IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indlaw/v52y2023i1p107-148..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gendered Distributive Injustice in Production Networks: Implications for the Regulation of Precarious Work

Author

Listed:
  • Shelley Marshall
  • Kate Taylor
  • Sara Tödt

Abstract

This paper is concerned with how precarious work in gendered production networks can be regulated to address distributional injustices—examining the regulation of homework in Thailand as a case study. The contribution of this paper is to empirically analyse these outcomes of the organisation and governance of production as gendered distributional injustices. The analytic extends the distributive analysis employed by Shamir by applying feminist global production network scholarship developed by scholars such as Anne Tallontire, Catherine Dolan, Sally Smith, Wilma Dunaway and Stephanie Barrientos. Our aim is to capture the complex ways in which distributional injustices are created in gendered production networks by examining both distributional asymmetries between homeworkers and other actors along the value chain (vertical dynamics), as well as the way that local gender relations shape the social undervaluation of women’s home-based work (horizontal dynamics). We draw on rich empirical research to describe these distributional asymmetries for homeworkers in the North-East of Thailand who repair faults in fishing net production for global markets. A handful of countries in the Economic South have reformed labour regulation to address capitalist innovation resulting in new models of production and accumulation. Thailand joined these ranks in 2010, but this has gone without notice in the comparative labour regulation literature. We interrogate the extent that the gendered distributional injustices we identify are corrected through the interventions of Thai labour regulation. We compare the Thai approach with International Labour Organisation Convention 177 (1996) Homework (referred to herein as the ILO Homework Convention or C177). We conclude by suggesting ways that the Thai approach could be strengthened, drawing in places on examples of labour regulation advances in other countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Shelley Marshall & Kate Taylor & Sara Tödt, 2023. "Gendered Distributive Injustice in Production Networks: Implications for the Regulation of Precarious Work," Industrial Law Journal, Industrial Law Society, vol. 52(1), pages 107-148.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:52:y:2023:i:1:p:107-148.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/indlaw/dwab039
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:52:y:2023:i:1:p:107-148.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ilj .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.