Employment, individualization and

insecurity: rethinking the risk

society perspective

Gabe Mythen

Abstract

German sociologist Ulrich Beck maintains that economic, technological and envi-
ronmental transitions have radically reshaped employment relations in Western
Europe. Whilst theories of employment transformation are historically ubiquitous,
Becks contribution is rather unique. Utilising risk as a lens through which subter-
ranean shifts in employment, the economy and society can be visualised, Becks
work has been heralded as a significant theoretical landmark. The risk society per-
spective emphasizes the diffusion of two interlinked macro-social processes. Firstly,
Beck identifies a sweeping process of individualization which recursively generates
personal insecurity and reflexive decision-making. Secondly, changes in the rela-
tionship between capital and labour are said to have facilitated an underlying shift
in the pattern of social distribution. This paper scrutinises Becks understanding of
these two processes, as a means of developing a broader critique of the risk society
perspective. Theoretically, it will be argued that Beck deploys unsophisticated and
artificial categories, amalgamates disparate forms of risk and compacts together
diverse employment experiences. Empirically, the paper demonstrates that far
from being directed by a universal axis of risk labour market inequalities follow
the grooves etched by traditional forms of stratification.

Introduction

Ulrich Beck, the zeitgeist sociologist,1 has been hailed as one of the most sig-
nificant sociological thinkers of the age (see Adam et al., 2000; Boyne, 2003;
Bronner, 1995). Becks work has made a sizeable impression on the social sci-
ences, stimulating an eruption of interest in the concept of risk (Caplan, 2000;
Lupton, 1999a; Mythen, 2004). To date, the risk society perspective has been
deployed for a spectrum of purposes, from tracing the social construction of
childhood (Jackson and Scott, 1999) to analysing global futures trading
(Boden, 2000). Notably, curiosity has been stirred within the sociology of
labour, leading to the emergence of a series of articles probing the explana-
tory possibilities of theories of risk. Thus far, the risk society perspective has
been applied to the demise of the youth labour market (Furlong and Cartmel,
The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2005. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, 02148, USA.
Gabe Mythen

1997), the content of employment policy (Perrons, 2000), the experiences of

professional freelance workers (Ekinsmyth, 1999) and manual employment
within local authorities (Reimer, 1998). In response to the growing interest in
risk as a resource for understanding contemporary labour patterns, Beck has
recently refined and extended his analysis. Building upon the interrelation-
ship between employment and risk established in Risk Society (1992), The
Brave New World of Work (2000a)2 singles out labour market change as a deci-
sive factor in the development of uncertain and insecure forms of lived expe-
rience. Whilst there has been tentative consensus amongst reviewers about
the general utility of the risk society perspective, a systematic examination of
Becks work has yet to appear. Bucking the trend of micro applications, this
paper evaluates the overall efficacy of the risk society perspective as a mech-
anism for conceptualising contemporary patterns of employment.
The now well-recounted risk society thesis suggests that risk has become a
pervasive and integral aspect of the modern condition.3 For Beck, the penum-
bra of risk hovers over a cluster of social domains, including the family,
personal relationships, education, employment and politics. Not only has
risk become a recognisable feature of everyday experience, the mediation of
high profile risk incidents has encouraged the public to challenge the author-
ity of dominant institutions.4 The socially explosive quality of contemporary
threats leads Beck to contend that there has been a fundamental shift in the
nature and meaning of risk. In previous epochs, so-called natural hazards
such as earthquakes, famine and floods blighted human existence around
the globe. In contemporary Western society, the destructive force of natural
hazards has largely been suppressed by human intervention. However, para-
doxically, the application of technology has also created an assortment of
manufactured risks, such as nuclear accidents, mass pollution and endemic
unemployment. Although exposure to danger is clearly not a new phenome-
non, Beck wishes to differentiate between the characteristics of these two
paradigmatic forms. In a nutshell, natural hazards are localized, open to reg-
ulation and attributable to the forces of nature. In contrast, manufactured
risks are anthropogenic, incalculable and unconstrained by boundaries of time
and space. Putting aside the evident limitations of this binary categorization,5
Beck maintains that the unmanageability of contemporary threats questions
the validity of risk-regulating institutions. As manufactured risks flourish,
national governments, welfare systems and legal structures lose their ability
to limit and control danger. In essence, the burden of risk migrates from the
jurisdiction of institutions to the individualized sphere of personal decision-
making. These underlying transitions in the nature and the experience of risk
encourage Beck to beckon in a new mode of societalization, a kind of meta-
morphosis or categorical shift in relation to the individual and society
(Beck, 1992: 127). In the risk society approach, rapid labour market fluctua-
tions and the de-standardization of employment relations serve as archetypal
examples of the categorical shift in social experience. In both Risk Society
(1992: 139) and The Brave New World of Work (2000a), Beck discusses trans-

130 The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2005

 Employment, individualization and insecurity

formations in employment relations with reference to the intersecting

processes of individualization and risk distribution.6 The first process of indi-
vidualization involves the negotiation of personalized life-paths which are
increasingly reliant on individual decision-making and self-reflexivity (Beck,
2000a: 53). The second process runs along the axis of risk distribution, indi-
cating a gradual transformation in the logic of social allocation (Beck, 1992:
87). For Beck, the articulation of individualization and risk distribution gen-
erates a nascent risk regime of employment.

Unpacking the risk regime

In delineating the contours of the risk regime, Beck identifies a raft of employ-
ment policies and practices that have produced generalised patterns of inse-
curity. In particular, the risk society perspective accentuates the impacts of
flexibility and labour market segmentation on employment experiences.
Following the seminal contribution of Piore and Sabel (1984), Beck concurs
that fluctuations in the global economy throughout the 1970s and 1980s
demanded a more mobile and flexible workforce (Beck, 1992: 215; 1999: 12).
A range of macro processes are said to have stimulated the development of
flexibility, including the globalization of production, the figuration of a new
international division of labour, labour market deregulation and a reformu-
lated financial order. However, rather than dwelling on the evolution of flex-
ibility, Beck seeks instead to unravel the cloak of risk which surrounds the
flexibilization of employment.
Insofar as Beck acknowledges the multi-dimensionality of the flexibility
package (Allen and Henry, 1997: 181), he accords primacy to the flexibiliza-
tion of labour markets, employment contracts and modes of production. It is
argued that the emergence of an intensely competitive global market in the
1980s promoted organisational and technological changes, typified by the
appearance of various strands of flexible specialization. Aligning himself with
Andr Gorz (1982; 2000), Beck believes that the infusion of automated and
computerised production methods has engendered contractual insecurity and
dwindling employment opportunities:

