Advancing arguments on technology, work and the body, in the global political economy

Authors:
Phoebe V. Moore University of Essex, UKand International Labour Organization, Geneva

Search for other papers by Phoebe V. Moore in
Current site
Google Scholar
Close
and
Chandrima Roy University of Leicester, UK

Search for other papers by Chandrima Roy in
Current site
Google Scholar
Close
Open access
Get eTOC alerts
Rights and permissions Cite this article

Developing a better understanding of transformations and configurations in global affairs requires researchers in Global Political Economy to take seriously the emergence of forms of technology and their integration into the institutional, social, economic and political fabrics of contemporary life. However, research in key Global Political Economy journals has not been entirely forthcoming in acknowledging and recognising this, over time. Where we see publications that look at areas of technology and the global political economy, what has been consistently missing in Global Political Economy research, however, is the discussion of the direct impact of technology on workers, working conditions, the employment relationship, and social protections, and, as an arguably direct result of digitalisation, new threats for the corporeal and for sustainability of materiality. This debates and commentary piece for the first issue of the Global Political Economy journal argues that the burgeoning literature in these areas can be carried forward by scholars in the field of Global Political Economy.

Abstract

Developing a better understanding of transformations and configurations in global affairs requires researchers in Global Political Economy to take seriously the emergence of forms of technology and their integration into the institutional, social, economic and political fabrics of contemporary life. However, research in key Global Political Economy journals has not been entirely forthcoming in acknowledging and recognising this, over time. Where we see publications that look at areas of technology and the global political economy, what has been consistently missing in Global Political Economy research, however, is the discussion of the direct impact of technology on workers, working conditions, the employment relationship, and social protections, and, as an arguably direct result of digitalisation, new threats for the corporeal and for sustainability of materiality. This debates and commentary piece for the first issue of the Global Political Economy journal argues that the burgeoning literature in these areas can be carried forward by scholars in the field of Global Political Economy.

Key message

  • Researchers in key Global Political Economy journals have to some extent looked at technology questions, but we must do more to engage with discussions about the direct impact of technology on workers, working conditions, the employment relationship, and social protections and, as an arguably direct result of digitalisation, new threats for the corporeal and for sustainability of materiality.

Introduction

Developing a better understanding of transformations and configurations in global affairs requires researchers in Global Political Economy to take seriously the emergence of forms of technology and their integration into the institutional, social, economic and political fabrics of contemporary life. However, research in key Global Political Economy journals has not been entirely forthcoming in acknowledging and recognising this, over time. In publications that look at areas of technology and the global political economy, research has focused on policy and trade within media and telecommunications industries; communications questions of image use in broadcasting for power and governmentality; during the 1990s, the role of technology in the newly industrialising Asian Tigers and global South development; and more recently, some attention to financial technology and platform lending, which we outline later.

What has been consistently missing in Global Political Economy research, however, is the discussion of the direct impact of technology on workers, working conditions, the employment relationship, and social protections and, as an arguably direct result of digitalisation, new threats for the corporeal and for sustainability of materiality. These discussions have been more forthcoming in work and employment and management research, legal studies, geography, feminist and cultural studies circles, where discussions about gig work, digitalisation and affect, everyday life and new materialisms have advanced. Our ‘commentary’ piece in the first issue of the Global Political Economy journal calls for more research in work, technology and the body, in the global political economy. To contextualise our call, we first outline where studies of technology have featured in three key journals we have identified, Review of International Political Economy (RIPE), Globalizations and Global Society. After outlining some of the texts that have looked at technology themes extracted from these journals, we turn to discuss the advancements in other related but not always directly related disciplines, to clear intellectual terrain for responses to some further key research questions that can and should be continued within our new journal in the areas of work and technology.

Debates in key journals

As indicated, in this first section we have mined through a series of key journals to determine where technology has been researched in our discipline. Clearly there are other prominent journals in our field such as Millennium, New Political Economy, International Studies Quarterly, and Review of International Studies, to name just a few, but we selected the three mentioned previously as representative examples in the field. We begin with a look at RIPE. Since its inception in 1994, RIPE has published, from our search, 34 articles with technology, communication and innovation related themes. The first of these was written by Jill Hills, entitled ‘A global industrial policy. US hegemony and GATT. The liberalization of telecommunications’. In this article, Hills (1994) argued that the US did not need GATT in the telecommunications sector. The United States government, despite being instrumental in entering the issue of liberalisation of trade in services, and specifically liberalisation of trade in telecommunications services onto the GATT agenda, reversed its policy in 1992 having made the gains it originally sought. The article engaged with the dynamics of international political economy of telecommunications seeking to explain the change in policy due to shifts in power within US domestic economy and then the actions of the US government within international institutions.

Thereafter, also in RIPE, Luke and O’ Tuathail (1997) looked at the power of media technologies, the governance of telematics and ‘videocameralistics’, highlighting the immense broadcasting capabilities of network channels such as CNN, BBC and ITN. These authors commented on the increasing power of global television images and its implications for the management of contemporary global politics. The authors, in presenting their discussion on three overlapping dynamics in the context of regulation and governance after the Cold War, draw attention to the ‘power of global media machines as omnipresent visualisation technologies, which are infecting and disrupting the political project of envisioning global order by hegemonic institutions and actors’ (1997: 711). In doing so, the article advanced the concept of ‘videocameralists’ by elaborating how ‘videocameralists intervene in the interest of a world governmentality’ (1997: 729) making rulings from the daily stand-ups on mediascapes’ which have the power to set ‘agendas, frame policies, judge options’ (1997: 718) and disrupt how foreign policy managers would like to envision the global space and organise it.

In the same winter issue of RIPE, David A. Smith’s (1997) article drew attention to the problematics of technology and development by focusing on conceptualisations of ‘Global Commodity Chains’ in the context of international economic restructuring in hi-tech South Korean economy. In this article, Smith notes that the technological dependence of the economy in terms of ‘industrial upgrading’ was due to the oligopolistic control of technology by the South Korean state and corporations. This stronghold led Smith ‘to rethink the role of technology in the world-system and its role in generating global inequality’ (1997: 734).

