Globalization and international division of labour:

two concepts -one debate?

Published in Norsk geografisk Tidsskrift 1998 Vol. 52 (3): 151-163

Hege M. Knutsen,

University of Oslo

h.m.knutsen@sgeo.uio.no

Department of Sociology and Human Geography

University of Oslo

P.O.Box 1096 Blindern

N-0317 OSLO Norway

Telephone: + 47 22855257

Fax: + 47 22855253

Internet: http://www.iss.uio.no

GRAFISK nOSSKRIFT 52 (1998)

ipport. NVE Publikasjon 27, 89 pp.

P. E. (eds.) 1991. Etterun­- status rapport 1990. NVE Pub-

K., Skarbovik, E. & Berg, G. 1996. innen vassdrags- og encrgiscktoren.

'6. 154 pp. Oslo. Iv och dess delta. En studie av fluvial 'afiska forandr mgcr. (The River tao A study of fluvial transport and Naturgeografisku Institionen, Uppsala rt 45, 161 pp. ., Munch-Ellingsen, K. & Robertsen, y and sedimentology of an emergent Jelta: Alta delta, Norway. Colella, A. iarse-Grained Deltas. Spec. Pub!. int. ·168. ial accumulations, drainage and ice - Skjomen district, Norway. Norsk 165.

nvassdraget - fluviale forhold for og issdragsrcgulcringens invirkning p" J, 221-232. Oslo. a, et elvelop under forandring. (The : in transition). Kraft og Miljo 14. 79

Aurland river catchment area - the eveloprnent. Norsk geogr. Tidsskr. 48.

.ourse management in Norway, Norsk

'9. B.. Husebye, S. & Sjulsen, O. E. 1986. ; geofag. En oversikt over kunnskap­Rapp. 89. 151 pp. Oslo. roken, A. 1990. FoU-prosjekter innen ion 44, 106 pp. Oslo. vement of gravel by the alga Fucus tic intertidal flat. J. Sedim. Petrol. 54,

igisk kart over Norge, berggrunnskart 'es geologiske undersekelse.

'skler, vassdrag og landskap. Norges .vesen, Kraft og Milje 4. Oslo. 144 pp. O. 1991. Etterundersokelser i Skjoma.

133 pp. Oslo. & Torp, B. 1987. Nasjona1atlas for landhevning (land uplift). Statens

'i. & Melander. O. 1973. Atlas over a. Meddelse nr. 22, Hydrologisk avdel­

og Elekrisitetsnesen, 315 pp. Oslo.

Norsk geogr. Tidsskr. Vol. 52, 151-163. Oslo. ISSN 0029-1951

Globalization and international division of labour: two concepts - one debate?

H. M. KNUTSEN

Knutsen, H. M. 1998. Globalization and international division of labour: two concepts - one debate" Norsk geogr. Tidsskr. Vol. 52,151-162. Oslo. ISSN 0029-1951.

In this article three main approaches to the concept of globalization are distinguished between, and it is demonstrated that arguments in the 'new' debate on globalization and the 'old' debate on a new international division of labour are in many respects similar.

Hcge Merete Knutsen, University of Oslo, Department 0/ Sociology and Human Geography, P.O. Box 1096 Blindern, N-0317 Oslo, Norway, E-mail: h.m.knutsen@sgeo.alO.no

In the 1980s, the concept of globalization was first used to denote the emergence of global markets for standardized consumer goods, and then to global organization of production systems. It was not until the 1990s that globalization became a new buzz word in academic research and management literature, and with it came the increasing problem that it is used by people in different ways. This is not exceptional in academic research, but it cer­tainly adds to the confusion that advocates of different views on globalization rarely provide an explicit definition of the concept. As expressed by scholars such as Axford (1995), Hirst & Thompson (1996), and Bordieu (interview published in Klassekampen 1996), the term is more often based on allusions than clear definitions or plain speak­ing, and more often concerned with what global­ization is not than what it is.

The objective of the article is first to distinguish between different theoretical approaches as to what is understood by globalization, to what extent it 'exists', and what is the likely outcome of it in developing countries. Then it will be demon­strated that some of the issues raised in the globalization debate of the 1990s are much the same as in the international division of labour debate in the late 1970s and 1980s. Does this imply that at the bottom line we deal with the same debate?

Globalization

Analytical framework

Some authors such as David Harvey state that globalization can be understood as: 'a process

serving to compress the world' (Harvey 1989 ref. in Axford 1995, pp. 4-5). And: ' ... that the richness and diversity of various transnational practices serve to broaden and deepen the extent of global interconnections between individuals and groups in many areas of life' (Sklair 1991 ref. in Axford 1995, p. 5). Likewise, Giddens (1996) refers to globalization as 'action at dis­tance', implying a new process of increasing in­ter-penetration between individual life and what he refers to as global futures. According to Gid­dens, globalization is more than an economic concept, development of world systems and large global institutions. This is in line with Axford who refers to globalization as a multidimensional process resulting from multiple causes. Although globalization can be understood as a process that affects most spheres of human activity, and has economic, political, social and cultural dimen­sions, this article concentrates on the issues per­taining to globalization of the economy. The non-economic forms of globalization are only mentioned when they are of relevance to the points raised in respect of the economic.

With regard to the first question, whether globalization 'exists', one may place the different contributions to the globalization debate along a continuum. At the one end one finds the neolib­erals who consider globalization an established fact (Sachs in Aftenposten 16 Nov. 1997), and to some extent Ohmae 1990), and at the other the sceptics who basically consider globalization a myth (Ruigrok & van Tulder 1995, Hirst & Thompson 1996). In-between are those who con­sider globalization a process and a tendency (Dicken 1992, 1998, Axford 1995, Petrella J996, Vickery 1996, Dicken et al. 1997). That

152 H. M. Knutsen

something is a process means that it is ongoing and produces change. A tendency refers to a process that moves in a certain direction due to its inner logic. More tendencies may take place at the same time, and despite the inner logic that drives it forward, a tendency may be re­versed. Those who are referred to as exponents of the process-tendency view below have in common that they consider globalization a pro­cess that has just started, i.e. during the last 20- 25 years; moves in a certain direction (or directions); and may be reversed.

It is the neoliberals, referred to by Giddens as 'the hyper-globalizers', who hold the current mainstream view on globalization. To them globalization is a fact and signifies deregulation of financial markets and more economic interac­tion across borders. The increasing trade and competition are considered positive to countries and people. The neoliberals often use the terms globalization and (increasingly) internationaliza­tion interchangeably.

Daniels & Lever (1996) focus on trade when they write that the world economy was truly integrated or globalized by the 1990s. They point to the fact that trade has increased faster than production, and that there are global shifts in economic activity. Dicken (1992, 1998) writes that globalization takes place in a number of ways, one of them is in the emergence a truly global system of manufacturing, which is reflected in the pattern of trade in manufactures. In 1998, he stresses that although globalizing forces are at work, the world economy is not fully globalized. Likewise, Dicken et al. (1997) emphasize that globalization should be under­stood as a set of interrelated tendencies or a complex of globalization processes, which is sim­ilar to Axford (1995) above. They also stress that it is in respect of changes in power relations and the spatial implications of this that studies on globalization first and foremost should be conducted.

In contrast to the neoliberals, Dicken (1992, 1998), is quite clear that internationalization and globalization are not the same. Whereas interna­tionalization refers to a quantitative process and signifies increased economic activity across bor­ders, globalization refers to 'a more advanced and complex form of internationalization which implies a degree of functional integration be­tween internationally dispersed economic activi­ties' (p. I). He refers to the positive effects of

NORSK GEOGRAFISK TIDSSKRIFT 52 (1998)

globalization in respect of the industrial ad­vancement and increasing exports of the first and second generation newly industrializing countries (NICs). However, in contrast to the neoliberals, both he and Daniels and Lever are explicit that a number of developing countries are outside the reach of the globalization pro­cess. As expressed by Dicken et al. (1997): 'globalization processes are intrinsically uneven' (p. 159).