Here we have the new law of productivity that global capitalism in the
information age has discovered: fewer and fewer well-trained and globally
interchangeable people can generate more and more output and services.
Thus, economic growth no longer reduces unemployment but actually
requires a reduction in the number of jobs. (Beck, 1998: 58)

The drift towards non-standard, insecure forms of work is exemplified by the

plight of a growing band of neither-nors: individuals who are neither unem-
ployed, nor in possession of a stable and secure source of income. Situating
workplace change within a wider culture of risk, Beck contends that comput-

The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2005 131

Gabe Mythen

erisation and the casualization of contracts have resulted in employees being

forced to work additional or shorter hours as and when required. In addition
to reformatting the temporal structure of work, flexibilization has produced
tangible cost benefits for employers. The decline of collective bargaining and
the utilisation of freelance, temporary and part-time staff has allowed various
employment costs to be transferred from employers to individual workers. For
example, sick pay, training and pension provisions have progressively become
the responsibility of the flexible employee, rather than the employer and/or
the state (Beck, 2000a: 53). Beck avers that the drift toward flexibility signals
a radical departure from established patterns of employment and demands a
new mode of configuring labour relations.
Of course, the suggestion of a radical rupture in employment patterns
is not peculiar to Beck. Various forerunning theories, such as the know-
ledge society (Bell, 1973), post-industrialism (Gorz, 1982; 2000) and post-
Fordism (Aglietta, 1979) have sought to capture fundamental transitions in
the nature of work. Although the risk society perspective overlaps with such
models of change,7 Becks project is also distinctive. Insofar as the driving
forces of change for his predecessors were the spread of globalization, the
information and communications revolution and increased automation, Beck
insists that contemporary employment transformations are best unlocked
using the master key of risk.

Individualization at work

Theoretically speaking, the movement from a Fordist to a risk regime is under-

pinned by the diversification of individualization and the changing dynamics
of risk distribution. In the risk society thesis, these two processes are locked
into a symbiotic relationship. Nonetheless, for definitional purposes, it is
worth unpacking each independently, prior to forging an integrated analysis.
Individualization is depicted as a multifaceted process which underscores
transformations in personal relationships, family structure, education and
employment (Beck, 1992: 127; 1998: 169). The general thrust of the theory of
individualization is that given forms of collective identity have been eroded
and are being supplanted by more open practices of personal choice and
reflexivity. Under the risk regime, rather than life trajectories being governed
by the ties of family, class, ethnicity and gender, do-it-yourself biographies
become the prevalent form of cultural determination (Beck, 1994: 15).
Despite promising greater scope for creativity and choice, individualization
also presents tangible dilemmas. As individuals become untied from the cer-
tainties of collective structures, everyday life becomes contingent on an infi-
nite process of personal decision-making: all too swiftly the elective,
reflexive or do-it-yourself biography can become the breakdown biogra-
phy (Beck, 1999: 12).

132 The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2005

 Employment, individualization and insecurity

Beck believes that the deluge of employment-related risks and opportun-

ities ushered in by the risk regime are sluiced through the channels of
individualization. The increased mobility of people, capital, labour and infor-
mation has loosened the cohesiveness of collective support networks and
intensified the pressures of personal decision-making. While the risk regime
fetches up a surfeit of employment choices, these choices are fixed within a
wider context of insecurity and uncertainty (Beck, 2000a: 72). In Risk Society
(1992), individualization is connected to work with reference to three evolv-
ing trends: the intensification of competition and mobility, greater stress on
personal education and a decline in collective structures. In response to the
needs of a differentiated labour market, schools and colleges have pluralized
subject choices and exit points in the last two decades. During the same
period, the labour market has become an increasingly hostile and competitive
site, encouraging job-seekers to advertise their qualifications and to become
accustomed to bouts of periodic modification and reinvention. Under the
risk regime, job evaluation, re-training and career changes become less
like options and more like necessities. The flexibility and mobility demanded
by the risk regime has served to undercut the stability of local networks
and structures. The transition from collective, local employment to varied and
specialised forms is a vital component of the individualization process
(Beck, 1998: 43). The majority of employees no longer labour on production
lines with well defined hierarchies and the formation of collective work-based
ties has been further dislocated by flexible employment patterns and
decentralised working sites. Given that entry into the labour market no
longer takes place en masse in a collective of associates or classes, work now
dissolves as well as creates structural networks. Consequently, taken for
granted assumptions about employment, family responsibilities and local
relationships are thrown into flux, as the labour market operates as a catalyst
for individualization:

There has been a special surge of individualization of life situations and life
paths . . . people are removed by mobility, education, competition, legal
regulations, market relationships and so on from traditional commitments
to the milieu of their birth and are turned over to their individual labour
market fate with all the concomitant risks. (Beck, 1998: 45)

From class to risk: a changing logic of distribution?

In permeating analogous spheres of cultural experience, the individualization

process intertwines with changing patterns of social distribution.8 The risk
regime is characterised by the intensification of individualization and the gen-
eralisation of patterns of risk distribution. Beck casts the Fordist era as an
epoch of wealth distribution, in which overarching economic and political

The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2005 133

Gabe Mythen

interests revolved around the distribution of social goods. Thus, the institu-
tional structures associated with Fordism were geared towards distributing the
cake of material benefits, such as full-time employment, social security and
healthcare facilities. Under Fordism, political conflicts still surfaced between
those enjoying a fulsome slice of the cake, those with moderate pieces and
those making do with the crumbs. Nonetheless, despite obvious disparities
between cake-holders, the overarching purpose of the Fordist system was to
eliminate scarcity by producing sufficient goods to meet the collective needs
of society. Hence, the central dynamic or logic of the Fordist regime
revolved around the concept of class. Beck reasons that the distributional pat-
terns of the class society were noticeably interrupted in the 1970s, when the
distribution of social goods became augmented by a cachet of social bads, such
as endemic unemployment, mass pollution and nuclear hazards. Underlying
the division between goods and bads is a rudimentary distinction between
social priorities under the two modes of organisation: class societies are bound
up with issues of scarcity, risk societies are preoccupied with the problem of
insecurity (Beck, 1992: 49).
In the risk society perspective, labour market insecurity is emblematic of
a new fleet of risks which undermine social structures and threaten established
cultural practices. The most obvious manifestation of employment risk is the
social diversification of joblessness. With the emergence of cyclical global
recessions, unemployment and job insecurity no longer blight only the poorest
and least academically qualified groups in society. In times of economic uncer-
tainty, labour market fluctuations universalise the threat of redundancy: you
can run into anyone down at the unemployment office (Beck, 1998: 55). Not
only does employment insecurity undercut established class and gender
divides, the new logic of risk produces a circular motion of boomerang
effects, as risks return to haunt their original generators. For example, high-
status business elites well schooled in dispensing with labour, themselves
become dispensable. In this way, the sectoral effects of the class society are
juxtaposed with the universalising effects of the risk society: poverty is hier-
archic, smog is democratic (Beck, 1992: 36). The social diffusion of unem-
ployment, combined with the flexibilization and casualization of labour, leads
Beck to postulate that the traditional logic of the wealth distributing society
is being replaced by a burgeoning logic of risk. In the risk society, new inequal-
ities and unions emerge as class positions become superseded by risk posi-
tions. As risk and insecurity become routine features of the employment
system, the distributive motor of the class society misfires, leading to wide-
spread uncertainty. The relative rise in cross-class unemployment in Europe
leads Beck to the apocalyptic conclusion that post-industrial nations are
headed towards capitalism without work:

Insecurity on the labour market has long since spread beyond the lower
classes. It has become the mark of our times. The old lifetime profession
is threatened with extinction. No one wants to admit that with it an entire

134 The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2005

 Employment, individualization and insecurity

value system, a society based on gainful employment, will disappear. (Beck,

1998: 55)

Individualization revisited

Without doubt, Becks argument speaks to us at the level of everyday expe-

rience. For many in the West, work is perceived as a site of instability, risk and
insecurity. The uncertainties associated with short-term contracts, temporary
work and self-employment have become the stuff of life in contemporary
Western society. However, whilst such asseverations may strike a cultural
chord, they do not necessarily attest to the radical rupture narrated in the
risk society perspective. Having outlined the kernel of Becks thesis, I now
wish to critically examine the pervasiveness of employment-related individu-
alization and, latterly, the theory of distributional logic. As noted previously,
educational diversification, labour market competition and dissolving collec-
tive structures are identified as the drivers of individualization. With reference
to contemporary Britain, evidence can be marshalled to support Becks case
in each of these areas. Firstly, the education system does appear to have
opened up a more variable set of exit routes for young people. In the 1980s
and 1990s, the transition from school to work diversified considerably via
the expansion of post-compulsory education, apprenticeships and training
schemes (Furlong and Cartmel, 1997: 13). Secondly, academic and vocational
qualifications have become increasingly valuable if not obligatory com-
modities for the contemporary employee (Gangl, 2002; Goldthorpe, 2003).
In contemporary Europe, increasing cultural emphasis is placed on self-
improvement via educational choice, individualizing responsibility for success
or failure (de Witte and Steijn, 2000: 248). Patterns of flexible working have
also served to stimulate competition within the labour market, demanding a
broad skills-set and encouraging self-development through training courses
and vocational qualifications. In the last two decades, the linking up of eco-
nomic infrastructures and the growth of global competition have spawned
more aggressive employment markets in the West, which, in turn, have
encouraged more concentrated forms of self promotion and surveillance. In
accordance with Becks outlook, these undercurrents do seem to indicate that
workers have become individually accountable for their actions in the labour
market and are assuming greater responsibility for the management of uncer-
tainty. Furthermore, it is fair to say that employment-related risks have been
individualized to the extent that people are encouraged to perceive structural
inequalities as personal shortcomings. Thirdly, it is probable that class-specific
paths from school to work have become increasingly open-ended. In con-
temporary Britain, large group transitions from mass education to standard-
ised Fordist workplaces have all but disintegrated, with young people making
the leap into a heterogeneous as opposed to an undifferentiated labour
market (Furlong and Cartmel, 1997: 38). In the thirty-year period between

The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2005 135

Gabe Mythen

1950 and 1980, transitions from education to work were more distinct and pre-
dictable than in present times. Since the 1980s, a plurality of options have
availed themselves, undermining standardised career routes and encouraging
personal reflection and choice. Emphasis on personal planning allied to the
diversification of avenues into employment may have fostered the illusion
of uniqueness and individuality, rather than encouraging collective aspirations
and motivations (Furlong and Cartmel, 1997: 7; Roberts, 1995). Certainly,
pathways into work are no longer rigidly determined by class, gender or
familial proximity and the transfer from school to work has become multi-
farious. As a result of labour market de-regulation, globalization and flexibi-
lization, many people have become susceptible to the unsettling forces of
mobility, competition and risk (Giddens, 1990: 23; Tulloch and Lupton, 2003:
70). These spatial and temporal transitions have had a transformative effect
on cultural experience, chopping up the structure of family, work and com-
munity life.
In agreement with Beck, a rudimentary review of contemporary employ-
ment relations points towards an interrelationship between patterns of work
and individualization. Nevertheless, if we scratch beneath the surface, it
becomes evident that the risk society thesis offers a rather equivocal under-
standing of both the nature and the effects of the individualization process.
Whilst we might reasonably concur that individualization is multivalent and
courses through a matrix of institutions, the amorphous description of the
process problematizes the collection of reliable data and the formulation of
robust theoretical assumptions. At a superficial level, evidence can be gar-
nered to support the permeation of patterns of individualization. It would
appear that education and employment are vital engines of individualized
experience. What is more, identity construction in Western cultures is
undoubtedly a more demanding and discrete experience than it was in the
golden age of Fordism. However, given the extensive boundaries of defini-
tion, it should hardly surprise us that affirmative evidence can be turned up.
In the risk society thesis, individualization is constituted by a rise in lifestyle
choices; the fragmentation of cultural experience; a proliferation of social
risks; greater personal responsibility and accountability; the undermining of
class identities; social disembedding and the development of diverse and
reflexive life paths. Of course, such definitional imprecision might well reflect
the polymorphous nature of the process. However, it also raises the thorny
issue of sociological proof. It may be difficult to falsify the diffusion of the
individualization process, but by the same token it is equally difficult to
prove.
Unfortunately, the imprecise usage of individualization in the risk society
thesis leads to difficulties in calibrating the extent and the effects of individu-
alization. Although Beck does make attempts to theoretically deconstruct
individualization, individualized experiences are still tacitly assumed at the
empirical level. Thus, the issue of how important individualized experiences
are in relation to collective experiences remains an untapped area of inquiry.

