Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMurray, Georginaen_US
dc.contributor.editorGeorgina Murrayen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-03T11:52:16Z
dc.date.available2017-05-03T11:52:16Z
dc.date.issued2010en_US
dc.date.modified2010-10-06T06:55:02Z
dc.identifier.issn10301763en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/34006
dc.description.abstractThe global financial crisis and the uneven recovery from it have been at the forefront of public debate for over a year. Millions of workers around the globe have lost their jobs; millions of others are working fewer hours than they want; millions more are experiencing work intensification and longer hours for reduced pay; and many others are sitting precariously balanced, somewhere on the continuum that stretches between these two extremes. A small number of individuals have been singled out as responsible for the situation and they are paying a penalty. But with few exceptions their penalty is rarely more serious than the loss of their own jobs. Many more are still enjoying the fruits of decisions and structures that reap rewards gleaned in over a decade's frenzy in almost unfettered markets, exorbitant bonuses and executive salaries, and all done with the complicity of the state. The response of nation states to the crisis has been undertaken with speed, efficacy and, perhaps least expectedly, a return to Keynesian demand-driven solutions. The question is why has this globally uneven transition from crisis to recovery taken place? And most importantly what does this mean for labour? We argue here that a major tool to understand this is political economy for it provides an analytic framework and a diagnostic tool used to find new directions.en_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_AU
dc.format.extent70315 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoen_AU
dc.publisherMonash Universityen_US
dc.publisher.placeAustraliaen_US
dc.publisher.urihttp://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-227652236.htmlen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationNen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom243en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto249en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissue3en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalLabour and Industryen_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume20en_US
dc.rights.retentionYen_AU
dc.subject.fieldofresearchHeterodox Economicsen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchGlobalisation and Cultureen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode149903en_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode200206en_US
dc.titleCapital in Crisis? Implications for Work and Societyen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC2 - Non HERDC Eligibleen_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
gro.facultyArts, Education & Law Group, School of Humanities, Languages and Social Sciencesen_US
gro.rights.copyrightCopyright 2010 Labour & Industry. This is the author-manuscript version of this paper. Reproduced in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Please refer to the journal website for access to the definitive, published version.en_AU
gro.date.issued2010
gro.hasfulltextFull Text


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record