Introduction: Are We All Cultural Workers Now?

Introducing a themed section entitled ‘Are We All Cultural Workers Now?’, this article explores the relation between precarity and cultural work. It argues that precarity should be understood as an experience rather than a category that allows a mapping of transformations of social class. The article also engages with current debates on cultural work and questions the proposition that changes in this area presage more general shifts in the organisation and exploitation of labour. Finally the piece introduces the four articles that make up the themed section.     

I DRAW THE LINE AT STRINGING PEARLS

This paper contributes to developing understandings of strong commitments to particular forms of work and how they are sustained against bleak, unstable, exploitative and self-exploitative conditions. It approaches this duality between feeling and structure within the temporal and relational qualities of hope as they are experienced by women jewellery designer-makers in Birmingham Jewellery Quarter. The paper locates these hopes in the Craftswoman's Imperative, a symbolic good and material practice that is concerned with upholding objective values of the truth and beauty of artisanship. The paper details how the hopes of these designer-makers become aligned with those of policy-actors for a reinvigoration of British craftsmanship. It then explores how hope is upheld, and challenged, through sensory experiences of engaging with the material world. Finally, the paper explores these designer-makers’ optimistic practices for achieving the value of the Craftswoman's Imperative.     

The Opposition between Two Models of Labour Market Adjustment: The Case of Audiovisual and Performing Arts Activities in France and Great Britain over a Ten Year Period

The growth of employment in audiovisual andperforming arts activities during a ten year period(1981–1992) in France and in Great Britain was theresult of a double tendency: An increasing number ofindividuals with cultural occupations working incultural industries and structural changes in thelabour market (more flexible workforce, increasingfragmentation of work opportunities). Qualitativedifferences emerged between both countries, leading totwo different forms of flexibility. Full timeemployment decreased in France, while it increased inGreat Britain with, during the same period, aconsiderable growth of self-employment.This paper explores different hypotheses forexplaining such a divergence. It concedes that thestrategies of organisations, and especially the risingnumber of adhocracies (according to Mintzberg'stypology) rather the choices of workers trying tooptimise their earnings were responsible. Publicpolicies played also a central role. In Great Britainthe Enterprise Allowance Scheme, and in France, thespecific Social Security benefit for artistscontributed to the increase in self employment in thefirst case, and in temporary employment in the othercase.     

ART AS WORK

This paper uses empirical work on a piece of performance art to think through the relation between ‘work’ and ‘art’, and by implication, ‘culture’ and ‘economy’. Beginning with the idea that the intelligibility of both is produced through similar forms of rule following and rule breaking, I suggest that this throws into question the empirical and historical novelty of the idea of the creative worker. As institutionalists have argued, the work of art is produced through its relation to various organizations, just as work organizations rely on creative rule bending and elaboration. Examples of contemporary art are enrolled in the argument along the way in order to suggest that we can find many insights into the nature of work, culture and economy in comparing the practices of artists with the practices of workers.     

The Supply of Arts Labour : Towards a Dynamic Approach

Earlier work on the supply of labour of artists has shown that, whenever workers derive satisfaction from the process of work, which is usually the case for artists, some traditional results are reversed. As their proponents make clear this analysis is essentially static, as it does not take into account the intertemporal dimension of the supply of labour. The paper argues that to provide such a dynamic analysis three routes are available: the human capital approach, the household production approach and the evolutionary approach. The paper, therefore, is aimed at discussing the adequacy of various theoretical approaches to the treatment of a specific question.     

COMPLEXITY THEORY AFTER THE FINANCIAL CRISIS

Amongst the many calls for regulatory reform voiced in the wake of the global financial crisis, the contributions of Andrew G. Haldane and his colleagues at the Bank of England stand out as some of the most politically and intellectually ambitious. In 2009, Haldane, the Bank's Executive Director of Financial Stability, delivered a speech advocating the integration of complex systems theory (particularly as developed in the field of ecosystems science) into the toolkit of financial regulation. In an effort to understand what is at stake in such calls for theoretical and regulatory regime change, this article traces the prehistory of complex systems thinking in economics. It focuses special attention on two contributions to this minor tradition – the little-known later work of the Austrian neoliberal, Friedrich von Hayek, who elaborated a philosophy of spontaneous economic order on the basis of complex systems theory, and the more recent work of the so-called ‘new institutionalists’, economists who lay claim to the tradition of ‘evolutionary’ philosophy articulated by the neoclassical Alfred Marshall. These exemplary currents in economic complexity theory articulate very similar critiques of the neoclassical orthodoxy yet diverge sharply in their political commitments. This paper situates recent calls to import complexity theory into financial regulation in ambivalent tension between the Austrian and new institutionalist traditions. It concludes with some skeptical reflections on the notion that the financial crisis signals the ‘death of neoliberalism’.