Concluding Reflections on Globalization(s) and Labour in China and India: a Polanyian Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I take it here that underlying the various conceptions of globalization there is a more or less common view that the term connotes the increased integration of markets — with the principal exception of labour markets — across the world. I also hold that contemporary globalization is intrinsically bound up with, and very largely follows from, the shift that took place towards economic liberalism, through the pursuit of neoliberal policies, starting towards the end of the 1970s (as David Harvey has argued, 2005). Thus it is not at all surprising to me that there should now be concerns about the possible ‘end of globalization’ in the context of the general retreat from neoliberalism that has gathered pace since the onset of the financial crisis. The chapters of this book are necessarily as much concerned with the consequences for labour of the partial moves towards economic liberalism in both China and India, described in both cases as ‘economic reform’, as they are with the consequences of ‘globalization’ tout court. There are distinctive pressures, however, specifically associated with the integration of China and India into global markets, and these were etched out in the initial effects in the two countries of the financial crisis and global recession of 2008–9. It was reported early in 2009 that 15 million migrant workers, and perhaps 20 million in total, had lost their jobs in China, and that thousands of factories had closed as a consequence of the downturn in Western demand and the collapse of foreign investment (The Economist, 31 January 2009).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".