- Email: [email protected]
The division of labor, the state and local politics
POLITICAL GEOGRAPHY, Vol. 12, No.
4,July 1993,382-385
Review Essay The division of labor, the state and local politics
The New SociaEEconomy. Basil Blackwell.
A. Sayer and R. Walker (1992). Cambridge, MA and Oxford, UK:
This recent book by Sayer and Walker provides stimulating food for thought for political geographers. Their focus is the division of labor. In a trench~tl~ argued account they present the case for a more considered attention in social theory to the division of labor as a structure of relations; and by virtue of the issue of coordination which it raises: as a pobkmatic structure. In more radical work there has been an enduring underestimation of its significance. This has resulted in attempts to impute to class and capitalist relations of production effects which are either more accurately attributable to the division of labor, or to which the division of labor has at least contributed in significant part. This is not, however, a review essay in the standard mode. Rather it is that their arguments change horizons and pose a number of important questions for work in political geography as much as for that work in economic geography to which their book is more obviously addressed. I want to ident@ some of these new horizons and questions here. Nevertheless, before doing that it is impo~ant that a stronger sense of the nature of their argument be conveyed. As Sayer and Walker point out in their introduction, the book is built around three major themes: the significance of social labor for modern societies; economic change; and social power. Each of these is viewed from the standpoint of the division of labor and the difference that that division makes. Thus, the extraordinarily highly developed character of the division of labor, which contributes so much to its social character, creates problems of integration. Integration can be achieved in a variety of different ways. These ways are not exhausted, as some might have one believe, by the firm, the market or by state planning. New modes of organizing the division of labor contribute towards economic development and change. Whether or not this change can be conceived in terms of qualitative transformations as in the concept of a service economy or post-Fordism has become an issue in urban and regional studies. Addressing it in terms of the changing form of the division of labor can provide a welcome antidote to more extravagant claims. Finally, there is the question of social power. The literature dealing with domination and subordination has neglected the significant role played by the division of labor and how the division of labor interacts with other, more obvious, sources of social hierarchy such as gender, race and class. The widespread use of such dualities as non-manual vs. manual, headquarters city vs. branch plant town or any other characterization of the spatial division of labor make this myopia appear all the more curious. This is an extraordinarily rewarding book. It is one which takes up and develops themes which have preoccupied both authors for some considerable time now. Accordingly it bears the signs of protracted reflection. It is an exciting book and one which gains a good 0962-&98/l 2/M/0382-4
@ 1993 Buttetw~~h-Heinemann
Ltd
P.EVEWESS.Y
383
deal of added point from the recent demise of the planned economies of the Eastern Bloc and a shift to a so-called market economy: a development with respect to which the authors are not hesitant to situate a good deal of their argument. Let me now turn to its implications for political geography. A useful point of entry into this is provided by the fact that from the standpoint of particular societies, the state is obviously an important aspect of the division of labor. There is a division of labor between state and civil society (and not just between state and capital). There is also a division of labor within the state: a structure of Departments, of different branches of government, And for both of these divisions of labor there are significant problems of coordination. These divisions of labor are important political stakes. The conflict between statist and free market views is dominant but there are-often similar-arguments about the relation between executive and legislative branches, the charges of ‘monopoly’ and so forth. These arguments are put forward on behalf of quite transparently sectional interests, drawing upon arguments about social integration and coordination-state monopoly, externalities, imperfect information-in order to build broader alliances. Nevertheless, and by way of example, capitalists make more than profits. They also provide use values, so division of labor arguments cannot be dismissed as purely a veil for capitalist self-interest lacking a mandate for the broader material effects to which they lay claim. In some cases a shift in the boundary between state and civil societies clearly does facilitate the integration of the division of labor and enhance allocative efficiency. The division of labor within the state has obvious geographic forms: in particular the division of labor between the state and its more local branches. The powers so