To Gereffi & Korzeniewicz (1994) globaliza­tion is a process and the point of departure of their further analyses of global commodity chains. They refer to Hopkins & Wallerstein, that a commodity chain denotes 'a network of labor and production processes whose end result is a finished commodity' (p. 2). Their commod­ity chain concept is inspired by Porter's (1991) value chain. To Gereffi & Korzeniewicz, com­modity chain analyses are a means to link stud­ies at the micro-organizational level (i.e. the relationship between the different agents such as consumers, labour, firms, and states) to the macro concerns of world systems literature. One of their hypotheses is that capital or firms from developed countries extract surplus value from the periphery by co-ordinating and controlling the links that tie the commodity chain together. Although the possibilities of developing coun­tries to improve their position in the interna­tional division of labour looks grim in the light of this hypothesis, their framework also opens for an examination of what particular contexts, or under what conditions, globalization may im­prove the position of some of the developing countries. Dicken (1998) claims to be inspired by Gereffi when he introduces his concept of production chain. It is exactly the co-ordination and regulation of the geographically dispersed economic activities that the chain concept visu­alizes, i.e. the functional aspects that are neces­sary to speak of globalization.

Like the above exponents of the process- ten­dency view, exponents of the myth view also distinguish between internationalization and globalization. However, the latter have much stricter requirements pertaining to the quantita­tive changes required in the international econ­omy, to speak of globalization. To be able to identify differences between the various views in more detail, four questions will be looked into as to when one may speak of globalization: (I) how 'much' economic interaction is required ­

NORSK GEOGRAFISK TIOSSKRIFT :

keywords are trade and investmer 'deep' an economic interaction is words are functional integration changes: (3) how geographically economic interaction; and (4) h extent and nature of the econo The various authors address t globalization at different analytic macroeconomic level; (2) the ir and branch segment level; and (:

The neoliberal view

The neoliberal view on globalize on neoliberal economic thought free market forces, perfect corn] ternational trade based on the t

tive advantage. This is clearly illu (ref. in Aftenposten 16. Nov. 195 writes about globalization, it is gratiori' of the last 25 years, am the years after the fall of comrm mind. He does not go in into a ( nature of economic integratior claims that economic integratic that former communist countri number of developing countries opening their economies [or intern this venture they are supportec Bank, IMF, and WTO. He write is being spread worldwide. Alth that the reforms can be.painf temporary, since open economie are the way to welfare. He cla integration opens up opportunitie lel, and for the first time in hist: few privileged societies have the reduce the material want of thei:

The current problems on the change and how the economic spread from country to country, NICs and then to Japan. and ~

fear of ill effects in the USA and taken as evidence that globalizat how tight the world has become It has also launched a debate i: North) on negative effects of gl Eastern Economic Review, 24 Ju 1997, Aftenposten, 26 Nov. 199 this sentiment, the message of Sa, tries must continue their liberaliz this is necessary to consolidate

EOGRAFISK TIDSSKRIFT 52 (1998)

respect of the industrial ad­ncreasing exports of the first eration newly industrializing However. in contrast to the

he and Daniels and Lever are Imber of developing countries each of the globalization pro­ed by Dicken et al. (1997): cesses are intrinsically uneven'

K.orzeniewicz (1994) globaliza­and the point of departure of ialyses of global commodity .r to Hopkins & Wallerstein, { chain denotes 'a network of :ion processes whose end result nodity' (p. 2). Their commod­is inspired by Porter's (1991)

Gereffi & Korzeniewicz, com­lyses are a means to link stud­-organizational level (i.e. the en the different agents such as .r, firms, and states) to the f world systems literature. One ~s is that capital or firms from es extract surplus value from co-ordinating and controlling

the commodity chain together. ssibilities of developing coun­their position in the interna­labour looks grim in the light ;, their framework also opens In of what particular contexts, rditions, globalization may im­n of some of the developing

(1998) claims to be inspired he introduces his concept of It is exactly the co-ordination

I the geographically dispersed s that the chain concept visu­ctional aspects that are neces­~lobalization.

exponents of the process-ten­'nents of the myth view also een internationalization and wever, the latter have much nts pertaining to the quantita­ired in the international econ­. globalization. To be able to s between the various views in questions will be looked into

lay speak of globalization: (1) omic interaction is required ­

-

NORSK GEOGRAFISK TIDSSKRIFT 52 (1998) Globalization and international division of labour 153

keywords are trade and investment flows; (2) how fare. The argument is that free trade stimulates 'deep' an economic interaction is required - key­ economic growth and reduces income disparities words are functional integration and qualitative between rich and poor countries. changes; (3) how geographically dispersed is the Ohmae (1990) is less clear than Sachs as to economic interaction; and (4) how 'new' is the whether globalization is an established fact. He extent and nature of the economic interaction. speaks of a global economy and a global market­The various authors address the question of place as established facts. There are global cus­globalization at different analytical levels: (1) the tomers who have information about services and macroeconomic level; (2) the industrial branch goods from around the world and there are and branch segment level; and (3) the firm level. global products that customers around the world

demand. When he writes about firms that go global he does not distinguish between interna­tionalization and globalization. He rather differ­The neoliberal VIew entiates between five stages in the globalization

The neoliberal view on globalization is founded strategy. The firm is fully 'denationalized', can on neoliberal economic thought with focus on serve customers around the world and at the free market forces, perfect competition, and in­ same time provide them with products that are ternational trade based on the theory compara­ responsive to their particular needs in the fifth tive advantage. This is clearly illustrated by Sachs stage. The fifth stage is referred to as global(ref. in Aftenposten 16. Nov. 1997). When Sachs localization, and is considered a goal, not yet an writes about globalization, it is 'the global inte­ achieved reality. gration' of the last 25 years, and particularly in One of Ohmae's main points is that national the years after the fall of communism, he has in borders have 'largely disappeared' as far as 'real mind. He does not go in into a discussion of the

flows of financial and industrial activity are con­nature of economic integration. However, he

cerned' (p. 18). He is also concerned with theclaims that economic integration is something

emergence of the interlinked economy of the Triad that former communist countries and a large

(the USA, Europe and Japan, and economiesnumber of developing countries have chosen, by

such as Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore). Theopening their economies for international trade. In

interlinked economy will grow faster in the 1990s this venture they are supported by the World and 21st century and comprise more economiesBank, IMF, and WTO. He writes that free trade in Eastern Europe, Asia, and Latin America. In is being spread worldwide. Although he admits this respect he considers globalization a process. that the reforms can be. painful, this is only It 'exists' in the sense that it is empirically observ­temporary, since open economies and free trade able. It is a process in the sense that it stretches are the way to welfare. He claims that global geographically and deepens functionally. Likeintegration opens up opportunities without paral­Sachs, Ohmae relies on the theory of comparativelel, and for the first time in history more than a advantage that an interlinked economy is benefi­few privileged societies have the opportunity to cial to all countries involved, industrial and de­reduce the material want of their citizens. veloping alike. Although he writes that theThe current problems on the Asian stock ex­interlinked economy is not yet a reality (p. 215), change and how the economic effects of this

spread from country to country, first within the he also claims the following: 'The developments

NICs and then to Japan, and subsequently the and forces at work I've described in this book are

fear of ill effects in the USA and Europe, may be powerful and will topple individuals, companies

taken as evidence that globalization is a fact, i.e. and governments that oppose them.'

how tight the world has become knitted together. Politicians in Western Europe are also inclined

It has also launched a debate in Asia (and the to consider globalization as an ongoing phe­North) on negative effects of globalization (Far nomenon that is impossible to contain. The di­Eastern Economic Review, 24 July and 20 Nov. viding line is basically between those who think 1997, Aftenposten, 26 Nov. 1997). Contrary to globalization is all for the best, and those who this sentiment, the message of Sachs is that coun­ find that it has some negative side effects too, and tries must continue their liberalization politics, as that these best can be solved by political institu­this is necessary to consolidate and spread wel- tions or interventions at the international level.

154 H. M. Knutsen

The process-tendency VIew The two exponents selected to illustrate the pro­cess- tendency view in this chapter are Petrella (1996) and Vickery (1996). In addition, I shall return to the process- tendency view arguments of Dicken et al. (1997) after the presentation of the myth view below. Like Giddens (1996), Pe­trella is concerned with globalization as a pro­cess where people's lives are influenced by action at distance. Petrella defines globalization as fol­lows: 'It (globalization) describes the process by which events, decisions and activities in one part of the world come to have significant conse­quences for individuals and communities in quite distant parts of the globe,' (Petrella 1996, p. 64). Vickery, who considers himself an evolu­tionary economist, has a more detailed empirical approach. He refers to 'the process of globaliza­tion' and that 'globalization refers to the emer­gence of a new pattern in the international transfer of products and knowledge' (p. 83). He holds that globalization is signified by geograph­ical diversification (more than previously) and (new) functional patterns of interaction. Accord­ing to Vickery, the changes are the outcome of 'the evolving international strategies of firms', and what he examines are the functional changes that take place at the macroeconomic level, which he thinks signifies globalization. He is very concrete in his analysis, and does not go into the discussion of possible counter-trends to globalization, nor the notion that globalization as a more abstract process may materialize in different forms in space and time. Hence, one may say that he is more process oriented than tendency oriented.

