seem pertinent (for a recent review see Martin 2003 ). Moreover, at a fundamental
level of analysis, there are developments and tensions at the heart of capitalist
economic organization that must be considered in reXecting upon the manage-
ment of HR in contemporary manufacturing. In so doing, we suggest that the
possible reasons for the mixed evidence on the implementation and outcomes of
HPWSs may also undermine the possibilities of creating and managing the organ-
izational context suggested by Wenger et al. It is to these that we now turn.
20.5 Situating the Management
of Manufacturing Workers
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
According to Beamish and Biggart ( 2006 ), economic sociologists have identiWed
three major interrelated trends in market transformation that are signiWcant to the
study of work: (a) the overall changing shape of markets, i.e. the internationaliza-
tion (spread) and globalization (integration) of economic activity (Castells 1996 ;
Dicken 2003 ; Evans 1995 ), (b) the changing nature andXow of capital in markets,
i.e. the sources of capital,Wnancial expectations, and how corporations are organ-
ized (Perrow 2002 ; Fligstein 1990 , 2001 ), and (c) the dynamic role of deregulation
and technological innovation in both fomenting and reXecting these two trends.
These shifts, they argue, are radically rearranging the relationships that characterize
markets, especially the relations between capital, management, and labor.
These changes have major implications for the management of human
resources, including assumptions regarding both the implementation and out-
comes of ‘models’ such as HPWSs or communities of practice. At the heart of
such models lies an expectation that diVerent levels and spheres of corporate activity
can be aligned. The developments summarized by Beamish and Biggart ( 2006 )
emphasize the diYculty of this, particularly in regard to the increasing (and
destabilizing) inXuence ofWnancial markets. Thompson ( 2003 ) has picked up on
the implications of the institutional and political economic changes and recently
oVered a persuasive argument suggesting that ‘disconnections’ across spheres of
business activity make it diYcult for local managers to keep their side of the HPWS
bargain and to implement the supportive HR practices expected by workers and
their representatives. Thompson provides a realist theoretical model, outlining
generative mechanisms that may explain the mixed empirical evidence that we
have reported above in regard to HPWSs. In particular, he questions the extent to
which there is suYcientcohesivenessacross the realms of corporate activity to allow
local management to meet the workplace bargain ‘that in return for participation in
the micro-management of work and expanded responsibilities... employers will
420 r i c k d e l b r i d g e