Feminist economic geography and the future of work

Exchange Feminist economic geography and the future of work Economy and Space EPA: Economy and Space 0(0) 1–12 ! The Author(s) 2020 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/0308518X20947101 journals.sagepub.com/home/epn Emily Reid-Musson Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada Daniel Cockayne University of Waterloo, Canada Lia Frederiksen University of Toronto, Canada Nancy Worth University of Waterloo, Canada Abstract Scholars have recently begun to account for the absence of feminist analyses in the popular and academic discourse surrounding ‘the future of work’. In this article we offer a critical synthesis of emerging research from feminist economic geography to propose a series of questions about the future of work, conceptualized as both an object of intellectual inquiry and an emerging empirical reality. Feminist economic geography emphasizes difference, embodiment, and conceives of workplaces as dynamic, uneven, and untidy spaces, an emphasis which can help recenter discussions about the future of work on workers and their experience of work. Our discussion features a series of analytically rigorous, theoretically informed, and empirically rich conference papers, organized around three critical questions: Who are the subjects of the future of work? What counts as work? And where should we look? We highlight a broad concept of work developed through debates among feminist scholars across disciplinary fields as a key frame for understanding the global economy, including difference, social reproduction, and the spatial division of labor. Feminist economic geographers are pluralizing the subjects, forms, and geographies of work, which may help enhance our understanding of the future of work in economic geography. Keywords Feminist economic geography, social reproduction, subjectivity, technology, work Corresponding author: Emily Reid-Musson, Department of Geography, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Newfoundland and Labrador A1C 5S7, Canada. Email: [email protected] 2 EPA: Economy and Space 0(0) Introduction: Defining work and the future of work The future of work has become a key phrase in popular discussions about recent and rapid transformations within employment and labour markets. It is a major area of research for the OECD (2019), is the focus of a series of ILO reports (2019), and was the topic of a conference hosted by The Economist (2019) and the cover story of an issue of The New Yorker (Kolhatkar, 2017). Technology plays a central though ambivalent role in these speculations about the future, in which work is increasingly digitally mediated and datasaturated; managed more by platforms and algorithms and less by people; and characterized by automation, machine learning, artificial intelligence, and new reproductive technologies. These conversations are quintessentially defined by a concern – and at times a perceptible anxiety – about the potential effects of new technologies within formal workplaces. Academic responses to this future of work discourse have challenged this too-narrow focus on technology itself, contending that current debates ought to more centrally question the ways that technological change can deepen existing racial, gendered, and class inequalities among workers (Whitehouse and Brady, 2019). The most enduring changes originating in the present moment may be more organizational than technological, with the consequences disproportionately borne by young workers and people who are already economically and socially marginalized within formal labour markets (Ojanperӓ et al., 2018). There is some conceptual hubris in associating technology with novelty, yet anxieties around technological change and job loss have been (intermittently) ongoing since at least the industrial revolution (Benanav, 2019). The future of work discourse circulates through popular and policy conversations, portraying automation, robotics, platforms, and algorithms in terms “characterized by the extremities of either dystopian angst or popular boosterism” (Bissell and Del Casino, 2017: 435). For some commentators, the replacement of workers and their jobs with machines promises a boon to economic productivity, narrowly defined in neoclassical economic theory as increases in firms’ output and profitability. Others claim that technological changes will create new jobs that are more highly skilled, better compensated, and safer. Some scholars have reproduced this polarization about the future of work, offering a utopic vision that this future constitutes a new post-work horizon and the instantiation of comprehensive social contracts de-linked from compulsory waged labour (Bastani, 2019; Srnicek and Williams, 2015). This paper examines research from feminist economic geography to critically analyze the discourse of the future of work. Feminist economic geography is well-placed to intervene in the polarized discourse on the future of work reproduced through both popular and academic discussions. We connect feminist economic geography to scholarly research that has begun to account for the absence of feminist analyses in popular discussions (Howcroft and Rubery, 2019). We de-emphasize deterministic narratives about technology by widening the scope of what constitutes meaningful work, and refocusing attention on workers over the novelty of digital platforms and automation. We focus less on examining the content of these narratives and instead on how feminist economic geography may expand approaches to studying the future of work. Feminist economic geographers push these scholarly analyses of the future of work further by maintaining a close focus on difference, embodiment, and performativity (MacLeavy et al., 2016) and on workplaces as dynamic, uneven, and untidy spaces (Ettlinger, 2004) to return the focus of these discussions to work itself. Feminist economic geographers have insisted upon the importance of interrogating race- and gender-neutral narratives of epochal transformation familiar among economic geographers through an Reid-Musson et al. 3 approach emphasizing both continuity and change in the global economy (McDowell, 2009). For example, Wright’s (2006) research on maquila workers in Mexico and Mullings’ (1999) research on women data-entry workers’ coping strategies in Jamaica underscore that technological change and workforce restructuring are enacted through the reworking of subjectivities and social inequalities, particularly through colonial, gendered, and racial hierarchies (see also Werner, 2015). Feminist economic geographers have strengthened geographers’ theorizations of uneven development by accounting for racialized and gendered divisions of labour, in particular in debates on shifts to post-Fordism (GibsonGraham, 2006; Massey, 1991). Feminist frameworks associated with a diverse economies approach continue to thrive among critical economic geographers (Gibson-Graham, 2008), providing a rich epistemology for conceptualizing difference as not necessarily – or not solely – capitalist in nature but rather as intersecting with capitalist social relations in complex, ambiguous, and non-deterministic ways. Feminist geographers who draw extensively on social reproduction theory have furthermore challenged the normative hierarchies economic geographers use to understand work, labour, and employment (McDowell, 2015; Winders and Smith, 2019). In this theoretical field (Battacharya, 2017), broadening the concept of work to refer to a wider range of human activities is a longstanding theoretical and empirical object in feminist political economy (Federici, 2004; Mies, 1986), critical development studies (Bener
ıa, 1992; Kabeer, 1994), and feminist geography (Oberhauser, 2000). In this view, work can be understood more broadly as activities that produce goods and services for oneself and others, whether or not these goods and services reach a consumer market (ILO, 2018; Komlosy, 2018). Many of these activities are devalued, degraded, and exempt from regulatory frameworks and legal protections (McGrath and DeFillippis, 2009; Gidwani and Chari, 2004). This broad definition of work encompasses, but includes more than, productive waged labour and formal employment – categories that have historically drawn scholarly attention to white men’s work in the Global North while ignoring a more geographically and socially generalized history in which work is characterized by varying degrees of informality and unfreedom (Mezzandri, 2016). Work, broadly conceived, can therefore direct scholarly inquiry toward activities that may be paid or unpaid, and occur within or across spheres of production and reproduction through processes unfolding outside formal workplaces like factories and offices (Frederiksen, 2015; Reid-Musson, 2017). However, scholarly appeals to reframe a wider range of activities as work can reinforce the hegemony of work itself, in which only ‘productive’ labours are socially and economically valuable (Weeks, 2011). This reproduces a pro-work ideology in which workers learn to accept more and harder work, empathize with employers to whom they feel indebted, and situate work as the central source of meaning in everyday life (Cockayne, 2020). Narratives about turning devalued jobs into ‘meaningful work’ can elide precarious and unpaid work, and “extend the reach of labour subsumption into spheres traditionally considered outside the employment relation” (Castellini, 2019: 63). The goal is not, in other words, to simply ‘re-value’ activities deemed ‘nonwork’ or ‘unproductive’, but rather to rigorously re-think what scholars may include in the category of work. A more expansive concept of work that carefully attends to difference (Werner et al., 2017) can show that the dominant rhetoric and regime of work is historically and geographically restrictive, because it excludes a wide range of activities essential for maintaining life from any meaningful analysis of labour. This expansive understanding of work may be both usefully limiting and enabling, as a way of drawing attention to workers themselves to resist deterministic narratives of technological change and to bring a greater range of practices into the foreground of analyses that engage with, for example, the mediation of reproductive labour by new digital technologies. 4 EPA: Economy and Space 0(0) It is within this milieu (our summary of which is far from exhaustive) that we situate new research presented in a series of conference sessions we organized on Querying The Future of Work at the Feminist Geography Conference in Montreal in 2018 and the American Association of Geographers Annual Meeting in Washington, DC in 2019.1 In what follows, we offer a critical synthesis of three key themes that emerged from these sessions on the subjects, forms, and geographies of work. We provide a critical synthesis of emerging research from these conference meetings, and thus we do not here attempt an alternative theorization to the future of work discourse nor do we set out a specific research agenda. While we have engaged with technology above since it characterizes popular framings of the future of work, our aim here and in the accounts below is to deemphasize the role of technology—following critical academic accounts of the future of work—to frame that future more in terms of workers, their differences, and political and organizational change. Though technology will undoubtedly play an important role in that future, we argue that that role will not be singular, causal, or deterministic. We have chosen the topics organized under the subheadings below as a reflection of our conceptual decision to de-emphasize technology as the primary, or exclusive, driver of change in our feminist economic future of work. We conclude with a short reflection on what these analytically rigorous, theoretically informed, and empirically rich conference papers have contributed to our own thinking about the importance of feminist economic geography for intervening in popular and academic narratives about the future of work. Who are the subjects of the future of work? A focus on the figure of the worker can bring the future of work discourse to a livable scale, grounding scholarly inquiry in everyday places and daily life. Workers’ subjectivity was central in a set of papers presented in the conference sessions. Rather than viewing labour as a conceptual whole, these researchers emphasize how socially differentiated workers (as individuals and groups) negotiate, or are constrained by, their working and employment conditions. By bringing socially constructed differences into the foreground, these researchers examine how race, gender, sexuality, age, immigration status, and disability articulate with the more conventional category of class to grapple with important questions about workers’ agency and (collective) power. Taylor’s (2018) research with young renters in Hackney, London, emphasizes how capital (or a lack thereof) is reproduced intergenerationally. Respondents in this research project felt a profound sense of futility about salaried work and a future in which retirement would never be possible without access to transfers of private wealth through familial ties. These respondents were, Taylor explains, negotiating the emotional consequences of their knowledge that their working lives would end only with death and not with retirement. Loomis’ (2018) research on financial coaching examines how nonprofits geared toward financial inclusion rescale an unequal financial system. This coaching encourages low-income clients of non-profits to personalize and moralize their debts, “managing [their] poverty by becoming responsible consumers of credit” (150). Institutions and organizations that interlink diverse groups of workers (Enright, 2013) can reveal the messy power dynamics within ‘workplace inclusion’ efforts and labour market intermediaries. Analyses of workplace inclusion presented in the conference sessions include job fairs targeted toward incorporating disabled people into formal workplaces (Jampel, 2019) and work-integrated social enterprises where work tasks are adapted to match workers’ abilities (McKinnon, 2019). Lewis and Mills (2019) raise important questions about the limitations of notions of workplace inclusion, showing that LGBTQ-identified workers in Reid-Musson et al. 5 Ontario face discrimination from customers, which requiresextra affective labour from these workers as a de facto condition of their employment. Veronis (see Huot and Veronis, 2018) researches how volunteer work and paid employment in the non-profit “settlement sector” in Canada is a way for immigrants and refugees to create community for themselves through these organizational spaces. Dimpfl (2019) examines adjunct university instructors’ organizing to consider the possibilities for building solidarity across job categories within institutional spaces, importantly by challenging adjuncts’ over-identification with precarious workers located throughout the university. This research cautions against the danger of more highly-educated (yet precariously employed) academic workers appropriating the struggles of already-marginalized university workers, insisting on the value of collective power along with the “difficult work of cross-class, cross-sector organizing” (Dimpfl, 2019). These papers illuminate workers’ subject formation and collective agency through institutions, organizations, and intermediaries. One might ask here who is not a subject of the future of work, if work is broadened beyond waged work and formal employment. Given that the future of work discourse often overlooks workers themselves and thus fails to consider socially constructed differences (Spencer, 2018), the above-cited papers offer a fundamental challenge to popular rhetoric that ignores or obscures questions about inequality, identities, and experiences of work. What counts as work? Social reproduction theory and feminist economic geography Feminist geographers have repeatedly called for a more fulsome account of what may be called ‘life’s work’: the un- and under-paid work of maintaining everyday life outside the formal workplace (Mitchell et al., 2004; Strauss and Meehan, 2015). These geographers have drawn extensively from, and built upon, theorizations of social reproduction developed among feminist political economists (Teeple Hopkins, 2015). The need to recognize the home as a place of work, broadly conceived, has been central to feminist social reproduction debates since the 1970s to extend conceptualizations of labour and value into the sphere of the family and domesticity (Dalla Costa and James, 1975; Edholm et al., 1977; Laslett and Brenner, 1989). Work within the home is a realm that is historically feminized through interlocking constructs of gender and race (Nakano Glenn, 1992). Here, we highlight papers presented in the conference sessions that draw from these rich debates on social reproduction. Three papers highlight how digital technologies are intensifying home-based work. Maalsen (2019) reveals the hidden labour of shared housing arrangements, from actively curating online housemate profiles on sharing platforms to the technological ‘disruption’ of managing domestic tasks through digital applications. Goyette (2019) examines how Airbnb reinscribes the home as a place of work, a financial asset, and a site of value creation, which resonates with 19th and early 20th Century forms of renting as a livelihood strategy pursued mainly by middle- and working-class women. Black et al. (2019) study online craft blogging as a gendered form of precarious work, which can paradoxically integrate but also fragment bloggers’ identities as workers and mothers (see also Worth, 2016). This research shows that while the work of crafting and blogging are precarious, so are bloggers’ identities that become precarious as they are pulled between creative impulses and the demands of producing digital content and material products. Although bloggers in this study often entered this form of self-employment as a way to generate income from their artistic pursuits, for 6 EPA: Economy and Space 0(0) many their businesses are reliant on maintaining an online presence based on their image as mothers which places further pressures on their work/home life. Another three papers focused on the reorganization of the form of reproductive labour most frequently discussed by feminist geographers – care work (England, 2010) – outside the home in caring institutions and private businesses. In a study on caring labour in the context of ‘death work,’ Giesbrecht (2018) interrogates the shifting, gendered spatiality of work/ nonwork. Giesbrecht shows that once death moved outside the home over the latter half of the 19th century, the work of caring for the dead from women’s unpaid care within the home to a paid commercial service operated primarily by men. Now, Giesbrecht underlines, death doulas are moving this care work back into the home, in stark contrast to the gendered spatiality of the funeral industry. Goldar Perrote and Walton-Roberts (2020) directly engage the discourse on the future of work, arguing that a technologically-mediated future of work is already here, as seen in the heightened role of robotics in the aged care sector in Japan. They draw attention to what kinds of care work cannot (yet) be fully automated, linking this work with a global care chain migration of workers specifically trained to work alongside robots in aged care institutions. Highlighting that both robots and human workers perform an impression of caring, they consider the possible role for care robots to protect human workers from physical risks and workplace hazards while on the job. Technologies of caring associated with optimizing work process efficiency serve to further under-value care work within institutional contexts, as in the case of nursing where clinical work is more visible and highly-valued than care work (Henry, 2018). How work is measured is a function of “what we value”, Henry (2018: 348) argues, and so “a feminist politics of measure can make visible the absolutely necessary labour and relations of social reproduction”. Taking social reproduction into account, as these papers indicate, is not solely a question of which sites (like the home) or forms of devalued work (such as caring) matter, but rather requires an interrogation of conceptual binaries by examining how work is organized within and between places. At stake in this project, as Andrucki et al. (2017: n.p.) emphasize, is the refusal of any convenient distinctions that separate “labour and care, the human and nonhuman, and the heteronormative sex/gender binary”. Sketching out how feminist economic geography can reframe social reproduction debates is a task that remains important for theorizing the future of work beyond accepted categories, but one that falls beyond the scope of our discussion in this piece (Strauss and Meehan, 2015). Where should we look? Geographies of work beyond the core An important thread in the conference sessions focussed on conditions of precarity and informality. These papers focused on dynamics of workplace and labour market change – not exclusively technological ones – through themes of migration, urban governance, debt relations, and women’s labour activism. Mu~ noz (2016) points to regimes of informality in Canc
un, Bogotá, and Los Angeles, showing how city governance has produced distinct changes in the management of public space, street vending, and economic life in each setting. Street vending, Mu~ noz underscores, may not be a ‘last resort’ for workers excluded from formal employment, but a strategy for vendors to manage their own legal and physical risks without compromising their autonomy or agency as informally self-employed business owners and a way to maintain affective ties across transnational migration routes. In a congruent approach, Mukherjee (see Mirchandani et al., 2019) highlights that low-waged service work in Bangalore’s high-technology sector has an essential role in both India’s tech sector and in production networks extending into the Global North. Reid-Musson et al. 7 Three papers extended this insight to draw links between rural-urban migration in India and women’s employment in public and private sectors, including Chaudhary’s (2018) research on police officers and Rani’s (2018) on bus drivers in Delhi. The mobility inherent in these workers’ jobs mirrors migration patterns by which many women come to access these more typically male forms of employment. Balakrishnan (2018) explores women’s protests in the context of historically men’s unionized work in Kerala tea gardens, and Mohan (see Chaudhry and Mohan, 2011) examines how rural agricultural labour relations have been shaped by constructs of gender and matrimonial ties. These contributions point to the complex relationships between various kinds of work (formal and informal, unionized and nonunionized) and gender, class, and caste in this context. The above-cited papers indicate important questions of scale for understanding labour market change from localized experiences, outside the conventional bounds of labour research. Mullings (2019) emphasizes the possibilities of an intellectual project to create a transnational decolonial feminist theory of work beyond normative geographical imaginaries that position the Global North at the centre. This project would crucially push scholarly thinking to consider how work, technology, and subjectivity perpetuate colonial violences and silences that differentiate between the human, non- or less-than human, and more-than human. Other contributors cited related theoretical literatures including transnational feminist perspectives (Mohanty, 2003), geopolitics and global intimacy (Lowe, 2015; Pain and Staeheli, 2014), postcolonial thought (Pollard et al., 2009), and racial capitalism (Bledsoe and Wright, 2019; Pulido, 2017) with which economic geographers have only begun to substantially engage (Strauss, 2020: 155). Conclusion: Economic geography and the future of work Popular discussions about the future of work have often avoided the specific realities faced by workers, and thus have largely ignored racial, gendered, and geographical forms of difference. The phrase ‘future of work’, the contributions examined above reveal, is inherently unstable, with no coherent or essential meaning in popular or academic discourse. It remains unclear what this discourse will mean for workers, and so theorizing this future more expansively than popular narratives permit is an important theoretical and political task for economic geographers. This Exchanges article shows how feminist economic geography’s concepts, themes and questions can investigate the future of work in economic geography through a broader understanding of work, workplaces, and workers. If understood in its broadest sense - in terms of conceptualizing what work will look like in the future - we show how feminist economic geography is well-positioned to offer critical approaches to inform how we understand this future. This broad concept of work enables a more expansive understanding of workers’ experiences beyond deterministic technological change, and highlights how technology can alter reproductive labour, informal employment, and workers’ subjectivities as the above-highlighted conference papers have addressed. Inspired by and grounded in the insights of scholars who participated in the conference sessions, we identified a series of central themes grounded in decades of feminist economic geography research - on subjectivities and difference, on what counts as work, and on global articulations of work and labour. Alongside other critical academic discussions, this synthesis reveals a broader, more inclusive, and more complex understanding of the future of work than the understanding put forward by popular discourses, focussing variously on migration, caring, transportation, agriculture, marriage, housing, provisioning, and many other relationships and spaces of work. Technology - a prevalent and central feature of popular discussions of the future of work - fell into the background in the conference 8 EPA: Economy and Space 0(0) papers, not due to its insignificance (many situated technology’s importance in various ways) but because its role is conceptualized as not singular, deterministic, or causal in this future of work. Feminist economic geography themes as identified here, offer conceptual and methodological approaches beyond ones situating technological change as the driving force behind economic transition (characteristic of popular future of work discourses), approaches grounded in the experiences of workers themselves. By broadening the scope of what counts as work, and examining who performs informal, reproductive and migrant labour, research can reveal continuities in reproductive bases of the economy, challenging narratives of the disappearance of work due to technological change. Sectors and workplaces where automation have made little inroads (for example, various parts of primary agriculture) are worthy of attention within research on the future of work precisely because they can point to historical continuities in how labour is organized and the less-than-human basis through which this labour is organized (Mullings, 2019). When looking at processes of informalization and precarization as a result of data- and platform-mediated labour, it is important to take into consideration whether such phenomena are ‘new’ and for whom (Goyette, submitted; Mu~ noz, 2016). Indeed, much of what is meant by ‘future’ infers that it is ‘new’, centering the global North as the assumed core in geographies of work and labour. Undoubtedly, much of the future facing workers today will be technologically mediated through, for example, the intensification of digital labour platforms that have perpetuated globalization’s ‘race to the bottom’ and contribute to the ongoing depoliticization of work that undermines workers’ collective action (Ettlinger, 2017; Simms, 2019; Wood et al., 2019). We maintain, however, that the role technology will play in this future will be uneven, difficult to predict, and anything but unilateral or deterministic. Looking to past inequalities and unevennesses and how they reproduce themselves over time and space will be just as, if not more, important in understanding that future than examining novelty and technological change. Feminist economic geographers’ epistemological toolbox, which is necessarily informed by other areas of academic thought as discussed above, is especially suited to theorizing this future through engagements with the three areas of research we outlined in the preceding sections. Balancing the study of work with rigorous interrogation of discourses around technology and ‘new’ epochal transitions will be key for this intellectual project. We conclude here by suggesting a pluralization of the study of work as an object for further engagements from feminist economic geographers, to connect the past to the present from the vantage point of workers. This pluralization can point to a way forward for geographers to think about non-deterministic futures of work globally, beyond conceptual binaries, and in excess of theoretically limited and geographically restrictive categorizations of work and workers. Declaration of conflicting interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. ORCID iD Emily Reid-Musson https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6735-4116 Reid-Musson et al. 9 Note 1. These conference sessions, situated as they were in the US and Canada, do reflect a bias toward the Global North in terms of organizers, presenters, and participants, as well as topics covered. Despite this, there was critical engagement with this limitation in the session, a number of papers drew on research in the Global South, and we call here for greater attention and theorizing on work-related change in this context. References Andrucki M, Henry C, McKeithen W, et al. (2017) Beyond binaries and boundaries in ‘social reproduction. Society and Space Open Site. Available at: https://www.societyandspace.org/forums/ beyond-binaries-and-boundaries-in-social-reproduction (accessed 21 July 2020). Balakrishnan P (2018) Neoliberal regimes and ‘vernacularization’ of labor politics? Mapping the contested spaces in the tea gardens of Kerala, India. In: Feminist geography conference, Montr
eal, Canada, 4–6 August 2018. Bastani A (2019) Fully Automated Luxury Communism. New York: Verso. Battacharya T (2017) Mapping social reproduction theory. In: Battacharya T (ed.) Social Reproduction Theory. London: Pluto Press. Benanav A (2019) Automation and the future of work. The New Left Review 119: 5–38. Bener
ıa L (1992) Accounting for women’s work: The progress of two decades. World Development 20(11): 1547–1560. Bissell D and Del Casino VJ (2017) Whither labor geography and the rise of the robots? Social & Cultural Geography 18(3): 435–442. Black S, Fox Miller C and Leslie D (2019) Gender, precarity and hybrid forms of work identity in the virtual domestic arts and crafts industry in Canada and the US. Gender, Place & Culture 26(2): 272–292. Bledsoe A and Wright WJ (2019) The anti-Blackness of global Capital. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 37(1): 8–26. Castellini V (2019) Environmentalism put to work: Ideologies of green recruitment in Toronto. Geoforum 104: 63–70. Chaudhary R (2018) The gendered future of policing in contemporary Delhi. In: Feminist geography conference, Montr