Petrella provides a list of what he refers to as the principal characteristics of globalisation. He starts with the globalisation of'financial markets, which is an outcome of the deregulation of financial markets. The second characteristic is the internationalisation uf corporate strategies. What he has in mind here are an increasing trend of merger and acquisitions, investment in production and other activities wherever in the world it is more profitable to locate them, and a global search for components and strategic al­liances. The third, is the diffusion of technology and related research and development and knowl­edge worldwide. Global networks and strategic alliances become more important and are en­abled by information technology and telecom-

NORSK GEOGRAFISK TIDSSKRIFT 52 (1998)

munication. The fourth characteristic is the transformation of consumption patterns into cul­tural products with worldwide consumer markets. This refers to the fact that we have got a world middle class with similar taste. But there is also an important element of social exclusion here, which could spur opposition and collaboration across national borders to work against eco­nomic globalisation. In item five, he moves more towards politics, i.e. that there is an internation­alisation of the regulatory capabilities o( national societies into a global political economic system. His point is that attempts are made at solving problems by decision-making at the interna­tional level (e.g. the World Bank, IMF and WTO), which restrict the liberty of action of national governments. The sixth characteristic is the diminished rule of national governments in designing the rules for global governance. This is because the global economic and political system is led by a core power. One may however, ask whether regional blocks for economic and politi­cal co-operation will serve as a stepping stone of globalisation or is a countertrend. Anyway, a basic point regarding the two latter characteris­tics is that the role of the state has changed. Its sovereignty decreases while the role of promot­ing national competitiveness becomes more im­portant. In addition to the above, he also speaks of globalisation of culture and of perceptions and consciousness.

It is not clear why Petrella uses different terms when addressing the different issues, i.e. globalization/global, internationalization and worldwide. The inconsistency and/or lack of ex­planation or problematization of this is surpris­ing, since his objective is to explain what globalization is and that it is different from in­ternationalization. Petrella is quite explicit that the bulk of the developing countries are ex­cluded from the process of globalization. His main point in using the term globalization is that the national economy is no longer the name of the game. However, it is equally important to note that despite his broad 'action at distance' approach to globalization, all his principal char­acteristics are linked to economic concerns.

Petrella's understanding of what globalization is, fits Scholte's expression of what it does not imply (1996, p. 47):

It is not claimed here that globalization has touched every person, location and sphere of activity on the planet or each to the same extent; nor that globalization is a linear

NORSK GEOGRAFISK nOSSKRIF

and irreversible process, even if it have a juggernaut quality; nor in re globalization constitutes the sole or temporary history; nor that territo ha ve lost all significance; nor that boundaries have ceased to be impor enjoys equal access to; an equal voic from the supraterritorial realm; nor tails homogenization and an erasure nor that it heralds the birth of a ' perpetual peace.

Vickery provides data on wl 'functional changes at the mac The routes of international tra and knowledge are trade, fort ment (FDI), and co-operative routes are not new, but there a the respective routes and in the tance. For example, growth in i has been outstripped by groi international collaboration al 1983 to 1988 FDI increased mo faster than the growth in in (Ruigrok & Van Tulder 199: pattern of transactions have als has been a shift in focus fro materials and markets to transa technology development and c persion of phases of productior sourcing and intra-firm trade His empirical data are basic OECD countries. Vickery founc OECD's loll' technology exports part of the total manufactu OECD countries focus more or technology and science based it

International sourcing of inter and inputs has increased, partici with high levels of research a plus in ferrous metals and texti ropean countries source many from firms located in other Eu: Most of the sourcing into the 1 Canada and Japan, whereas source mainly from other Asi: from the USA. About intra-fin eludes that this represents a sign the foreign trade of the OECD much as one-third of US trade the period 1977-1989. is basic, firm trade with units located in Korea, and in motor vehicles ment. Notwithstanding the US concludes that geographical pre

GRAFISK TlOSSKRIFT 52 (1998)

ourth characteristic is the nsumption patterns into cul­vorldwide consumer markets. ct that we have got a world nilar taste. But there is also nt of social exclusion here, pposition and collaboration 'ders to work against eco­In item five, he moves more that there is an internation­

'atory capabilities of national al political economic system. :tempts are made at solving on-making at the interna­le World Bank, IMF and ict the liberty of action of ts. The sixth characteristic is .of national governments in or global governance. This is conomic and political system wer. One may however, ask leks for economic and politi­I serve as a stepping stone of a countertrend. Anyway, a

19 the two latter characteris­of the state has changed. Its ~s while the role of promot­titiveness becomes more im­to the above, he also speaks culture and of perceptions

why Petrella uses different sing the different issues, i.e.

internationalization and onsistency and/or lack of ex­matization of this is surpris­jective is to explain what I that it is different from in­Petrella is quite explicit that leveloping countries are ex­.rocess of globalization. His ig the term globalization is onomy is no longer the name ver, it is equally important to is broad 'action at distance' zation, all his principal char­i to economic concerns. anding of what globalization pression of what it does not

, that globalization has touched every sphere of activity on the planet, or

ent; nor that globalization is a linear

NORSK GEOGRAFISK TIDSSKRIFT 52 (1998) Globalization and international division of labour 155

and irreversible process. even if it has often appeared to tant in sourcing relationships. Intra-industry have a juggernaut quality; nor in reductionist fashion that trade has increased significantly in the 1970-1990 globalization constitutes the sole or primary motor of con­

period. The indices of intra-industry trade is high temporary history; nor that territory, place and distance have lost all significance; nor that state and geopolitical where GNP per capita is high and where the boundaries have ceased to be important; nor that everyone variety in demand is high. It also tends to take enjoys equal access to; an equal voice in. and equal benefits place among countries at the same level of devel­from the supraterritorial realm; nor that globalization en­

opment, and within a trading block. His intra­tails homogenization and an erasure of cultural differences: nor that it heralds the birth of a world community with firm and intra-industry findings at best tone perpetual peace. down, and at worst contrast, geographical disper­

sion as an element in the understanding ofVickery provides data on what he refers to as globalization.'functional changes at the macroeconomic level'.

About globalization of research and develop­The routes of international transfer of products ment, Vickery's main argument is that this isand knowledge are trade, foreign direct invest­being dispersed to Asia. He writes that sub­ment (FDI), and co-operative agreements. The sidiaries generally lag behind their parent firm in routes are not new, but there are changes within respect of technology, but they are more ad­the respective routes and in their relative impor­vanced than the domestic firms. In addition, he tance. For example, growth in international trade claims that collaboration agreements betweenhas been outstripped by growth in FDI and firms in Europe, North America and Japan wereinternational collaboration agreements. From very high in the 1980s, when it increased by 100"1,,1983 to 1988 FDI increased more than four times per year. Although the growth has flattened, it is faster than the growth in international trade still reasonably high in the beginning of 1990s. (Ruigrok & Van Tulder 1995). The historical

As the above data imply, Vickery mainly re­pattern of transactions have also changed. There stricts his analysis to functional changes within has been a shift in focus from access to raw

materials and markets to transactions concerning OECD countries. He makes it a point that cross­

technology development and co-operation. Dis­ border operations are still concentrated to the 27

persion of phases of production has led to more OECD countries. About geographical dispersion

sourcing and intra-firm trade in intermediates, he mentions that dynamic Asian countries and

His empirical data are basically confined to China have become involved in the globalization.

OECD countries. Vickery found that the share of Moreover, FDI has become more geographically

OECD's loll' technology exports have shrunk as a dispersed. Japan has now become a major source

part of the total manufacturing exports, as of FDL more OECD countries participate as

OECD countries focus more on high wage, high sources of FDI and so do even some developing

technology and science based industries. countries.

