Globalization, the Restructuring of Labour Markets and Policy Convergence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article investigates the relationship between globalization and labour market reform by examining the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD's) ‘Jobs Strategy’. It has been argued that globalization requires, and the competitive forces unleashed by that process require, the national adoption of more flexible, market-based, or ‘neoliberal’ labour market policies or states will face declining labour market performance. Thus, the globalization thesis posits convergence in labour market policies around an emerging neoliberal norm. Through an examination of the Jobs Strategy and the empirical data collected by the OECD, this article reaches several interrelated conclusions. The evidence suggests little sign of sustained convergence in labour market policies. According to the OECD's analysis, many states have been reticent to adopt neoliberal labour market strategies. Secondly, there is good reason for non-convergence: states that have adopted a liberal strategy, as a group, have not performed particularly well. Despite globalization, there is a range of labour market policy choices available to states. Several welfare state labour market strategies continue to exist.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".