Review of Political Economy, Volume 30 Number 3 July 2018, p. 284-316. Taylor & francis
Dans Travail et subjectivité. Perspectives critiques, Daniel Mercure et Marie-Pierre Bourdages-Sylvain (Dir.), Chapitre 1, Collection Sociologie Contemporaine, PUL (Presses Universitaires de Laval), Canada, 4ème trimestre 2017, p. 13-42.
Ce livre porte sur les rapports entre le travail et la subjectivité dans le contexte des nombreuses transformations en cours dans le monde du travail. Il vise à analyser et à critiquer les nouvelles pratiques managériales qui s’emploient à mobiliser la subjectivité au travail. Les auteurs, sociologues, économistes, psychosociologues, psychanalystes et théoriciens de la gestion, présentent d’abord les changements économiques, organisationnels et socioculturels qui président à la mise en forme du capitalisme contemporain. Ensuite, ils examinent et critiquent les nouvelles pratiques managériales qui visent à mobiliser la subjectivité des travailleurs aux fins de la valorisation du capital. Tout au long de l’ouvrage, les effets psychosociologiques de telles pratiques sont analysés de près, de même que les réponses des travailleurs qui revêtent diverses formes d’opposition et de résistance individuelle et collective.
Ont contribué au présent ouvrage : Guy Bellemare, Marie-Pierre Bourdages-Sylvain, Robert Boyer, Jean-François Chanlat, Pierre-Antoine Chardel, Olivier Cousin, Eugène Enriquez, Vincent de Gaulejac, Fabienne Hanique, Danièle Linhart, Danilo Martuccelli, Dominique Méda, Daniel Mercure, Marcelo Otero, Jacques Rhéaume, Christian Thuderoz et Michel Wieviorka.
Socio-Economic Review, Discussion Forum: « Brexit: understanding the socio-economic origins and consequences » , 2016, Vol. 14, n° 4, p. 836-845.
Jacqueline O’Reilly, Julie Froud, Sukhdev Johal, Karel Williams, Chris Warhurst, Glenn Morgan, Christopher Grey, Geoffrey Wood, Mike Wright, Robert Boyer, Sabine Frerichs, Suvi Sankari, Akos Rona-Tas and Patrick Le Galès
The unprecedented geopolitical shift resulting from Brexit reflects deep socio-economic fault lines within and beyond the UK. In many ways foreshadowing the US presidential election of Donald Trump, Brexit brought to the surface and gave a public voice to socio-economic divisions that were deeply embedded, sometimes illogical, but until now had either been ignored or hushed out of ‘respectable’ public debate. This Discussion Forum emanates from a spontaneous seminar organized 2 days after the Brexit vote on June 25, 2016 as part of the SASE conference held in University of California–Berkeley and followed by an open call for papers by Socio-Economic Review. The papers here draw attention to the origins of the Brexit vote in deep-seated socio-economic divisions (O’Reilly), widening differences in economic performance across sectors and regions of the UK (Froud, Sukhdev and Williams) and the growth of poor quality jobs (Warhurst). Meanwhile, the political dynamics of the Brexit vote were also shaped by the fractured nature of UK business elites (Morgan), divisions between locals and cosmopolitans (Grey) and creative but muddled actions of elites that arguably generated consequences they themselves failed to fully anticipate (Wood and Wright). From the perspective of Europe, Brexit reflects a history of dysfunctional economic policy in Europe that prioritized market competition in ways that neglected and ultimately undermined solidarity (Boyer). Here, Brexit reflects a political strategy to both renationalize and recommodify solidarity in the face of fears over migration, and which are likely to have major consequences for social solidarity in Europe more generally (Frerichs and Sankari). However, Brexit is unlikely to provide a durable social and political solution to the wider tensions between globalization and democracy, which also affect all countries throughout Europe (Rona-Tas). Ultimately, the Brexit vote underlines social divisions that combine class inequalities with regional ones, not just in Britain but throughout Europe (Le Galès).
Review of Political Economy, January 2016, Vol 28 (1), p. 1-22.
Revista de Trabajo – Nueva Epoca, Ano 11, n° 13, Ministerio de Trabajo, Empleo y Seguridad Social, Buenos Aires (Argentina) 2015, p. 91-110.
Review of Political economy, Vol. 27, n° 4, October 2015, p. 481-517.
A number of contemporary paradoxes warrant explanation. First, in China, economic development has reduced poverty but dramatically increased inequalities. Second, the finance-led growth regime of North America has brought about a rupture with the Fordist Golden Age, causing a surge of inequality because of quite specific spill-over effects from the economy to policy. Third, the Eurozone crisis is often perceived as reflecting the limits of welfare states and the ideal of social equality, but some countries continue to exhibit an extended welfare system, moderate inequalities and a dynamic innovation and production system. To explain these paradoxes, this article applies a socio-economic approach based upon the concept of inequality regimes. Conventional interpretations stress the universality of the mechanisms that widen individual inequalities within each nation-state but reduce the hierarchy of national standards of living. This analysis, however, concludes that China, North America and Europe do not follow the same trajectory at all, since they have developed contrasting regimes of inequality that co-evolve and are largely complementary at the global level. This suggests an alternative to the hypothesis of an irreversible globalization of inequality.
Welfareandcomplementariry10 (1.1 MiB)Welfare state and institutional complementarity: From North to South
Welfareandcomplementarity4 Welfare state and institutional complementarity: from North to South. Powerpoint Workshop « New directions in social policy », Session “New risks and Challenges in social policy”, Geneva, April 7 and 8, 2014
Working Paper n° 67, 2014, Working Paper Series, desiguALdades.net, Freie Universität, Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut, Berlin.