International sourcing of intermediate products Functional changes in the international econ­and inputs has increased. particularly in branches omy have been observed, no doubt. But why do with high levels of research and development, the proponents of the process-tendency view la­plus in ferrous metals and textiles. Firms in Eu­ bel these changes globalization, when the actual ropean countries source many of their inputs geographical dispersion of them are restricted to from firms located in other European countries. a limited number of countries - more precisely to Most of the sourcing into the USA comes from the Triad of North America, Europe, Japan, and Canada and Japan, whereas firms in Japan the NICs? Does the term globalization give source mainly from other Asian countries and wrong connotations? Not according to the advo­from the USA. About intra-firm trade, he con­ cates of the process-tendency view. This has to cludes that this represents a significant portion of do with the above mentioned understanding that the foreign trade of the OECD countries and as the scope of the process is global. The functional much as one-third of US trade. The increase in changes have consequences also for people in the period 1977-1989, is basically due to intra­ places where the functional characteristics in firm trade with units located in Japan and South question are not present. This line of thinking is Korea, and in motor vehicles and other equip­ consistent with the concept of relational space in ment. Notwithstanding the USA-Japan link, he human geography. Moreover, both the struc­concludes that geographical proximity is impor- turalist and neo-Marxist directions of the depen­

........

156 H. M. Knutsen NORSK GEOGRAFISK TIOSSKRIFT 52 (1998) ldency perspective stress 'the relational', i.e. that development (or changes) in some parts of the world directly affect conditions elsewhere. An­other example is the orthodox Marxists, who focus on the uneven nature of capitalist develop­ment, meaning that some societies gain and other lose in the process. The main difference between the orthodox Marxists and dependency theory neo-Marxists in this respect, is that the latter has had some propensity to focus on de­veloping countries as 'eternal losers'.

Neither Petrella nor Vickery writes much on the causes of globalization. Petrella indicates that technological change have made it possible to co-ordinate geographically dispersed eco­nomic activities so that they can be functionally integrated. To Vickery globalization is a result of how firms respond to changes in their techno­logical and institutional environments. As for the consequences of globalization to developing countries, Petrella focuses mainly on the fact that some countries and regions (particularly Africa south of the Sahara) are left out of the integration process. It is implicit in the text that this is a problem, since it deprives the countries of opportunities to industrialize and develop. This is quite contrary to the notion of the old dogmatic dependency theory that delinking would be necessary to achieve development.

As far as economic globalization is concerned, there seems to be a common understanding that technological innovations, that make it possible 'to cover distance in effectively no time' (Scholte 1996), have facilitated the process. The impor­tance of increasing control over time is also highlighted by Gereffi & Korzeniewicz (1994) as an increasingly important element in the com­petitive strategies of firms that spur globaliza­tion. It is the possibility of increasing control over time that is supposed to make globalization a process significantly different from internation­alization. To Castells & Henderson (1987) it is the 'massive expansion of the radii of organiza­tional control' (pp. 1-2) that has given the re­structuring process that the world economy undergoes a global character. The process started at least in the early 1970s, and manifests itself differently in different contexts.

Dicken et al. (1997) make a valid point when they imply that tendencies (at the abstract level) may not yet, or ever, manifest themselves in a new order (at the concrete level). However, the difficulties in how to understand and opera­

tionalize the tendency concept in studies of the concrete remain: what are necessary and what are sufficient changes, quantity- and quality­wise, at the concrete level to speak of globaliza­tion? We shall return to controversies on the tendency concept in the debate on the new inter­national division of labour below.

The myth VIew Hirst & Thompson (1996) have published a book where they challenge the mere occurrence of globalization. They define globalization (p. 1) as follows: The world economy has international­ized its basic dynamics, it is dominated by uncon­trollable market forces, and it has as its principal economic actors and major agents of change truly transnational corporations, that owe allegiance to no nation state and locate wherever in the globe market advantage dictates.

As implied by the definition, it is particularly the neoliberal stand on globalization they at­tack. Some of their arguments against the occur­rence of globalization are also shared by Bairoch (1996) and Ruigrok & van Tulder (1995). The first argument is that the highly in­ternationalized economy is not unprecedented. Bairoch has examined the amount of trade and FDI in relation to the size of gross domestic product before World War I and in the 1970s and 1980s. He concludes that there is no signifi­cant difference, and hence that the term global­ization cannot be justified when based on quantitative data.

The second argument is that genuinely transnational companies appear to be relatively rare (Hirst & Thompson 1996, Ruigrok & van Tulder 1995, World Investment Report 1995). Genuinely transnational companies are compa­nies that pursue a strategy of complex integra­tion across the world, not only at a given regional level. Complex integration refers to the fact that not only production is shifted abroad, but also higher order activities such as research and development and finances. A study by Ruigrok & van Tulder of the largest 100 firms in the world revealed that few of them have integrated production beyond the regional level and also that the integration includes only a limited number of corporate functions: 'not one is truly 'global', 'footloose' or 'borderless" (p. 159).

NORSK GEOGRAFISK TIOSSKRIF

The third argument is that I

investment from the industr countries has taken place. M directed at developed counti 1990s, only 34'% of the FDI fl, oping countries including Chi 24% in 1970s excluding Chil ment Report 1992, 1995). Al to developing countries as a gl in absolute terms, their share In 1913 (World War I) the Iar went to Asia and Latin Amer 30% to the USA, France, Gen FDI stagnated in the 1930s , the 1950s there were changes and flows, and Western Euro] came the main receivers (Barff to developing countries today: trated to a limited number of of FDI is also a key issue in ization of labour debate below

The fourth argument is tha from being genuinely global. W by this is that in addition to t FDI, statistics on production; veal that developed countries in manufacturing and exports Again, the increased share of tries is due to increased produ tures in a limited number of NICs and China in particula one could rather speak of a globalization.

The fifth argument is that .l5

by no means beyond regulation is due to the influence of Eu North America CG3') in inten and political institutions. This rectly contrasting Petrella's in dency view above. Accord economic relations at the nati tional scales are not beyond c tions, but will take place at scale and by co-operation betw blocks. In line with Petrella, DJ write that it is not in respect nation state that one should n tion; it is rather how the globa affect the structure and orienta state one should look into.

Based on empirical studies, Tulder (1995) of the myth viev globalization at the firm level

IGRAFISK nDSSKRIFT 52 (1998)

cy concept in studies of the hat are necessary and what ges, quantity- and quality­e level to speak of globaliza­irn to controversies on the the debate on the new inter­labour below.

n (1996) have published a rallenge the mere occurrence ley define globalization (p. I) ld economy has international­-ics, it is dominated by uncon­ces, and it has as its principal , major agents of change truly 'ations, that owe allegiance to , locate wherever in the globe ictates. e definition, it is particularly .d on globalization they at­arguments against the occur­

ation are also shared by id Ruigrok & van Tulder 'gument is that the highly in­nomy is not unprecedented. led the amount of trade and ) the size of gross domestic irld War I and in the 1970s eludes that there is no signifi­i hence that the term global­: justified when based on

rgument is that genuinely anies appear to be relatively mpson 1996, Ruigrok & van Id Investment Report 1995). tional companies are compa­strategy of complex integra­

vorld, not only at a given rplex integration refers to the production is shifted abroad, ier activities such as research and finances. A study by

rlder of the largest 100 firms aled that few of them have ion beyond the regional level

integration includes only a corporate functions: 'not one footloose' or 'borderless" (p.

