DepartmentofSociology
TheContestedConstitutionofWork–SpatialScales,SocietalSpheresandModesofWorkCurrentResearchandNeglectedTerrains
06/2017
Editorialteam:MirjamPotCorneliaSchadlersoz.univie.ac.at/forschung/working-papers
TheContestedConstitutionofWork–SpatialScales,SocietalSpheresandMo-
desofWork
CurrentResearchandNeglectedTerrains
JörgFlecker,SusannePernicka,TheresaFibich
FlorianBrugger,VeraGlassner,BettinaHaidinger,RaimundHaindorfer,Ursula
Holtgrewe, Stefanie Hürtgen, Klaus Kraemer, Torben Krings, Johanna
Muckenhuber, SebastianNessel, Karin Sardadvar, Philip Schörpf, Ruth Simsa,
RolandVerwiebe,JohannaWoydack
Theauthorsarepartofauniversityandnon-universitysocialsciencesresearchteam (SOZNET), which aims at promoting Austrian research on work and em-ploymentthroughcooperationbetweenthepartnersandjointactivitiesintrain-ingandresearch.ThecontributingauthorsarefromtheUniversityofVienna,Jo-hannesKeplerUniversity Linz,Universityof Salzburg,ViennaUniversityof Eco-nomics and Business, University of Graz, the Working Life Research Centre(FORBA)andtheCentreforSocialInnovation(ZSI).
IfS Working Paper 6/2017
Flecker,Pernicka,Fibichet.al.
Abstract
Today’spervasivetransformationsinworkandemploymentrelatetochangingformsof
employment andwork organisation, to blurring boundaries between paid and unpaid
andformalandinformalwork,andtotheshiftingofworkbetweendifferentspheresof
society.Over thepastyears,anumberofeconomicandsocialprocesses,suchaseco-
nomicliberalisation,financialisation,ordigitalisation,acceleratedthesetrends.Thisre-
sultsinanincreasingopennessofhowworkandemploymentarebeingconstitutedwith
regard to the societaldivisionof labourand the institutional formsandorganisational
principlesofwork. Inthispaperwecalltorethinktheconventionalspatialand institu-
tional ‘containers’andweargueforawidenedperspectiveonthecurrentdynamicsof
labour thus contributing to furtherdeveloping the theoretical tools for theanalysisof
workinglife.
Zusammenfassung
WeitreichendeVeränderungenkönnenderzeitbeiArbeitundBeschäftigungbeobachtet
werden:EsentstehenneueBeschäftigungsformen,Grenzenzwischenbezahlterundun-
bezahlterundzwischenformellerundinformellerArbeitverschwimmen,dieArbeitsor-
ganisationverändertsichundeskommtzuVerschiebungenvonArbeitzwischenkapita-
listischen Unternehmen, dem Staat, dem Privathaushalt und der Zivilgesellschaft. Im
LaufedervergangenenJahrehabensichdieseEntwicklungenbeschleunigtundsiekön-
nen zueinemwesentlichenTeil aufdenAusbauvon Liberalisierung, Transnationalisie-
rungvonKapitalundArbeit,aufdieFinanzialisierung,aufvoranschreitendeDigitalisie-
rungunddieDurchsetzungeinerDienstleistungsgesellschaftzurückgeführtwerden.Eine
Folgedavonist,dassdieGestaltungvonArbeitzunehmendoffenerwird,d.h.diegesell-
schaftliche Arbeitsteilung, die organisatorischen Prinzipien von Arbeit, aber auch die
herkömmlichen räumlichen und institutionellen ‚Container‘ –wie etwa das Unterneh-
men, der Privathaushalt, der Staat, das nationale Beschäftigungssystem oder das Ar-
beitsverhältnis–werden inFragegestellt. IndiesemArtikelstellenwireineerweiterte
SichtweiseaufaktuelleDynamikenderArbeitdar.
IfS Working Paper 6/2017
Flecker,Pernicka,Fibichet.al.
1. Introduction
Currently,profoundchangescanbeobservedinworkandemployment.Theseshiftsre-
latetochangingformsofemployment,totheblurringofboundariesbetweenpaidand
unpaid,aswellasformalandinformalwork,tochangesinworkorganisationandtothe
shiftingofworkbetweenthecapitalisteconomy,thestate,householdsandcivilsociety.
Having accelerated over the past years, these developments can, to a substantial de-
gree,betracedbacktoprocessesofeconomicliberalisation,thetransnationalisationof
capitalandlabour,financialisation,digitalisationandthemovetowardsaserviceecon-
omy. The financial and economic crisis of 2008ff. and the European and international
crisispolicieshaveacceleratedtendenciesofde-regulationoflabourmarkets,particular-
lyinSouthernandEasternEuropeancountries.
Asaresult,theconstitutionofworkisincreasinglyopen,withregardtothesocietaldivi-
sionof labour and the institutional forms andorganizational principles ofwork.Work
researchcanno longer takeconventional spatialand institutional ‘containers’, suchas
thecompany,thehousehold,thenationstate,thenationalemploymentsystemorthe
employmentrelationshipforgranted(Wimmer&GlickSchiller,2002).Newtheoretical
andanalyticalframesareneededtodescribeandexplaincurrentchangesinworkandto
envisagepossiblefuturesofworkandemployment.
Although research has analysed the consequences of the abovementioned shifts and
dynamics,andalthoughnewtheoreticalapproacheshavebeenprovided inspecialised
fields,themajorityofresearchonworkandemployment,theoreticallyandanalytically,
still takes the conventional spatial and institutional ‘containers’ for granted: labour is
(implicitly)assumedtobeexpendedinaworkplacewhichisseparatedfromhomeand
partofacompanyorapublic-sectororganisationlocatedwithinanationstatewhich,in
turn, determines the institutions that regulate the employment relationship within
which people work. This limited perspective increasingly tends to ‘misframe’ (Fraser,
2010)workandemployment.Companiesnolongertakethestandardemploymentrela-
tionshipforgrantedbuttakeformsofemploymentasvariables.Workandemployment
onthegroundareshapednotonlybynationalinstitutionsbutalsobytherulesprevail-
ingintransnationalcompaniesorbythepositionoftheworkplaceintransnationalvalue
chains.Thecurrentopennessanddynamicsoftheconstitutionofworkcallforanalyses
IfS Working Paper 6/2017
Flecker,Pernicka,Fibichet.al.
ofthewaysinwhichworkandemploymentarecurrentlyshapedanddefined,makingit
necessarytoadoptanewconceptualizationofworkandtouseanalyticaltoolsthathelp
tounderstandnewspatialandinstitutionaldynamics.
Wearearguing forawidenedperspectiveon thecurrentdynamicsof labour.Theap-
proachwearesuggestingthushastwodimensions:
Firstly,weperceivetheconstitutionofworkincontemporarysocietiesascontestednot
onlywithintherealmofwage labour, i.e. theregulationofemploymentandofthe la-
bourprocess,butalsowithregardtotheassignmenttodifferentsocietalspheressuch
asthemarket,thestate,civilsocietyorhouseholdsaswellastheshiftbetweendiffer-
entmodesofworksuchaspaidandunpaid,professionalorvoluntary.
Secondly,we question the spatial frames inwhichwork and employment are usually
perceivedwhichmoreoftenthannotremainwithinwhatiscalleda‘methodologicalna-
tionalism’.
In thispaper, thewideningof theperspectiveon the constitutionofworkandon the
dynamicspatialframeshelpustohighlightgapsinresearchonworkandemployment.
2. Thelevelsofanalysisofworkandemployment
In line with these two perspectives on work and employment, i.e. the re-
conceptualizationofworkandthesocio-spatialsensitivityofworkresearch,thiscontri-
butionfirstsuggestsawiderconceptofworkwhichinparticulardoesnotonlyreferto
gainful employment but to all activities having an economic impact or output or are
doneundereconomicrestraint(Glucksmann,1995).Thisallowstotakeintoaccount,for
example,theinterrelationshipsbetweengainfulemploymentandunpaidcarework,but
alsomakesitpossibletoanalyseshiftsandinterdependenciesbetweenthedifferentso-
cietal spheresand thedynamicsof thewidersocialorganisationofwork that includes
thehousehold,theprivateandpublicsectors,marketandnon-marketrelationshipsand
civilsocietyinstitutions.
Analysesofthewaysinwhichworkandemploymentaresociallyandinstitutionallyem-
beddedand contested thenneed to considermultiple spatial scales suchas the local,
IfS Working Paper 6/2017
Flecker,Pernicka,Fibichet.al.
regional, national, supranational and global. These spatial scales – to use the more
commonnotionderivedfromhumangeography(Brenner,2001;Hess,2004)–areseen
notasontologicallygivenbutasoutcomesofsocialconflicts.Theyarerelatedandinter-
linked invariousways rather formingdistinctandhierarchical levelsofaction. Indeed,
thecontestedconstitutionofworkoccurs throughthe linksbetweenthese levels,and
exploring these links lets us take account of processes in which social relations are
scaledupordown.
Three analytical levels are relevant when investigating the contested constitution of
workandemployment:(1)thesocialorganisationofworkandemployment,(2)thegov-
ernanceandregulationofworkand(3) the labourprocess.Thereconceptualizationof
workandthespatialperspectiveraisethefollowingquestionsoneachlevel:
Ad (1) What are the changes and continuities in the social organisation of work and
whatare their spatial implications?Thisquestiondealswith the interrelationshipsbe-
tween different societal spheres as well as changes in their respective institutional
logics.Institutionallogicsrelatetotherules,cognitivemaps,beliefsystemsandnorma-
tiveexpectationscarriedandshapedbyparticipants insocietalspheresthatguideand
givetheiractivitiesmeaning.
Ad(2)Howdolocal,national,supra-nationalandglobalgovernancestructuresandregu-
lations impact upon the constitution ofwork and employment?Howdo such govern-
ancestructures interrelatewithsocietalspheresandtheir institutional logicsondiffer-
ent spatial scales?Governancestructures refer toall agreementsbywhichpowerand
authority are exercised, involving formal and informal systems, public and private re-
gimesaswellasregulativeandnormativeregulationsandtheirenforcement.
Ad (3)What local, national, supra-national and global conditions and dynamics shape
theconstitutionoftheimmediatelabourprocessinandacrossdifferentsocietalspheres
in ahistorical constellation inwhichanaccelerated transnationalisationanddigitalisa-
tionofworkcoincide?Howdoshiftsinthesocialorganizationofworkandintheregula-
tionofworkandemploymentimpactontheimmediatelabourprocessanditswiderso-
cialembeddednessandhowdoesrestructuringofthe labourprocess influenceregula-
tionandthesocialorganisationofwork?
IfS Working Paper 6/2017
Flecker,Pernicka,Fibichet.al.
3. Dynamicsofthesocialorganisationofwork
Thesocialorganizationofworkdescribesthemodes(paid,unpaid,formal,informaletc.)
andthesocietalspheres (market,state,household,voluntarysectoretc.)withinwhich
workisbeingcarriedout.Fordecades,feministresearchersinparticularhaveproblema-
tisedthelackingconsiderationofunpaidworkinresearchandemphasisedtheinterre-
latedandmutuallyconstitutivecharacterof‘productive’and‘reproductive’work(Wal-
by,1986).However,themajorityofstudieswithinthesociologyofworkstillfocuseson
formalpaidworkwithinthesphereofmarketsandwithinnationstatesalthoughmany
scholarshavepointedtotheneedforabroaderperspective(e.g.Biesecker,2000).Re-
centresearchfindingshavepointedtoblurringboundariesbetweensocialspheresand
modesofworkingandtheircontestedcharacter:Thisrelatestoshiftsfromstateprovi-
sion to thenon-profit or volunteer sector (e.g.Hossler, 2012), to unpaidwork carried
outinmarketcontexts(e.g.Siebert&Wilson,2013),tohouseholdsinvolvedinproduc-
tionprocessesbyconsumptionandprosumtionworkorservice‘co-production’(Covaet
al., 2015) to reproductive work that is transferred to the market (Lutz & Palenga-
Mollenbeck,2012).Perspectivesonshiftsbetweensocietalspheres(Dörre,2009;Fried-
land&Alford,1991)havesuggestedthatprocessesofcommodificationandcapitalval-
orisationincreasinglyenternon-marketspheressuchasthepublicsectororprivatelives
(Crouch,2015;Hochschild,2003).Thismayalsomean that informalwork isbeing for-
malisedwhilewesimultaneouslyobserveatendencytowardsinformalisationandcasu-
alisationofwork(Standing,2011).
