Regulation: The Growth of Atypical Employment in Western Europe. Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies.

Ryan, B. 2014. 'Nearly Three in 10 Workers Worldwide Are Self-Employed'. http://www. gallup.com/poll/175292/nearly-three-workers­worldwide-self-employed.aspx (accessed August 25, 2014).

Seymour, R. 2012. 'We Are All Precarious On the Concept of the "Precariat" and Its Misuses'. New Left Project, February 10. http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/ site/article_commentslwe_are_all_precarious_ on_ the_ concept_ of _the_precariat_a nd_its_ misuses (accessed June 3, 2013).

Shin, K 2013. 'Economic Crisis, Neoliberal Reforms, and the Rise of Precarious Work in South Korea'. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(3): 335-353.

Standing, G. 2011. The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class, London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Stone, K. 2012. The Decline in the Standard Employment Contract: Evidence from Ten Advanced Industrial Countries. Los Angeles:

UCLA Institute Employment W1

The Economist. 2 Economist, Apn com/newslfinar. what-explains-s own (accessed 5

Tjandraningsih, 1.

Flexibility Regi,. Indonesia' Lal Development, 9

Tronti, M. 1966 Einaudi (trans.. https://libcorr .. t mario-trontii.

UN Industrial C 2013. lndustna Vienna: UNIDC

Union Solidanty ~­Work' US• , precarious-won

Unni, J. and J Labour in Globe Skills and Teo Books.

Vosko, L. 201J Gender, Clt!Zef

LOYMENT

f Social Security. Or: r:::ept of Economic Bre-men: Europaischer

:a' Yearbook 2010, :()l"lal Statistical Office. ~ Responsibility Report ·~•KE, Inc.

!''s Phantom Workers'. )'Asia, 44(3): 443-463. d J. Kingston. 2013. · Japan'. American 713• 309-334. yen 2014. East Asia ~nt, Enterprise, and lf1 DC World Bank. XYie 1989. 'On the ~t Work"'. Monthly 10er, pp. 9-16. :-o:..~s Work in Western Debate'.ln G. Rodgers . Precarious Jobs in roon.· The Growth of ,, Western Europe, ~at1onal Institute for

odgers, eds. 1989. ur Market Regulation: weal Employment in ~!"'eva: International des. 'nree in 10 Workers :oloyed'. http://www. Mearly-three-workers­,ed.aspx (accessed

't' All Precarious On • Precariat" and Its

"OJect, February 10. Jjectorg/index. php/ e_are_all_precarious_ =_precariat_and_its_ 3. 2013). <: Crisis, Neoliberal f Precarious Work in Behavioral Scientist,

Precariat: The New ndon: Bloomsbury

,ne in the Standard Evidence from Ten mtries. Los Angeles:

l I l

PRECARIOUS WORK 443

UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment Working Paper 2012-11.

The Economist. 2014. 'On Their Own'. The Economist, April 12, http://www.economist com/newslfinance-and-economics/21600735-what-explains-surge-self-employment-their­own (accessed 5 August 2015).

Tjandraningsih, I. and H. Nugroho. 2008. 'The Flexibility Regime and Organised Labour in Indonesia'. Labour and Management in Development, 9: 1-14.

Tronti, M. 1966. Operai e Capitate. Turin: Einaudi (translated sections available at: https://libcom.org/library/operai-e-capitale­mario-tronti).

UN Industrial Development Organization. 2013. Industrial Development Report 2013, Vienna: UNIDO.

Union Solidarity International. 2014. 'Precarious Work'. USi website, https://usilive.org/ precarious-work/ (accessed June 17, 2014).

Unni, J. and U. Rani. 2008. Flexibility of Labour in Globalizing India: The Challenge of Skills and Technology. New Delhi: Tulika Books.

Vasko, L. 2010. Managing the Margins: Gender, Citizenship, and the International

Regulation of Precarious Employment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Vosko, Land L Clark. 2009. 'Canada: Gendered Precariousness and Social Reproduction'. In L. Vosko, M. MacDonald and I. Campbell (eds), Gender and the Contours of Precarious Employment, pp. 25-42. London: Routledge.

Wainwright, H. and 0. Reyes. 2004. 'European Social Forum: Debating the Challenges for the Future'. Red Pepper website: http:// www. redpepper.org. uk/eu rope an -social­forum-debating-the/ (accessed June 5, 2014).

Webster, E., R. Lambert and A. Bezuidenhout. 2008. Grounding Globalization: Labour in the Age of Insecurity. Oxford: Blackwell.

World Economic Forum. 2011. The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012, Geneva: World Economic Forum.

Wright. S. 2002. Storming Heaven: Class Composition and Struggle in Italian Autonomist Marxism, London: Pluto Press.

Zhou, Y. 2013. The State of Precarious Work in China'. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(3): 354-372.

L:izek, S. 2012. The Revolt of the Salaried Bourgeoisie'. London Review of Books, 34(2): 9-1 0.