mean that even for those whose skills are in demand, their jobs are now much less secure
than previously. Wage restraint, wage decreases, and lower job security generates
differences between expectations and outcomes. We frame these changes within larger
theories of mobilization and relative deprivation. All else being equal expectations from
the relative deprivation literature would suggest an increased possibility of strikes when
employees are faced with the prospects of wage restraint, wage decreases or lower levels
of job security. In contrast, theories which stress mobilization would highlight the impact
of globalization on the ability of unions to organize strikes within the workplace. Recent
research examining globalization in some of the industrialized economies indicates that
globalization has reduced union density (Piazza 2005). Mobilization theories suggest that
as organization becomes more difficult this reduces the probability of collective action.
Thus, while globalization may lead to less strike activity within the work place, this is not
because of labor tranquility in the face of globalization, but rather the debilitating
consequences of this process have made it more difficult for labor unions to strike against
the changes that have been taking place.
Second, we argue that the consequences of economic globalization are not
uniform within countries. Geographic areas will range in the experience brought about by
economic globalization. In some sub-national areas the local economy may be more
greatly affected by changing levels of integration into the international economy, while
others may have relatively few interactions. Likewise some areas might benefit from
increased integration as new companies open or wages increase for those with specialized
skills. Other areas might suffer if many inefficient firms close and none re-open or wages
drop for those whose skills can be purchased more cheaply abroad. From an empirical
3
Convention