Emerging Frontiers in the Global Economy. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2021. xiv, 227 pp. (Tables, graphs, figures.) US$65.00, cloth. ISBN 9781503610255.
Precarious Asia represents an interdisciplinary collaboration between two political sociologists (Arne Kalleberg and Kwang-Yeong Shin) and a political economist (Kevin Hewison). The book is a culmination of a research project funded by the Asian Center at the Seoul National University in 2017 and 2018. This book should appeal to a general audience interested in labour and the economy, and how their dynamics are reshaped and redefined under the broad framework of neoliberal capitalism. More interestingly, the writing and completion of the book throughout the two-year pandemic was itself a precarious undertaking, and the authors have incorporated this perspective into their analysis.
“Precarity” is a term that has acquired widespread resonance among scholars, journalists, and policy makers alike, all of whom have followed the lead of Guy Standing’s work on the Precariat (2011, 2012, 2013, 2014). Once a French neologism (precarite), precarity has become the “word of our time” (Anne Allison, Precarious Japan, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 2013, 6), a conceptual shortcut to describe a global condition of ambient insecurity and the expansion and entrenchment of precarious work due to the economic forces of neoliberal capitalism.
The book’s main arguments are laid out in a short introductory chapter in which the authors examine the “political and economic dynamics that underlie the liberalization of employment and social protections in Asia” (3). Using three country case studies—Japan, South Korea, and Indonesia—the authors claim that the ideological commitment to neoliberal policies and practices in these countries results in a confluence of simultaneous processes: the weakening of organized labour, the enhancement of capital mobility, and the “squeezing” of protections for workers’ rights. All these contribute to the exacerbation of inequality as “fiscal discipline (takes) over social policies” (3). As the book’s title suggests, precarity is no longer just a Western phenomenon; rather, it has been Asianized.
To make the case, the book employs a historical institutional approach combined with critical political economy to illustrate that institutions are the agencies through which labour is (re)organized, often in contentious ways. This approach is a fresh addition to existing scholarship through an elaborate discussion on the rules, procedures, norms, interests, rights, obligations, and hierarchies, and how these are institutionalized in country settings.
Chapters 1 through 4 are an elaborate explication of how irregular work has taken over regular work in Japan and South Korea. In Indonesia, workers are classified either in the formal or the informal economy. The tradition of lifelong employment has never existed. Despite minimum wage reforms and political activism, 45 percent of total employment is paid work. These contrasts are essential given that lifelong employment in large conglomerates in Japan and South Korea previously existed. The Fordist production systems of the post-World War II era have been eroded with the onslaught of neoliberal globalization.
The book’s strength lies in the authors’ rich empirical elaboration of Japan, South Korea, and Indonesia and their fine-grained analysis of the variations in precarity situations among these three countries. Added to these are seniority and gender dimensions that provide additional lenses to view the precarious workers’ experiences. Older women workers (aged above 39 years old) experience the most precarity in all three countries. Especially in Indonesia, older women workers in the informal sector embody the extreme precariat.
Chapters 5 and 6 go beyond the lamentations of neoliberal globalization. Discussions on wages, social protections, policies, and politics highlight the policy and practical responses to precarity, particularly within the context of COVID-19—a critical addition to the analysis of state responses to the social and economic dislocations wrought by two years of the pandemic. The authors contend that the pandemic exposed the economies’ reliance on “armies of low-paid, often low-status precarious workers doing essential jobs,” even as they admit that “states have been willing to abandon neoliberal policy during the pandemic” (187). Perhaps begrudgingly, they nod to the positive opportunities the pandemic unleashed: “The pandemic has shown that states have the resources available to them for increased social investment” (188).
There is a burgeoning literature that the digital space occupied during the pandemic has provided a lifeline to workers who shifted to online platforms for employment. Work-from-home arrangements have benefitted otherwise unemployable workers, e.g., the elderly and/or disabled with mobility challenges (Lisa A. Schur et al., “Telework After COVID: A ‘Silver Lining’ for Workers with Disabilities?” Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 30 [2020]). Even more encouraging is the failure of the pandemic to quash resistance movements. Technology might have even contributed positively to more widespread collective action as digital activism spread globally during lockdowns of public spaces (David L. Blustein et al., “Like a Tsunami Coming in Fast: A Critical Qualitative Study of Precarity and Resistance during the Pandemic,” Journal of Counselling Psychology 69, no. 5 [2022]). Andrea Dugo (“How Asia Shamed the West and Protected its Urban Poor from COVID,” Global-is-Asian, July 1, 2021) argues that East Asian states have successfully contained the spread of the virus by behaving “non-neoliberally,” assuming complete state control of the pandemic in a dirigiste fashion reminiscent of the early days of the developmental state formation. The urban poor population especially received state protection from what could otherwise have been severe pandemic effects.
Other scholars (Andy Hodder, “New Technology, Work and Employment in the Era of COVID-19: Reflecting on Legacies of Research,” New Technology, Work and Employment 35, no. 3 [2020]), however, lament the increased surveillance and control through electronic performance monitoring. Moreover, gendered inequalities have been exacerbated during the pandemic as women have born the brunt of longer work hours (Caitlyn Collins, “COVID‐19 and the Gender Gap in Work Hours,” Gender, Work and Organization 28 [2021]) and the simultaneous pressures of childcare and full-time employment (Richard Petts, “A Gendered Pandemic: Childcare, Homeschooling, and Parents’ Employment During COVID‐19,” Gender, Work and Organization 58 [2021]). These emerging features of the burgeoning platform economy raise analytical questions regarding the changing nature of neoliberal capitalism and the possible restoration of state capacity to promote and enhance workers’ welfare. The analytical question then arises: Does digitalization herald new forms of precarity, or does it provide an opportunity for new forms of state regulation that could potentially result in increased workers’ welfare?
All this is to say that precarity is frequently partial, incomplete, and constantly evolving, especially within the context of an emergent “platform capitalism.” Perhaps it is time to consider a follow-up volume in which precarity is addressed within the framework of platform capitalism and question whether the latter would emulate neoliberal capitalism. If the authors take up the challenge, they will ensure an engaged readership for a very long time.
Teresita Cruz del Rosario
Asia Research Institute, Singapore