In a later article titled ‘The East Asian crisis, technical change and the world economy’, Freeman (1998) in his consideration of the World Bank report on East Asia, highlighted the insufficient attention paid to the role of technical change in economic growth. Over time, articles in RIPE have looked at electronic money, IT infrastructure in China, innovation in India, platform lending and more. For example, in 2001, Cohen’s article on ‘Electronic money: new day or false dawn?’ discussed the advent of electronic money, its essential characteristics, how it will operate, its future and the challenges that it will bring in intensifying the cross-border currency competition. On a related theme, drawing attention to the changing technological infrastructures of global finance, a Special Issue (2019) guest edited by Nick Bernards and Malcolm Campbell-Verduyn was dedicated to Fintech, where contributions highlighted technological change, innovations in technological infrastructures, for example platform lending, by Chris Clarke (2019); big data technologies; as well as critical reflections about processes of financialisation which have been underpinned by technological change.

However, more recently, RIPE has demonstrated interest in research on technology and work. Explicitly contributing therein, Phoebe V. Moore and Simon Joyce published the article ‘Black box or hidden abode? The expansion and exposure of platform work managerialism’ (2019) in the Special Issue edited by Matthew Eagleton-Pierce and Samuel Knafo entitled ‘The political economy of managerialism’. In this article, Global Political Economy Chief Co-Editor Moore and Joyce (2019) disentangle the practices of management that are performed within the platform economy and gig work space such as that occurring in taxi driving and online platform work. The authors show that there are underlying practices that allow exploitation and inequality to prolong, where management accountability is obscured by algorithm, but nonetheless where the metaphorical lid of the ‘black box’ is not eternally locked. The article argues that workers actively resist such practices through contestation to digitalised control methods, further revealing the tensions in the datafied labour process.

Saori Shibata, who is an associate editor in our new journal, even more recently has published an article in RIPE about technology and work (2021). Shibata argues that digitalisation has gone hand in hand with a move towards a more profit-driven model of capitalism in Japan; where flexibilisation of the labour market and restructuring of many firms was seemingly facilitated by a move towards a Society 5.0 ‘workstyle’ that has introduced tele-working and the integration of robots at work. Rather than somehow ease work as some ‘technooptimists’ predicted, these moves have not improved the wage labour nexus, but rather led to a depression of wages, unpaid overtime and worsening protections for workers (Shibata, 2021).

The next journal we looked at to identify the state of play for research on technology in the discipline of Global Political Economy was Globalizations, which started in 2004. Since its inception, Globalizations has published 15 articles from our findings on technology and the global political economy. The first featured in Volume 3, Issue 3 and discusses ‘nursebots’ as related to immigration, automation, and care (Folbre, 2006). The article, in the context of the rising cost of care services in affluent countries, reasons that although automation (for example use of nursebots) and immigration may reduce the rising costs of care services in affluent countries, it poses a threat to the quality of care and leads to poor working conditions. This is one article in our search that draws attention to the impact of technology on work environments. In the next issue of the same volume, another article (Devezas and Modelski, 2006) discussed the role of technological innovations in the evolution of a world system. The authors, in their discussion of the concept of ‘globalisation as an evolutionary learning process’ (2006: 507), draw from their analysis of empirical evidence on Portuguese expeditions and naval-military campaigns and discuss innovations focused on navigation and shipbuilding which formed the technical support for such activities preceding the First Industrial Revolution.

Some of the later articles on technology, communication and innovation related themes in Globalizations have looked at a wide variety of topics such as camera phone witnessing in the ‘war on terror’ (Reading, 2009); technology in the international silk trade (Graham, 2013); Caribbean ‘virtual shop fronts’ (Hinds-Harrison, 2014); sustainable development goals and affective politics (Gabay and Ilcan, 2017); surveillance and sexuality in Singapore (Salehin and Vitis, 2020); and environmentalism and artificial intelligence (AI) (Dauvergne, 2021). The article by Reading (2009), discussed ‘mobile witnessing’ in the context of mobile camera phone images taken by a witness survivor in the 7 July 2005 London bombings. Reading argued that this involves ‘engagement beyond mere spectatorship, establishing new ways of recording events in the “war on terror”’ (2009: 61), and explored some of the ethical issues raised by mobile phone witnessing.

Hinds-Harrisson’s (2014) article draws attention to the hierarchies and power asymmetries that exist within the global civil society and state systems and questions the capacity of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to contribute positively to the insertion of developing country civil society organisations (CSOs) in a global civil society. The article discusses this in the context of the barriers Caribbean CSOs face against elevating their work within global civil society. Among more recent publications, Salehin and Vitis (2020) focused on how communities within new online spaces in Singapore demonstrate resistance and disrupt the embedded heteronormative values in the public sphere and policing of homosexuality in Singapore. Dauvergne (2021) looked at the ‘highly variable’ consequences of AI for environmentalism; their findings revealing how globalisation of AI is going to ‘unsettle the politics of environmentalism’.

Global Society originates from a journal called Paradigms, which changed its name in 1996. Global Society has published six pieces on technology from our findings throughout that time, including topics on drone strikes, ‘cybernations’ (Mills, 2002), cybersecurity, virtual reality and virtual humanity (Gillespie, 2020). A newer journal, Finance and Society, has already published eight pieces relating to technology, including capitalisation, blockchain and the value of art (Lotti, 2016), platform capitalism (Langley and Leyshon, 2017), fintech, blockchain and ‘dark pools’ (MacKenzie, 2019).

So, in sum, these three key journals in Global Political Economy have published around 63 pieces on technology and related themes over the past few decades. These articles provide to some extent rich understandings of technology and politics in a global system and consider technology as a core component of global systemic change. What has been largely missing in our discipline, however, is an explicit, critical discussion on technology, work, and the global political economy. We have already discussed the articles by Moore and Joyce (2020) and Shibata (2021) in RIPE. There is a further small number of researchers with a background in International Relations and Global Political Economy who in some cases have entered other disciplines, but who have nonetheless led on discussions about the emergence of the platform in corporate terms; digital tracking; and algorithmic operations; and warned about their significance and implications for Global Political Economy research, with some discussion of the implications for work and workers.

Already cited earlier is the important piece by political economy scholars Langley and Leyshon (2017) who deftly illustrate the contours of the business model the platform advances, arguing that via data and rent extraction and digital service circulation, it tends towards monopoly as well as relies on exploiting unprotected workers. One author who has broken significant ground with research in digitalisation and global politics as well as Global Political Economy and work for nearly two decades, and whose background also lies in international relations and political economy, is Louise Amoore. This eminent professor, now in a geography school, published an important early text on globalisation and work (Amoore, 2002) and later began to investigate algorithmic knowledge-making and subject identification, and the surrounding ethical questions (2019; 2020). Colin Crouch, who self-defines as a political scientist and sociologist still, published an excellent reader called Will the Gig Economy Prevail? (2019), where gig work is contextualised within a declining welfare state and conditions of precarity, pressuring workers in ways that are probably unsustainable. This argument is similar to the arguments of Moore (2019a) who postulates that the tendency towards numeration and quantification of work is symptomatic of both the flexibilisation and the dispossession tendencies within neoliberal capitalism and the rollback of social protections.

