The Working Group submitting its proposal to the 9th CLACSO Call for Working Groups is entitled “Work, Production Models, and Social Actors” and is a continuation of the group “Work, Sociopolitical Heterogeneities, and Actors,” coordinated by Cecilia Senén González and Antonio Aravena Carrasco. It is worth noting that the group draws on a rich history of research and publication in the field of labor studies in Latin America, expressed in various documents, seminars, and formal and informal study networks. Some of the antecedents of these concerns can be found early on in the CLACSO Commission on Labor Movements, which later became the Study Group on “Work, Subjects, and Labor Organizations” (a direct reference point for our group). At the same time, the researchers who make up the GT have actively participated in the promotion of labor studies associations in several countries and in the development of scientific networks and academic journals, as is the case, for example, with the Latin American Association of Labor Studies and its Latin American Journal of Labor Studies, RELET (De la Garza, 1999).

In various countries of our region, significant progress has been made in labor research, accompanied by debates related to the foundations of labor studies, the state of labor movements, and their connection to public policy. The contributions of Enrique de la Garza, Julio César Neffa, and Marcia Leite, among other authors, have been invaluable in the theoretical, methodological, and empirical spheres (De la Garza, 2018; Neffa, 2003; Leite, 2006; Araujo, 2016). The same is true for studies on labor flexibility and production restructuring, processes of precarization, business networks, work organization, transnational corporations, labor relations and unionism, social dialogue, work identity and subjectivity, subcontracting, technological change, job qualifications and skills, occupational health and safety, experiences of economic integration, decent work, and so on. In this regard, it is worth recalling the work of many members of our Working Group, such as Jorge Carrillo, Marcos Supervielle, Héctor Lucena, Adalberto Cardoso, Andrea del Bono, Marcela Hernández, Consuelo Iranzo, Nadya Araujo, Francisco Pucci, Mariela Quiñones, José Ricardo Ramalho, Cecilia Senén, Edgard Belmont, Juan Carlos Celis, Fernando Urrea, Jorge Walter, Javier Pineda, Magdalena Echeverría, Antonio Aravena, and Octavio Maza, among others. A similar trend is observed in the relationship between labor studies and their focus on organizations, gender, migration, and youth, where increasingly strong connections and cross-cutting themes are evident (Quiñones & Supervielle, 2005; Supervielle & Stolovich, 2000; ECLAC et al., 2013; Herrera & Pries, 2006).

The vitality of labor studies manifests itself in various ways. On the one hand, there is the high attendance at labor panels at conferences organized by academic associations, such as the Latin American Sociological Association (ALAS), the Latin American Studies Association (LASA), and the Latin American Association for Labor Studies (ALAST). On the other hand, there is the continued publication of various journals on labor issues, such as the Latin American Journal of Labor Studies (RELET) and the journal Trabajo, published in Mexico with the support of the ILO. It is also worth noting the research being conducted at the undergraduate and graduate levels throughout our continent. Furthermore, labor researchers have demonstrated a capacity for collaboration and are key figures in this field. They have also linked their studies to broader political, economic, and sociocultural processes, and to the development model, while continuing to examine labor policies and workers' representation (Leite, Iranzo, Senén, 2015; Bensusán, 2006; Del Bono, 2007). This journey has not been without its challenges, of course, such as the differences in institutional development across countries, contractual flexibility in academic work, the requirements for publication in indexed journals, and difficulties in accessing material and financial support. In this regard, there are publications in which members of the Working Group have presented assessments of the current state of labor studies in the region (De la Garza, 2016).

The prospects for the development of labor studies in Latin America are interesting and pose challenges in several areas. On the one hand, the political context in the region is marked by the rise to power of right-wing coalitions that have reinstated neoliberal criteria and policies in the field of labor and social security. Thus, unlike what happened in the 2000s, which saw the emergence of the so-called “progressive governments”, today workers and popular sectors face regimes that maintain economic policies that place them in contexts of poverty and constant insecurity, precarity and indebtedness, without having an institutional framework that allows them to effectively defend their rights and demands (Castro, Paredes and Aillón, 2012; Senén González and D´Urso, 2018 and Senén and Haidar, 2014, Ramalho, 2018; Aravena, 2018). On the other hand, the so-called new labor studies are in full development, have a magnificent trajectory, but have not yet shown all their potential. In this regard, it is necessary to understand and support the development of research in Central American countries, promote studies and publications by new researchers, advance the strengthening of the institutional framework for labor studies, and thus account for new labor configurations and dynamics at both local and global levels (Lemus, 2015). Third, transformations in the world of work are closely connected to changes occurring in other areas of social reality, such as education, race, gender, youth, and migration. Therefore, it is essential to rethink the theoretical categories and methodological strategies we use to expand critical thinking and the capacity for policy proposals (Pineda, 2011).

In light of the above, it is crucial to continue and encourage collaborative work among labor researchers in Latin America. While similar political, economic, and social processes exist in the region, differences also arise from the specific histories and institutional characteristics of the various countries. These discrepancies are clearly expressed in the field of labor, in the situation of workers, in public policy, and in the research agendas promoted by different centers and programs. Therefore, as indicated in the work plan, the Working Group will implement initiatives related to the production and dissemination of knowledge, as well as to collaboration with social and political organizations. This means that meetings will be held among its members, seminars will be conducted, publications will be produced, and various outreach and engagement activities will be undertaken. Within this framework, we expect to strengthen our connections with CLACSO's areas and working groups, evaluate the possibility of holding a virtual seminar on the transformations of work in Latin America, incorporate researchers from Central America and other priority countries into our activities, include young researchers and create spaces for them to play a significant role, strengthen our connections with scientific associations and labor organizations, publish our working group bulletins, and organize a competition to collect work-related narratives from Latin American workers, among other initiatives. Likewise, in this new and ambitious phase of work, we propose the addition of a third coordinator (Francisco Pucci, from the University of the Republic of Uruguay), believing that this will help improve our initiatives. Once we know the results of this competition, Francisco will formally assume this role. We hope, above all, that the working group will continue to occupy a central place in the reflection on work in our region.