OneprominentperspectiveonshiftsbetweensocietalspheresisrootedinMarxisttheo-
ry: The theses of ‘land seizures’ (Luxemburg, 1913, Dörre, 2009) or ‘accumulation by
dispossession’ (Harvey, 2003) suggest that capitalism depends on ever-expanding or
deepening processes of commodification (Polanyi, 1944) and capital valorisation that
enternon-marketsocietalspheres.Otherspointoutthatoutcomesofongoingcapitalist
restructuringandmarketisationmayalsoallowforemancipation(Fraser,2012),forex-
amplethroughtheshift fromthemalebreadwinner(Pfau-Effinger,2000)towardsthe
adult-workermodel (Lewis, 2001). Glucksmann (1995), in her framework of the ‘total
socialorganizationoflabour’takesintoaccountvariousmodesofworkactivitiesunder-
taken indifferent societal spheres focusingon shifts and interdependencies. Research
IfS Working Paper 6/2017
Flecker,Pernicka,Fibichet.al.
followinganinstitutionallogicsapproachpointstochangesinthespheres’inherentin-
stitutionallogicsorthepervasionofspheresbyexternallogics(Friedland&Alford,1991;
Thornton&Ocasio,2008).Forexample,marketlogicsareintroducedintothepublicsec-
tor(i.e.intheformofindicatorsandrankingsinschools,hospitals,universities)andpri-
vatelives(Crouch,2015;Hochschild,2003)contradictingestablishedinstitutionallogics,
suchasprofessionallogicsoreverydaylifepractices(Fleckeretal.2014;Pernickaetal.,
2016).
Researchinworkandemploymenthasalsopointedoutspatialimplicationsoftheshifts
inthesocialorganisationofwork:
- Theconceptof“spatialfix”(Harvey,2006)pointstothegeographicexpansionof
capitalismandtocontinuousspatialrestructuringofcompanies.
- The concept of transnational social spacesmakes it possible to conceptualise
cross-borderrelationswithinorganisations,householdsorfamilies(Pries,2008).
- Glucksmann(2009)pointstospatialrescalingwhenshearguesthattheshiftof
workfromhomecookingtoeatingpreparedmealsfromsupermarketsisalsoa
shifttoextendedandoftentransnationalsupplychains.
- Shifts in the social organisation of care work through a marketisation of the
work, result in the emergence of transnational ‘care-chains’ (Lutz & Palenga-
Mollenbeck,2012).
- The digitalisation of work not only accelerates the blurring of boundaries be-
tweenpaid-workandnon-workspheres(Wajcman,2015)butalsoaltersspatial
divisionsoflabouratvariousscales(Flecker&Schönauer,2016;Huws,2014).
Researchinworkandemploymenthastoovercometheanalyticalfocusongainfulem-
ploymentstemmingfromthehistoricalseparationofthevisible(maleconnoted)wage
labourinthepublicandhidden(femaleconnoted)reproductiveworkintheprivate.By
systematicallyrecognisingvariousformsoflabourasconstitutiveelementsofworkasa
whole,widelyneglectedformsofworkandtheirimportanceforthecontestedconstitu-
tionofworkcomeintoview,suchasforreproductivework,usuallycarriedoutbywom-
eninprivatehouseholds.Thisisdefinitelynottheonlyexamplewheregenderrelations
areintegralpartsoftheconstitutionofworkwithinandbetweensocietalspheresthat
aregenderedthemselvesinunequalbutnotnecessarilycoherentways.Therefore,gen-
IfS Working Paper 6/2017
Flecker,Pernicka,Fibichet.al.
dershouldberecognisedasacomplexvariablewhichinteractswithothersocialdiffer-
entiators, includingethnicityandclass(intersectionality).Thisalsohelpstotraceother
complexentangledworkconstellations(i.e.informalpaidcareworkoffemalemigrants
etc.)andagender-andintersectional-sensitivelenssystematicallyrevealsgenderspecif-
icinequalities.
Overall, the valuable concepts and insightful debatesbriefly discussedhere in general
tendtooverlookshiftsandinterdependenciesbetweensocietalspheresandthedynam-
icsofvariousmodesofwork.A systematic space-sensitiveanalysisneeds tobedevel-
oped inorder to fullyunderstand the impactof transnationalisationandmobilitieson
dynamicsofformalisationandinformalisationofworkandtheconsequencesofprivati-
sationandcommodificationonthespatialdivisionoflabour.
4. Governanceandregulation
Thegovernancestructuresandregulationsofworkandemploymentareparticularlyad-
dressedby IndustrialRelations (IR) scholars (P.Edwards,2005),VarietiesofCapitalism
andEmploymentSystemsapproaches(Bosch,2010;Hall&Soskice,2001)aswellaswel-
fare-state research (Esping-Andersen, 1990). These strands of literature dealwith the
regulationofthesubordinationofworkerstotheauthorityandtherightofdirectionof
theiremployersforanagreedtimespan,asocialphenomenonreferredtoasthe‘inter-
nalisedemploymentrelationship’(Rubery,2010).Theyemphasisethecontestedconsti-
tutionoftheseregulationsinvarioushistoricalcontextsandnationstates.
Thereiswideagreementintheliteraturethattheperiodof‘Fordism’(Aglietta,1979)or
the ‘trente glorieuses’ (Fourastié, 1979) have brought about a new ‘standard employ-
mentrelationship’(Mückenberger,1985)providingpreviouslyunattainedlevelsofem-
ployment, social security and participation opportunities (Castel, 2000). This standard
employmentrelationshipwasmostlylimitedtomen,astheregulationintermsofwages
andworkinghourswas(andstillis)partofaparticulargenderregimeandgendereddi-
visionofdomestic labour (seeLachance-Grzela&Bouchard,2010).Therefore,changes
in gender relations also have consequences for regulation. Since the 1980s, scholars
have pointed to the erosion of the standard employment relationship in theWestern
IfS Working Paper 6/2017
Flecker,Pernicka,Fibichet.al.
world (Castel, 2000) and, more recently, to the spread of precarious employment
(Standing,2011)andanincreasingdualisationorpolarisationoflabourmarkets(Palier&
Thelen,2012) intoawell-protectedcorelabourforceandagrowingnumberofoutsid-
ers. From a global perspective however, precarious work arrangements have always
beentherule,andthelevelofsecurityprovidedbytheEuropeanstandardemployment
relationshipistheexception.Yet,neoliberalpolicieshaveacceleratedtheerosionofthe
standardemploymentrelationshipwithsomedegreeof‘varietiesofneoliberalism’(e.g.
Mijsetal.,2016).
