Skip to main content

Introduction: The New International Division of Labour and the Critique of Political Economy Today

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The New International Division of Labour

Part of the book series: International Political Economy Series ((IPES))

Abstract

In a recent anthology of his essays on Global Capitalism (2015) Hugo Radice recounts how in the 1960s and early 1970s progressive, broadly Marxist, scholarship fell short of providing a satisfactory means of understanding what was by then a rapidly changing world. The debates back then, he summarises, ‘had little to say directly about the transformations of production and work within firms, or about the political relations between organised economic interests and the state, while international economic relations between states were understood firmly in nineteenth century terms of autonomous and mutually antagonistic powers, great or small’ (Radice 2015: 9). Yet profound and lightning-paced transformations in worldwide production and trade were indeed palpable to any observer back then, and by the mid-1970s Marxist scholars in the UK and beyond were beginning to engage in highly productive—and still influential—debates on the labour process, state theory, and alternative political strategies in the context of deep world recession and heightened social and political tensions across much of the West. Radice recalls, in particular, his participation in a 1974 workshop in Starnberg, Germany, ‘at which Otto Kreye and his colleagues presented the first results of their project on the new international division of labour’. This work, he confirms, was to become ‘very influential for progressive scholarship on global capitalism’.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See, for example, Iñigo Carrera (2006, 2013, 2014, 2015). Several of Iñigo Carrera’s other working papers are available in English through the CICP web site: http://www.cicpint.org/CICP%20English/Principal.html.

  2. 2.

    The productive attributes of workers include the strictly material or technical dimension of labour-power required by the particularity and complexity of the productive functions to be performed, as well as its ‘moral’ attributes (that is, the general forms of consciousness and self-understandings that make those workers suitable for the specific forms of discipline that a certain organisation of the capitalist labour process entails). The term ‘productive subjectivity’ captures this twofold dimension of labour-power.

  3. 3.

    As Radice (2009: 29) summarises, ‘the mechanism through which this unequal distribution of rewards is sustained is, in essence, that of market structure: businesses and zones engaging in core activities have market power based on superior technology, management and access to finance, while those engaging in peripheral activities have only generic resources of cheap land and unskilled labour, the markets for which are highly competitive.’

  4. 4.

    All three of these frameworks/concepts figure in the selection of articles edited by Bruff and Ebenau (2014). See Rioux (2015) for a critical discussion of Trotsky’s notion of ‘uneven and combined development’, and for a thorough critique of the (failed) attempt to come up with ‘a social theory of the international’ in the work of Justin Rosenberg and others.

  5. 5.

    It ought to be self-evident from the foregoing outline of the approach taken in this book that a focus on country case studies does not imply a crude methodological nationalism on our part. But to clarify, Part II focuses on countries for two reasons: first, because even if it is a mediating form and not a self-subsistent content, the national form is real and objective, and it is actually by exacerbating national differentiation that the global content of the NIDL unfolds; and it allows us to show that it is impossible to explain national dynamics as if they were autonomous from the global content of accumulation.

  6. 6.

    An appendix to Chap. 2, which we have been unable to reproduce in this book due to space constraints, is available at: https://www.academia.edu/24332230/End_Notes_to_The_general_rate_of_profit_and_its_realisation_in_the_differentiation_of_industrial_capitals_1?auto=download. In it, Iñigo Carrera confronts two crucial problems: first, the asymmetric relation between national economies of markedly distinct structures; and, second, the asymmetric relation between capitals of very distinct accumulation capacities within the same value chain. Until now, the first question has been approached by means of theories of development and underdevelopment, imperialism, unequal exchange, dependency, and so on. Iñigo Carrera asserts that these theories all conceive of national processes of accumulation as being essentially autonomous. The second question of the asymmetric relation within value chains has, until now, been explained by theories of imperfect competition and of monopoly capital. Both theories agree that such asymmetry results from the behaviour of key agents. Therefore both theories erroneously eschew the existence of objective determinations that regulate social production and consumption through the formation of a general rate of profit.

