Search results

According to Marx, capitalism leads to the alienation of people from their work, from the product of their work, and from other people (Oilman, 1976:133–4). These characteristics of capitalism were obvious for all to see in the late nineteenth century, as capital and labor were increasingly polarized. But in the late twentieth century, class relations have become considerably more complicated. The emergence and growth of various forms of “middle class” (Walker, 1979; Wright, 1985) make the issue of who is exploiting whom, of who benefits from the alienation of workers, unclear. In turn, the confusion in class relations has an effect on the ability to wage class struggle, as the “enemy” of the working class is difficult to define, let alone target.

Shows how the US economy has witnessed both a massive influx of immigrant workers and a sharp decline in organized labour. Examines the struggles of Latino workers in Los Angeles, USA and shows just how immigrant workers and labour unions have a complicated relationship there. Explains how the problems were eventually eased.

Social class has long existed in tension with other forms of social difference such as race, gender, and sexuality, both in academic and popular debate. While Marxist-influenced class primacy perspectives gained prominence in US sociology in the 1970s, they faded from view by the 1990s, replaced by perspectives focusing on culture and institutions or on intersectional analyses of how multiple forms of social difference shape durable patterns of disempowerment and marginalization. More recently, class and capitalism have reasserted their place on the academic agenda, but continue to coexist uneasily with analyses of oppression and social difference. Here we discuss possibilities for bridging the gap between studies of class and other forms of social difference. We contend that these categories are best understood in relation to each other when situated in a larger system with its own endogenous dynamics and tendencies, namely capitalism. After providing an historical account of the fraught relationship between studies of class and other forms of social difference, we propose a theoretical model for integrating understandings of class and social difference using Wright et al.‘s concept of dynamic asymmetry. This shifts us away from discussions of which factors are most important in general toward concrete discussions of how these factors interact in particular cases and processes. We contend that class and other forms of social difference should not be studied primarily as traits embodied in individuals, but rather with respect to how these differences are organized in relation to each other within a framework shaped by the dynamics of capitalist development.

This chapter seeks to engage with and extend the current debate in the literature of ethnic entrepreneurship. It critiques the concept of ethnic entrepreneurship and its theoretical underpinnings. It argues that research in ethnic entrepreneurship bears little reflection of the current changes and new realities in the composition of modern societies. Based on qualitative primary data from interviews combined with secondary sources of data, it suggests that the term ‘ethnic entrepreneurship’ is discriminatory and creates a narrative of Othering in the discourse of entrepreneurship, thus, portraying entrepreneurship as a western phenomenon. It argues that it is contradictory to think entrepreneurship is fundamentally contextual, socially and culturally embedded, and then define enterprise with ethnic bias. The concept of ethnic entrepreneurship propagates entrepreneurial Othering and a reductionist view of non-western forms of entrepreneurship. What constitutes ethnic enterprise should not be based on the identity of the owner. The ethnic enterprise is not confined to a geographical boundary; and the ethnic economy and the mainstream economy are not mutually exclusive. In this era of superdiversity and globalisation, researchers are encouraged to rethink the concept of ethnic entrepreneurship and embrace difference without Othering.

Financial service institutions design commercial lending mechanisms for small businesses with specific kinds of business owners in mind, that is, owners who already own or have access to both capital and productive resources. Given the conventional mechanisms devised by traditional lenders, individuals without productive capital appear to be costly, high risk borrowers. Today a new financial service institution called micro‐lending offers credit to just these high risk borrowers by constructing alternative lending mechanisms based on peer networks. These alternative mechanisms reduce the costs of lending to a higher risk population while providing access to business information and human capital skills, creating opportunities to build productive capabilities and other, less tangible resources, such as community networks. Using a case study of a neighborhood‐based inner‐city micro‐loan program in New England, I investigate how micro‐lending operates to reduce the costs of lending, as well as examine the group interaction that emerges among program participants.

Explains the development of Israel’s welfare state, concentrating on the labour exchange system and housing. Links the development of the Zionist welfare state to economic and political conditions, in particular state‐building and the management of the Palestinian community within the state. Refers to literature on policy paradigms. Notes the stable institutional infrastructures developed by the Jewish community in Palestine and the Zionist labour movement, which led to an embryonic welfare state. Recounts the development of the labour exchange process and the public housing policy, describing how the policies reinforced statehood – settling immigrants into areas where Jewish presence needed strengthening and, at first, largely excluding the Palestinian community from access to housing and the labour process. Points out that, over time, the exclusion of Palestinians became unrealistic. Concludes that Israel’s welfare state was determined by political conditions of developing statehood – most importantly the exodus of Palestinians and the influx of Jewish immigrants.

Proclaims that in recent years there has been considerable research examining the benefits of social connectedness for a variety of outcomes, such as health and general well being. Argues, while bonding capital is beneficial to the self‐interest of the individual or small group, bridging capital is what is necessary to build a collective identity as a nation. Concludes that because people have varying access, with regard to formal organizations, their ability to use social capital for their benefit, and the benefit of their communities, may be of short‐term duration.

This article presents an empirical test of three hypotheses dealing with the modernisation of polyethnic societies. An hypothesis derived from the functionalist/developmental perspective and two hypotheses derived from the conflict/competition perspective are assessed using survey data on Francophone‐Anglophone relations in contemporary Quebec. The main conclusions are that 1) the cross‐sectional design using survey data allows a clear test of Hechter's (1975) reactive ethnicity hypothesis; 2) the reactive ethnicity hypothesis is supported in the analysis; 3) the resource competition hypothesis (e.g., Nielsen 1980) is also supported; 4) the reactive ethnicity and resource competition hypotheses are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as some recent authors have claimed (Nielsen 1980; Ragin 1979), and can best be seen as two variants of the same communal competition perspective imbedded in the conflict theory tradition.