Download pdf - The Contested Constitution of Work – Spatial Scales ... · The Contested Constitution of Work – Spatial Scales, Societal Spheres and Mo-des of Work Current Research and Neglected

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.



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



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,



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?



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



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-



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



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-



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).



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



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.



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



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).



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.