NORSK GEOGRAFISK TIDSSKRIFT 52 (1998) Globalization and international division of labour 157

The third argument is that no massive shift of best. They distinguish between the two strategies investment from the industrial to developing of becoming global and glocal . The globalisa­countries has taken place. Most of the FDI is tion strategy signifies a strive for world-wide directed at developed countries. In the early intra-firm division of labour whereas glocalisa­1990s, only 34% of the FDI flows went to devel­ tion signifies a strive for a geographically con­oping countries including China, as opposed to centrated inter-firm division of labour in one of 24'Yo in 1970s excluding China (World Invest­ the three trading blocks. They hold that the ment Report 1992, 1995). Although the inflow latter is the more prevalent. Dicken et ai. (1997) to developing countries as a group has increased do not reject the arguments of the globalisation in absolute terms, their share has been higher. sceptics that few TNCs, if any, are truly global. In 1913 (World War I) the largest share of FDI When they speak of globalisation at large, they went to Asia and Latin America, and less than rather choose to emphasize what the strategies 30% to the USA, France, Germany, and Britain. of the TNCs are (rather than what they have FDI stagnated in the 1930s and 1940s, but in accomplished so far). These strategies are con­the 1950s there were changes in both the rate sidered an element of the process of globaliza­and flows, and Western European countries be­ tion. Such a view is in line with the notion that came the main receivers (Barff 1995). FDI flows a process (understood as something abstract) to developing countries today are highly concen­ may not yet have resulted in the expected (con­trated to a limited number of countries. Inflows crete) outcome. The two TNC strategies they of FDI is also a key issue in the international­ have in mind are labelled global and quasi­ization of labour debate below. global, which correspond directly with Ruigrok

The fourth argument is that the world is far & van Tulder's global and glocai. Moreover, from being genuinely global. What is understood Dicken et ai. write that 'only to a limited extent by this is that in addition to the above data on can restructuring be regarded as being truly FDI, statistics on production and trade also re­ global' (p. 163), which is also in line with veal that developed countries are still dominant Ruigrok and van TuJder's views. Interestingly, in manufacturing and exports of manufactures. Ruigrok and van Tulder on the one hand, and Again, the increased share of developing coun­ Dicken et al. on the other, agree on essential tries is due to increased production of manufac­ empirical findings. but with different methodo­tures in a limited number of countries, Asian logical point departures, they arrive at different NICs and China in particular. In this respect conclusions as to whether it is meaningful to one could rather speak of a triadization than speak of globalization of the economy at globalization. present.

The fifth argument is that global markets are As opposed to the process-tendency writers, by no means beyond regulation and control. This such as Dicken et al., who are concerned with is due to the influence of Europe, Japan, and abstract tendencies and with qualitative changes North America CG3') in international economic such as the increasing propensity of TNCs to and political institutions. This view is not di­ involve in sourcing and subcontacting linkages rectly contrasting Petrella's in the process-ten­ and networks outside their business group, ex­dency view above. According to Petrella, ponents of the myth view, such as Ruigrok & economic relations at the national and interna­ van Tulder, are preoccupied with the concrete tional scales are not beyond control or regula­ and with quantity of economic interaction and tions, but will take place at the international locational dispersion. Neither do the latter take scale and by co-operation between major trading into account that interaction may affect eco­blocks. In line with Petrella, Dicken et al. (1997) nomically, politically, and socially societies who write that it is not in respect of more or less are not directly involved. nation state that one should measure globaliza­tion; it is rather how the globalization processes affect the structure and orientation of the nation International division of labour state one should look into.

The new international division of labourBased on empirical studies, Ruigrok & van

Tulder (1995) of the myth view, concluded that International division of labour is usually under­globalization at the firm level is a strategy, at stood the way it is defined by Coffey (1996), as

----l

l 158 H. M. Knutsen

specialization at the national scale, which gives rise to international trade flows. The debate on a new international division of labour flourished in the 1980s. Already at that time Gordon (1988) thinks it is possible to trace a difference in the focus of writers on the new international division of labour on the one hand, and global­ization of production on the other. Writers on the new international division of labour were preoccupied with 'massive migration of capital from major OECD countries to low-cost pro­duction sites in the Third World' (p. 26). The writers on globalization of production, on the contrary, were more concerned with the central­ization and concentration of capital, in the sense that they focused on the increasing decentraliza­tion of production sites in both developed and developing countries. and the increasing impor­tance of TNCs in the control and co-ordination of production in these sites.

The debate on the new international division of labour was basically a response to the study of Frobel et a1. (1978, 1980), that the precondi­tions for expansion and accumulation of capital had experienced fundamental qualitative changes, resulting in the fact that a new interna­tional division of labour was replacing the clas­sical. The classical international division of labour refers to a situation where the exports of developing countries to industrial countries over­whelmingly consist of raw materials and where industrial countries' exports to developing coun­tries are dominated by manufactures. In the new international division of labour this pattern is undermined, signified by the fact that developing countries export increasingly more manufac­tures. The preconditions that Frobel et al. had in mind were: (I) a world reservoir of potential cheap labour power; (2) technological innova­tions that had made it possible to decompose the production process into units that could be handled by unskilled labour and located where ever more profitable; and (3) transport and com­munication technology that make it possible to co-ordinate production in different geographical areas.

The authors make use of the tendency con­cept, but are not very explicit on what they mean by it. At the abstract level of analysis, it seems to refer to an inner logic that the new preconditions for capital accumulation lead to an intensification and spread of a new interna­tional division of labour. When they conclude

NORSK GEOGRAFISK nDSSKRIFT 52 (1998)

that their theory about the new preconditions explains the empirical data of their case studies, they make an analytical generalization. However, they also write that the extent to which the tendency towards a new international division of labour has become a reality cannot be deduced from theory but has to be subject to empirical research. This is a valid point in itself, but they run into a problem when they, on the basis of case studies, conclude that a new international division of labour is emerging, and hence that the classical division of labour is being replaced. Here they are dangerously close to making an empirical ooergeneralization (Knutsen 1997). One could, however, defend their conclusion with the argument that due to the inner logic, it is most likely that the new international division of labour will intensify and become the general trend (empirically observable). This the authors actually do when they write that the new inter­national division of labour will only be reversed if the preconditions change. However, when they write that 'this will be tantamount to putting into question the prevailing world capitalist mode of production' (Frobel et al. 1980, p. 290). they require quite a lot for a tendency to be reversed!

Frobel et al. have been criticized for their theory on the preconditions. Firms have more options for increasing their profitability and competitiveness than relocation of production to cheap labour havens. Competitive strategies of firms, and hence their investment and location decisions, vary between branches and branch segments (Jenkins 1984, Jordan 1986, Hill 1987). It is in branches where it is difficult to mecha­nize and automate production with existing technology, that relocation may become an op­tion. Being preoccupied with FDI and export platforms, Frobel et al. did not discuss the role of indigenous capital, foreign bank loans and domestic markets in the developing countries that did experience impressive industrial growth rates. Frobel et al.ts conclusion is problematic also in the light of the notion of many of the writers on globalization: that the empirical ob­servable outcome of a process or tendency may vary with context, i.e. place and time. Hill (1987) writes that because contingencies make it difficult to identify general tendencies, an ab­stract discussion of the new international divi­sion of labour does not take us very far.

I NORSK GEOGRAFISK TIDSSKRII

Like in the globalization del tion in the new international debate, is whether a new inten labour is emerging or a myth. and Magnus (1993) have ex, international production and 1 that the fact that some develo] changed their position in the sion of labour, is not sufficienl international division of lab group of developing countri Their arguments of rejecting, division of labour are empiric type that the advocates of 1 globalization used in the mid­guishes the advocates of the n national division of labour from the process-tendency v main emphasis of the former servable trends (questioning w or dominant patterns). rather dencies. This does not mean th the myth view do not ventu arguments, which they have to whether identified trends will c The essential question is rath the criteria to theoretically at

stantiate that a given emergi nomenon will continue to int dominant.

Newer international di labour When Coffey (1996) introduce newer international division 01 number four type, and so fa time axis depicting the emer international divisions labour he applies the following typolc pre-traditional international ( raw materials and primary pro from the periphery. whereas takes place among the core CI

sion dates back to the early p colonization. (2) The tradition vision of labour took place ii 20th century. In the traditiona the periphery exports raw mal products to core countries, ' export manufactures to the

GRAFISK TIDSSKRIFT 52 (1998)

oout the new preconditions al data of their case studies, ical generalization. However, rt the extent to which the new international division of a reality cannot be deduced s to be subject to empirical /alid point in itself, but they when they, on the basis of

de that a new international .s emerging, and hence that

of labour is being replaced. :erously close to making an lization (Knutsen 1997). One .nd their conclusion with the to the inner logic. it is most N international division of v and become the general bservable). This the authors ley write that the new inter­labour will only be reversed change. However, when they I be tantamount to putting prevailing world capitalist

, (Frobel et ai. 1980, p. 290), a lot for a tendency to be

ve been criticized for their onditions. Firms have more sing their profitability and 1 relocation of production to IS. Competitive strategies of ieir investment and location ween branches and branch 984, Jordan 1986. Hill 1987). here it is difficult to mecha­e production with existing ocation may become an op­rpied with FDI and export t ai. did not discuss the role tal, foreign bank loans and in the developing countries impressive industrial growth 's conclusion is problematic - the notion of many of the ation: that the empirical ob­f a process or tendency may , i.e. place and time. Hill iecause contingencies make it , general tendencies, an ab­- the new international divi­not take us very far.