136 The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2005

 Employment, individualization and insecurity

In particular, Beck is conspicuously mute about expressions of work related

solidarity. It must be remembered that new forms of collectivism have
emerged as a response to job insecurity and the fragmentation of formal paid
employment (Aldridge et al., 2001: 571). Opposition to the individualising
effects of the labour process is currently being expressed in various micro
struggles around the globe. Both the growth in social movement unionism in
newly industrialising countries and the rise in international collaboration
between trade unions suggest that collectivist activities and practices are set
to retain social purchase (Moody, 1997). The risk society perspective also fails
to account for collective working activities undertaken outside the formal
sphere. In recent years cashless trading networks have flourished, providing
opportunities for those excluded from paid employment. In Britain there has
been a notable rise in the number of Local Exchange Trading Schemes
(LETS), from just 5 in 1991 to over 303 by 2000 (Aldridge et al., 2001: 566).
Empirical research suggests that participation in such schemes can serve to
re-build work identities, widen social networks and foster collectivism within
communities (Aldridge et al., 2001: 570; Seyfang, 2001: 581). Given Becks lack
of attention to expressions of collectivism, an important question mark lingers
over the social significance of individualization. While the risk society per-
spective suggests that the process radically alters the structure of society, it
must be remembered that the development of modernity has been charac-
terised by a variety of forms of social differentiation.9 This qualification brings
to the surface questions of continuity which question the speciality of the indi-
vidualization process. Are we currently witnessing a fundamental social trans-
formation, or are current forms of individualization the continuation of a
process that is centuries long? The risk society approach casts individualiza-
tion and risk generally as extraordinary and novel cultural phenomena,
which fundamentally alter human behaviour and lay-expert interactions.
However, both individualization and risk have embedded histories and are
organic processes.
A second significant shortcoming in Becks argument stems from his ten-
dency to cite anecdotal examples in support of general arguments. In reflect-
ing upon the circumstances supposedly unique to the risk society, one can
propound a range of counter examples which question the haecceity of con-
temporary patterns of individualization. In assessing the extent of individual-
ization, we need to be sensitive to experiences of cultural continuity, as well
as change. By presenting a decidedly selective batch of cases, Beck overlooks
the cohesiveness of social structures and flattens the complexities of social
reproduction. For instance, in Risk Society (1992), the parameters of individ-
ualization are characteristically overstated:

The place of traditional ties and social forms (social class, nuclear family)
is taken by secondary agencies and institutions, which stamp the biography
of the individual and make that person dependent upon fashions, social
policy, economic cycles and markets. (Beck, 1992: 131)

The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2005 137

Gabe Mythen

Even allowing for Becks hyperbolic style, such sweeping claims only serve to
gloss over evident continuities in social reproduction in Western cultures. To
argue that class and the nuclear family are losing relative cohesion as agents
of socialisation is one thing. It is quite another to suggest that these structures
are being replaced by secondary agencies. In a period of rapid social change,
cross-cultural research continues to indicate that life biographies remain
strongly influenced by gender, class, age and nationality (see Tulloch and
Lupton, 2003: 133). Adding weight to this point, recent ethnographic studies
have stressed the significance of age and gender in shaping the social experi-
ence of individualization (Mitchell et al., 2001: 231). Thus, it would seem that
a more relational approach is required to establish the flows and connections
between the feeders of identity and cultural experience. Rather than sup-
planting social structures, individualization nestles into existing hierarchies
and bleeds into multi-source biographies (Savage, 2000: 118). Contra Beck, it
is likely that the range, intensity and quality of individualization will be medi-
ated by embedded forms of stratification. Different social groups are destined
to encounter contrasting employment and life experiences, with insecurity and
risk being concentrated amongst the lowest paid, least educated tranches. In
the risk society narrative, everyone seems destined to share a similarly indi-
vidualized experience. However, whilst the process of individualization may
be universal, experience of this process will be heterogeneous. Unfortunately,
these crucial qualifications are not adequately acknowledged by Beck, who
skims over cultural, historical and regional differences (Ekinsmyth, 1999:
354). In his desire to depict individualization as a blanket development, Beck
elides that the extent and degree of exposure to individualization will be
coupled to space and place. Although the risk society thesis makes reference
to the global reach of individualization, its tentacles rarely extend beyond
Germany, Britain and the United States. This is a significant oversight, given
that the macro relationship between employment and individualization can
only be properly evaluated across a range of geographical, social and eco-
nomic contexts.
At present, variations between national and regional employment systems
suggest that individualization is a variegated rather than a homogeneous
process. Employment and welfare systems across Europe provide dissimilar
degrees of regulation and protection against labour market insecurity (Gangl,
2002). This rider hastens the need for a more sophisticated cross-cultural
approach, which places greater emphasis on the gamut of cultural experiences
generated by the spread of individualization. In part, the process of individ-
ualization is invested with riskiness through the interpretations of social
actors, who are themselves rooted in situated environments. In order to mean-
ingfully assess risk, subjects have however sketchily to locate their place
within social hierarchies through the process of cultural differentiation (see
Savage, 2000: 105). In this way, both perception and experience of risk/
individualization will be vectored through socio-economic status, geographi-
cal location and cultivated values and beliefs. As it stands, the risk society

138 The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2005

 Employment, individualization and insecurity

perspective imputes meaning to cultural agency on the basis of a set of neb-

ulous structural shifts, rather than through rigorous empirical substantiation.
Of course, this translates as something of a hermeneutic leap from macro
processes to assumed subjective experience (Mythen, 2004: 146). As Hall
(1997: 3) reminds us, only people can give meaning to objects, events and
processes. To factor in the missing experiential angles, it is vital that research
is oriented toward exploring the ways in which lay actors understand, nego-
tiate and deal with individualization on a routine day to day basis (Tulloch
and Lupton, 2003: 11).

The distribution of risk: logical continuities

In reviewing the empirical evidence, it seems likely that an increase in pat-

terns of flexible working has intensified the degree of risk involved in acquir-
ing and maintaining employment. As has been noted, in modern society,
employees are required to be adaptable and receptive to change in a fluctu-
ating labour market. In support of the risk society perspective, flexibilization
has eaten away at standardized full-time contracts and facilitated the diversi-
fication of employment practices. In Britain, over six million people are cur-
rently employed on a part-time basis, with self-employment becoming an
entrenched trend.10 Although predominantly located within manual and
service industries, self-employment has also seeped into the professions, with
employment agencies supplying lecturers, accountants, and computer analysts
on demand. Again, at a surface level we can agree with Becks line of rea-
soning. It is probable that employment risks are impacting upon a wider
section of society than in previous eras. However, from this axiom, Beck
superinduces that risk and insecurity are becoming universal features of
employment. It is at this deeper structural level that the risk society thesis
comes unstuck. Essentially, the crux of the matter revolves around whether
there has been a discernible shift from a sectoral logic of class to a universal
logic of risk. Of course, this question can be broached in any number of ways.
If we approach the issue with reference to objective empirical criteria,
the logic of class demonstrates remarkable continuity (Goldthorpe and
McKnight, 2003; Mackintosh and Mooney, 2004: 93). Despite being aware of
the resilience of economic inequalities (1992: 35), Beck is adamant that risk
positions are steadily supplanting class positions as principal markers of iden-
tity and experience. Granted, at a subjective level class may well be losing
its purchase as a social glue that binds individuals and communities together
(see Furlong and Cartmel, 1997; Saunders, 1984).11 Yet while class identities
may be receding, class location remains a key determinant of employment
opportunities, and, at a broader level, life chances (Nolan and Whelan, 1999).
Since the diffusion of employment risk is strikingly uneven, labour market
insecurity is universal in a strictly hypothetical sense. Whilst it may be possi-
ble to run into anyone down at the unemployment office, in reality, it is the

