Dominion Capitalism: A First Statement

Ehrensaft, Philip; Armstrong, W. A.

doi:10.1177/144078337801400330

Cited by 39 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Such a finding makes some sense in light of Australia's distinctive political economy. Ehrensaft and Armstrong (1978) have noted that 'dominion capitalist' societies like Australia differ from countries of the core in their disproportionate reliance on primary production for export, their small and internationally uncompetitive industrial sector, high levels of protection of manufacturing industry, and comparatively high wage rates (see also Capling and Galligan, 1992, ch. 1;and Gregory, 1991 for some related evidence).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Intergenerational Class Mobility Among Women and Men

Western

1994

The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marxist class analysis has largely ignored the investigation of social mobility and at times has openly rejected it as an object of social analysis. This paper defends the importance of mobility research for class analysis. It then uses Wright's neo-marxist conception of class structure to investigate intergenerational mobility among Australian women and men. Drawing upon data from 'The Class Structure of Australia Project', the paper describes the volume and nature of mobility, and presents more detailed findings about the mobility regime which underlies observed patterns. Such 'relative mobility rates' reflect class-specific advantages and disadvantages which shape the opportunities of people from different class backgrounds to move into some destinations rather than others. The gendered nature of these patterns is highlighted.Like most overseas research in the area, Australian empirical studies of intergenerational mobility are marked by two characteristics.' First, they are typically concerned with occupational mobility (e.g. Marks and Jones, 1991) or with class mobility that is defined using Goldthorpe's (1987,(40)(41)(42)(43) occupationally based schema (e.g. Emmison, 1991;Jones and Davis, 1986, 1988a, 1988b. Second, research is predominantly about the mobility patterns of men (exceptions are Emmison, 1991; Graetz and McAllister, 1989, 186-197;and Hayes, 1991). This paper attempts to contribute to the Australian literature in two ways: it examines intergenerational class mobility using Wright's (1985, ch. 3) neo-marxist conception of class structure; and it explicitly and formally compares relative mobility patterns of women and men.Although non-marxist class mobility research develops plausible theoretical accounts of intergenerational mobility, conceptual problems with Goldthorpe's (1987, ch. 2) idea of class structure undermine its usefulness for modelling some aspects of class mobility. In contrast, Wright's (1985, ch. 3) conceptualisation enables intergenerational mobility patterns to be investigated which are not directly examinable with Goldthorpe's schema. By formally comparing women's and men's relative mobility patterns, the paper also illustrates how class and gender relations jointly shape individual mobility trajectories. Studies which concentrate solely upon either men or women cannot unpack the separate causal effects of class and gender because gender is constant within these analyses.Since marxist class analysis has largely ignored the direct investigation of mobility patterns and occasionally been explicitly sceptical of mobility research, I begin by briefly defending mobility research within class analysis and illustrating how Wright's (1985, ch. 3) conceptualisation makes it possible to model aspects of mobility that Goldthorpe's (1987, ch. 2) does not.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Intergenerational Class Mobility Among Women and Men

Western

1994

The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Landowners owed about one-quarter of this debt in each country, while public debt accounted for roughly half (Peters, 1934;Butlin, 1962;Stone, 1972;World Bank, 1986). The analyses that do mention lenders (Ehrensaft and Armstrong, 1978;Senghaas, 1985) typically assume that the lenders' interest in forcing repayment conflicts with a country's ability to develop because it represents an extraction of resources. Thus the stronger foreign creditors are, the less likely its development will occur.…”

Section: Sources Of Divergence Between Australia and Argentinamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many scholars have compared Argentina and Australia in search of answers to this question. Most of these scholars believe the key differences accounting for Australia's growth and stability and Argentina's instability and stagnation emerged at the end of the nineteenth century (inter alia, see Smithies, 1965;Moran, 1970;Ehrensaft and Armstrong, 1978;Dyster, 1979;Fogarty and Gallo, 1979;Denoon, 1983;Duncan and Fogarty, 1985;Platt and di Tella, 1985;Senghaas, 1985). Despite a diversity of theoretical approaches, these studies all accept the notion that large landholders impede development.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Foreign Creditors and the Politics of Development in Australia and Argentina, 1880-1913

Schwartz

1989

International Studies Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Wiley-Blackwell andThe International Studies Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Studies Quarterly.

show abstract

“…By the early 1980s an influential body of thought had coalesced around the proposition that Australia's political economy could be best understood through the lens of 'settler' or 'dominion' capitalism. These terms denote the distinctive forms that capitalism took in the white settler colonies of the British Empire and the temperate zones of South America (Ehrensaft and Armstrong, 1978;Denoon, 1983;Head, 1983;McMichael, 1984;Gerardi, 1985). The key argument was that Australia carried a pattern of family resemblances with these other settler colonies, which arose from their shared historical experience as both colonizers and colonized (Macintyre, 1989: 11).…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Review Essay: Settler Capitalism Revisited

Beilharz

Cox

2007

Thesis Eleven

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last quarter of a century, Australian historiography and political analysis has witnessed a significant shift in the dominant terms of reference for thinking about the past, and about its relationship to the present and future. By the early 1980s an influential body of thought had coalesced around the proposition that Australia's political economy could be best understood through the lens of 'settler' or 'dominion' capitalism. These terms denote the distinctive forms that capitalism took in the white settler colonies of the British Empire and the temperate zones of South America (Ehrensaft and Armstrong, 1978;Denoon, 1983;Head, 1983;McMichael, 1984;Gerardi, 1985). The key argument was that Australia carried a pattern of family resemblances with these other settler colonies, which arose from their shared historical experience as both colonizers and colonized (Macintyre, 1989: 11). These resemblances included an early and significant degree of political autonomy from the imperial power out of which they were established; the early commodification of land and hence labour, with a corresponding absence of a large peasantry; relative economic prosperity for white settlers, including workers, despite or perhaps because of a highly dependent form of economic development that was disproportionately centred on primary production for the imperial market; mass immigration of white settlers from the metropolitan power and the attendant physical and cultural destruction, or at least the brutal subjugation, of indigenous populations. This final characteristic was the original presupposition and condition for all the other features noted. These contributed to distinctive patterns of inter-and intraclass relations and political institutions, which continued to shape realities in the settler colonies long after the conditions that gave rise to them had

show abstract

Dominion Capitalism: A First Statement

Cited by 39 publications

References 6 publications

Intergenerational Class Mobility Among Women and Men

Intergenerational Class Mobility Among Women and Men

Foreign Creditors and the Politics of Development in Australia and Argentina, 1880-1913

Review Essay: Settler Capitalism Revisited

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About