devolved provide a basis for geographical variation in what those local branches actually do and how they choose to draw the line between state and civil society: more public housing in one, less in another; more support for private education through assisted places in some, less elsewhere; impact fees here but not there, and so on. Consequently the same conflicts are also likely to erupt, though this time with a spatial inflection. Decentralization to local agencies of the state may be advocated as a counter to state monopoly by opening up the possibility of ‘voting with one’s feet’. Replacing neighbourhood school monopolies through the introduction of a voucher system is seen by many today as having similar effects. The complexities of the division of labor, whether conceived socially or technically, and of the problem of coordinating it, lend their own impetus to politics. This impetus is independent of that provided by such divisions as those of class, gender or ethnic@. Some of this has been recognized in political geography: the role of agricultural vs. industrial interests in the historical evolution of voting geographies, for example. Even so, reductionism is still common. Cleavages between the different strata defined by the technical division of labor are often reduced to class terms: upper middle, middle, lower middle, lower, etc. And in discussions of dependent development it is far from clear that dependency has more to do with class than with the spatial division of labor. Considerations such as these disclose for political geography a variety of intriguing questions and issues. I want to conclude this essay by considering, as illustrations, two of these. The first is the territorial organization of the state. Hitherto approaches here have been sensed as quite antithetical. One contribution has been the local state literature. This has emphasized the category of class. It is primarily British in inspiration and Marxist in its theoretical commitments. In the US, on the other hand, the literature on metropolitan fragmentation is clearly more mainstream and so more individualist and empiricist. It is also, however, a literature which exploits the concept of the division of labor, though
384
Rrvinw:ESSAY
perhaps not always self-consciously. This is so whether one considers public choice theories with their emphasis on the division of labor between different Ioral governments; or the more critical liberai reform literature where the different distributionaf groupings c~~ntending over rival jurisdictional projects are arguably derivative of the technical division of labor. The relationship between territorial organization and the problem of coordinating the division of labor is also apparent in the emphasis on externalities and in the rhetoric around the so-called suburban exploitation of the central city. An important implication of a reading of Sayer and Walker is that both these interpretations, one rooted in concepts of class, the other in the division of labor, may have value. Class and the division of labor are independent structures of social relations and conc~~vab~~ both play a role in structur~n~ the territorial organization of the state. Certainly when we think of this possibility in terms of the British and American cases the respective literatures emerge as quite seriously conte~ually-bound. The substance of American metropolitan politics, the very fact of fermentation and inter-jurisdictions externalities, might seem to lend credence to ideas deriving from the division of labor. Rut class is not absent, and despite the problems seemingly encountered in applying the concept of the local state to the American case. Urban growth coalitions with strong developmental interests have been a major force in pushing for more integrated territorial structures in lnetropolitan areas, pa~icuiarly with respect to infr~tructu~1 provision and land-use planning. Likewise, in the British case, although the absence of the sort of fragmentation apparent in American metropolitan areas has made public choice and liberal reform theories of territorial organization seemingly less applicable, there are problems of coordination between neighbouring local governments. This was highlighted during the 1970s in the identi~cation of the so-called ‘con~inment of urban England’ (Hall et al., t973) without being interpreted in terms of existing theories. This is not a call for some sort of trans&Iantic eclecticism. Rather, what is needed is an exploration ofthe overfap between the disparate theories, of the areas of tension between them. This would be in an attempt to negotiate those tensions so as to enhance our understanding of how class and the division of labor interact in the production of territorial organizations of the state. My second and briefer example concerns the politics of local economic development. The debate here has been dominated by questions of class, both in the Marxist literature and in the more ambiguous ‘political economy perspectives’ of mainstream political science. A dominant motif has been the ii~pl~ca~jo~ of mobile capital. for immobile working cIasses, or in some interpretations, communities. A subseyuenr shift in the balance of political forces at