Perhaps the best known in the platform research arena is Nick Srnicek. This scholar, whose background is international relations and who has moved into digital humanities, has argued that the platform economy and ‘platform capitalism’ started in the 1970s, as a response to the economic downturn in that era, the ‘boom and bust’ tendency in the 1990s and again as a ‘response to the 2008 crisis’ (Srnicek, 2017: 9). Srnicek’s insights were that the digital platform facilitates interactions across business actors in ways they were unable to, at least not with such speed and efficiency, previously. Based on that, new kinds of services and products can be developed which attract significant users and customers, where the ‘network effect’ results in added value and the potential for very quick growth also facilitated by technological ease in interacting with and accessing the platform. Platform companies tend, further to this, to offer ‘cross-subsidisation’, or offer some seemingly free aspects of services (like Google products). All these steps, of course, require significant data accumulation from customers, leading to the point Srnicek makes that ‘constant user engagement’, for example Google’s ‘toothbrush model’, whereby the success of a company can be measured by a user needing it at least twice a day.

Much of the debate on platform economy, gig work and algorithmic management has been generated by researchers outside of the Global Political Economy discipline, from Business, Law, Humanities and Geography Schools. Without citing all of the authors who are important within this field (due to an unfortunate lack of space), researchers in gig work research include, Debra Howcroft (see Howcroft and Bergvall-Kåreborn, 2019), Ursula Huws (see Huws, 2017), Valerio De Stefano (see De Stefano, 2016), Jamie Woodcock (see Woodcock, 2021), Mark Graham and Mohammad Anwar (see Graham and Anwar, 2019), Adam Badger (see van Doorn and Badger, 2020), Martin Krzywdzinski, and Christine Gerber (see Krzywdzinski and Gerber, 2021), Miriam Cherry and Antonio Aloisi (see Cherry and Aloisi, 2017), and already mentioned Phoebe V. Moore and Simon Joyce. To name a few on worker tracking and algorithmic management research are Jeremias Adams-Prassl (see Adams-Prassl, 2019), Phoebe V. Moore (2019a, 2019b), Simon Schaupp (see Schaupp, 2022) and Joanna Bronowicka (see Bronowicka, 2019). Call centre research has been carried out by Phil Taylor (see Taylor and Bain, 2005), Bob Russell (Russell, 2009) and again Jamie Woodcock (Woodcock, 2017). Chandrima Roy, who is an associate editor of Global Political Economy, comes from the work and employment research tradition in a Business School context. Roy is currently researching technological innovations and changes in the global sourcing industry and how these in turn shape organisational processes and practices that have significant impact on workplace productivity and employees’ way of working and their experiences of work in the Indian Business Process Industry (Roy et al, 2017). Building on concepts of network theory and the labour process, Roy focuses on the impact of global outsourcing on work and employment at the service node of the transnational service value chain.

Outside the academy, significant headway at the International Labour Organization (ILO) is also underway in 2022, where Phoebe V. Moore is working with researchers Uma Rani Amara, Janine Berg, Ekkehard Ernst and Daniel Samaan to devise the research strategy on Work in the Digital Economy. These researchers have prepared several reports and articles which argue that digitalisation is having a significant impact on work. Moore has, in fact, written several policy facing reports on digitalisation and work, not only for the ILO (Moore, 2018) but also for the European Parliament (Moore, 2020a) and the European Safety and Health Agency (EU-OSHA) (Moore, 2019b). Moore’s work has been instrumental to discussions around Global Political Economy and technology in the academy too, for several years, putting her mark on this area from the workplace perspective.

In 2009, Moore’s first monograph (Moore, 2009) outlined the emergence of labour struggles resulting from globalisation, focusing on South Korean resistance to International Monetary Fund (IMF) restructuring in the wake of the economic Asian Tiger crisis starting in 1997. Moore argued that the Gramscian concept of ‘hegemony’ was increasingly not sufficient to fully understand the advancements of global capitalism, because ongoing resistance led by trade unions and labour groups reflect the attitude of ‘domination’ by global forces. Moore argued that advancements in cross-party ideational positionings around employability was leading to what may be more of what Gramsci talked about as ‘passive revolution’. This is an argument she developed further in her 2010 book that compares education and employment policy in South Korea, Singapore and the United Kingdom, identifying how a dissolution of human agency filters through corporate and governmental codes, where only a specific formulation of subjectivity is satisfactory under neoliberal capitalism (Moore, 2010). Moore’s article ‘Where is the study of work in critical international political economy?’ in the journal International Politics in 2012 (Moore, 2012) later outlines where researchers had written about work in a series of related journals, calling researchers particularly in the British IPE school to make more and better critical investigations about workers’ experiences within capitalism, including the employability straightjacket question.

Moore’s work increasingly became oriented around technology and the workplace, where she began to focus on how significant management, working conditions and experiences of work have changed, and are changing, as technology takes new forms and is used in a series of new ways in workplaces. From an ever cross-disciplinary position, Moore’s book The Quantified Self in Precarity: Work, Technology and What Counts (2019a), her third research monograph, is where she sets out to bridge a divide she perceived between Marxist and post-structural arguments about ‘new materialisms’. The increase in the use of technological tracking devices in workplaces, Moore observes, appears, perhaps counterintuitively, given the underlying critique of the utility of machines at work, as a gesture towards the increasing invasion of the corporeal at work. Increasingly endemic socioeconomic conditions of acute precarity and increasingly digitalised working environments coalesce to introduce a series of important new research questions to comprehend a political economy of the quantified worker today. Society is changing, but we have to query in whose reflection, that of a seemingly efficient and rational machine, or are we constructing a straw (hu)man/machine in what Moore warns could be an insidious version of the mirror phase of capitalism (Moore, 2020b)?

Stemming from these questions, Moore had began to read two areas of literature which were both referred to as ‘new materialism’. In philosophy and postmodern feminism, researchers Manuel Delanda’s and Rosi Braidotti’s work in the late 1990s are understood to have coined the term ‘new materialism’, but these two authors did so independently of one another. Delanda’s Thousand Years of Nonlinear History (1997) proposed a method for thinking about how we come to the point now to consider any ‘newness’ in the material. Braidotti tested ontological assumptions in her Metamorphoses: Towards a Materialist Theory of Becoming in 2002. The 2010 volume New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency and Politics edited by Diana Coole and Samantha Frost further set the scene for new materialism with chapters by Jane Bennett, William Connolly, Rosi Braidotti and several others. Also in 2010 Iris van der Tuin and Rich Dolphijn published ‘The transversality of new materialism’ in Women: A Cultural Review.

In the discipline of Global Political Economy, meanwhile, in the early 2000s, a discussion among a small group of orthodox Marxists was brewing. Self-labelled (orthodox) Marxist Paul Cammack published a piece in Historical Materialism in 2003 where he describes ‘new materialism’ as an update of Marx’s historical materialism in a strictly temporal and spatial sense. Cammack identifies capitalist expansion through the means of intensified multilateralism. What is ‘new’ is that the promotion of capitalism in rival states occurs at an international level. Thus, the newness in new materialism is limited to the updating of a historical period and the scale of expansion. Jeffrey Harrod began to refer to a ‘neo-materialist’ approach also in the early 2000s in talks at the International Studies Association which he published in the 2006 edited collection by Matt Davies and Magnus Ryner, Poverty and the Production of World Politics.

Harrod recalled a set of theses on how power occurs in the global political economy which he and Robert Cox devised, albeit delivered from separate publications, called ‘power, production and world order’ in Cox’s case and ‘power, production and the unprotected worker’ in Harrod’s. Harrod pointed out that the focus on production is astute, but if it relies on Marx’s theory of capitalism and production as hinged upon alienation and surplus value then it is overly narrow and looks too much like it could simply be called ‘industrialisation’. Different modes of production contain their own exploitative relations and a theory of production should not be confined to anthropocentric histories such as feudalism or the as yet non-existent future or a pure form of communism. To pursue a neomaterialist research agenda, Harrod turns to the work of Poulantzas and, uniquely for the discipline of Global Political Economy elsewhere, Mao, to show their deviance from a strict Marxist conceptualisation of class and power based on industrial modes of production.

However, interpretations of a Marxist, human centric, history relies on limited conceptualisations of the corporeal and also on a linearity of history. Where the new materialisms outlined differ is that Marxist ‘new materialists’ continue to work within these boundaries. So far, they do not sufficiently explore their own assumptions at an ontological level in the ways that the corporeal and affective turns in feminist and postmodern research permit, despite using the same label for a seeming new intervention into research. While the small number of Marxist neo-and new materialist encourage a focus on global capitalist forces and production, perfectly reasonable pursuits in themselves, they do not fully address questions of gender (Tepe-Belfrage and Steans, 2016). Further investigations in similar areas are seen within a Special Issue which was published in Millennium on materialism and world politics that included articles on new materialism (see Srnicek et al, 2013), and a collection on corporeal capitalism in Global Society was edited by Nicola Smith and Donna Lee (2014). Further to this, Isabella Bakker and Stephen Gill edited a Special Issue in Capital & Class on variegated social reproduction (Bakker and Gill, 2019).

The renewed interest in materialism in both these disciplines, Moore argues, was linked to two ‘turns’ in research agendas: the corporeal and the affective (Moore, 2015). These emerging fields of enquiry were in part, a response to the blind spots resulting from a potential dominance of discourse analysis as method in constructivism and cultural studies, where researchers noted that human materiality and the corporeal were far too often simply overlooked; and partly due to the advancements of technology and machinic possibility as applied to work. These topics were relevant for a significant portion of research founded in labour process theory, but a parallel stream of analysis had been developing, where the idea was to recall humanism and materiality. Therefore, even in the midst of intensifications of digitalisation and increasingly, the risks of automation, technological tracking, people analytics and surveillance, it became clear that there was interest in ‘bringing the body back in’ to research (see Davies and Chisholm, 2018). These turns also occurred alongside two global economic crises occurring in the late 1990s and again in the late 2000s. Work restructure and redundancies and an impenetrable job market for young people left millions wondering how they could afford to pay their rent and mortgage. People who had never had to choose between buying lunch or buying a bus pass, a winter coat or energy bills began to face some of the most basic issues of the body: where one will sleep or what one will eat, how to move around. The widening inequality gap is not a dry statistic. The social and the discursive faded as panic over possible hunger and unprecedented anxieties crept in and exacerbated across class tiers. People have been awoken, sensitised, politicised.

New materialisms and the corporeal turn: CPERN seminars

Due to these observations, Moore began a series of research seminars which dealt with the research questions she addressed in her third research monograph, which were partly funded by the Critical Political Economy Research Network (CPERN) of the European Sociological Association, for which Chief Co-Editor Mònica Clua-Losada was lead from 2015 to 2017 and for which Moore had served as a vice coordinator from 2017 to 2019; and by the Conference for Socialist Economists (CSE), which is linked to the Sage journal Capital & Class.

The first CPERN/CSE seminar on new materialisms that was suggested and coordinated by Moore was held at Westminster with David Chandler, Felicity Colman, Helen Palmer, Nick Kiersey, Michiel van Ingen, Paul Rekret and Christian Fuchs on 4 March 2016. The second event was held with Kingston University at Central St Martins on 29 September 2016 and was organised by Helen Palmer. Finally, Moore ran the event ‘New Materialism, political economy and the (re)productive body’ at her institution at the time, Middlesex University, and that was the third and final event in the series.

The purpose of the third workshop was to revisit the debates in new or neomaterialism in the area of Global Political Economy that started with Jeffrey Harrod’s article ‘The global poor and global politics: neomaterialism and the sources of political action’ in the much-read text Poverty and the Production of World Politics edited by Matt Davies and Magnus Ryner (2006). Since this text, also in Global Political Economy, Paul Cammack, Greig Charnock and Marcus Taylor spurred several debates in new materialism from a Marxist perspective. Nicola Smith and Donna Lee wrote about debates on corporeal capitalism. These researchers come from social sciences, including political science and international political economy, backgrounds. Moore had identified another body of research also entitled ‘new materialism’ which emerged from feminist research in humanities, founded in the work of Iris van der Tuin, Felicity Colman and others (van der Tuin, 2004; Colman, 2019). Overall, the shift in foci to the body, production and reproduction, ontology, capitalism, gender, quantification and nature revived questions of materiality that, it turned out, were being discussed across critical areas of research. We see that a range of ‘turns’ are occurring: the corporeal, affective and ontological turns. Moore (2019a) argued that these turns were also a retreat from the digital, a return to the material, a recognition that the human needed to revisit humanity before becoming overtaken by AI.

Conclusion

We have claimed within this article that there are a range of promising advancements in Global Political Economy research which address the rise in digitalisation and emerging impacts on workers today. Our new journal, Global Political Economy, is well placed in fact to revive questions of the political economy of work and technology, including from a new materialist frame as discussed within the CPERN events outlined earlier. In this article we have outlined contributions on the study of technology and the global political economy in three major discipline-specific journals. We have then mentioned researchers whose backgrounds lie within our discipline who have innovated research on digitalisation and work and identified some of the key researchers in other disciplines. We have identified the ways that Chief Co-Editor Moore has published a series of pieces of academic and policy-oriented work to encourage and develop these debates and held seminars with CPERN to try to build a bridge between two disciplines interested in technology, bodies, political economy and materialities.

Now, we must ask what is at stake for workers who face both the pressures of digitalisation and experience new tensions within corporeal, affective ‘turns’? Our new journal will ask, alongside the other series of topics we will embrace, a series of difficult questions that address technology and the global political economy, including research on digital labour and corporeal capitalism. As workers face intensified pressures after a series of economic crises and the global pandemic, and as people return to workplaces/spaces, there are added pressures now for basic survival in a material and digital sense. Even before the global pandemic, a series of austerity drives in both the global North and the global South pushed people to bare life and further exacerbated working and living conditions. We will ask, are people politicised to a new level as a result? Have new technologies used to track workers intensified both management techniques and production processes in a way that violently abstracts the body from the mind and functions to even prevent resistance? Can we question capitalism in new ways and considering new forms of political action and what does this mean for human computer interaction and bodies at work? Are women, who are consistently more exploited and suffer because of workplace shifts, in further danger due to digitalisation? Can we hold the algorithm to account as working conditions are explicitly worsened and as unions are formed and cases taken to court? Are there practical as well as ethical and philosophical problems in assigning agency in digital networks and are there new spaces of dissent emerging?

Note

1

Corresponding author.

Author biographies

Phoebe V. Moore, chief co-editor of Global Political Economy, is Professor of Management and the Futures of Work at the University of Essex School of Business, and Senior Policy Researcher for the International Labour Organization.

Chandrima Roy is Lecturer in Work, Employment and Organisation Studies at the University of Leicester School of Business. Roy is associate editor for the Global Political Economy journal.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  • Adams-Prassl, J. (2019) What if your boss was an algorithm? Economic incentives, legal challenges, and the rise of artificial intelligence at work, Comparative Labour Law & Policy Journal, 41: 123.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Amoore, L. (2002) Globalisation Contested: An International Political Economy of Work, Manchester: Manchester University Press.

  • Amoore, L. (2019) Doubt and the algorithm: on the partial accounts of machine learning, Theory, Culture & Society, 36(6): 14769. doi: 10.1177/0263276419851846

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Amoore, L. (2020) Cloud Ethics: Algorithms and the Attributes of Ourselves and Others, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

  • Bakker, I. and Gill, S. (2019) Rethinking power, production, and social reproduction: toward variegated social reproduction, Capital & Class, 43(4): 50323.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bernards, N. and Campbell-Verduyn, M. (2019) Understanding technological change in global finance through infrastructures, Review of International Political Economy, 26(5): 77389. doi: 10.1080/09692290.2019.1625420

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Braidotti, R. (2002) Metamorphoses: Towards a Materialist Theory of Becoming, United Kingdom: Polity Press.

  • Bronowicka, J. (2019) Algorithms at work: rules about data rights of workers might need an update, Internet Policy Review, https://policyreview.info/articles/news/algorithms-work-rules-about-data-rights-workers-might-need-update/1396.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cammack, P. (2003) The governance of global capitalism: a new materialist perspective, Historical Materialism, 11(2): 3759. doi: 10.1163/156920603768311228

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cherry, M.A. and Aloisi, A. (2017) Dependent contractors in the gig economy: a comparative approach, American University Law Review, 66(3): 63589.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Clarke, C. (2019) Platform lending and the politics of financial infrastructures, Review of International Political Economy, 26(5): 86385. doi: 10.1080/09692290.2019.1616598

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cohen, B.J. (2001) Electronic money: new day or false dawn?, Review of International Political Economy, 8(2): 197225. doi: 10.1080/09692290010033376

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Colman, F. (2019) Feminising politics: notes on material and temporal feminist logs in action, Matter: Journal of New Materialist Research, 2020: 1-22.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Coole, D. and Frost, S. (eds) (2010) New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics, Durham: Duke University Press.

  • Cox, R.W. (1987) Production Power and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History, New York: Columbia University Press.

  • Crouch, C. (2019) Will the Gig Economy Prevail?, Cambridge: Polity Press.

  • Dauvergne, P. (2021) The globalization of artificial intelligence: consequences for the politics of environmentalism, Globalizations, 18(2): 28599. doi: 10.1080/14747731.2020.1785670

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Davies, M. and Ryner, M. (2006) Poverty and the Production of World Politics: Unprotected Workers in the Global Political Economy, London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Davies, M. and Chisholm, A. (2018) Neoliberalism, violence, and the body: dollhouse and the critique of the neoliberal subject, International Political Sociology, 12(3): 27490. doi: 10.1093/ips/oly001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DeLanda, M. (1997) A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History, New York: Zone Books.

  • De Stefano, V. (2016) Introduction: crowdsourcing, the gig-economy and the law, Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, 37(3), Bocconi Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2767383, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2767383.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Devezas, T. and Modelski, G. (2006) The Portuguese as system-builders in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries: a case study on the role of technology in the evolution of the world system, Globalizations, 3(4): 50723. doi: 10.1080/14747730601022487

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Eagleton-Pierce, M. and Knafo, S. (2020) Introduction: the political economy of managerialism, Review of International Political Economy, 27(4): 76379. doi: 10.1080/09692290.2020.1735478

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Folbre, N. (2006) Nursebots to the rescue? Immigration, automation, and care, Globalizations, 3(3): 34960. doi: 10.1080/14747730600870217

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Freeman, C. (1998) The East Asian crisis, technical change, and the world economy, Review of International Political Economy, 5(3): 393409. doi: 10.1080/096922998347453

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gabay, C. and Ilcan, S. (2017) Leaving no-one behind? The politics of destination in the 2030 sustainable development goals, Globalizations, 14(3): 33742. doi: 10.1080/14747731.2017.1281623

