Globalizing Firms and Small Communities: The Apparel Industry's Changing Connection to Rural Labor Markets*

Abstract

This paper explores changing relationships between apparel firms and rural labor markets in Wisconsin over the last decade. Mainstream explanations of recent changes in the apparel industry suggest that rural communities will lose tedious or physically demanding, low-skilled apparel manufacturing jobs but will gain more information-intensive and desirable ''apparel service'' employment. Through case studies of apparel firms located in two Wisconsin communities, the paper argues that current changes in the industry not only affect communities unevenly but, even in regions where apparel service firms have provided significant numbers of new jobs, these jobs are less well paid, more casually structured, and less secure than manufacturing employment has been. The paper argues that current concepts of the economic embeddedness of firms in communities need to be refined to permit consideration of the kinds of leverage and voice that community organizations have in confronting new forms of corporate capital. The two case studies demonstrate that corporate embeddedness and its labor market outcomes are linked to changes in the global market in which firms compete.

International Handbook of Rural Demography

“…In fact, by the end of the past century, manufacturing was a larger source of employment in rural areas than urban areas (17 to 13% based on Census 2000 data). One of the reasons is that the economic restructuring process will continue to shift jobs out of manufacturing and into services (Collins & Quark, 2006;Miller, 2007). However, manufacturing has not been the broad job generator once envisioned.…”

Going Public: Networking Globally and Locally*

“…How globalization advantages or disadvantages rural people and places remains our concern and, for many, our focus of study. Rural sociologists study the impact of globalization on farms, food systems, communities, labor markets, and natural resources (Bonanno and Constance 2006;Collins and Quark 2006;Pfeffer, Schelhas, and Meola 2006.) Thus, we understand that our ''publics'' are situated in these broader global landscapes.…”

Community-company relationships in forest-dependent communities in northern BC: Assessing the local, sectoral, and theoretical implications.

“…This approach has done little to shield communities from the current downturn. Similarly, the literature finds that this approach to economic development fails to develop or market local skills, entrepreneurship, or innovation (Collins & Quark, 2006;Hassink, 2010;Joshi et al, 2000;Kennedy et al, 2001;Mayer, 1994). Opportunities for economic change will not occur if the structures, institutions, and transnational connections that contributed to uneven development are not addressed (Amin, 2005).…”

“…Incentives offered by communities and governments are not large enough to offset the costs of certain locations. Communities with diversified economies and regional policies aimed at enhancing growth without sacrificing other opportunities are better able to withstand making concessions than single-industry communities (Agnew, 2000;Collins and Quark, 2006).…”

“…Indeed, many indicated that they felt corporate decision-makers had little idea of the challenges and issues facing individual communities. Research on community-company relationships in American textile manufacturing communities also found that corporate consolidation has increased the detachment between communities and corporate decision-makers (Collins & Quark, 2006). This reduced the ability of communities to engage companies in the social economy.…”