AmajorconcernofIRresearchinthelastdecadeshasbeentheterritorialexpansionof
markets beyond national borders, while the regulation of work and employment has
primarilyremainedwithinthescopeandcompetenciesofnationstates. Inspiteofthe
salienceof theensuing social andeconomic incongruences (Bach, 2008), researchhas
mainlyadoptedanationstate-centredorcountry-comparativeperspective(e.g.Frege&
Kelly,2013).Onlysincethe2000s,IRresearchtakesonboardconceptsofspacethatal-
lowtoanalysetransnationalprocessesandstructuresasendogenoussocietaldevelop-
mentsratherthanexternalitiestriggeringchangeatnationallevel(Greer&Hauptmeier,
2012;Pernicka&Glassner,2014).Somescholarshaveassumedamulti-levelgovernance
perspective toanalyse the interrelationsbetween supranational Europeangovernance
andnational regulationsand industrial relations,emphasisingaverticalperspectiveon
policy-making processes (Keune & Marginson, 2013). Against the background of the
mostrecenteconomicandsovereigndebtcrisesintheEuropeanUnion,thesestudiesin
particular contributed to a better understanding of the new supranational economic
governanceregimeandthe internationalcrisispoliticsbytheTroika institutions (Euro-
peanCommission,EuropeanCentralBank,InternationalMonetaryFund)(Keune&Mar-
ginson,2013). Inaddition,scholarspointtothe importanceofEuropeanintegrationto
betterunderstandprocessesoftransnationalmigrationandthechallengestheyposeto
nationalandsupranationalregulationsofworkandemployment(Lillie,2012).Thismay
resultina‘deterritorialisationofsovereignty’thatallowscapitaltoescapefromnational
class compromises (Lillie, 2010). The construction sector provides a case in point as
transnationalsubcontractorshaveextensivelymadeuseofthehugewage-differentials
betweenEasternandWesternEuropeancountries,‘posting’workersfromlow-wagear-
IfS Working Paper 6/2017
Flecker,Pernicka,Fibichet.al.
eas to higher wage areas and thus, challenging national industrial relations and em-
ploymentregimesinhigh-wageareas(Wagner&Lillie,2014).
The assumption of distinct levels of policy and social action has only been overcome
veryrecently,givingwaytotheanalysisof individualandcollectiveactors’perceptions
andactionsas ‘multi-scalarpractices’ (Hürtgen,2015).Stillunderdevelopedwithin the
existingliterature,aspatialandconflict-sensitiveperspectiveongovernancestructures
and the regulationofwork takes accountofwider societal processes andpower rela-
tionswithin andbeyond the political sphere on the national, supra- and international
levels. Sociological field theoryoffers a suitable analytical tool, butonly a few studies
havesofartakenupsucharelationalfieldperspective(Helfen&Sydow,2013;Pernicka
etal.,2015).
Suchanewapproachisneededbecauseterritorialeconomicexpansionaswellaserod-
ingstandardemploymentformshaveopenedupnewroomfortheconstitutionofwork
relatingtothegovernanceandregulationoflabour.
5. Dynamicsofthelabourprocess
Researchonworkandemploymentoftentakesasastartingpointthecontestationbe-
tween capital and labour relating to the internalised employment relationship and its
governanceandregulation(Frege&Kelly,2013;Rubery,2010),thesegmentationofthe
labourmarket(Rubery,2005)andthedynamicsoftheimmediatelabourprocess(Smith,
2016;ThompsonandVincent,2010).Currently,labourprocessanalysisisnotonlybeing
applied to the study of management control and workplace restructuring in a wide
rangeof sectors andoccupations but also to the dynamics of global value chains and
globalproductionnetworks, taking intoaccount labouragencyand its spatialdetermi-
nants(Newsomeetal.,2015).IRresearch,alsofocussingoncapital-labourrelations,has
openedupto includetransnational,supranationalandglobalconflictsovertheregula-
tions, norms and belief systems underlying the employment relationship (Greer &
Hauptmeier,2012).
IfS Working Paper 6/2017
Flecker,Pernicka,Fibichet.al.
Ontheanalytical levelofthe labourprocess,researchaddressesthesocialrelations in
productionand theshapingofworkby investigatingdifferent formsofworkorganisa-
tion,useoftechnology,skillneeds,formsofcooperationandmanagementcontrol.This
strand of research predominantly focuses on paidworkwithin theworkplace. The la-
bourprocessisoftenseenasa‘contestedterrain’(R.Edwards,1979)whereemployers
facethechallengetotransformthepotentialsof labourpower intovalueaddingwork
andworkerspursue their interests in the formof ‘labouragency’ (Coe& Jordhus-Lier,
2011; Smith, 2010). Generally, there exists an inherent focus onmanagement control
andworkorganisationwithingainfulemploymentshowingontheonehandup-skilling
anda‘subjectivisationofwork’(Kleemann&Voß,2010)and,ontheother,astandardi-
sationanddegradationofpaidworkespeciallyintheservicesector,includingpublicser-
vices(Holtgrewe&Schörpf,2017;Howcroft&Richardson,2012).
In this strandsof research, spatialaspectshaveonlybeenaddressed in internationally
comparative approaches, such as those investigatingwork organization from the per-
spectiveof ‘societal-effects’(Maurice&Sorge,2000)or ‘varietiesofcapitalism’(Hall&
Soskice,2001).Theseapproachesfindthatworkorganisationiscontingentuponnation-
al societal institutions like education systems, industrial relations and innovation sys-
tems.Othersalsoincludeinfluencesstemmingfromotherspatialscales,e.g.fromdom-
inant capitalisteconomies inaparticularhistoricalperiod (Smith&Meiksins,1995)or
thehomecountriesofmultinationalcompanies.
Incontrasttoanalysesofworkorganizationwithinworkplacesandnationalterritories,
scholarssuchasThompsonandVincent(2010),RobinsonandRainbird(2013)andNew-
someetal.(2015)recentlysuggestedtosituatetheanalysisofthelabourprocesswithin
GlobalValueChains(GVC)andGlobalProductionNetworks(GPN)takingupthefocuson
inter-firmrelationsinspatiallyextendedcross-borderproductionprocesses.Theseper-
spectives shed light on cross-border relocation and restructuring of labour processes
andtheirconsequencesforwork,e.g.intermsofstandardisation(Flecker&Meil,2010;
Flecker&Schönauer,2016;Howcroft&Richardson,2012),up-anddown-grading(Bar-
rientosetal.,2011),thetransmissionofcostpressuresandflexibilitydemandsdownthe
valuechains inquestion(Frade&Darmon,2005),orthe lossoforganisational identity
amongdispersedanddisconnectedcrowd-workers(Lehdonvirta,2016).Furtherdebates
IfS Working Paper 6/2017
Flecker,Pernicka,Fibichet.al.
point to the implicationsof labourmobility (Smith, 2006) and tonew formsof labour
agency and possibilities for workers’ participation on different spatial scales (Coe &
Jordhus-Lier,2011;Greer&Hauptmeier,2012).
