Contacts and contracts: Economic embeddedness and ethnic stratification in London’s construction market

Abstract

Debates over the constitution and operation of economic markets tend to neglect their empirical variability and frequently fail to recognize the specific qualities of labour and contract markets. Based on one year’s participant observation on a London construction site in 2003/4, this article demonstrates how labour and contract markets were informally regulated and reproduced, characterized by alternative exchange forms that sometimes involved illegitimate practices. Chains of informal social networks, their mores and methods of association and exchange, closed down the markets to competition and framed the development of ethnic stratification patterns. The patterns were locked in place by strong social ties that had formed in relation to the highly deregulated construction marketplace, and which came to constitute it. This revealed the construction economy as predominately socially embedded in a ‘moral economy’ that was ultimately underpinned by violence, putting into question numerous claims from the economic sociology of markets.

‘Danger building site—keep out!?’: a critical agenda for geographical engagement with contemporary construction industries

“…Caplan 2007;Clarke 2006;Green 2011;Ness 2010;Sage, Brookes and Dainty 2010;Thiel 2010;Watts 2007). These studies develop critiques of problems not just identified by the industry itself (Murray and Langford 2003), but also government initiatives (e.g.…”

“…Structural fragmentation has increased rapidly since the 1970s, as the UK's construction workforce has increasingly become casualized, evidenced by a strong rise in self-employment and labour only subcontracting (Clarke 2006;Green and May 2003;Green et al 2008;Winch 1998): in 1977 self-employed labour accounted for 30 per cent of the UK construction workforce; by 1995 this figure had risen to 60 per cent (Green and May 2003: 102). The mutually reinforcing fragmentation and casualization of the UK construction industry was politically encouraged: the 1979 -1997 Conservative governments promoted labour deregulation ostensibly to provide large construction firms with greater labour flexibility to protect themselves against unpredictable workloads, partly caused by the exposure of the industry to economic downturns as well as the vagaries of the British weather (Dainty, Bagilhole and Green 2007b;Green 2006;Green and May 2003;Harvey 2003;Thiel 2010;Winch 1998). For some, such policies belie a far more insidious purpose: large firms benefit from a fragmented/casualized workforce by avoiding costs related to employment rights (pensions, sick-pay, notice periods, redundancy payments, training, diversity policies, accountability, etc.)…”

“…For some, such policies belie a far more insidious purpose: large firms benefit from a fragmented/casualized workforce by avoiding costs related to employment rights (pensions, sick-pay, notice periods, redundancy payments, training, diversity policies, accountability, etc.) while simultaneously denying union representation that may resolve such problems (Green and May 2003;Harvey 2003;Thiel 2010). Put bluntly: 'The basic level of labour rights in the UK construction industry equates to that in developing countries' (Green and May 2003: 102).…”

“…The rationale for my argument here is two-fold. First, contemporary construction industries have been repeatedly criticized for their adversarial and discriminatory working practices and cultures (Caplan 2007;Clarke 2006;Neale 2007a, 2001b;Fletcher and Watson 2007;Green and May 2003;Green 2006Green , 2011Murray and Dainty 2009;Ness 2010Ness , 2011Rooke, Seymour and Fellow 2004;Brookes 2010, 2012;Styhre 2006Styhre , 2011Thiel 2007Thiel , 2010Watts 2007). Second, and relatedly, without addressing such ethical and political matters of concern, future geographies of architecture risk failing to adequately consider their political and ethical implications, and indeed potential contribution.…”

“…This work has developed across a disparate group of researchers spread across Sociology (e.g. Thiel 2007Thiel , 2010, Manage-ment and Organization Studies (e.g. Brown and Phua 2011;Clegg 1975;Fletcher and Watson 2007;Mcgrath-Champ, Rosewarne and Rittau 2011;Watts 2007) and the margins of mainstream, functionalist-positivist, Construction Management (e.g.…”