ABSTRACT
In chapter 6, we argued that in situations where only intensification is occurring, the ‘pure model of geography’ would consist of a simple pattern of employment reductions on site. At its simplest, the same strategy might be pursued in factories everywhere. The pattern of job loss would therefore be a straightforward and equal proportionate decline across the country. In practice, however, this is unlikely to be the case. It is much more likely that there will be some differences both between firms and between plants. Such differences may relate either to factors internal to the firm or plant (production characteristics) or to geography. Among the former, production, factors it may be that intensification produces greater job losses in more labour-intensive factories, or that some parts of the industry are under more pressure than others to reduce costs. It may also be that differences in the state of management-union relations either provoke intensification or enable resistance to it. As far as geographical factors are concerned, it may be that there are spatial variations in the pressure on costs, and therefore in the need for cost-cutting measures. Or again the industrial-relations environment may vary spatially, with workers in particularly vulnerable situations being subjected to greater pressures for speed-up.