eal, Canada, 4–6 August. Chaudhry S and Mohan TD (2011) Of marriage and migration: Bengali and Bihari brides in a up village. Indian Journal of Gender Studies 18(3): 311–340. Cockayne D (2020) Learning to labor in high technology: Experiences of overwork in university internships at digital media firms in North America. Social & Cultural Geography Early Online View: 1–19. Dalla Costa M and James S (1975) The Power of Women and the Subversion of Community. Brisol: Falling Wall Press. Dimpfl M (2019) On the potential and perils of adjunct organizing. In: American Association of Geographers’ Annual Meeting, Washington DC, 3–7 April. The Economist (2019) Future of work. Available at: https://events.economist.com/events-conferences/ asia/future-of-work (accessed 22 July 2020). Edholm F, Harris O and Young K (1977) Conceptualising women. Critique of Anthropology 3(9–10): 101–130. England K (2010) Home, work and the shifting geographies of care. Ethics, Place and Environment 13(2): 131–150. Enright B (2013) (Re)considering new agents: A review of labour market intermediaries within labour geography. Geography Compass 7(4): 287–299. Ettlinger N (2004) Towards a critical theory of untidy geographies: The spatiality of emotions in consumption and production. Feminist Economics 10(3): 21–54. Ettlinger N (2017) Paradoxes, problems, and potentialities of online work platforms. Organization, Labour & Globalization 11(2): 21–38. 10 EPA: Economy and Space 0(0) Federici S (2004) Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body, and Primitive Accumulation. Brooklyn: Autonomedia. Frederiksen L (2015) “Our public library”: Social reproduction and urban public space in Toronto. Women’s Studies International Forum 48: 141–153. Gidwani VK and Chari S (2004) Geographies of work. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 22(4): 475–484. Gibson-Graham JK (2006) A Postcapitalist Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Gibson-Graham JK (2008) Diverse economies: Performative practices for other worlds. Progress in Human Geography 32(5): 613–632. Giesbrecht J (2018) Gendered death care: How and why women are taking over and changing death care industries. In: Feminist geography conference, Montr
eal, Canada, 4–6 August 2018. Goldar Perrote H and Walton-Roberts M (2020) Care worker migration and robotics in Japan’s aged care sector. In: Walton-Roberts M (ed.) Global Migration, Gender and Professional Credentials: Transnational Value Transfers and Losses. Manuscript submitted for publication. Goyette K (2019) ‘Making ends meet’ by renting homes to strangers: Historicizing Airbnb & women’s supplemental income. In: American Association of Geographers Annual Meeting, Washington DC, 3-7 April 2019. Henry C (2018) The abstraction of care: What work counts? Antipode 50(2): 340–358. Howcroft D and Rubery J (2019) Bias in, bias out’: Gender equality and the future of work debate. Labour & Industry: a Journal of the Social and Economic Relations of Work 29(2): 213–227. Huot S and Veronis L (2018) Examining the role of migrant community spaces for enabling migrants’ performances of intersectional identities through occupation. Journal of Occupational Science 25(1): 37–50. ILO (2018) Work. Glossary of terms in labor statistics. Available at: https://ilostat.ilo.org/glossary/ work/ (accessed 21 July 2020). ILO (2019) Publications on the future of work. Available at: www.ilo.org/global/topics/future-ofwork/publications/lang–en/index.htm (accessed 21 July 2020). Jampel C (2019) Disability employment as a value proposition in the professional workplace: Value stories for fair and foul weather. In: American Association of Geographers’ Annual Meeting, Washington DC, 3–7 April 2019. Kabeer N (1994) Reversed Realities: Gender Hierarchies in Development Thought. New York: Verso. Kolhatkar S (2017) Welcoming our new robot overlords/dark factory. The New Yorker, 23 October, p.70. Komlosy A (2018) Work: The Last 1,000 Years. Verso, London. Laslett B and Brenner J (1989) Gender and social reproduction: Historical perspectives. Annual Review of Sociology 15(1): 381–404. Lewis N and Mills S (2019) LGBTQ employment research and the degradation of work. In: American Association of Geographers’ Annual Meeting, Washington DC, 3–7 April 2019. Loomis JM (2018) Rescaling and reframing poverty: Financial coaching and the pedagogical spaces of financial inclusion in Boston, Massachusetts. Geoforum 95: 143–152. Lowe L (2015) The Intimacies of Four Continents. Durham: Duke University Press. Maalsen S (2019) I cannot afford to live alone in this city and I enjoy the company of others: Why people are share housing in Sydney. Australian Geographer 50(3): 315–332. MacLeavy J, Roberts S and Strauss K (2016) Feminist inclusions in economic geography: What difference does difference make? Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 48(10): 2067–2071. McDowell L (2009) Working Bodies: Interactive Service Employment and Workplace Identities. Malden: John Wiley and Sons. McDowell L (2015) The lives of others: Body work, the production of difference, and labor geographies. Economic Geography 91(1): 1–23. McGrath S and DeFilippis J (2009) Social reproduction as unregulated work. Work, Employment & Society 23(1): 66–83. McKinnon K (2019) Social enterprises, work and wellbeing: Work integrated social enterprises in the neoliberal care economy. In: American Association of Geographers’ Annual Meeting, Washington DC, 3–7 April 2019. Reid-Musson et al. 11 Massey D (1991) Flexible sexism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 9(1): 31–57. Mies M (1986) Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the International Division of Labor. London: Zed Books. Mitchell K, Marston S and Katz C (eds) (2004) Life’s Work: Geographies of Social Reproduction. Malden: Blackwell. Mezzandri A (2016) Class, gender, and the sweatshop: On the nexus between labor commodification and exploitation. Third World Quarterly 37(10): 1877–1900. Mirchandani K, Mukherjee S and Tambe S (2019) Low Wage in High Tech: An Ethnography of Service Workers in Global India. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mohanty CT (2003) Feminism without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity. Durham: Duke University Press. Mullings B (1999) Sides of the same coin? Coping and resistance among Jamaican data-entry operators. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 89(2): 290–311. Mullings B (2019) Caliban, social reproduction, and our future yet to come. In: American Association of Geographers Annual Meeting, Washington DC, 3-7 April 2019. Mu~ noz L (2016) Agency, choice, and restrictions in producing Latina/o street-vending landscapes in Los Angeles. Area 48(3): 339–345. Nakano Glenn E (1992) From servitude to service work: Historical continuities in the racial division of paid reproductive labor. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 18(1): 1–43. Oberhauser AM (2000) Feminism and economic geography: Gendering work and working gender. In: Sheppard E and Barnes TJ (eds) A Companion to Economic Geography. Malden: Blackwell, pp.60–76. OECD (2019) The Future of Work. Paris: OECD Publishing. Ojanperӓ S, O’Clery N and Graham M (2018) Data science, artificial intelligence, and the future of work. The Alan Turing Institute. Available at: www.turing.ac.uk/research/publications/data-sci ence-artificial-intelligence-and-futures-work (accessed 22 July 2020). Pain R and Staeheli L (2014) Intimacy-geopolitics and violence. Area 46(4): 344–347. Pollard J, McEwan C, Laurie N, et al. (2009) Economic geography under postcolonial scrutiny. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 34(2): 137–142. Pulido L (2017) Geographies of race and ethnicity II: Environmental racism, racial capitalism and state-sanctioned violence. Progress in Human Geography 41(4): 524–533. Rani A (2018) Gender and urban transport: A study of women bus conductors in Delhi. In: Feminist geography conference, Montr
eal, Canada, 4–6 August 2018. Reid-Musson E (2017) Grown close to home: Migrant farmworker (Im)mobilities and unfreedom on Canadian family farms. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 107(3): 716–730. Simms M (2019) What Do We Know and What Should We Do about the Future of Work? London: SAGE. Spencer D (2018) Fear and hope in an age of mass automation: Debating the future of work. New Technology, Work & Employment 33(1): 1–12. Srnicek N and Williams A (2015) Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World without Work. London: Verso. Strauss K (2020) Labour geography II: Being, knowledge and agency. Progress in Human Geography 44(1): 150–159. Strauss K and Meehan K (2015) New frontiers of life’s work. In: Meehan K and Strauss K (eds) Precarious Worlds: Contested Geographies of Social Reproduction. Athens: University of Georgia Press, pp.1–22. Taylor F (2018) Cumulative Precarity: Reframing Millennial Experience and Familial Relationships in Hackney, London. In: Feminist geography conference, Montreal, Canada, 4-6 August 2018. Teeple Hopkins C (2015) Feminist geographies of social reproduction and race. Women’s Studies International Forum 48: 135–140. Weeks K (2011) The Problem with Work: Feminism, Marxism, Antiwork Politics and Postwar Imaginaries. Durham: Duke University Press. Werner M (2015) Global Displacements: The Making of Uneven Development in the Caribbean. London: Wiley. 12 EPA: Economy and Space 0(0) Werner M, Strauss K, Parker B, et al. (2017) Feminist political economy in geography: Why now, what is different, and what for? Geoforum 79: 1–4. Whitehouse G and Brady M (2019) New social inequalities and the future of work. Labour & Industry: a Journal of the Social and Economic Relations of Work 29(3): 238–242. Winders J and Smith BE (2019) Social reproduction and capitalist production: A genealogy of dominant imaginaries. Progress in Human Geography 43(5): 871–889. Wood AJ, Graham M, Lehdonvirta V, et al. (2019) Good gig, bad gig: Autonomy and algorithmic control in the global gig economy. Work, Employment & Society: a Journal of the British Sociological Association 33(1): 56–75. Worth N (2016) Who we are at work: Millennial women, everyday inequalities and insecure work. Gender, Place & Culture 23(9): 1302–1314. Wright M (2006) Disposable Women and Other Myths of Global Capitalism. London: Routledge.