the local level has made the working class vulnerable to capitalist demands for tax breaks, concessions in environmental regulation, the provision of expensive infrastructure, etc. Yet seen from another standpoint, the politics of local economic development is not just about class conflict. It is also about the division of labor. For local policies may target particular firms and sectors in order to enhance or maintain a locality’s position in the spatial division of labor. This is apparent in the new generation of State economic development policies in the Midwest and Northeast. These aim at enhancing the technical capabilities of indigenous firms through articulation with State universities and through the establishment of State venture capital funds. They typically concentrate on developing existing specializations: in Ohio the polymer industry of the Akron area has been a major target. This targeting has also become clear in policies designed to promote inward investment. vocal growth coalitions, public-private ~a~erships~ try to exploit niches or
REVIEWESSAY
385
dwelop new ones in the division
of labor. The gamble to become a headquarters city is predicated on airport expansion, attracting a hub, building up local cultural activities. The critical analysis of the politics of local economic development in terms of class remains a pressing need. But the competition of urban growth coalitions one with another arguably plays a role not simply in a robbing-Peter-to-pay-Paul spatial redistribution of economic activity as some discussions would have it, or in driving local working classes to the wall; but also in coordinating broader spatial divisions of labor and so lending a further impetus to economic development and increasing the bargaining space for local working classes. The notion of the mutually destructive anarchy of competition has, in hindsight, been too influential in discussions of the politics of local economic development since competition also has important coordinative roles. And as Sayer points out elsewhere, the coordinative powers of the market can be obtained without capitalism. Market socialism would abolish capitalism but it would not abolish the division of labor. As a consequence urban growth coalitions could now restructure for labor but not in happy ignorance of the demands of the division of that labor.
References HAIL,P., GRKEY, H., DFCEEI. R. and THOMAS,R. (1973).TheContainment of Urban England. London: George Allen and Unwin. SAYEK, A. (1992). Radical geography and marxist political economy: towards a re-evaluation. &qwss in Human Geogrupky (forthcoming).
Kevin R. Cox iApal_tment of ~eo~~~ Ebe Ohio Stute ~~iu~‘~
4,July 1993,382-385
Review Essay The division of labor, the state and local politics
The New SociaEEconomy. Basil Blackwell.
A. Sayer and R. Walker (1992). Cambridge, MA and Oxford, UK:
This recent book by Sayer and Walker provides stimulating food for thought for political geographers. Their focus is the division of labor. In a trench~tl~ argued account they present the case for a more considered attention in social theory to the division of labor as a structure of relations; and by virtue of the issue of coordination which it raises: as a pobkmatic structure. In more radical work there has been an enduring underestimation of its significance. This has resulted in attempts to impute to class and capitalist relations of production effects which are either more accurately attributable to the division of labor, or to which the division of labor has at least contributed in significant part. This is not, however, a review essay in the standard mode. Rather it is that their arguments change horizons and pose a number of important questions for work in political geography as much as for that work in economic geography to which their book is more obviously addressed. I want to ident@ some of these new horizons and questions here. Nevertheless, before doing that it is impo~ant that a stronger sense of the nature of their argument be conveyed. As Sayer and Walker point out in their introduction, the book is built around three major themes: the significance of social labor for modern societies; economic change; and social power. Each of these is viewed from the standpoint of the division of labor and the difference that that division makes. Thus, the extraordinarily highly developed character of the division of labor, which contributes so much to its social character, creates problems of integration. Integration can be achieved in a variety of different ways. These ways are not exhausted, as some might have one believe, by the firm, the market or by state planning. New modes of organizing the division of labor contribute towards economic development and change. Whether or not this change can be conceived in terms of qualitative transformations as in the concept of a service economy or post-Fordism has become an issue in urban and regional studies. Addressing it in terms of the changing form of the division of labor can provide a welcome antidote to more extravagant claims. Finally, there is the question of social power. The literature dealing with domination and subordination has neglected the significant role played by the division of labor and how the division of labor interacts with other, more obvious, sources of social hierarchy such as gender, race and class. The widespread use of such dualities as non-manual vs. manual, headquarters city vs. branch plant town or any other characterization of the spatial division of labor make this myopia appear all the more curious. This is an extraordinarily rewarding book. It is one which takes up and develops themes which have preoccupied both authors for some considerable time now. Accordingly it bears the signs of protracted reflection. It is an exciting book and one which gains a good 0962-&98/l 2/M/0382-4