The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2005 139

Gabe Mythen

most impoverished, least qualified members of society that remain routinely

dependent on social security. Class position remains a fundamental indicator
of vulnerability to unemployment (see Gallie et al., 1998; Goldthorpe, 2002).
Bluntly put, the critical issue is not one of risk perception, but risk impact. In
a changeable economic climate, we may all sense labour market insecurity, but
it does not sequentially follow that we will share the consequences. Indeed,
in Britain, empirical evidence suggests that the socio-economic divide is
expanding, rather than contracting:

Between 1979 and 1996, while average income increased by 44 percent, the
income of the lowest decile fell by 9 percent and that of the top decile
increased by 70 percent . . . the growing inequalities are evident in the
falling life expectancy for the lowest two social classes, the first time a fall
has been recorded since Victorian times. (Perrons, 2000: 290)

In relation to the distribution of employment risks, there are growing not less-
ening divides between work-rich and work-poor households. By the turn of
the millennium, over 44% of lone parent households in the UK were without
formal paid employment (Labour Force Survey, 2000). The labour market
may ostensibly be viewed as a site of general insecurity, but the diversifica-
tion of uncertainty has not equalized employment experiences at a structural
level. In spite of the seductive quality of the boomerang effects argument,
the ongoing union between social class and employment prospects serves to
denude Becks case. Unskilled labourers in manual or routine non-manual
forms of employment remain more exposed to recurrent and long-term
employment and are less likely to profit during periods of economic growth
(Goldthorpe, 2002: 4). Extending this critique, employment breaks remain
firmly fixed to traditional forms of stratification. Across Europe, the economic
activity rate for women is below 60%, as compared to 78% for men (Labour
Market Trends, 2001a). Meanwhile, gender divides between the sexes con-
tinue to be reproduced through unequal pay, status and conditions (Emslie
et al., 1999; OCampo et al., 2004; Russell and OConnell, 2001: 4).12 In some
Southern European countries, such as Italy and Spain, less than half of the
female population are engaged in formal paid employment (Social Trends,
2001). Along the lines of ethnicity, the unemployment rate for men from
minority groups in the UK is double that of the White population, with
Bangladeshi and Black Caribbean males remaining significantly over-
represented in unemployment statistics (Labour Market Trends, 2002;
Perrons, 2000: 291). In relation to age, those entering the labour market for
the first time will bear the heaviest burden of employment risk. Just under a
quarter of 1617 year old males are currently unemployed in the United
Kingdom (Labour Market Trends, 2004). Therefore, although the world of
work can legitimately be depicted as an area associated with feelings of uncer-
tainty, actual employment opportunities remain encased within traditional
layers of stratification. It is not so much that Beck is unwilling to acknowl-

140 The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2005

 Employment, individualization and insecurity

edge that class, gender, age and ethnicity condition life chances (see 1992:
9297), but due appreciation of the social significance of these lines of strati-
fication is reduced to fit the universalising arc of the risk society sweep. In
stark contrast to the totalising bent of the risk society narrative, changes in
the dynamic between capital and labour have not significantly altered patterns
of risk distribution. Disadvantaged social groups experience higher levels of
unemployment, are more likely to constitute peripheral workforces and habit-
ually live under the spectre of job insecurity. Regrettably, the theory of dis-
tributional logic does not adequately discriminate between different levels of
risk impact. The boomerang effect implies that affluent risk disseminators
are ineluctably hoist by their own petards. This argument may hold some
water, but is prone to leakage under examination. For example, in the late
1990s, financial speculators in New York, Tokyo and London over invested in
industries in developing countries, stirring vulnerabilities in the global market.
The ploughing of vast sums of money into emerging markets was a contribu-
tory factor in the Wall Street crash in 1998, which resulted in traders and
shareholders getting their fingers burnt. On paper, this example may be
scripted as a classic boomerang situation. Yet the effects felt by investors in
the West were far less severe than those experienced by low paid workers in
Asia and Central America, whose only means of survival was withdrawn as a
knock on consequence of MNCs tightening their belts (Hinchcliffe, 2004: 129).
The boomerang effect may bruise some, but it will administer knock out blows
to others. If, as the evidence suggests, risks invariably track the tramlines of
poverty and disadvantage, then we have to question quite how radical the
rupture described by Beck actually is.
In refuting the movement between distributional logics, we are alerted to
a further flaw in the risk society argument. At a methodological level, Becks
insistence on a pervading logic of insecurity encourages him to view employ-
ment relations exclusively through the monocular of risk (Rose, 2000: 64). This
blinkered approach generates both empirical and theoretical deficiencies.
Empirically, the risk society thesis treats employment insecurity as a given,
rather than a subject worthy of critical investigation. Becks assumption that
long-term stable employment is a relic of the past is not conclusively born out
by empirical research. As a case in point, Doogan (2001) uses EUROSTAT
data to demonstrate that average job tenure in Britain remained relatively
constant between 1992 and 1999, with long-term employment showing a sig-
nificant increase from 7.4 million in 1992, to 9 million in 1999. Therefore, in
Britain at least, the general trend toward downsizing in the 1990s took place
alongside an extension of long-term employment. More revealingly, rises in
long-term employment occurred almost exclusively amongst those over thirty
(Doogan, 2001: 428). These findings again point towards the reproduction of
sectoral patterns of exclusion, rather than the emergence of a universalising
logic of risk. A fortunate group of employees remain insulated against risk,
whilst the unlucky numbers find themselves episodically out in the cold. From
a theoretical point of view, the distinction between class and risk positions is

