Search results

Industrial heritage is considered an essential part of cultural heritage in the world. This heritage suffers from continued marginalisation in the Arab world, particularly in Jordan, where many industrial heritage sites have not been protected or studied well due to the lack of a clear definition of cultural heritage. Most of these sites, built in the 20th century, are gradually disappearing or scheduled for demolition. This paper explores the de-industrialisation discourse and the loss of modern industrial heritage in the Arab world, especially in Jordan.

This research investigates the modern industrial heritage in Jordan as a case study in the Arab world. A comprehensive understanding of the industrial heritage has been obtained by adopting a case study approach and using a reconnaissance survey of potential industrial heritage sites in Jordan.

Seven categories were used in the analysis of the de-industrialisation phenomenon of heritage sites: ownership, location, design and types; structure, significance, deterioration and physical condition and conservation attempts and alterations. Three main approaches to industrial heritage were identified: demolition, occasional maintenance and rare examples of conservation and adaptive reuse.

This study sheds light on the ownership issue of industrial structures in Jordan and invites policymakers, relevant authorities, private organisations and the public to consider the challenges and impact of de-industrialisation of such sites.

This research raises awareness of the de-industrialisation discourse, and highlights the value of industrial architecture dating back to the modernity period, which was short-lived in Jordan. It also calls for serious consideration of these sites to support sustainable development in the Arab World.

Purpose – European social protection arrangements have undergone significant transformations since the mid-1970s. However, while the existing literature has focused on reforms in public welfare arrangements, an analysis of both public and private social protection is needed to understand the social protection status of European workers. Recent reforms have led to varying degrees of social protection dualism between insiders and outsiders. After showing the existence of dualization processes in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, the chapter explores the structural and political sources of these processes.

Methodology/approach – We conduct a comparative historical analysis and process tracing of policy change and its drivers in three major European political economies. A combination of qualitative evidence and quantitative measurements are used.

Findings – We find that de-industrialization has contributed to unsettling the skill composition that sustained both public and private postwar social protection arrangements. This development has affected the preferences of employers, for whom cost containment has become a critical issue. Furthermore, we show that the capacity of employers to realize their preferences depends on the governance structures of social policy arrangements and on domestic political institutions.

Originality/value – The chapter suggests new perspectives on employers' preferences in Coordinated and Liberal political economies which differ from those which have informed the Varieties of Capitalism approach.

The relationship between globalization – through trade liberalization – and inequality is unclear. The Stolper‐Samuelson theorem, which is a standard result in trade theory, does not offer compelling answers as globalized economies with an abundance of unskilled labour have seen inequality both worsen, as in China and much of Asia, and improve, as in Latin America. Kuznets' classic model also finds scant confirmation in increasingly open economies, with growth associated with declining inequality in poorer Latin America, and with rising inequality in richer OECD countries. The authors aim to suggest that the key to those anomalies lies in the relative weight of industrialization in a country's growth mix.

Using census data (for 1991 and 2000) for more than 5,000 municipalities, the authors examine the relationship between income per capita and inequality in Brazil.

The authors uncover the existence of an “inverted‐U” relationship in 1991 that flipped into a “straight‐U” relationship in 2000, both of which are statistically significant. They argue that the flip results from the association of economic growth with de‐industrialization that is driven by globalization.

In terms of future work, there is a need to examine further the role of de‐industrialization, not only in the case of Brazil but also other emerging economies with different patterns of inequality than the ones currently observed in Latin America and Brazil in particular.

The authors' result reinforces the growing skepticism towards the role of industrialization in economic development, as Brazil sees its most successful period of pro‐poor growth go hand in hand with its de‐industrialization.

The authors' result casts doubts about the role of social policy in the current evolution of inequality and poverty in Brazil. The famous Bolsa Familia program, in particular, may have been exaggerated by both the Brazilian government and social policy specialists, as much of the change could be traced to changes in the structure of the economy itself.

This paper contributes to the existing literature on globalization and inequality. It uses municipal level data and identifies a “flip” in the Kuznets relationship. This enables us to make sense of growing inequality in poorer but industrializing economies and in rich ones going through processes of de‐industrialization, and also of declining inequality in poorer de‐industrializing countries such as Brazil.

The de‐industrialization of the United States has been foretold by many prophets of gloom. It is true that in the past three years the economy has dramatically shifted from the production of goods to services. Nevertheless, the production of manufactured goods, as a percent of Gross National Product (GNP) has actually grown during the past decade. The reality is the U.S. de‐industrialization problem does not lie in output but in employment.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how the processes of (de)industrialization and rural income distribution interact with each other and their implications for economic growth and welfare.

This paper takes a dynamic general-equilibrium and theoretical approach.

The author develops a dynamic general-equilibrium model to analytically characterize how (de) industrialization interacts with rural income distribution, and also explores the implications for aggregate GDP growth, the evolution of rural income distribution as well as welfare. Redistributive policies are shown to sometimes enhance GDP and welfare by boosting the production of the goods with high desirability (or productivity) but constrained by depressed demand due to income inequality, and internalizing the dynamic impact of private production and consumption decisions on future public productivities.