References

  • Alcorta, L. 1999. Flexible Automation and Location of Production in Developing Countries. European Journal of Development Research 11(1): 147–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allinson, J.C., and A. Anievas. 2009. The Uses and Misuses of Uneven and Combined Development: An Anatomy of a Concept. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 22(1): 47–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amsden, A. 1989. Asia’s Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balconi, M. 2002. Tacitness, Codification of Technological Knowledge and the Organisation of Industry. Research Policy 31: 357–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruff, I., and M. Ebenau (eds.). 2014. Special Issue: Critical Political Economy and Capitalist Diversity. Capital & Class 38: 1, 3–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coates, D. 2014. Studying Comparative Capitalisms by Going Left and Going Deeper. Capital & Class 38(1): 18–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, P. 1995. Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fröbel, F., J. Heinrichs, and O. Kreye. 1978. The World Market for Labor and the World Market for Industrial Sites. Journal of Economic Issues XII(4): 843–58.Fröbel, F., J. Heinrichs, and O. Kreye. 1980. The New International Division of Labour: Structural Unemployment in Industrialised Countries and Industrialisation in Developing Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grinberg, N. 2011. Transformations in the Korean and Brazilian Processes of Capitalist Development between the mid-1950s and the mid-2000s: The Political Economy of Late Industrialisation. Unpublished PhD diss. London School of Economics and Political Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grinberg, N. 2013. The Political Economy of Brazilian (Latin American) and Korean (East Asian) Long-term Development: Moving beyond Nation-centred Approaches. New Political Economy 18(2): 171–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P.A., and D. Soskice (eds.). 2001. Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, D. 2005. Notes Towards a Theory of Uneven Geographical Development. In Spaces of Neoliberalization: Towards a Theory of Uneven Geographical Development. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huws, U. (ed.). 2006. The Transformation of Work in a Global Knowledge Economy: Towards a Conceptual Framework. Leuven: HIVA-K. U. Leuven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iñigo Carrera, J. 2006. Argentina: The Reproduction of Capital Accumulation Through Political Crisis. Historical Materialism 14(1): 185–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iñigo Carrera, J. 2007. La formación económica de la sociedad argentina. Volumen I, Renta agraria, ganancia industrial y deuda externa. 1882–2004. Buenos Aires: Imago Mundi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iñigo Carrera, J. 2013. El capital: razón historica, sujecto revolucionario y conciencia, 2nd ed. Buenos Aires: Imago Mundi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iñigo Carrera, J. 2014. The Historical Determination of the Capitalist Mode of Production and of the Working Class as Revolutionary Subject. Critique: Journal of Socialist Theory 42(4): 555–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iñigo Carrera, J. 2015. Dialectics on its Feet, or the Form of the Consciousness of the Working Class as Historical Subject. In Marx’s Capital and Hegel’s Logic: A Reexamination, ed. F. Moseley and T. Smith. Brill: Leiden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, A. 1990. Asian Trade and Growth Lessons. The American Economic Review 80(2): 108–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, K. 1976. Capital, vol. 1. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, K. 1981. Capital, vol. 3. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, K. 1992. Capital, vol. 2. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radice, H. 2009. Halfway to Paradise? Making Sense of the Semi-Periphery. In Globalization and the ‘New’ Semi-Peripheries, ed. O. Worth and P. Moore. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radice, H. 2015. Global Capitalism: Selected Essays. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramioul, M. 2006. Organisational Change and the Demand of Skills. In The Transformation of Work in a Global Knowledge Economy: Towards a Conceptual Framework, ed. U. Huws. Leuven: HIVA-K. U. Leuven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ranis, G. 1989. The Role of Institutions in Transition Growth: The East Asian Newly Industrializing Countries. World Development 17(9): 1443–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rioux, S. 2015. Mind the (Theoretical) Gap: On the Poverty of International Relations Theorising of Uneven and Combined Development. Global Society 29(4): 481–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrik, D. 1994. Getting Interventions Right: How South Korea and Taiwan Grew Rich. Working Paper 4964, National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, N. 1989. Uneven Development and Location Theory: Towards a Synthesis. In New Models in Geography: The Political-Economy Perspective, ed. R. Peet and N. Thrift. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starosta, G. 2010. Global Commodity Chains and the Marxian Law of Value. Antipode 42(2): 433–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starosta, G. 2016. Marx’s Capital, Method and Revolutionary Subjectivity. Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, J.E. 1996. Some Lessons from the East Asian Miracle. The World Bank Research Observer 11(2): 151–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade, R. 1990. Industrial Policy in East Asia: Does It Lead or Follow the Market? In Manufacturing Miracles: Paths of Industrialization in Latin America and East Asia, ed. G. Gereffi and D.I. Wyman. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, L. 1998. The Myth of the Powerless State: Governing the Economy in a Global Era. London: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. 1993. The East Asian Miracle: Economic Growth and Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Charnock, G., Starosta, G. (2016). Introduction: The New International Division of Labour and the Critique of Political Economy Today. In: Charnock, G., Starosta, G. (eds) The New International Division of Labour. International Political Economy Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53872-7_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics