Regimes, Resistance and Reforms: Comparing Workers' Politics in the Automobile Industry in China and India

IF 1.3 Q3 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR Global Labour Journal Pub Date : 2021-01-31 DOI:10.15173/GLJ.V12I1.4256
Manjusha Nair, E. Friedman
{"title":"Regimes, Resistance and Reforms: Comparing Workers' Politics in the Automobile Industry in China and India","authors":"Manjusha Nair, E. Friedman","doi":"10.15173/GLJ.V12I1.4256","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The automobile industry in China was shaken by an unprecedented upsurge of labour unrest in 2010, beginning with the much-discussed wildcat strike at the Nanhai Honda transmission plant in Guangdong province. While worker activism in auto plants in India was not as concentrated as in China’s 2010 strike wave, the period 2009–2017 witnessed twenty-seven strikes nationwide, indicating a significant uptick after the global recession. The optimism that regarded the escalation of labour unrest as indicative of a global labour movement emerging from the Global South has died down. This is an appropriate moment to ask the question: Why did these protests not materialise into something more? Existing explanations in China tend to focus on the regime characteristics. In this article, we undertake a much-needed comparative analysis to explore the failure of these protests. We argue that their failure to sustain their momentum, let alone become a global movement, must be understood in the context of the structures and temporality of capitalism. While we show that there were regime-based divergences and national characteristics in each case, we also show the striking global convergence both in the ways that the protests materialised and how the states responded.\nKEYWORDS: labour resistance; temporary work; democracy; neo-liberalism; China; India","PeriodicalId":44737,"journal":{"name":"Global Labour Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Labour Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15173/GLJ.V12I1.4256","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The automobile industry in China was shaken by an unprecedented upsurge of labour unrest in 2010, beginning with the much-discussed wildcat strike at the Nanhai Honda transmission plant in Guangdong province. While worker activism in auto plants in India was not as concentrated as in China’s 2010 strike wave, the period 2009–2017 witnessed twenty-seven strikes nationwide, indicating a significant uptick after the global recession. The optimism that regarded the escalation of labour unrest as indicative of a global labour movement emerging from the Global South has died down. This is an appropriate moment to ask the question: Why did these protests not materialise into something more? Existing explanations in China tend to focus on the regime characteristics. In this article, we undertake a much-needed comparative analysis to explore the failure of these protests. We argue that their failure to sustain their momentum, let alone become a global movement, must be understood in the context of the structures and temporality of capitalism. While we show that there were regime-based divergences and national characteristics in each case, we also show the striking global convergence both in the ways that the protests materialised and how the states responded. KEYWORDS: labour resistance; temporary work; democracy; neo-liberalism; China; India
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
制度、反抗与改革:中印汽车工业工人政治比较
2010年,中国汽车行业受到前所未有的劳工骚乱的冲击,这场骚乱始于广受讨论的广东南海本田变速器厂的野猫式罢工。虽然印度汽车厂的工人活动不像中国2010年的罢工浪潮那样集中,但2009-2017年期间,全国范围内发生了27次罢工,这表明全球经济衰退后罢工人数大幅上升。将劳工骚乱升级视为全球南方出现全球劳工运动的迹象的乐观情绪已经消退。现在是提出这个问题的恰当时机:为什么这些抗议活动没有变成更多的事情?中国现有的解释往往侧重于政权特征。在这篇文章中,我们进行了一次急需的比较分析,以探讨这些抗议活动的失败。我们认为,必须从资本主义的结构和时间性的角度来理解他们未能保持势头,更不用说成为一场全球运动了。虽然我们表明,在每一种情况下都存在基于政权的分歧和国家特征,但我们也表明,在抗议活动的具体方式和各州的反应方面,全球都出现了惊人的趋同。关键词:劳动抵抗;临时工作;民主政体新自由主义;中国印度
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Global Labour Journal
Global Labour Journal INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR-
自引率
12.50%
发文量
26
审稿时长
39 weeks
期刊最新文献
Review of Eli Friedman (2022) The Urbanization of People: The Politics of Development, Labor Markets, and Schooling in the Chinese City. Labour institutions and the dynamic production of informality: collective organisation of hard-to-reach workers in Tanzania Building Autonomous Power: Solidarity Networks in Precarious Times Labor Contestation at Walmart Brazil: Limits of Global Diffusion in Latin America Breaking the impasse: Reflections on university worker organising in the UK
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1