The research suggests that rural income distribution and (de)industrialization are intrinsically related, so policies or institutional distortions on one process would, in general, affect the other. Redistributive policies are shown to sometimes enhance GDP and welfare by enhancing industrialization.

The paper contributes to the literature of industrialization and structural change at large in several aspects. First, a key novel feature of our model is that the Engle’s law is captured by a quasi-linear utility function, which differs from the standard non-homothetic functions in this literature. Second, our paper contributes to the literature of structural change by showing how (de)industrialization works when sectorial productivity changes are endogenous. The paper also sheds light on the determination of rural income distribution and its evolution in the process of structural change and rural-urban migration.

Purpose – Since the mid-1980s, unemployment policy reforms in Europe and throughout the rich democracies have stressed publicly supported activation of the unemployed through both reductions in perceived disincentives to work as well as commitments for improved training, employment services, and related policies. In this chapter, I systematically explore the domestic and international political economic sources of these policy changes.

Methodology/approach – I test a set of hypotheses – original and derivative – about the domestic and international determinants of labor market policy change through pooled time-series cross-section analysis of 1980-to-2002 annual data from 18 capitalist democracies. The dependent variables consist of national spending on active labor market policy, measures of passive unemployment compensation benefits, and the ratio of active to passive unemployment program spending. Causal models account for spatial diffusion of policy reforms as well as core political and economic determinants of policy change.

Findings – I find that Left party governments and coordinated market institutions buoy resources for active labor market programs, maintain relatively generous passive unemployment supports and entitlements, and, at the same time, foster a shift to more active social policy. International trade openness promotes generous active labor market policies while more left-leaning voters and veto points within the polity significantly constrain reductions in unemployment benefits and entitlement rights. De-industrialization reinforces policy reforms toward activation while high unemployment rates engender cuts in passive unemployment benefits and eligibility conditions.

Originality/value – Overall, the chapter demonstrates that the economic effects on policy change notwithstanding, politics fundamentally matters: domestic political dynamics and variations in institutions explain the preponderance of the change (or lack thereof) in unemployment policy.

Employing World Bank data, this article finds that the observed worldwide transition from industrial to service activity has an insignificant long‐term impact on global de‐materialization. Unlike earlier studies that focus on actual material flows for specific sectors, this study considers economy‐wide sectoral composition changes from 1960 to 1998 for 206 countries, and infers some future scenarios based on observed trends. Sensitivity analysis under alternative assumptions about technological change and average industry material intensity indicates that, unless de‐materialization is “weakly” defined, a leveling off of world gross domestic product at some time this century will probably be required to achieve it.

In recent decades, processes of postindustrialization, economic restructuring, and globalization have been transforming the landscape of social and economic inequalities in general (Wade, 2003), and in urban settings in particular (Baum, 1997; Fainstein, 1990; Sassen, 1990a, 1991, 1998; Waldinger, 1996). The role of cities as strategic sites in the globalization process and as arenas of economic transformation is central in the literature of globalization and economic restructuring (Fainstein, 2000; Sassen, 1988, 1998).

Introduction It is now part of the conventional wisdom that the success of the industrial strategy is vital because the UK “needs a healthy manufacturing industry”. Proposals have been made to allocate a substantial proportion of the additional revenues from North Sea oil and gas to domestic manufacturing capacity and to stimulate employment directly. But how are these allocative decisions to be resolved? Even if we accept the conventional wisdom of an industrial strategy, which industries and regions are to be the focus of public policy and why? What are the manpower implications of the industrial strategy? Proposals for more skilled labour cannot be divorced from industrial, locational and factor “mix” decisions. Potential conflicts exist between industrial and employment policy. Efforts to increase the competitiveness of UK manufacturing industry through increased investment and higher productivity will result in the substitution of capital for labour and hence job loss; at the same time, policy aims to increase employment in manufacturing! Not surprisingly, estimates of a “job gap” of some 2 millions by 1981 dominate the debate, although such forecasts usually fail to refer to the price dimension, especially assumptions about the set of relative and real wage rates.

The first wave of interest in appraisal interviewing took place in the late 60's and 70's. That particular wave culminated in such classic studies and texts as Anstey et al 1976, Randell et al 1974, and many others. After something of a lull in interest there now appears once again to be a revival in staff training for appraisal. The reasons behind this re‐emergence of interest must of course lie in our current experience of de‐industrialisation, labour‐shedding and rationalisation. Today's Training Manager, either starting a company appraisal scheme afresh or intending to rekindle interest in an existing one, will quickly find that attitudes towards appraisal interviewing have changed. They differ drastically from those of five or ten years ago. Gone is the naive faith in appraisals as a panacea to cure all ills; gone is the immediate seduction of a behaviourally‐based performance objectives approach; tarnished is the shibboleth of better two‐way communication. Nowadays, by and large, the unspoken feeling so often is one of suspicion: rating systems are viewed as distasteful; public recording of performance is seen as potentially threatening, and all documentation related to appraisal systems is scrutinized and criticised by all and sundry within organisations. Yet schemes have to be implemented afresh, personnel have to be convinced of the usefulness of schemes and the Training Manager must ensure that all his staff know the mechanics of his company scheme.