NORSK GEOGRAFISK TIDSSKRIFT 52 (1998) Globalization and international division of labour 159

Like in the globalization debate, a crucial ques­ new international division of labour dates back to tion in the new international division of labour the 1960s. In the new international division of debate. is whether a new international division of labour, core countries make foreign direct invest­labour is emerging or a myth. Hesselberg (1989) ments in manufacturing in the periphery, 'often and Magnus (1993) have examined changes in with a simultaneous closure of domestic manu­international production and trade and conclude facturing facilities' in the core economies. (4) The that the fact that some developing countries have newer international division of labour since the changed their position in the international divi­ early/mid 1980s has four main characteristics: (i) sion of labour, is not sufficient to speak of a new firms from developed countries are involved in international division of labour as far as the production in developing countries 'without group of developing countries are concerned. needing to resort to FDI' and the practice of Their arguments of rejecting a new international subcontracting becomes more prevalent; (ii) ser­division of labour are empirical and of the same vice functions are located in developing coun­type that the advocates of the myth view on tries; (iii) Third World based TNCs make FDI in globalization used in the mid-1990s. What distin­ other developing countries; and (iv) the level of guishes the advocates of the myth view on inter­ FDI by firms in developed countries destined to national division of labour and globalization other developed countries increases. The new in­from the process-tendency writers. is that the ternational division of labour has not been re­main emphasis of the former is empirically ob­ placed by the newer. The two are claimed to servable trends (questioning what are the general co-exist. Speaking of a tendency as something or dominant patterns). rather than abstract ten­ emerging. one may justify that more divisions of dencies. This does not mean that the advocates of labour may exist simultaneously. the myth view do not venture into theoretical This is similar to Lipietz who in 1986 wrote arguments. which they have to in order to discuss that 'a new division of labour was superimposed whether identified trends will continue or change. on the old without replacing it entirely' (p. 38). In The essential question is rather what should be 1997. Lipietz distinguishes between three co-exist­the criteria to theoretically and empirically sub­ ing international divisions of labour. The first is stantiate that a given emerging empirical phe­ the intersectoral division of labour where coun­nomenon will continue to intensify and become tries exchange goods from different sectors. e.g. dominant. manufactures against raw materials. This is simi­

lar to the above mentioned classical division of labour. The second international division is intra­sectoral and similar to the above-mentioned new international division of labour. It involves spe­Newer international division of cialization in different types of tasks. Simple rou­labour tine work segments. including both manu­

When Coffey (1996) introduces the concept of a facturing and services. are located in the least newer international division of labour, this is the cost countries. and manufacturing that requires number four type, and so far the last, along a more skills and engineering are located in low­time axis depicting the emergence of different income countries. He does. however, also empha­international divisions labour. More concretely size that industrial organization, transport costs. he applies the following typologization: (I) In the and markets matter to where engineering and pre-traditional international division of labour skilled manufacturing are located. His argument raw materials and primary products are extracted is that if abundant workforce had been sufficient, from the periphery, whereas commodity trade all developing countries would have become takes place among the core countries. This divi­ NICs. In the third international division of sion dates back to the early period of European labour there is an exchange of similar products colonization. (2) The traditional international di­ which are manufactured in a different manner. vision of labour took place in the 19th to mid­ i.e. with different labour regimes - more Tay­20th century. In the traditional division of labour lorist or more Fordist. This is a type of exchange the periphery exports raw materials and primary that increasingly takes place between core and products to core countries. and core countries periphery within the three respective trading export manufactures to the periphery. (3) The blocks.

160 H. M. Knutsen

Coffey's definition of the traditional interna­tional division of labour corresponds with Frobel et al. 's classical international division of labour. When he starts writing about the new and newer international division of labour, however, he shifts focus from production and trade to other issues such as FDI and a simultaneous decrease in domestic investment and employment in the major industrialized countries. He does not ex­plain the reason for this change in line of argu­mentation. If it is because FDI is considered the solution to obtain industrial growth, increasing production and more exports of manufactures, he mixes cause and outcome. He definitely wants to highlight the increasing interest in the 1970s by firms in developed countries to invest in produc­tion in developing countries. In the description of the newer international division of labour, it is basically qualitative and functional changes among the countries specializing in manufactures (developed countries and NICs) that he deals with. This in itself reflects a functional and quali­tative change in the international division of labour, which is also the focus of the exponents of the process-tendency view in the globalization debate.

A problem with Coffey's analysis is that he has shifted from the initial focus on what happens to the group of developing countries in the interna­tional division of labour (developing countries being the study object), to more qualitative and functional changes among the dominant manu­facturing and exporting countries in the world. Even if one agrees that the changes Coffey has identified constitute a new and even newer inter­national division of labour, they should be la­belled so in relation to another starting point than the core-periphery relations that he started out with. The international division of labour is not new or newer in the sense that the bulk of developing countries have escaped their specializa­tion in raw materials and primary products.

Boyer & Drache (1996), exponents of the pro­cess-tendency view on globalization, hold that it is too early to tell whether globalization will lead to an up-gradation of the industrial capacity of most countries: ' ... globalization does not mean that technology will diffuse equally to all regions of the globe' (p. 15), Nevertheless they claim that there is a new international division of labour, that it includes many newly industrialized coun­tries, and that these are gaining market shares in mass-produced goods at the expense of the devel-

NORSK GEOGRAFISK nDSSKRIFT 52 (1998)

oped world, Here they are in line with Dicken (1992, 1998), However, the notion that the num­ber of newly industrialized countries are many, is problematic. Actually, Dicken himself speaks of only 13 newly industrializing economies among the developing countries, including the city states of Hong Kong and Singapore. Hence, the argu­ment of Boyer and Drache is directly in conflict with the argument of those who claim that the classical division of labour still prevails. Again the crucial questions is 'new in relation to what starting point' and 'what quantitative changes qualify to speak of a new tendency and/or trend', In principle, it should be possible for exponents of the process-tendency view on globalization to accept that the existing division of labour is the classical when the objective is to examine the present situation of the bulk of developing coun­tries. This is consistent with the view that global­ization does not touch each and every person or location in the world to the same extent, and that there is a counter trend of exclusion from the process of globalization.

Coffey, like Frobel et al. (1978, 1980), implies that relocation of production to developing coun­tries and/or increasing production and trade by developing countries may explain deindustrializa­tion in the OECD countries. Although relocation can explain a decline in certain branches in devel­oped countries, such as electronics, textiles and footwear, authors who claim that we now experi­ence a new international division of labour have been criticized of empirical overgeneralization. Deindustrialization in developed countries, mea­sured for example in the loss of employment in the manufacturing sector, may also result from technological change (Lawrence 1996). Likewise, Coffey's point that the new international division of labour resulted in increasing employment in developing countries also needs to be commented upon. It is difficult to get reliable data on changes in the employment in developing countries. In­creasing employment in some firms or industries may be undermined by close downs in out-com­peted units. This is an empirical question and needs to be looked into on a case to case basis. Coffey's main concern seems to be to explain deindustrialization in developed countries. He is not the only one who does this. According to Barff (1995) for example: 'The term 'new interna­tional division of labour' was coined to explain this drift of work from the core to the periphery' (p. 56) (i.e. that TNCs from the core seek lower

NORSK GEOGRAFISK nDSSKRIF

wage labour in the periphery) parallel to the globalization advocates of the process -tendr cally concerned with explainii economy in the OECD count] NICs.

Coffey thinks that 'the dime national division of labour, br the result of a number of maje processes' (p. 47). He does nc cesses globalization. In fact, h the concept of globalization what he describes as the sal newer international division 01 tional changes) are similar to tl advocates of the process- ten' globalization debate are conce way it becomes evident that Ce newer international division ( concept of globalization conn nomena and processes. This i dent in a comparison 0

descriptions of Coffey's newer sion of labour and Vickery's gl over, Coffey writes that 'indeec understand NIDL (the new int of labour) without examining strategies of the MNC (mult tion)' (p. 51) (my parenthes Vickery's view that the new f mostly result from of the 'evo strategies of firms'.