Insuchaperspective,theconstitutionofworkcanbeunderstoodwithreferencetothe
positionoftheworkplacewithinanetworkoffirms,and,ultimately,thecapitalistworld
system(Bair,2015;Wallerstein,1974).EspeciallytheGPNapproachemphasisesthespa-
tialdimensionandthedialecticsbetweentheglobalandthelocalaswellastheembed-
dednessofactorsinparticularterritories(Coeetal.,2008;Hess,2004).
As far as different societal spheres are concerned, the public sector and processes of
privatisation remain under-researched. Scholars have started to connect labour pro-
cesses in thespheresof themarketor thestate toworkoutside theworkplace in the
privatespherepointingtoinformalworkandhousehold-basedproduction(Newsomeet
al. 2015), reproductionwork in households (Clelland, 2014;Dunaway, 2014;Hewison,
2016), consumptionwork, e.g. self-service in supermarkets (Humphery, 1998), house-
holdrecycling(e.g.Wheeler&Glucksmann,2015),user-generatedcontentontheinter-
net(Ritzer&Jurgenson,2010)orthewaysinwhichsocialmediaconductatworkisre-
shapingtheboundariesbetweenpublicandprivatespheres.Researchondigitalwork,in
particular, increasingly addresses the shifts and interdependencies between societal
spheres,discussingtheblurringofboundariesbetween‘work’and‘life’(Bittmanetal.,
2009; Schörpf et al., 2017;Wajcman, 2015) and highlighting thework of ‘prosumers’
(Bauer&Gegenhuber,2015;Frayssé&O’Neil,2015).
However,mostof this researchstill insufficientlyconsiders thecontestedandongoing
reconfigurations in the relationships of spheres ofwork, the dynamics of rescaling la-
bourprocessesandthedialecticofglobal-localrelations.Inparticular,researchisneed-
edtodeterminethewaysinwhichworkisconnectedinmultiplelocations,inwhichthe
variablespatialdivisionsoflabourtransformworkplaces(Newsomeetal.,2015)andin
whichspatialrelationsandmobilityofbothcapitalandlabourcontributetoinformalisa-
tionorothertransformationsinthemodesofwork.
IfS Working Paper 6/2017
Flecker,Pernicka,Fibichet.al.
6. Conclusions:Openresearchquestions
Tobetterunderstandcontemporarywork-relatedchanges incapitalistsocieties,future
researchinworkandemploymentshouldperceivelabourandworkascontestedwithin
apluralityofoftendynamicsocialrelationsatdifferentspatialscales.Thecontestation
ofworkandemploymentoccursatthelevelsofthesocialorganisationofwork,govern-
anceandregulationandthelabourprocess.Thisimpliesthattheconstitutionofworkis
shapedbyhistoricallydevelopedconfigurationsof individualandcollectiveactors that
occupy distinct structural and power positions within society and struggle, negotiate,
andcompeteover their respectiveperceptions, aspirationsandnormative claimsover
allformsofwork.Structuresofsocialinequalityatdifferentscales(global,regional,na-
tional,local)areseenasimportantcausesandconsequencesofparticularwaysinwhich
workisconstituted.
Thereforefutureresearchinthesociologyofworkandemploymentshouldfirstlyadopt
aspace-sensitiveperspectivetobeabletodojusticetotransnationalisationand,more
generally, ‘new space formats’ (Löw, 2008, p. 196) of the constitutionofwork and to
avoid both methodological nationalism (Wimmer & Glick Schiller, 2002) and de-
territorialism(Pries,2008).With regard tosocietal spheresandmodesofwork, future
research secondly shouldadequately address current shifts andupheavals, taking into
accountdifferentformsofwork(paid/unpaid,formal/informaletc.)andthecomplexin-
terconnections between various activities on different scales (cf. Glucksmann, 1995).
Thismakes itpossibletoaddress ‘all theworkperformed inasocietybetween institu-
tional spheres’ (Bourne&Calás,2013,p.436)pointing to thearticulationof intercon-
nectedworkactivities intheformofpatterns,networksorotherconnections insocie-
ties(Glucksmann,2005).Buildingonsuchabroaddefinitionofworkdoesnotdenythe
centralityofpaidworkandwage-labourincontemporarysociety,butratherprovidesa
contextforunderstandingwhatconstitutesworkandgenerateshierarchiesbetweendif-
ferenttypesofwork(Parryetal.,2005).
Thirdly,emphasisshould lieonthecontestedcharacterofworkandemployment.This
providesroomforahistoricisedandactor-relatedapproach,andfortheanalysisofthe
constitutionofworkgoingbeyondtheinfluencesofstructuralforcessuchastechnologi-
cal changeand socio-economic shifts. The constitutionofwork thus is – amongother
IfS Working Paper 6/2017
Flecker,Pernicka,Fibichet.al.
factors–anoutcomeof strugglesover thesocialorganisationofwork, itsgovernance
and regulation, and the labourprocess.More generally,we see these threeanalytical
levelsoftheconstitutionofworkasinterrelatedinthesenseofa‘totality’ofthesocial
institutionsandrelationshipsthatgovernworkandsocialreproduction.
Infocusingonthecontestedconstitutionofworkconsolidatedinstitutionsthatgovern
workandemploymentarenotneglected.Whilepredominant institutional logicsofac-
tion(suchasthelogicofcapitalistmarkets,collectivebargaining,genderregimes,volun-
tarywork,professional logics,etc.)arecharacterisedbyacertaindegreeof inertia, i.e.
thetendencyforpracticesofworkandemploymenttoresistovertime,theyalsohave
to be seen as historical and contemporary outcomes of conflicts and cooperation be-
tweenindividualandcollectiveactors.Asaconsequence,thecontestedconstitutionof
workisinfluencedby,butalsoincludesstrugglesover,institutionsandformsofgovern-
anceandregulationofworkandemploymentwhich,however,cannotbeanalysedwith-
innational‘containers’anymore.
Theconceptofsocialfieldsallowstoincludeawiderrangeofpowerrelationsandinsti-
tutionalised logics of action that have a potential impact on the constitution of work
(Bourdieu,1989;Friedland&Alford,1991).Theconceptionallowstoanalysehistorical
andcontemporaryaswellasmanifestand latentconflictsover thesocietaldivisionof
labour,thevaluationofoccupationsandtasks,therulesofaccesstooccupationalposi-
tions, processes of professionalisation and de-professionalisation, regulations of work
andemployment,etc.Here,socialfieldsareunderstoodasrelativelyautonomoussocial
spacesconstitutedaroundaparticularactivityandwhichhavebeenconstructedhistori-
callythroughstrugglesoverpositions,powerresourcesandlegimations.Shiftsbetween
societal spheres, e.g. through processes of privatisation ormarketisation, do not only
involve changes in the prevalent institutional logics of action but also the blurring of
boundaries between particular fields of work and employment (e.g., boundaries be-
tween different occupational groups). Such a perspective enables the analysis of the
constitutionofworkatdifferentsocialandterritorialscales,byempiricallymappingin-
stitutionalisedspheresofactionwithparticularauthorityandpowerrelationswhichdo
notnecessarilycoincidewiththebordersofthenationstates(Scott,2000).