The Working Group being presented is entitled “Labor, Production Models, and Social Actors” and, as noted in point 2 of the proposal, is a continuation of the group “Labor, Sociopolitical Heterogeneities, and Actors.” In this sense, the proposal draws on numerous epistemological, theoretical, and methodological elements. The changes in the economic model during the 1970s and 1980s stimulated discussions about the role of the State, production restructurings, changes in forms of work organization, and the role of labor unions. Furthermore, this period contributed to the development of new labor studies. In other words, “This great transformation underpinned the emergence of current labor studies in the region, which are not limited to the field of sociology. Industrial relations, administration, law, anthropology, psychology, medicine, and economics all play an important role. It is an approach that involves recognizing specific actors in these transformations, actors endowed with culture, power relations, and interactions” (De la Garza, 1999). As the author explains, a field of study was taking shape, drawing on antecedents in both labor movement studies and labor studies in general, as well as in the research conducted in the 1960s by authors such as Di Tella and Touraine (which later led to the controversies associated with dependency theory and the military regimes imposed in the region). This helps to understand the development of a broad research perspective, where the presence of French regulation theory, dependency theory, Toyotism, flexible specialization, and production chains, among others, can be observed.

Other discussions that have subsequently become relevant concern the idea of ​​diverse forms of capitalism and, therefore, the critique of the idea of ​​convergence. Also relevant is the debate surrounding theories of the end of work. On the one hand, this discussion refers to the relevance of work as an explanatory category in contemporary society, but also to the place of the working class and social subjects within society, particularly their emancipatory potential. The debates encompassed sociological, philosophical, economic, and historical aspects, relating the discussion to other, more general processes. From the nascent industrial capitalism of the 19th century to its most recent expressions at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries, work has been a subject of reflection. In this sense, labor researchers have engaged with the theses put forward, from different perspectives, by authors such as Habermas, Offe, Gorz, Rifkin, Beck, Sennett, and Castel, to name just a few (De la Garza, 2010; Neffa, 2003). More recently, the discussion surrounding configurational theory has shaped the epistemological debate, grounded in a rigorous theoretical review that culminates in an analytical proposal to account for the articulation of structures and subjects. This proposal aims to understand reality through different levels of analysis (De la Garza, 2018a). It is worth noting that this research approach has been developing for several years and has been empirically implemented, for example, in the study by De la Garza and Hernández (2018) related to the automotive industry. It has also been applied in studies of multinational corporations conducted by researchers within this group, particularly regarding the types of labor relations that characterize them (De la Garza and Hernández, Iranzo, Celis, Ramalho and Santos, Senén and Haidar, 2017). 

Theoretical debates encompass a wide range of complex and diverse areas. For example, the contributions of Marcia de Paula Lete and Consuelo Iranzo to the study of labor subcontracting in Latin America are noteworthy. According to these researchers, subcontracting has been studied from various theoretical perspectives, but they emphasize that “…it is currently acquiring a unique and important character, as it has been strengthening alongside the emergence of new modalities, all of which are gradually replacing the traditional employment relationship based on direct subcontracting” (Leite, Iranzo, 2006). Accounting for these new configurations of work, as the authors do, is a common theme in other research projects. Studies on trade unionism have a long tradition and have been developed in numerous ways. There has been reflection on its role in the context of military dictatorships and struggles for democracy in Latin America, its situation as a sociopolitical actor at the end of the 20th century, and the challenges it faces in the 21st century (in terms of strategies, discourses, union revitalization, etc.) in a scenario of fragmentation, depoliticization, labor flexibility, and the preeminence of cultural values ​​associated with individualism and consumption, which impose limitations on its actions (Abramo, Montero, 2000; Schiavi, Fornilo, 2013; Senén González and Haidar, 2009; Aravena, 2012). At the same time, the situation of social actors is understood within the framework of changes experienced in the field of labor relations (formerly industrial relations), which are generally linked to policies that promote flexibility in the labor market (Castillo, Baca, Todaro, 2016; Urrea, 1999).

The diversity of topics and theoretical and methodological approaches can also be found with respect to studies on business and entrepreneurs, which has led Basave and Hernández (2007) to recognize the business history in Mexico, the theory of research on entrepreneurs, economic groups, among other things, raising the need to broaden the view of said actor without closing the analysis only in its consideration as a rational actor; studies on care work, which have analytical specificities, but are closely connected with labor studies, have led to examining from different disciplines (sociology, history, economics, etc.) the trends on the social organization of work, domestic reproduction, the policies promoted in Latin America, to mention only some topics (Batthyany, 2015; Pineda, 2014); Theories of work process (De la Garza, 2011), those related to the social construction of occupation (De la Garza, Gallosso, Pogliaghi (2014); etc.), and more recently, a topic that opened the last ALAST congress related to the question of the future of work and the automation of labor processes. It is very likely that this topic will be present in meetings and activities of a wide variety of institutions in the coming years.

The problems we have briefly outlined do not in any way limit the scope of our group's interests and activities. They merely represent a sample of the broad and diverse range of topics we discussed in sections 2 and 3 of the application form. In this sense, we hope to continue these discussions and encourage constructive debates on the epistemological, theoretical, and practical frameworks that underpin them.