The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2005 141

Gabe Mythen

far from drum tight. At best, the risk society thesis makes an unclean sepa-
ration between class and risk effects. At worst, Becks presentation of distri-
butional logics is internally inconsistent, with his vista obscured by an
unrelenting fixation with risk. Devilishly twisting the oft-cited maxim, Scott
matches up the social effects of each logic:

The wealthy were protected from scarcity and remain protected from risk;
protection here being understood as relative protection. Smog is just as
hierarchical as poverty so long as some places are less smoggy than others.
(Scott, 2000: 36)

In practice, quite where the logic of class ends and the logic of risk begins is
difficult to determine. Indeed, at times Beck seems uncertain about the degree
of divergence between the two logics, tempering his argument with reference
to an intermediate phase between class and risk society, in which class spe-
cific risks brush up against the universal dangers of the risk society proper
(Beck, 1992: 20). The pliability of this historical narrative does permit a the-
oretical sleight of hand, but it leaves us in the dark about the material ap-
plicability of the risk society perspective. So long as the core claims being
made remain insulated against empirical scrutiny, the layers of ambiguity and
periodic back tracking are likely to be interpreted as tactics of evasion
(Goldthorpe, 2002: 25; Smith et al., 1997).
The notion of a general distributional logic also disregards significant
national and regional variations in employment structures and opportunities.
Somewhat surprisingly, even intra-European differences are overlooked by
Beck (see Allen and Henry, 1997: 184; Gallie, 2003). Denmark, for example,
is one of the most affluent countries in the world, exporting a variety of quality
goods worldwide. The country has a long history of tripartite corporatism with
high levels of union density, currently covering over 80% of the workforce.
Furthermore, high minimum wages, extensive union coverage and strong
employment rights are embedded features of employment relations in
Denmark (Scheuer, 1998: 155). Whilst flexible working methods and the
effects of global recession have challenged the Danish model, Denmark has
retained a comparatively stable labour market, with relatively low unem-
ployment rates. In sharp contrast, the Spanish economy has historically been
based on labour-intensive industry, with comparatively low use of technology,
below average productivity and a lack of international competitiveness. In
Spain, employment rights have traditionally been limited, welfare benefits
streaky and unemployment rates high. Thus, even a cursory statistical com-
parison indicates significant disparities between levels of job security in the
two countries. Around 6% of adults in Denmark are registered unemployed,
compared with almost 12% in Spain (Labour Market Trends, 2004: 85). More
tellingly, youth unemployment in Denmark hovers around 10%, compared
with over 45% in Spain (Russell and OConnell, 2001: 2). Evident variations
in socio-economic conditions indicate that patterns of inequality and risk will

142 The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2005

 Employment, individualization and insecurity

differ according to space and place. Systems of employment regulation and

labour market structures are the products of past histories, discrete strategies
and government policies. These qualifications suggest that the diverse struc-
tural features of employment relations in Europe are productive of differen-
tial employment prospects which cannot be comfortably housed within the
boundaries of a multi-purpose risk regime.13

Rethinking the risk society perspective

Prior to concluding, it may be constructive to weigh up the overall costs and

benefits of using the risk society thesis as a barometer of employment change.
To be fair, it is expectable that the kind of macro theory building which Beck
is engaged in will produce gaps and fissures (Dingwall, 2002; Wales and
Mythen, 2002). In all probability, the use of contrasting regimes is intended
as a heuristic device, as opposed to a meticulous historical portrait. Treated
as a snapshot of the modern world of work, Becks argument has both func-
tionality and appeal. It is likely that the velocity of employment flux has inten-
sified over time and that the risks associated with work have become more
unforeseeable and unpredictable. In many ways, the risk society thesis echoes
the anxieties and insecurities which many people express about their employ-
ment experiences (Doogan, 2001: 421; Tulloch and Lupton, 2003: 78). Becks
critical examination of workplace change also acts as a welcome antidote to
overly optimistic accounts of flexibilization. In the last thirty years there has
been a gradual shift in many sectors from standardized full-time employment
to various non-standard, precarious forms of work. At a general level, legis-
lation and governmental policy within Europe have assisted labour market
deregulation and segmentation. Further, the processual erosion of workers
rights has led to responsibility for employment risk being transported away
from employers and toward employees.
In concordance with the risk society thesis, it is apparent that patterns of
individualization are channelled through the labour market. More broadly,
the theory of individualization is suggestive of the constant demands pre-
sented by the planning project of everyday life (Lupton, 1999b: 67). Again,
Becks depiction of individualization chimes with our shared intuition that
employment experiences are becoming more fragmented and erratic. This
said, rather than being lumped together, the admixture of experiences, prac-
tices and encounters which embody individualization needs to be filtered and
contextualized. To move the debate forward, we need to ascertain which facets
of the process predominate, in which circumstances and amongst which
groups. Here it has been argued that embedded layers of stratification will
influence experiences of individualization, both inside and outside the work-
place. It should be remembered that there is no sociological obligation to
make an either/or choice between cohesive collective networks or individu-
alized identities. Class consciousness is doubtless declining, but this should not

The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2005 143

Gabe Mythen

be read off as evidence of unbridled individualization, nor the manifestation

of footloose personal identities (Savage, 2000: 101). In filling the interstice
between individualization as macro process and cultural experience, future
studies must show sensitivity to continuities as well as disjunctions in social
reproduction. Expressions of resistance and the proliferation of new forms of
work-based collectivism should not be passed over for the sake of maintain-
ing tidy theory. Evidence suggests that certain aspects of employment are
becoming more individualized, but it is critical that the spread and impacts of
this process are sensibly investigated. A broad programme of cross-cultural
research is necessary to determine the ways in which individualization is expe-
rienced through the filters of class, age, gender and place.
As far as the second pillar of the risk regime is concerned, the application
of the distributional logic to contemporary patterns of employment raises
notable theoretical and methodological concerns. First, in slavishly relating
his argument to risk, Beck overlooks the structural significance of conven-
tional social formations. This tendency to focus on cultural practices through
the monocular of risk, leads to an under emphasis on entrenched social struc-
tures. Secondly, continuities in the distribution of both goods and bads
negate the idea of an equalising distributional process. Even when boomerang
effects occur, the distribution of risk tends to reinforce rather than transform
existing inequalities. What is required then, is a clearer demarcation between
risk as perception and risk as a material force. Although the two entities are
not comfortably decoupled, the risk society thesis simply conflates perception
with exposure, setting in motion a distorted understanding of the relationship
between work and risk. In the first instance, fear of unemployment is not nec-
essarily congruous with the probability of job loss. Even in situations where
people are confident about maintaining employment, the prospect of unem-
ployment may still arouse concern (Doogan, 2001: 436). We all may worry
about losing our jobs, but these worries will turn out to be more justifiable for
some than others.
In practice, the unyielding reproduction of social divisions indicates that
class, gender, age and ethnicity remain durable yardsticks of social opportu-
nity (see Mythen, 2004: 135). What is more, fusions between different strata
for example, gender and class may result in intensified inequalities (Skeggs,
1997). Beck is not entirely blind to the relationship between forms of strati-
fication and social exclusion, yet the universalist thrust of his thesis dictates
that these structural formations are downplayed in order to appear subordi-
nate to the alpha logic of risk. Although Beck works hard to convince us of
the uniqueness of new forms of labour market uncertainty, we can justifiably
question the exceptionality of employment risks as features peculiar to con-
temporary society. In the UK at least, class-based patterns of employment dis-
advantage identified back in the 1970s have been recently restated by
empirical research (see Gallie et al., 1998; Goldthorpe and McKnight, 2003:
6). It is evident that the bundle of anxieties and insecurities attached to the
risk society predate its emergence:

144 The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2005

 Employment, individualization and insecurity

Much of what Beck describes . . . has long been standard for those without
much money or control over their lives. Many, perhaps most, individuals
have traditionally found it difficult to read the future, to remain in one
place with their families and friends: in brief, to determine their own lives.
(Day, 2000: 51)

Thirdly, methodological problems arise in distinguishing between the distrib-

utory networks of class and risk. The would-be theoretical boundaries erected
by Beck are essentially fluid, with the effects of class and risk being largely
inseparable. This excavates an underlying tension within the risk society per-
spective around the extent to which the axis of risk reroutes paths of social
distribution. Beck wants to give the nod to sectoral patterns of risk distribu-
tion, whilst simultaneously maintaining that manufactured risks produce
global dangers and result in universal victims. The risk regime necessitates
that Beck leaves class behind, yet the snug fit between risk and inequality
make this a decidedly faltering exit. Fourthly, the risk society perspective
unhelpfully fuses disparate forms of danger and ignores the uneven geogra-
phy of risk impacts (Anderson, 1997: 188). While labour market transitions in
some European countries do bear comparison with the trends recounted by
Beck, the risk society perspective is too blunt a tool to carve out the intricate
architecture of employment experiences across the globe. In common with the
corpus of Becks work, the risk regime is not sufficiently sensitive to national
variations and revolves exclusively around Western practices and experiences
(Bujra, 2000: 63; Marshall, 1999: 267; Nugent, 2000: 236). In conclusion, Becks
risk society thesis presents us with an innovative and potentially constructive
framework for analysing specific employment trends and particular working
cultures. Nonetheless, however useful at a micro level, the risk society per-
spective does not allow for the diverse and scattered nature of employment
relations. Insofar as a more mixed range of employment practices are visible
today than in previous eras, it is improbable that there has been a paradigm
shift from class to risk-based employment experiences. Whilst Beck has
unquestionably contributed towards our understanding of the brave new
world of work, ultimately he provides us with an incomplete and partial
analysis of the changing relationship between the individual, employment and
society.

Manchester Metropolitan University

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to warmly thank the three anonymous reviewers of the first draft of this paper.
Their critical comments and constructive suggestions were invaluable in knocking off the rougher
edges.

The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2005 145

Gabe Mythen

Notes

1 This apposite descriptor is stolen from Jonathan Skinner (2000: 160).

2 The former was first published in 1986 as Risikogesellschaft: auf Dem Weg in ein andere
Moderne, the latter in 1999, under the title Scne neue Arbeitswelt Vision Weltbrgerge-
sellschaft.
3 For concise and sympathetic reviews of Becks work, see either Lupton (1999a) or McGuigan
(1999).
4 The BSE crisis and the Chernobyl reactor explosion are Becks preferred examples.
5 Clearly, natural hazards and manufactured risks do not share universal characteristics and
cannot comfortably be tied to historical epochs. For example, in contemporary society flood-
ing remains a serious threat in many parts of the globe. Similarly, the pea-souper smog that
covered London in 1952 would seem to qualify as a manufactured risk.
6 It should be noted that there are significant differences in emphasis between these texts. Risk
Society (1992) evaluates the impact of risk on the environment, politics, science and gender.
In contrast, The Brave New World of Work (2000a) is a more explicit if similarly projective
exploration of the future of work.
7 In line with Bell, Beck posits that the shift from manual and manufacturing jobs to service-
sector employment has made knowledge, qualifications and communication skills indispens-
able attributes. Following Aglietta, Beck concurs that regimes of accumulation are firmly
indexed to overarching modes of regulation. In Gorzian mode, Beck contends that the threat
of capitalism without work hastens the need for civil labour within a multi-activity society.
8 The transition from a distributional logic of class to one of risk is outlined in Risk Society
(1992: 1950) and Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk (1995: 128157). In the latter, Beck
yokes the idea of distributional logics to the production of environmental risks. In the former,
greater emphasis is placed on the relationship between risk distribution, employment and
social class.
9 Indeed, the diversification of life trajectories and the decline of tradition have been long-
standing concerns within social theory and are implicit in the classical sociology of Simmel,
Durkheim and Weber.
10 For a detailed review of the statistics see Labour Market Trends (2004) London: HMSO.
11 Of course, clear-cut distinctions between class as objective measurement and class as subjec-
tive experience cannot be readily drawn. Objective access to resources invariably feeds into
subjective lived experience and identity formation, which, in turn, influences access to
resources.
12 In the UK, the average weekly wage for a man is 525, compared with 396 for a woman
(Labour Market Trends, 2004).
13 Beck has recently acknowledged cultural variations in employment patterns between differ-
ent nations (see 2000a: 113115). However, the wider ramifications of this for the universal-
ising risk society perspective are yet to be addressed.

References

Adam, B., Beck, U. and van Loon, J., (eds), (2000), The Risk Society and Beyond: Critical Issues
for Social Theory, London: Sage.
Aglietta, M., (1979), A Theory of Capitalist Regulation, London: Verso.
Aldridge, T., Tooke, J., Lee, R., Leyshon, A., Thrift, N. and Williams, C., (2001), Recasting Work:
The Example of Local Exchange Trading Schemes, Work, Employment and Society, 15 (3):
565579.
Allen, J. and Henry, N., (1997), Ulrich Becks Risk Society at Work: Labour and Employment
in the Contract Service Industries, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 22 (2):
180197.