In contrast to Coffey, Di: applies both the concept of glo international division of laboui introduces the term new g labour. However, neither in 1 1998 (pp. 2-3), does he clearly difference in the meaning of n global division of labour. Bot! refer to the fragmentation of v that they have been relocated g global scale, and that new ce production have emerged in th izing countries. In addition, increasing share of manufactu of developing countries and value of such exports has exo exports of food and raw matt also the main argument when the old division of labour hs been displaced. This is in line' (1978) understanding of the

"OGRAFISK TIDSSKR 1FT 52 (1998)

they are in line with Dicken ever, the notion that the num­:trialized countries are many, is ally, Dicken himself speaks of iustrializing economies among mtries, including the city states d Singapore. Hence, the argu­d Drache is directly in conflict t of those who claim that the of labour still prevails. Again ins is "new in relation to what rd 'what quantitative changes f a new tendency and/or trend'. ould be possible for exponents «lency view on globalization to isting division of labour is the ~ objective is to examine the If the bulk of developing coun­stent with the view that global­ouch each and every person or rld to the same extent, and that r trend of exclusion from the zation, ibel et al. (1978, 1980), implies production to developing coun­Ising production and trade by ies may explain deindustrializa­countries. Although relocation ne in certain branches in dcvel­ich as electronics. textiles and who claim that we now experi­ational division of labour have . empirical overgeneralization. 1 in developed countries. mea­: in the loss of employment in ~ sector, may also result from ige (Lawrence 1996). Likewise, t the new international division I in increasing employment in ies also needs to be commented : to get reliable data on changes It in developing countries. In­ent in some firms or industries ed by close downs in out-com­is an empirical question and

d into on a case to case basis. ncern seems to be to explain I in developed countries. He is

who does this. According to rample: 'The term 'new interna­labour' was coined to explain from the core to the periphery' 'NCs from the core seek lower

NORSK GEOGRAFISK TIOSSKRIFT 52 (1998) Globalization and international division of labour 161

wage labour in the periphery). Again there is a division of labour. However, Dicken, as men­parallel to the globalization debate, where the tioned above, also makes the point that the advocates of the process-tendency view are basi­ evolving pattern of trade in manufactures, reflects cally concerned with explaining changes in the the emergence of a truly global system of manu­economy in the OECD countries and the Asian facturing. The implication of this is that the new NICs. international division of labour reflects one of the

Coffey thinks that 'the dimensions of the inter­ ways in which the world economy has become national division of labour. broadly defined, are global. An important contrast to Frobel et al. is the result of a number of major global economic that he stresses the broadness, complexity and processes' (p. 47). He does not label these pro­ kaleidoscopic structure, i.e. the constantly chang­cesses globalization. In fact, he does not discuss ing appearance or features, of the new (or global) the concept of globalization at all. However, international division of labour. what he describes as the salient features of a Rabach & Kim (1994) wrote that internation­newer international division of labour (the func­ alization has led to globalization. They do not go tional changes) are similar to the features that the into detail about this. An argument in this re­advocates of the process- tendency view in the spect could be that firms which have internation­globalization debate are concerned with. In this alized their operations also have worked for way it becomes evident that Coffey's concept of a liberalization of economic regulations nationally newer international division of labour and the and internationally, which in turn have been concept of globalization contain the same phe­ favourable to the increasing functional integra­nomena and processes. This is particularly evi­ tion of production across borders. This could of dent in a comparison of the respective course only be an element in the explanation of descriptions of Coffey's newer international divi­ globalization since it does not touch the more sion of labour and Vickery's globalization. More­ underlying processes and factors. Hence, that over, Coffey writes that 'indeed it is impossible to internationalization develops into globalization is understand NIDL (the new international division a better way of expressing the relationship be­of labour) without examining the behaviour and tween the two processes. As a parallel, one may strategies of the MNC (multinational corpora­ claim that the new international division of tion)' (p. 51) (my parentheses). This matches labour, understood as the fragmentation of pro­Vickery's view that the new functional changes, duction processes and geographical dispersion of mostly result from of the 'evolving international same, now develops into globalization, denoting strategies of firms'. increasingly more complex functional integration.

In contrast to Coffey, Dicken (1992, 1998) This is in contrast to what both Dicken and applies both the concept of globalization and new Frobel et al. seem to understand by new (or international division of labour. Actually, he also global) international division of labour: the frag­introduces the term new global division of mentation and dispersion of production processes labour. However, neither in 1992 (pp. 4-5) nor per se necessitate some co-ordination and regula­1998 (pp. 2-3), does he clearly discuss a possible tion, and hence functional integration. This view difference in the meaning of international versus implies that the new international division of global division of labour. Both concepts seem to labour is basically the same process as the pro­refer to the fragmentation of work processes and cess of globalization of production, and one of that they have been relocated geographically on a the aspects of globalization at large. Having said global scale, and that new centres of industrial this. the functional integration in question here production have emerged in the newly industrial­ may of course increase in quantity and dispersion izing countries. In addition, he points to the and become even tighter over time, facilitated by increasing share of manufactures in the exports further development in transport and informa­of developing countries and the fact that the tion technology. value of such exports has exceeded the value of exports of food and raw materials. The latter is also the main argument when he concludes that Conclusionthe old division of labour has, without doubt, been displaced. This is in line with Frobel et al.ts The comparison of the debates on globalization (1978) understanding of the new international and international division of labour, has shown

162 H. M. Knutsen

that there are clear parallels and links between the two debates. Seen from a methodological point of view, the process-tendency and myth view are presented in both debates, and hence the discussions are carried out along the same lines of argument. Regarding the relationship between the two concepts of globalization and interna­tional division of labour, three main approaches can be crystallized. The first is the one where the new international division of labour, among other factors, is assumed to have evolved into globalization (based on Kim & Rabach). This reflects that relations have intensified and devel­oped into more functional integration. In the second approach, globalization denotes a certain type of division of labour. whether labelled new or newer. The two phenomena are identified by the same parameters at the concrete level and are caused by the same underlying processes and preconditions at the abstract level (based on Cof­fey & Vickery). In the third approach, globaliza­tion refers to processes and tendencies that manifest themselves in a particular international division of labour, meaning that the particular international division of labour is 'an element of globalization empirically observable' (implied by Dicken). In line with this view, triadization can also be considered a concrete (and temporary) outcome of the abstract processes and tendencies of globalization.

It makes sense to conclude that globalization of the economy and international division of labour are part and parcel of the same debate, in the sense that both are manifestations of eco­nomic restructuring (Castells & Henderson above). That time has become increasingly im­portant in the competitive strategies of firms, and that it has become easier to co-ordinate activities in different places at the same time, is not contro­versial. Neither is it controversial that this has been facilitated by innovations in computer tech­nology. A wider range of options as far as com­petitive strategies and location decisions are concerned, have resulted in increased pressure on firms to diversify their business strategies. These changes may be sufficient to some writers to speak of a tendency towards globalization. Other writers will definitely argue against the global character of the process, because business stra te­gies in question are not (yet) adequately global in their scope when examined at the concrete level. To cut across the controversy between the pro­cess-tendency and myth perspective, the changes

NORSK GEOGRAFISK TIDSSKRIFT 52 (1998)

are of interest, no matter what they are labelled. They have spatial implications and do affect the international division of labour in different ways. This calls for analyses of how industry segments and countries are differently affected. In this respect one may well distinguish between differ­ent international divisions of labour at more or­ganizational (within firms, branch segments, branches) and geographical (regional, worldwide) scales. However. only after having assessed their quantitative importance, may one conclude whether the changes actually budge the classical international division of labour or not.

Manuscript accepted June 1998

References Axford. B. 1995. The Global System. Economics, Politics and

Culture. Polity Press, Cambridge. Bairoch. P. 1996. Globalization myths and realities: one century

of external trade and foreign investment. Tn Boyer, R. & Drache. D. (eds) Slates Against Markets. the Limits of Globalizution, 173·-192. Routledge. London.

Barff, R. 1995. Multinational corporations and the new inter­national division of labour. In Johnston. R. J .. et al, (eds) Geographies of Global Change, Blackwell. Oxford.

Boyer, R. & Drache, D. (eds) 1996. States Against Markets. the Limits of Globalization, 1-27. Routledge, London.

Castells, M. & Henderson, J. 1987. Techno-economic restruc­turing, socio-political processes and spatial transformation: a global perspective. In Henderson, J. & Castells, M. (eds) Global Restructuring and Territorial Development, l-l7, Sage, London.

Coffey. W. J. 1996. The 'newer' international division of labour. In Daniels, P. W. & Lever, W. F. (eds) The Global Economy in Transition, 40-61. Longman, Essex.

Daniels, P. W. & Lever, W. F. (eds) 1996. Introduction. The Glohal Economy in Transition. Longman, Essex.

Dicken. P. 1992. Global Shift. Industrial Change in a Turbulent World. Second edition. Paul Chapman, London.

Dicken. P. 1998. Global shift, Industrial Change in a Turbulent World. Third edition. Paul Chapman. London.

Dicken, P., Peck, J. & Tickell, A. 1997. Unpacking the global. In Lee, R. & Willis. J. (eds) Geographies of Economies, 158-164. Arnold, London.

Drache. D. 1996. From Keyens to k-mart: competitiveness in a corporate age. In Boyer, R. & Drache. D. (eds) States Against Markets. the Limits of Globalization. 31-61. Rout­ledge, London.

Frobel, F .. Heinrichs, J. & Kreye, O. 1978. The Internationa! Division of Labour, Social Science Information, vol. 17, no. 1,

123-143. Frobel. F., Heinrichs. J. & Kreye, O. 1980. The International

Dil'i.'1iOI1 of Labour: Structural Unemployment in Industrial Countries and Industrialization in Developing Countries. Cam­bridge University Press, Cambridge.

Gereffi, G., Korzeniewicz, M. & Korzcnicwicz. R. P. Tn Gereffi, G. & Korzeniewicz, M. (eds.) Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism. Introduction: Global Commodity Clruins. 1-14. Pracger. London.

NORSK GEOGRAFISK TIDSSKRIF

Giddens, A. 1996. Excerpts from a I UNRISD conference of globalizatioi

RISD News No. 15. Autumn 1996/\1 Hessclberg, J. 1989. The international

the newly industrializing countries. Geography, No.2, 85-93.

HilL R. C. 1987. Global factory an, changing division of labour in the in industry. In Henderson. J. & Castell structuring and Territorial Detelopme don.

Hirst, P. & Thompson, G. 1996. Glo Polity Press, Cambridge.

Jenkins, R. O. 1984. Divisions over the i labour. Capital and Class 22, 28-57.

Jordan. T. 1986. Global shifts in the mal case study of the liquid pump indusu reports from the Department of (­Geography. University of Gothenbun

Klassekampen. 1997. Nyliberalismen tru lisasjonen. Intervju med Pierre Bord Hoff, copyright Der Spiegel/Morgenb

Knutsen, H. M. 1997. The use of case industrial change in the third world. F 12. Department of Sociology and Hu versity of Oslo.

Lawrence, R. Z. 1996. Single world, divic Institution/OECD Development Centr sis and Comments by Martin Wolf, FI ber 1996.

Lipietz, A. 1986. New tendencies in the ir labour: regimes of accumulation and r Scott, A. J. & Storper, M. (eds) J

Territory. The Geogruphical Anatomy ~

Allen & Unwin, Boston.

EOGRAFISK T1DSSKRIFT 52 (1998)

matter what they are labelled. implications and do affect the ion of labour in different ways. .yses of how industry segments ~ differently affected. In this vell distinguish between differ­livisions of labour at more or­hin firms, branch segments, graphical (regional, worldwide) only after having assessed their ortance, may one conclude ges actually budge the classical .ion of labour or not.

Manuscript accepted June 1998

Global System. Economics, Politics and

, Cambridge. alization myths and realities: one century id foreign investment. In Boyer, R. & States AKa;l1Sl Markets, the Limits of 92, Routledge, London. ational corporations and the new inter­labour. In Johnston, R. J., et al. (eds)

11 Change. Blackwell, Oxford. I, (eds) 1996, States Against Markets, the on, \-27. Routledge, London. rson, J. 1987. Techno-economic restruc­I processes and spatial transformation: a

In Henderson, J. & Castells, M. (eds) g- and Territorial Develnpment, 1-17.

The 'newer' international division of P. W. & Lever, W. F. (eds) The Global all, 40-61. Longman, Essex. er, W, F. (eds) 1996. Introduction, The Transition. Longman, Essex. tl Shift, Industrial Change in a Turbulent on. Paul Chapman, London, 11shift. Industrial Change in a Turbulent

" Paul Chapman, London. Tickell, A. 1997. Unpacking the global.

lis, J. [eds) Geographies of Economies,

ondon. n Keyens to k-mart: competitiveness in a Boyer, R, & Drache. D. (eds) Stales e Limits of Globalization, 31-61. Rout-

J. & Kreye. O. 1978. The International Social Science Information, vol. 17, no. I,

J. & Kreye, O. 1980. Thc lnternat ionul Structural Unemployment in Industrial

'rialization in Developing Countries. Cam­

ress, Cambridge. -icz,M. & Korzeniewicz, R. P, In Gereffi, M. (eds.) Commodity Chains and Global

ztion: Global Commoditv Chains. 1-14.

NORSK GEOGRAFISK TIDSSKRIFT 52 (1998) Globalization and international division of labour 163

Giddens, A. 1996. Excerpts from a keynote address at the Lipietz. A. 1997. The posl-Fordist world: labour relations, UNRISD conference of globalization and citizenship. UN­ international hierarchy and global ecology. Review of Inter­RISD News No. 15, Autumn 1996/Winter 1997, 4-5. national Economy 4:1 Spring. 1-47,

Hesselberg, J. 1989. The international division of labour and Magn us, A. 1993. Industrivekst og industrialiseringsstrategier the newly industrializing countries. Norwegian Journal of for land i den tredje verden. Status ved inngangen til 1990­Geographr, No.2, 85-93. arene. Occasional papers no. 11. Department of Human

Hill, R. C. 1987. Global factory and company town: the Geography, University of Oslo. changing division of labour in the international automobile Ohmae, K. 1990. The Borderless World. Power and Strategy in industry. In Henderson, J, & Castells. M. (eds) Global Re­the Interlinked Economy, William Collins & Co., London. structuring and Territorial Dcnelopment, 18-37. Sage, Lon­ Petrella, R. 1996. Globalization and internationalization. The don. dynamics of the emerging world order. In Boyer, R. &

Hirst. P. & Thompson, G, 1996. Globalization in Question. Drache, D. (eds) States Against Markets, the Limits of Polity Press, Cambridge. Globalizution. Routledge, London.

Jenkins, R. O. 1984. Divisions over the international division of Porter, M. 1991. The Competitive Advantage o] Nations. labour. Capital and Class 22, 28-57. Macmillan, London.

Jordan, T. 1986. Global shifts in the manufacturing industry. A Rabach, E. & Kim, E. M. 1994. Where is the chain in commod­case study of the liquid pump industry. Chorus 1. Research ity chains? The service sector nexus. In Gereffi, G. & Korze­reports from the Department of Human and Economic niewicz, M. (eds) Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism, Geography, University of Gothenburg. 123-141. Praeger, London.

Klassekampen. 1997. Nyliberalismen truer den europeiske sivi­ Ruigrok, W. & van Tulder, R. 1995. The Logic of International lisasjonen. Intervju med Pierre Bordieu. Oversatt av Lars Restructuring. Routledge, London. Hoff, copyright Der Spiegel/Morgenbladet. 4. Januar. Scholte, J. A, 1996, Beyond the buzz word: towards a critical

Knutsen, H. M. 1997. The use of case studies in analyses of theory of globalization. In Kofman, E, & Youngs, G. (eds) industrial change in the third world. FIL Working papers no. Globalization, Theory and Practice. Pinter, London. 12. Department of Sociology and Human Geography, Uni­ Vickery, G. 1996. The globalization of investment and trade versity of Oslo. (with Claudio Cassadio). In De la Mothe, J. & Paquet, G.

Lawrence, R. Z. 1996. Single world, divided nations" Brookings (eds) Evolutionary Economics and the Nell' International Polit­lnstitution/Obt.D Development Centre. Paris. Ref. in Analy­ ieal Economy, 83-117. Pinter, London. sis and Comments by Martin Wolf, Financial Times, Decem­ World Investment Report 1992. Transnational corporations as ber 1996. engines of growth, Transnational corporations and manage­

Lipietz, A, 1986. New tendencies in the international division of ment division. ST/CTC 130. United Nations, New York. labour: regimes of accumulation and modes of regulation. In World Investment Report 1995. Transnational corporations Scott, A. J. & Stcrper, M, (eds) Production, Work and and competitiveness. United Nations Conference on Trade Territory. The Geographical Allatomy of Industrial Capitalism, and Development, Division of Transnational Corporations Allen & Unwin, Boston, and Investment. United Nations, New York and Geneva.