Inequalities in the disruption of paid work during the Covid‐19 pandemic: A world systems analysis of core, semi‐periphery, and periphery states

Abstract

The new coronavirus disease-SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19)-has spurred governments to severely restrict economic activity, which has wreaked havoc on labor markets (Dobbins, 2020;Hodder, 2020;Koebel & Pohler, 2020). Evidence to date suggests that its impact on participation in paid work is deeply unequal (Adams-Prassl et al., 2020; Brewer & Gardiner, 2020), with significant disparities between developed and developing economies (Ghosh, 2020a; ILO, 2021a). Yet, the employment relations literature has thus far focused mostly on OECD economies (e.g., Adams-

A world systems analysis of union membership and support for government spending on environmental protection

“…Associated particularly with the writings of Immanuel Wallerstein (2004) dating back to the 1970s, the utility of WST has been corroborated in the industrial relations literature (Valizade et al, 2023: 191). Compared to alternative comparative approaches such as Varieties of Capitalism, recent contributions note that WST is less spatially and historically confined and that the distinctions offered “can accommodate the phenomenon of the new industrial countries (e.g., Brazil, India, and China) while being consistent with inequalities across the north-south divide” (Valizade et al, 2023: 191). As a comparative framework compatible with the notion that environmental issues cannot be isolated from global trends and dynamics, WST has much to offer environmental labor studies.…”

“…Broadening the geographical scope, WST (Wallerstein, 2004) offers potential as a comparative framework as it brings a diverse set of countries into equivalence and elevates the level of analysis beyond the advanced capitalist economies-or core states-to include less developed economies in what is referred to, respectively, as the semi-periphery and periphery (Valizade et al, 2023;Wallerstein, 2004). Associated particularly with the writings of Immanuel Wallerstein (2004) dating back to the 1970s, the utility of WST has been corroborated in the industrial relations literature (Valizade et al, 2023: 191).…”

“…To measure the strength of ALMPs, the study uses a sub-index of the Global Competitiveness index, gathered by the Executive Opinion Survey as part of the World Economic Forum. The variable-which has been used in other studies (Valizade et al, 2023)-is on a seven-point scale ("1 = not at all"; 7 = "to a great extent") based on a questionnaire which asks: "To what extent do labor market policies help unemployed people to reskill and find new employment?" While bargaining coverage may have been a relevant addition (Ringqvist, 2022), such data are not available for all countries in the sample.…”

“…Broadening the geographical scope, WST (Wallerstein, 2004) offers potential as a comparative framework as it brings a diverse set of countries into equivalence and elevates the level of analysis beyond the advanced capitalist economies—or core states—to include less developed economies in what is referred to, respectively, as the semi-periphery and periphery (Valizade et al, 2023; Wallerstein, 2004). Associated particularly with the writings of Immanuel Wallerstein (2004) dating back to the 1970s, the utility of WST has been corroborated in the industrial relations literature (Valizade et al, 2023: 191). Compared to alternative comparative approaches such as Varieties of Capitalism, recent contributions note that WST is less spatially and historically confined and that the distinctions offered “can accommodate the phenomenon of the new industrial countries (e.g., Brazil, India, and China) while being consistent with inequalities across the north-south divide” (Valizade et al, 2023: 191).…”

“…Drawing on World Systems Theory (WST; Wallerstein, 2004)-a comparative framework widely used in environmental debates-the present article addresses this gap by extending the geographical scope beyond the US and Europe, studying international variation in the effect of union membership on support for government spending on the environment. Broadening the geographical scope allows for an exploration of whether the positive membership effect applies beyond what WST classifies predominantly as core states, which are relatively more affluent economically and tend to provide workers with stronger protection against labor market-related risks (Valizade et al, 2023). Extending coverage to non-core states in the semi-periphery and periphery also introduces considerable cross-national variation in the distribution of environmental burdens, as such burdens tend to be more extensive in non-core states (Mejia, 2020).…”