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gillespie, C. (2020) Virtual humanity – access, empathy and objectivity in VR film making, Global Society, 34(2): 14562. doi: 10.1080/13600826.2019.1656173

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Graham, M. (2013) Thai silk dot com: authenticity, altruism, modernity and markets in the Thai silk industry, Globalizations, 10(2): 21130. doi: 10.1080/14747731.2013.786224

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Graham, M. and Anwar, M.A. (2019) The global gig economy: towards a planetary labour market?, First Monday, 24(4): doi: 10.5210/fm.v24i4.9913.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Harrod, J. (2006) The global poor and global politics: neomaterialism and the sources of political action, in M. Davies and M. Ryner (eds) Poverty and the Production of World Politics, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp 3861.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hills, J. (1994) A global industrial policy. US hegemony and GATT. The liberalization of telecommunications, Review of International Political Economy, 1(2): 25779. doi: 10.1080/09692299408434279

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hinds-Harrison, K. (2014) Virtual shop fronts: the internet, social media, and Caribbean civil society organizations, Globalizations, 11(6): 75166. doi: 10.1080/14747731.2014.904163

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Howcroft, D. and Bergvall-Kåreborn, B. (2019) A typology of crowdwork platforms, Work, Employment & Society, 33(1): 2138. doi: 10.1177/0950017018760136

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Huws, U. (2017) Labor in the Global Digital Economy: The Cybertariat Comes of Age, New York: NYU Press.

  • Krzywdzinski, M. and Gerber, C. (2021) Between automation and gamification: forms of labour control on crowdwork platforms, Work in the Global Economy, 1(1–2): 16184. doi: 10.1332/273241721X16295434739161

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Langley, P. and Leyshon, A. (2017) Platform capitalism: the intermediation and capitalization of digital economic circulation, Finance and Society, 3(1): 1131. doi: 10.2218/finsoc.v3i1.1936

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lotti, L. (2016) Contemporary art, capitalization and the blockchain: on the autonomy and automation of art’s value, Finance and Society, 2(2): 96110. doi: 10.2218/finsoc.v2i2.1724

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Luke, T.W. and Ó Tuathail, G. (1997) On videocameralists: the geopolitics of failed states, the CNN International and (UN)governmentality, Review of International Political Economy, 4(4): 70933. doi: 10.1080/09672299708565789

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MacKenzie, D. (2019) Market devices and structural dependency: the origins and development of ‘dark pools’, Finance and Society, 5(1): 119. doi: 10.2218/finsoc.v5i1.3015

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mills, K. (2002) Cybernations: identity, self-determination, democracy and the ‘Internet effect’ in the emerging information order, Global Society, 16(1): 6987. doi: 10.1080/09537320120111915

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moore, P.V. (2009) Globalisation and Labour Struggle in Asia: A Neo-Gramscian Critique of South Korea’s Political Economy, London: Bloomsbury Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moore, P.V. (2010) The International Political Economy of Work and Employability, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, International Political Economy Series.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moore, P.V. (2012) Where is the study of work in critical International Political Economy?, International Politics, 49(2): 21537. doi: 10.1057/ip.2011.40

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moore, P.V. (2015) Tracking bodies, the quantified self and the corporeal turn, in K. van der Pijl (ed) The Handbook of International Political Economy of Production, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp 394408.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moore, P.V. (2018) The Threat of Physical and Psychosocial Violence and Harassment in Digitalized Work, International Geneva: Labour Office, https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_dialogue/---actrav/documents/publication/wcms_617062.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moore, P.V. (2019a) The Quantified Self in Precarity: Work, Technology and What Counts, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, Advances in Sociology series.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moore, P.V. (2019b) OSH and the future of work: benefits and risks of artificial intelligence tools in workplaces for the European Union Safety and Health Agency (EU-OSHA), https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/osh-and-future-work-benefits-and-risks-artificial-intelligence-tools-workplaces.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moore, P.V. (2020a) Data subjects, digital surveillance, AI and the future of work. Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) Scientific Foresight Unit (Brussels), www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_STU(2020)656305.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moore, P.V. (2020b) The mirror for (artificial) intelligence: in whose reflection?, for Special Issue Automation, AI, and Labour Protection, Prof V.de. Stefano (ed) Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal, 41(1): 4767.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moore, P.V. and Joyce, S. (2020) Black box or hidden abode? The expansion and exposure of platform work managerialism, Special Issue: The Political Economy of Managerialism, Review of International Political Economy, 27(4): 92648. doi: 10.1080/09692290.2019.1627569

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Reading, A. (2009) Mobile witnessing: ethics and the camera phone in the ‘War on Terror’, Globalizations, 6(1): 6176. doi: 10.1080/14747730802692435

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Roy, C., Scholarios, D. and Taylor, P. (2017) ‘The recession has passed but the effects are still with us’: Employment conditions, work organization and employee experiences in post-crisis Indian BPO, in E. Noronha and P. D’Cruz (eds) Critical Perspectives on Work and Employment in Globalizing India, Singapore: Springer, pp 5780.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Russell, B. (2009) Smiling Down the Line: Info-service Work in the Global Economy, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

  • Salehin, A. and Vitis, L. (2020) Cruising, space and surveillance: decolonizing sexuality in Singapore, Globalizations, 17(7): 122540. doi: 10.1080/14747731.2019.1661159

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schaupp, S. (2022) Algorithmic integration and precarious (dis)obedience: on the co-constitution of migration regime and workplace regime in digitalised manufacturing and logistics, Work, Employment and Society, 36(2): 31027. doi: 10.1177/09500170211031458

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Shibata, S. (2021) Digitalization or flexibilization? The changing role of technology in the political economy of Japan, Review of International Political Economy, online first, doi: 10.1080/09692290.2021.1935294.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Smith, D.A. (1997) Technology, commodity chains and global inequality: South Korea in the 1990s, Review of International Political Economy, 4(4): 73462. doi: 10.1080/09672299708565790

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Smith, N. and Lee, D. (2014) Corporeal capitalism: the body in international political economy, Global Society, 29(1): 649. doi: 10.1080/13600826.2014.976608

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Srnicek, N. (2017) Platform Capitalism, Cambridge and Malden: Polity Press.

  • Srnicek, N., Foutou, M. and Arghand, E. (2013) Introduction: materialism and world politics, International Studies, 41(2): 397.