@ 1993 Buttetw~~h-Heinemann
Ltd
P.EVEWESS.Y
383
deal of added point from the recent demise of the planned economies of the Eastern Bloc and a shift to a so-called market economy: a development with respect to which the authors are not hesitant to situate a good deal of their argument. Let me now turn to its implications for political geography. A useful point of entry into this is provided by the fact that from the standpoint of particular societies, the state is obviously an important aspect of the division of labor. There is a division of labor between state and civil society (and not just between state and capital). There is also a division of labor within the state: a structure of Departments, of different branches of government, And for both of these divisions of labor there are significant problems of coordination. These divisions of labor are important political stakes. The conflict between statist and free market views is dominant but there are-often similar-arguments about the relation between executive and legislative branches, the charges of ‘monopoly’ and so forth. These arguments are put forward on behalf of quite transparently sectional interests, drawing upon arguments about social integration and coordination-state monopoly, externalities, imperfect information-in order to build broader alliances. Nevertheless, and by way of example, capitalists make more than profits. They also provide use values, so division of labor arguments cannot be dismissed as purely a veil for capitalist self-interest lacking a mandate for the broader material effects to which they lay claim. In some cases a shift in the boundary between state and civil societies clearly does facilitate the integration of the division of labor and enhance allocative efficiency. The division of labor within the state has obvious geographic forms: in particular the division of labor between the state and its more local branches. The powers so devolved provide a basis for geographical variation in what those local branches actually do and how they choose to draw the line between state and civil society: more public housing in one, less in another; more support for private education through assisted places in some, less elsewhere; impact fees here but not there, and so on. Consequently the same conflicts are also likely to erupt, though this time with a spatial inflection. Decentralization to local agencies of the state may be advocated as a counter to state monopoly by opening up the possibility of ‘voting with one’s feet’. Replacing neighbourhood school monopolies through the introduction of a voucher system is seen by many today as having similar effects. The complexities of the division of labor, whether conceived socially or technically, and of the problem of coordinating it, lend their own impetus to politics. This impetus is independent of that provided by such divisions as those of class, gender or ethnic@. Some of this has been recognized in political geography: the role of agricultural vs. industrial interests in the historical evolution of voting geographies, for example. Even so, reductionism is still common. Cleavages between the different strata defined by the technical division of labor are often reduced to class terms: upper middle, middle, lower middle, lower, etc. And in discussions of dependent development it is far from clear that dependency has more to do with class than with the spatial division of labor. Considerations such as these disclose for political geography a variety of intriguing questions and issues. I want to conclude this essay by considering, as illustrations, two of these. The first is the territorial organization of the state. Hitherto approaches here have been sensed as quite antithetical. One contribution has been the local state literature. This has emphasized the category of class. It is primarily British in inspiration and Marxist in its theoretical commitments. In the US, on the other hand, the literature on metropolitan fragmentation is clearly more mainstream and so more individualist and empiricist. It is also, however, a literature which exploits the concept of the division of labor, though
384
Rrvinw:ESSAY