IfS Working Paper 6/2017
Flecker,Pernicka,Fibichet.al.
7. References
Aglietta,M.,1938-.(1979).Atheoryofcapitalistregulation.London:NLB.
Bach,M.(2008).EuropaohneGesellschaft.PolitischeSoziologiederEuropäischenIn-
tegration.Wiesbaden:VSVerlagfürSozialwissenschaften.
Bair,J.(2015).EditorsIntroduction:CommodityChainsinandoftheWorldSystem.
JournalofWorldSystemResearch,20(1),1–10.
Barrientos,S.,Gereffi,G.,&Rossi,A.(2011).Economicandsocialupgradinginglobal
productionnetworks:Anewparadigmforachangingworld.InternationalLabourRe-
view,150(3–4),319–340.
Bauer,R.M.,&Gegenhuber,T.(2015).Crowdsourcing:Globalsearchandthetwisted
rolesofconsumersandproducers.Organization,22(5),661–681.
Biesecker,A.(2000).KooperativeVielfaltunddasGanzederArbeit:Überlegungenzuei-
nemerweitertenArbeitsbegriff.WZBDiscussionPaper,No.P00-504,Leibnitz.
Bittman,M.,Brown,J.E.,&Wajcman,J.(2009).Themobilephone,perpetualcontact
andtimepressure.Work,EmploymentandSociety,23(4),673–691.
Bosch,G.(2010).StrukturenundDynamikenvonArbeitsmärkten.InF.Böhle,G.G.Voß,
&G.Wachtler(Eds.),HandbuchArbeitssoziologie(pp.643–679).Wiesbaden:VSVerlag.
Bourdieu,P.(1989).Socialspaceandsymbolicpower.SociologicalTheory,7(1),14–25.
Bourne,K.A.,&Calás,M.B.(2013).Becoming‘Real’Entrepreneurs:Womenandthe
GenderedNormalizationof‘Work’:BECOMING‘REAL’ENTREPRENEURS.Gender,Work
&Organization,20(4),425–438.
Brenner,N.(2001).Thelimitstoscale?Methodologicalreflectionsonscalarstructu-
ration.ProgressinHumanGeography,25(4),591–614.
Castel,R.,1933-2013.(2000).DieMetamorphosendersozialenFrage.Konstanz:UVK,
Univ.-Verl.Konstanz.
Clelland,D.A.(2014).UnpaidLaborasDarkValueinGlobalCommodityChains.InGen-
deredCommoditiyChains.Seeingwomen´sworkandhouseholdsinglobalproduction
(pp.72–87).Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.
IfS Working Paper 6/2017
Flecker,Pernicka,Fibichet.al.
Coe,N.M.,Dicken,P.,&Hess,M.(2008).Globalproductionnetworks:realizingthepo-
tential.JournalofEconomicGeography,8(3),271–295.
Coe,N.M.,&Jordhus-Lier,D.C.(2011).Constrainedagency?Re-evaluatingthegeogra-
phiesoflabour.ProgressinHumanGeography,35(2),211–233.
Cova,B.,Pace,S.,&Skålén,P.(2015).Marketingwithworkingconsumers:Thecaseofa
carmakeranditsbrandcommunity.Organization,22(5),682–701.
Crouch,C.(2015).TheKnowledgeCorrupters:HiddenConsequencesoftheFinancial
TakeoverofPublicLife.Cambridge:PolityPress.
Dörre,K.(2009).DieneueLandnahme.DynamikenundGrenzendesFinanzmarktkapita-
lismus.InK.Dörre,S.Lessenich,&H.Rosa(Eds.),Soziologie-Kapitalismus-Kritik(pp.
21–86).FrankfurtamMain:Suhrkamp.
Dunaway,W.A.(2014).GenderedCommoditiyChains.SeeingWomen´sWorkand
HouseholdsinGlobalProduction.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.
Edwards,P.(2005).Thechallengingbutpromisingfutureofindustrialrelations:develop-
ingtheoryandmethodincontext-sensitiveresearch.IndustrialRelationsJournal,36(4),
264–282.
Edwards,R.(1979).ContestedTerrain:TheTransformationoftheWorkplaceinthe
TwentiethCentury.NewYork:NY:BasicBooks.
Esping-Andersen,G.,1947-.(1990).Thethreeworldsofwelfarecapitalism(1.publ.).
Cambridge:Polity.
Flecker,J.,&Meil,P.(2010).Organisationalrestructuringandemergingservicevalue
chains:implicationsforworkandemployment.WorkEmploymentandSociety,24(4),
680–698.
Flecker,J.,&Schönauer,A.(2016).TheProductionof‘Placelessness’:DigitalService
WorkinGlobalValueChains.InJ.Flecker(Ed.),Space,PlaceandGlobalDigitalWork(pp.
11–30).London:PalgraveMacmillanUK.
Fourastié,J.,1907-1990.(1979).Lestrenteglorieuses.Paris:Fayard.
IfS Working Paper 6/2017
Flecker,Pernicka,Fibichet.al.
Frade,C.,&Darmon,I.(2005).Newmodesofbusinessorganizationandprecariousem-
ployment:towardstherecommodificationoflabour?JournalofEuropeanSocialPolicy,
15(2),107–121.
Fraser,N.(2010).InjusticeatIntersectingScales:On‘SocialExclusion’andthe‘Global
Poor.’EuropeanJournalofSocialTheory,13(3),363–371.
Fraser,N.(2012).Feminism,Capitalism,andtheCunningofHistory.FMSH-WP-2012-17,
Paris.
Frayssé,O.,&O’Neil,M.(Eds.).(2015).DigitalLabourandProsumerCapitalism.TheUS
Matrix.London&NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan.
Frege,C.M.,&Kelly,J.(Eds.).(2013).Comparativeemploymentrelationsintheglobal
economy(1.publ.).London ;NewYork:Routledge.
Friedland,R.,&Alford,R.R.(1991).BringingSocietyBackin:Symbols,Practices,andIn-
stitutionalContradictions.InW.W.Powell&P.J.DiMaggio(Eds.),TheNewInstitutional-
isminOrganizationalAnalysis(pp.232–263).Chicago:ChicagoUniversityPress.
Glucksmann,M.(1995).Why‘Work’?Genderandthe‘TotalSocialOrganizationofLa-
bour.’Gender,Work&Organization,2(2),63–75.
Glucksmann,M.(2005).Shiftingboundariesandinterconnections:Extendingthe“total
socialorganisationoflabour.”InL.Pettinger,J.Parry,R.Taylor,&M.Glucksmann(Eds.),
Anewsociologyofwork?(pp.19–36).Malden,MA[u.a.]:Blackwell.
Glucksmann,M.(2009).Formations,ConnectionsandDivisionsofLabour.Sociology,
43(5),878–895.
Greer,I.,&Hauptmeier,M.(2012).IdentityWork:SustainingTransnationalCollective
ActionatGeneralMotorsEurope.IndustrialRelations:AJournalofEconomyandSociety,
51(2),275–299.
Hall,P.A.,&Soskice,D.W.(2001).Varietiesofcapitalism.Oxford/NewYork:Oxford
UniversityPress.
Harvey,D.(2003).Thenewimperialism(1.publ.).Oxford[u.a.]:OxfordUniv.Press.
Harvey,D.(2006).Thelimitstocapital(Newandfullyupdateded.).London[u.a.]:Verso.
IfS Working Paper 6/2017
Flecker,Pernicka,Fibichet.al.
Helfen,M.,&Sydow,J.(2013).Negotiatingasinstitutionalwork:Thecaseoflabour
standardsandinternationalframeworkagreements.OrganizationStudies,34(8),1073–
1098.
Hess,M.(2004).“Spatial”relationships?Towardsareconceptualizationofembed-
dedness.ProgressinHumanGeography,28(2),165–186.
Hewison,K.(2016).PrecariousWork.InS.Edgell,H.Gottfried,&E.Granter(Eds.),The
SAGEhandbookofthesociologyofworkandemployment(pp.428–443).LosAngeles
u.a.:SAGE.
Hochschild,A.R.(2003).Thecommercializationofintimatelife.Berkeley[u.a.]:Universi-
tyofCaliforniaPress.
Holtgrewe,U.,&Schörpf,P.(2017).UnderstandingtheimpactofoutsourcingintheICT
sectortostrengthenthecapacityofworkers’organisationstoaddresslabourmarket
changesandtoimprovesocialdialogue.Brussels:UNIEuropa.
Hossler,P.(2012).FreeHealthClinics,ResistanceandtheEntanglementofChristianity
andCommodifiedHealthCareDelivery.Antipode,44(1),98–121.
Howcroft,D.,&Richardson,H.(2012).Thebackofficegoesglobal:exploringconnec-
tionsandcontradictionsinsharedservicecentres.Work,Employment&Society,26(1),
111–127.
Humphery,K.(1998).Shelflife.Cambridge[u.a.]:CambridgeUniv.Press.
Hürtgen,S.(2015).TransnationalisierungundFragmentierung–Euro-Betriebsratshan-
delnalsmultiscalarePraxis.InS.Pernicka(Ed.),HorizontaleEuropäisierungimFeldder
Arbeitsbeziehungen(pp.17–53).Wiesbaden:SpringerVS.
Huws,U.(2014).LaborintheGlobalDigitalEconomy:TheCybertariatComesofAge.
MonthlyReviewPress,U.S.
Keune,M.,&Marginson,P.(2013).TransnationalIndustrialRelationsasMulti-Level
Governance:InterdependenciesinEuropeanSocialDialogue:TransnationalIndustrial
Relations.BritishJournalofIndustrialRelations,51(3),473–497.
Kleemann,F.,&Voß,G.(2010).ArbeitundSubjekt.InF.Böhle,G.Voß,G.Wachtler,&A.
Hoffmann(Eds.),HandbuchArbeitssoziologie(pp.415–450).Springer.
IfS Working Paper 6/2017
Flecker,Pernicka,Fibichet.al.
Lachance-Grzela,M.,&Bouchard,G.(2010).WhyDoWomenDotheLion’sShareof
Housework?ADecadeofResearch.SexRoles,63(11–12),767–780.
Lehdonvirta,V.(2016).AlgorithmsThatDivideandUnite:Delocalization,Identity,and
CollectiveActionin‘Microwork.’InJ.Flecker(Ed.),Space,placeandglobaldigitalwork
(pp.53–80).London:PalgraveMacmillan.
Lewis,J.(2001).Thedeclineofthemalebreadwinnermodel:implicationsforworkand
care.SocialPolitics:InternationalStudiesinGender,State&Society,8(2),152–169.
Lillie,N.(2010).BringingtheOffshoreAshore:TransnationalProduction,IndustrialRela-
tionsandtheReconfigurationofSovereignty.InternationalStudiesQuarterly,54(3),
683–704.
Lillie,N.(2012).Subcontracting,PostedMigrantsandLabourMarketSegmentationin
Finland:MigrantWorkersinFinland.BritishJournalofIndustrialRelations,50(1),148–
167.
Löw,M.(2008).SkalierungvonBelang:DieRaumdimensionensozialerUngleichheitsfor-
schung.InM.Bayer,G.Mordt,S.Terpe,&M.Winter(Eds.),TransnationaleUngleich-
heitsforschung.EineneueHerausforderungfürdieSoziologie.FrankfurtamMain:Cam-
pusVerlag.
Lutz,H.,&Palenga-Mollenbeck,E.(2012).CareWorkers,CareDrain,andCareChains:
ReflectionsonCare,Migration,andCitizenship.SocialPolitics:InternationalStudiesin
Gender,State&Society,19(1),15–37.
Luxemburg,R.,1871-1919.(1913).DieAkkumulationdesKapitals.Berlin:Singer.
Maurice,M.,&Sorge,A.(Eds.).(2000).EmbeddingOrganizations.Societalanalysisof
actors,organizationsandsocio-economiccontext.Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Mijs,J.J.B.,Bakhtiari,E.,&Lamont,M.(2016).NeoliberalismandSymbolicBoundaries
inEurope:GlobalDiffusion,LocalContext,RegionalVariation.Socius:SociologicalRese-
archforaDynamicWorld,2,1–8.
Mückenberger,U.(1985).DieKrisedesNormalarbeitsverhältnisses.ZeitschriftFürSozi-
alreform,31(7),415–435.
IfS Working Paper 6/2017
Flecker,Pernicka,Fibichet.al.
Newsome,K.,Taylor,P.,Bair,J.,&Rainnie,A.(Eds.).(2015).PuttingLabourinitsPlace.
LabourProcessAnalysisandGlobalValueChains.London[u.a.]:PalgraveMacmillan.
Palier,B.,&Thelen,K.(2012).Dualizationandinstitutionalcomplementarities.Industrial
relations,labormarket,andwelfarestatechangesinFranceandGermany.InP.[Hrsg..
Emmenegger(Ed.),Theageofdualization(pp.201–225).Oxford[u.a.]:OxfordUniv.
Press.
Parry,J.,Taylor,R.,Pettinger,L.,&Glucksmann,M.(2005).Confrontingthechallenges
ofworktoday:Newhorizonsandperspectives.InL.Pettinger,J.Parry,R.Taylor,&M.
Glucksmann(Eds.),Anewsociologyofwork?Malden,MA[u.a.]:Blackwell.
Pernicka,S.,&Glassner,V.(2014).TransnationaltradeunionstrategiestowardsEuro-
peanwagepolicy:Aneo-institutionalframework.EuropeanJournalofIndustrialRela-
tions,20(4),317–334.
Pernicka,S.,Glassner,V.,Dittmar,N.,Mrozowicki,A.,&Maciejewska,M.(2015).When
doessolidarityend?Transnationallabourcooperationduringandafterthecrisis–the
GM/Opelcaserevisited.EconomicandIndustrialDemocracy18(3),375-399.
Pfau-Effinger,B.(2000).KulturundFrauenerwerbstätigkeitinEuropa.Opladen:Leske
undBudrich.
Flecker,J.,Schultheis,F.&Vogel,B.(Eds.),ImDiensteöffentlicherGüter.Berlin:Ed.
Sigma.
Polanyi,K.,1886-1964.(1944).Thegreattransformation.NewYork,NY[u.a.]:Rinehart.
Pries,L.(2008).DieTransnationalisierungdersozialenWelt.FrankfurtamMain:Suhr-
kamp.
Ritzer,G.,&Jurgenson,N.(2010).Production,Consumption,ProsumptionThenatureof
capitalismintheageofthedigital‘prosumer.’JournalofConsumerCulture,10(1),13–
36.
Robinson,P.K.,&Rainbird,H.(2013).InternationalSupplyChainsandtheLabourPro-
cess.Competition&Change,17(1),91–107.
Rubery,J.(2005).LabourMarketsandFlexibility.InS.Ackroyd,R.Batt,P.Thompson,&
P.Tolbert(Eds.),HandbookonWorkandOccupations.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
IfS Working Paper 6/2017
Flecker,Pernicka,Fibichet.al.
Rubery,J.(2010).InstitutionalizingtheEmploymentRelationship.InGlennMorgan,John
Campbell,ColinCrouch,OveKaiPedersen,&RichardWhitley(Eds.),TheOxfordHand-
bookofComparativeInstitutionalAnalysis(OxfordHandbooks).OxfordHandbooks
Online.
Schörpf,P.,Flecker,J.,&Schönauer,A.(2017).OnCallforOne’sReputation–Control
andTimeinCreativeCrowdwork.InKendraBriken,ShionaChillas,MartinKrzywdzinski,
&AbigailMarks(Eds.),TheNewDigitalWorkplace.HowNewTechnologiesRevolutionise
Work.London:PalgraveMacmillan.
Scott,R.(Ed.).(2000).Institutionalchangeandhealthcareorganizations:Fromprofes-
sionaldominancetomanagedcare.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Siebert,S.,&Wilson,F.(2013).Allworkandnopay:consequencesofunpaidworkinthe
creativeindustries.Work,Employment&Society,27(4),711–721.
Smith,C.(2006).Thedoubleindeterminacyoflabourpower.Work,EmploymentandSo-
ciety,20(2),389–402.
Smith,C.(2010).GowiththeFlow:LabourPowerMobilityandLabourProcessTheory.
InP.Thompson&C.Smith(Eds.),WorkingLife:RenewingLabourProcessAnalysi(pp.
269–296).Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan.
Smith,C.(2016).Rediscoveryofthelabourprocess.InS.Edgell,E.Granter,&H.Gott-
fried(Eds.),TheSageHandbookoftheSociologyofWorkandEmployment(pp.205–
224).LosAngeles:SAGE.
Smith,C.,&Meiksins,P.(1995).System,SocietyandDominanceEffectsinCross-
NationalOrganisationalAnalysis.Work,Employment&Society,9(2),241–267.
Standing,G.(2011).Theprecariat:thenewdangerousclass.London[u.a.]:Bloomsbury
Academic.R
Thompson,P.,&Vincent,S.(2010).Beyondtheboundary:Labourprocesstheoryand
criticalrealism.InP.Thompson&C.Smith(Eds.),WorkingLife:RenewingLabourProcess
Analysis(pp.47–69).Basingstoke:Palgrave.
Thornton,P.H.,&Ocasio,W.(2008).InstitutionalLogics.InInTheSagehandbookofor-
ganizationalinstitutionalism(pp.99–129).LosAngeles:SAGEPublicationsLtd.
IfS Working Paper 6/2017
Flecker,Pernicka,Fibichet.al.
Wagner,I.,&Lillie,N.(2014).EuropeanIntegrationandtheDisembeddingofLabour
MarketRegulation:TransnationalLabourRelationsattheEuropeanCentralBankCon-
structionSite:Europeanintegrationandlabourmarketregulation.JCMS:Journalof
CommonMarketStudies,52(2),403–419.
Wajcman,J.(2015).PressedforTime:TheAccelerationofLifeinDigitalCapitalism.Chi-
cago:ChicagoUniversityPress.
Walby,S.(1986).Patriarchyatwork.Patriarchalandcapitalistrelationsinemployment.
Minneapolis,Minnesota:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.
Wallerstein,I.(1974).TheModernWorld-SystemI:CapitalistAgricultureandtheOrigins
oftheEuropeanWorld-EconomyintheSixteenthCentury(StudiesinSocialDiscontinui-
ty).NewYork.
Wheeler,K.,&Glucksmann,M.(2015).‘It’skindofsavingthemajobisn’tit?’Thecon-
sumptionworkofhouseholdrecycling:‘It’skindofsavingthemajobisn’tit?’Thecon-
sumptionworkofhouseholdrecycling.TheSociologicalReview,63(3),551–569.
Wimmer,A.,&GlickSchiller,N.(2002).Methodologicalnationalismandbeyond:na-
tion–statebuilding,migrationandthesocialsciences.GlobalNetworks,2(4),301–334.