  • Taylor, P. and Bain, P. (2005) ‘India calling to the far away towns’: the call centre labour process and globalization, Work, Employment and Society, 19(2): 26182. doi: 10.1177/0950017005053170

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tepe-Belfrage, D. and Steans, J. (2016) The new materialism: reclaiming a debate from a feminist perspective, Capital and Class, 40(2): 30526. doi: 10.1177/0309816816653892

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • van der Tuin, I. (2014) Generational Feminism: New Materialist Introduction to a Generative Approach, Washington, DC: Lexington Books.

  • van der Tuin, I. and Dolphijn, N. (2010) The transversality of new materialism, Women: A Cultural Review, 21(2): 15371. doi: 10.1080/09574042.2010.488377

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • van Doorn, N. and Badger, A. (2020) Platform capitalism’s hidden abode: producing data assets in the gig economy, Antipode, 52(5): 147595. doi: 10.1111/anti.12641

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Woodcock, J. (2017) Working the Phones: Control and Resistance in Call Centres, London: Pluto Press.

  • Woodcock, J. (2021) The Fight Against Platform Capitalism: An Inquiry into the Global Struggles of the Gig Economy, London: University of Westminster Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Adams-Prassl, J. (2019) What if your boss was an algorithm? Economic incentives, legal challenges, and the rise of artificial intelligence at work, Comparative Labour Law & Policy Journal, 41: 123.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Amoore, L. (2002) Globalisation Contested: An International Political Economy of Work, Manchester: Manchester University Press.

  • Amoore, L. (2019) Doubt and the algorithm: on the partial accounts of machine learning, Theory, Culture & Society, 36(6): 14769. doi: 10.1177/0263276419851846

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Amoore, L. (2020) Cloud Ethics: Algorithms and the Attributes of Ourselves and Others, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

  • Bakker, I. and Gill, S. (2019) Rethinking power, production, and social reproduction: toward variegated social reproduction, Capital & Class, 43(4): 50323.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bernards, N. and Campbell-Verduyn, M. (2019) Understanding technological change in global finance through infrastructures, Review of International Political Economy, 26(5): 77389. doi: 10.1080/09692290.2019.1625420

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Braidotti, R. (2002) Metamorphoses: Towards a Materialist Theory of Becoming, United Kingdom: Polity Press.

  • Bronowicka, J. (2019) Algorithms at work: rules about data rights of workers might need an update, Internet Policy Review, https://policyreview.info/articles/news/algorithms-work-rules-about-data-rights-workers-might-need-update/1396.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cammack, P. (2003) The governance of global capitalism: a new materialist perspective, Historical Materialism, 11(2): 3759. doi: 10.1163/156920603768311228

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cherry, M.A. and Aloisi, A. (2017) Dependent contractors in the gig economy: a comparative approach, American University Law Review, 66(3): 63589.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Clarke, C. (2019) Platform lending and the politics of financial infrastructures, Review of International Political Economy, 26(5): 86385. doi: 10.1080/09692290.2019.1616598

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cohen, B.J. (2001) Electronic money: new day or false dawn?, Review of International Political Economy, 8(2): 197225. doi: 10.1080/09692290010033376

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Colman, F. (2019) Feminising politics: notes on material and temporal feminist logs in action, Matter: Journal of New Materialist Research, 2020: 1-22.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Coole, D. and Frost, S. (eds) (2010) New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics, Durham: Duke University Press.

  • Cox, R.W. (1987) Production Power and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History, New York: Columbia University Press.

  • Crouch, C. (2019) Will the Gig Economy Prevail?, Cambridge: Polity Press.

  • Dauvergne, P. (2021) The globalization of artificial intelligence: consequences for the politics of environmentalism, Globalizations, 18(2): 28599. doi: 10.1080/14747731.2020.1785670

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Davies, M. and Ryner, M. (2006) Poverty and the Production of World Politics: Unprotected Workers in the Global Political Economy, London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Davies, M. and Chisholm, A. (2018) Neoliberalism, violence, and the body: dollhouse and the critique of the neoliberal subject, International Political Sociology, 12(3): 27490. doi: 10.1093/ips/oly001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DeLanda, M. (1997) A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History, New York: Zone Books.

  • De Stefano, V. (2016) Introduction: crowdsourcing, the gig-economy and the law, Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, 37(3), Bocconi Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2767383, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2767383.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Devezas, T. and Modelski, G. (2006) The Portuguese as system-builders in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries: a case study on the role of technology in the evolution of the world system, Globalizations, 3(4): 50723. doi: 10.1080/14747730601022487

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Eagleton-Pierce, M. and Knafo, S. (2020) Introduction: the political economy of managerialism, Review of International Political Economy, 27(4): 76379. doi: 10.1080/09692290.2020.1735478

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Folbre, N. (2006) Nursebots to the rescue? Immigration, automation, and care, Globalizations, 3(3): 34960. doi: 10.1080/14747730600870217

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Freeman, C. (1998) The East Asian crisis, technical change, and the world economy, Review of International Political Economy, 5(3): 393409. doi: 10.1080/096922998347453

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gabay, C. and Ilcan, S. (2017) Leaving no-one behind? The politics of destination in the 2030 sustainable development goals, Globalizations, 14(3): 33742. doi: 10.1080/14747731.2017.1281623

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gillespie, C. (2020) Virtual humanity – access, empathy and objectivity in VR film making, Global Society, 34(2): 14562. doi: 10.1080/13600826.2019.1656173

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Graham, M. (2013) Thai silk dot com: authenticity, altruism, modernity and markets in the Thai silk industry, Globalizations, 10(2): 21130. doi: 10.1080/14747731.2013.786224

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Graham, M. and Anwar, M.A. (2019) The global gig economy: towards a planetary labour market?, First Monday, 24(4): doi: 10.5210/fm.v24i4.9913.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Harrod, J. (2006) The global poor and global politics: neomaterialism and the sources of political action, in M. Davies and M. Ryner (eds) Poverty and the Production of World Politics, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp 3861.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hills, J. (1994) A global industrial policy. US hegemony and GATT. The liberalization of telecommunications, Review of International Political Economy, 1(2): 25779. doi: 10.1080/09692299408434279

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hinds-Harrison, K. (2014) Virtual shop fronts: the internet, social media, and Caribbean civil society organizations, Globalizations, 11(6): 75166. doi: 10.1080/14747731.2014.904163

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Howcroft, D. and Bergvall-Kåreborn, B. (2019) A typology of crowdwork platforms, Work, Employment & Society, 33(1): 2138. doi: 10.1177/0950017018760136

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Huws, U. (2017) Labor in the Global Digital Economy: The Cybertariat Comes of Age, New York: NYU Press.

