ILPC 2027

Even before the current economic crisis, sociology of work put particular attention to phenomena of rising insecurity and precariousness of work in nearly whole Europe. However, up to now, debates and findings from these debates did not really affect even critical economic discourses about economic performances and developments in the European region. One reason for that is that, as I shall argue, economic strength is still measured and discussed along national framings, above all the national GDP-development. With that frame, however, national socioeconomic entities are created, often, when demonstrating rising GDP-data, apostrophized as “success-stories” – as the former transition countries for example – or put in animalistic metaphors such as the differing “tiger-states” (Poland, Ireland or the Baltic states for example). But with that kind of nationalistic GDP-scheme, conditions of work and especially social fragmentation in work and reproduction within a specific country seem to disappear, they are theoretically no longer to be grasped as rising GDP still stands for and is widely associated with rising national wealth and consumption.

To tackle that problem, which can be outlined as a missing interplay or dialogue between sociology of work and critical political economy, I propose to consider a concept coming from critical development-theory: the “structural heterogeneity”- concept. With specific focus on transnational companies and their crucial role in formerly called “underdeveloped” countries, this concept describes internal uneven development, i.e. massive social fragmentation within countries and regions, despite growing GDP-rates. “Structural heterogeneity”, I argue, is a useful theoretical tool to overcome nationalistic growth-models and their blindness for internal socioeconomic cleavages or even widespread degradations of conditions of work and life. Sensitive to precise conditions of work and reproduction in a given region, branch or country, this concept allows to ask for the way, i.e. under which (working-)conditions national wealth is produced.

As mentioned, the structural heterogeneity-concept comes from development theory and was intensively debated as a seemingly typical characteristic of “underdevelopment” during the 1970ies and 1980ies. As I shall argue, however, it’s generalization towards the Global North is necessary.