perhaps not always self-consciously. This is so whether one considers public choice theories with their emphasis on the division of labor between different Ioral governments; or the more critical liberai reform literature where the different distributionaf groupings c~~ntending over rival jurisdictional projects are arguably derivative of the technical division of labor. The relationship between territorial organization and the problem of coordinating the division of labor is also apparent in the emphasis on externalities and in the rhetoric around the so-called suburban exploitation of the central city. An important implication of a reading of Sayer and Walker is that both these interpretations, one rooted in concepts of class, the other in the division of labor, may have value. Class and the division of labor are independent structures of social relations and conc~~vab~~ both play a role in structur~n~ the territorial organization of the state. Certainly when we think of this possibility in terms of the British and American cases the respective literatures emerge as quite seriously conte~ually-bound. The substance of American metropolitan politics, the very fact of fermentation and inter-jurisdictions externalities, might seem to lend credence to ideas deriving from the division of labor. Rut class is not absent, and despite the problems seemingly encountered in applying the concept of the local state to the American case. Urban growth coalitions with strong developmental interests have been a major force in pushing for more integrated territorial structures in lnetropolitan areas, pa~icuiarly with respect to infr~tructu~1 provision and land-use planning. Likewise, in the British case, although the absence of the sort of fragmentation apparent in American metropolitan areas has made public choice and liberal reform theories of territorial organization seemingly less applicable, there are problems of coordination between neighbouring local governments. This was highlighted during the 1970s in the identi~cation of the so-called ‘con~inment of urban England’ (Hall et al., t973) without being interpreted in terms of existing theories. This is not a call for some sort of trans&Iantic eclecticism. Rather, what is needed is an exploration ofthe overfap between the disparate theories, of the areas of tension between them. This would be in an attempt to negotiate those tensions so as to enhance our understanding of how class and the division of labor interact in the production of territorial organizations of the state. My second and briefer example concerns the politics of local economic development. The debate here has been dominated by questions of class, both in the Marxist literature and in the more ambiguous ‘political economy perspectives’ of mainstream political science. A dominant motif has been the ii~pl~ca~jo~ of mobile capital. for immobile working cIasses, or in some interpretations, communities. A subseyuenr shift in the balance of political forces at the local level has made the working class vulnerable to capitalist demands for tax breaks, concessions in environmental regulation, the provision of expensive infrastructure, etc. Yet seen from another standpoint, the politics of local economic development is not just about class conflict. It is also about the division of labor. For local policies may target particular firms and sectors in order to enhance or maintain a locality’s position in the spatial division of labor. This is apparent in the new generation of State economic development policies in the Midwest and Northeast. These aim at enhancing the technical capabilities of indigenous firms through articulation with State universities and through the establishment of State venture capital funds. They typically concentrate on developing existing specializations: in Ohio the polymer industry of the Akron area has been a major target. This targeting has also become clear in policies designed to promote inward investment. vocal growth coalitions, public-private ~a~erships~ try to exploit niches or
REVIEWESSAY
385
dwelop new ones in the division
of labor. The gamble to become a headquarters city is predicated on airport expansion, attracting a hub, building up local cultural activities. The critical analysis of the politics of local economic development in terms of class remains a pressing need. But the competition of urban growth coalitions one with another arguably plays a role not simply in a robbing-Peter-to-pay-Paul spatial redistribution of economic activity as some discussions would have it, or in driving local working classes to the wall; but also in coordinating broader spatial divisions of labor and so lending a further impetus to economic development and increasing the bargaining space for local working classes. The notion of the mutually destructive anarchy of competition has, in hindsight, been too influential in discussions of the politics of local economic development since competition also has important coordinative roles. And as Sayer points out elsewhere, the coordinative powers of the market can be obtained without capitalism. Market socialism would abolish capitalism but it would not abolish the division of labor. As a consequence urban growth coalitions could now restructure for labor but not in happy ignorance of the demands of the division of that labor.
References HAIL,P., GRKEY, H., DFCEEI. R. and THOMAS,R. (1973).TheContainment of Urban England. London: George Allen and Unwin. SAYEK, A. (1992). Radical geography and marxist political economy: towards a re-evaluation. &qwss in Human Geogrupky (forthcoming).
Kevin R. Cox iApal_tment of ~eo~~~ Ebe Ohio Stute ~~iu~‘~