  • Krzywdzinski, M. and Gerber, C. (2021) Between automation and gamification: forms of labour control on crowdwork platforms, Work in the Global Economy, 1(1–2): 16184. doi: 10.1332/273241721X16295434739161

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Langley, P. and Leyshon, A. (2017) Platform capitalism: the intermediation and capitalization of digital economic circulation, Finance and Society, 3(1): 1131. doi: 10.2218/finsoc.v3i1.1936

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lotti, L. (2016) Contemporary art, capitalization and the blockchain: on the autonomy and automation of art’s value, Finance and Society, 2(2): 96110. doi: 10.2218/finsoc.v2i2.1724

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Luke, T.W. and Ó Tuathail, G. (1997) On videocameralists: the geopolitics of failed states, the CNN International and (UN)governmentality, Review of International Political Economy, 4(4): 70933. doi: 10.1080/09672299708565789

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MacKenzie, D. (2019) Market devices and structural dependency: the origins and development of ‘dark pools’, Finance and Society, 5(1): 119. doi: 10.2218/finsoc.v5i1.3015

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mills, K. (2002) Cybernations: identity, self-determination, democracy and the ‘Internet effect’ in the emerging information order, Global Society, 16(1): 6987. doi: 10.1080/09537320120111915

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moore, P.V. (2009) Globalisation and Labour Struggle in Asia: A Neo-Gramscian Critique of South Korea’s Political Economy, London: Bloomsbury Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moore, P.V. (2010) The International Political Economy of Work and Employability, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, International Political Economy Series.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moore, P.V. (2012) Where is the study of work in critical International Political Economy?, International Politics, 49(2): 21537. doi: 10.1057/ip.2011.40

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moore, P.V. (2015) Tracking bodies, the quantified self and the corporeal turn, in K. van der Pijl (ed) The Handbook of International Political Economy of Production, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp 394408.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moore, P.V. (2018) The Threat of Physical and Psychosocial Violence and Harassment in Digitalized Work, International Geneva: Labour Office, https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_dialogue/---actrav/documents/publication/wcms_617062.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moore, P.V. (2019a) The Quantified Self in Precarity: Work, Technology and What Counts, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, Advances in Sociology series.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moore, P.V. (2019b) OSH and the future of work: benefits and risks of artificial intelligence tools in workplaces for the European Union Safety and Health Agency (EU-OSHA), https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/osh-and-future-work-benefits-and-risks-artificial-intelligence-tools-workplaces.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moore, P.V. (2020a) Data subjects, digital surveillance, AI and the future of work. Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) Scientific Foresight Unit (Brussels), www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_STU(2020)656305.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moore, P.V. (2020b) The mirror for (artificial) intelligence: in whose reflection?, for Special Issue Automation, AI, and Labour Protection, Prof V.de. Stefano (ed) Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal, 41(1): 4767.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moore, P.V. and Joyce, S. (2020) Black box or hidden abode? The expansion and exposure of platform work managerialism, Special Issue: The Political Economy of Managerialism, Review of International Political Economy, 27(4): 92648. doi: 10.1080/09692290.2019.1627569

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Reading, A. (2009) Mobile witnessing: ethics and the camera phone in the ‘War on Terror’, Globalizations, 6(1): 6176. doi: 10.1080/14747730802692435

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Roy, C., Scholarios, D. and Taylor, P. (2017) ‘The recession has passed but the effects are still with us’: Employment conditions, work organization and employee experiences in post-crisis Indian BPO, in E. Noronha and P. D’Cruz (eds) Critical Perspectives on Work and Employment in Globalizing India, Singapore: Springer, pp 5780.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Russell, B. (2009) Smiling Down the Line: Info-service Work in the Global Economy, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

  • Salehin, A. and Vitis, L. (2020) Cruising, space and surveillance: decolonizing sexuality in Singapore, Globalizations, 17(7): 122540. doi: 10.1080/14747731.2019.1661159

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schaupp, S. (2022) Algorithmic integration and precarious (dis)obedience: on the co-constitution of migration regime and workplace regime in digitalised manufacturing and logistics, Work, Employment and Society, 36(2): 31027. doi: 10.1177/09500170211031458

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Shibata, S. (2021) Digitalization or flexibilization? The changing role of technology in the political economy of Japan, Review of International Political Economy, online first, doi: 10.1080/09692290.2021.1935294.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Smith, D.A. (1997) Technology, commodity chains and global inequality: South Korea in the 1990s, Review of International Political Economy, 4(4): 73462. doi: 10.1080/09672299708565790

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Smith, N. and Lee, D. (2014) Corporeal capitalism: the body in international political economy, Global Society, 29(1): 649. doi: 10.1080/13600826.2014.976608

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Srnicek, N. (2017) Platform Capitalism, Cambridge and Malden: Polity Press.

  • Srnicek, N., Foutou, M. and Arghand, E. (2013) Introduction: materialism and world politics, International Studies, 41(2): 397.

  • Taylor, P. and Bain, P. (2005) ‘India calling to the far away towns’: the call centre labour process and globalization, Work, Employment and Society, 19(2): 26182. doi: 10.1177/0950017005053170

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tepe-Belfrage, D. and Steans, J. (2016) The new materialism: reclaiming a debate from a feminist perspective, Capital and Class, 40(2): 30526. doi: 10.1177/0309816816653892

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • van der Tuin, I. (2014) Generational Feminism: New Materialist Introduction to a Generative Approach, Washington, DC: Lexington Books.

  • van der Tuin, I. and Dolphijn, N. (2010) The transversality of new materialism, Women: A Cultural Review, 21(2): 15371. doi: 10.1080/09574042.2010.488377

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • van Doorn, N. and Badger, A. (2020) Platform capitalism’s hidden abode: producing data assets in the gig economy, Antipode, 52(5): 147595. doi: 10.1111/anti.12641

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Woodcock, J. (2017) Working the Phones: Control and Resistance in Call Centres, London: Pluto Press.

  • Woodcock, J. (2021) The Fight Against Platform Capitalism: An Inquiry into the Global Struggles of the Gig Economy, London: University of Westminster Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
Phoebe V. Moore University of Essex, UKand International Labour Organization, Geneva

Search for other papers by Phoebe V. Moore in
Current site
Google Scholar
Close
and
Chandrima Roy University of Leicester, UK

Search for other papers by Chandrima Roy in
Current site
Google Scholar
Close

Content Metrics

May 2022 onwards Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 266 57 0
Full Text Views 1349 912 100
PDF Downloads 632 164 11

Altmetrics

Dimensions