146 The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2005

 Employment, individualization and insecurity

Anderson, A., (1997), Media, Culture and the Environment, London: UCL Press.
Beck, U., (1992), Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, London: Sage.
Beck, U., (1994), The Reinvention of Politics: Towards a Theory of Reflexive Modernization
in Beck, U., Giddens, A. and Lash, S. (eds), Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and
Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck, U., (1995), Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck, U., (1998), Democracy Without Enemies, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck, U., (1999), World Risk Society, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck, U., (2000a), The Brave New World of Work, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck, U., (2000b), What is Globalization? Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bell, D., (1973), The Coming of Post-Industrial Society, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Boden, D., (2000), Worlds in Action: Information, Instantaneity and Global Futures Trading in
Adam, B., Beck, U. and van Loon, J. (eds), The Risk Society and Beyond: Critical Issues for
Social Theory, London: Sage.
Boyne, R., (2003), Risk, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Bronner, S., (1995), Ecology, Politics and Risk: The Social Theory of Ulrich Beck, Capitalism,
Socialism, Nature: A Journal of Socialist Ecology, 6 (1): 6786.
Bujra, J., (2000), Risk and Trust: Unsafe Sex, Gender and AIDS in Tanzania in Caplan, P. (ed.),
Risk Revisited, London: Pluto Press.
Caplan, P., (2000), Risk Revisited, London: Pluto Press.
Cottle, S., (1998), Ulrich Beck, Risk Society and the Media, European Journal of Communica-
tions, 13 (1): 532.
Culpitt, I., (1999), Social Policy and Risk, London: Sage.
Day, S., (2000), The Politics of Risk Among London Prostitutes, in Caplan, P. (ed.), Risk
Revisited, London: Pluto Press.
Dingwall, R., (2002), Risk Society: The Cult of Theory and the Millennium? in Manning, N. and
Shaw, I., New Risks, New Welfare: Signposts for Social Policy, London: Blackwells.
Doogan, K., (eds) (2001), Insecurity and Long-Term Employment, Work, Employment and
Society, 15 (3): 419442.
Dryzek, J., (1995), Toward an Ecological Modernity, Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of
Reviews, 28: 231242.
Ekinsmyth, C., (1999), Professional Workers in a Risk Society, Transactions of the Institute of
British Geographers, 24 (3): 353366.
Emslie, C., Hunt, K. and Macintyre, S., (1999), Gender or Job Differences? Working Conditions
Amongst Men and Women in White Collar Occupations, Work, Employment and Society,
13 (4): 711729.
Furlong, A. and Cartmel, F., (1997), Young People and Social Change: Individualization and Risk
in Late Modernity, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Gallie, D., (2003), The Quality of Working Life: Is Scandanavia Different? European Sociolog-
ical Review, 19 (1): 6179.
Gallie, D., White, M., Cheng, Y. and Tomlinson, M., (1998), Restructuring the Employment Rela-
tionship, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gangl, M., (2002), Changing Labour Markets and Early Career Outcomes: Labour Market Entry
in Europe Over the Past Decade, Work, Employment and Society, 16 (1): 6790.
Giddens, A., (1990), Consequences of Modernity, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Goldblatt, D., (1995), Social Theory and the Environment, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Goldthorpe, J.H., (2002), Globalisation and Social Class, Western European Politics, 25 (3): 128.
Goldthorpe, J.H., (2003), The Myth of Education Based Meritocracy, New Economy, 10 (4):
234239.
Goldthorpe, J.H. and McKnight, A., (2003), The Economic Basis of Social Class, University of
Oxford, Sociology Working Papers 2003-05.
Gorz, A., (1982), Farewell to the Working Class: An Essay on Post-Industrial Socialism, London:
Pluto Press.
Gorz, A., (2000), Reclaiming Work: Beyond the Wage Based Society, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2005 147

Gabe Mythen

Hajer, M. and Kesselring, S., (1999), Democracy in the Risk Society? Learning from the New
Politics of Mobility in Munich, Environmental Politics, 8 (3): 123.
Hall, S., (1997), Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, London: Sage.
Hinchcliffe, S., (2004), Living with Risk: The Unnatural Geography of Environmental Crises in
Hinchcliffe, S. and Woodward, K. (eds), The Natural and the Social: Uncertainty, Risk, Change,
London: Routledge.
Jackson, S. and Scott, S., (1999), Risk Anxiety and the Social Construction of Childhood in
Lupton, D. (ed.), Risk and Sociocultural Theory: New Directions and Perspectives, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Labour Force Survey (2000), London: HMSO.
Labour Market Trends (2004), 112 (3) March Edition, London: HMSO.
Labour Market Trends (2002), 110 (12) December Edition, London: HMSO.
Labour Market Trends (2001a), 109 (4) April Edition, London: HMSO.
Labour Market Trends (2001b), 109 (8) August Edition, London: HMSO.
Lupton, D., (1999a), Key Ideas: Risk, London: Routledge.
Lupton, D., (1999b), Risk and Sociocultural Theory: New Directions and Perspectives, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Mackintosh, M. and Mooney, G., (2004), Identity, Inequality and Social Class, in Woodward, K.
(ed.), Questioning Identity: Gender, Class and Ethnicity, London: Routledge.
Marshall, B.K., (1999), Globalisation, Environmental Degradation and Ulrich Becks Risk
Society, Environmental Values, 8: 253275.
McGuigan, J., (1999), Modernity and Postmodern Culture, London: Open University Press.
McMylor, P., (1996), Goods and Bads, Radical Philosophy, 77: 5253.
Mitchell, W., Cranshaw, P., Bunton, R. and Green, E., (2001), Situating Young Peoples Experi-
ences of Risk and Identity, Health, Risk and Society, 3 (2): 200217.
Moody, K., (1997), Workers in a Lean World: Unions in the International Economy, London:
Verso.
Mythen, G., (2004), Ulrich Beck: A Critical Introduction to the Risk Society, London: Pluto Press.
Nolan, B. and Whelan, C., (1999), Loading the Dice? A Study of Culminative Disadvantage,
Dublin: Oak Tree Press.
Nugent, S., (2000), Good Risk, Bad Risk: Reflexive Modernisation and Amazonia, in Caplan,
P. (ed.), Risk Revisited, London: Pluto.
OCampo, P., Eaton, W.W. and Muntaner, C., (2004), Labour Market Experience, Work Orga-
nization, Gender Inequalities and Health Status: Results From a Prospective Analysis of US
Employed Women, Social Science and Medicine, 58 (3): 585594.
Perrons, D., (2000), Living with Risk: Labour Market Transformation, Employment Policies and
Social Reproduction in the UK, Economic and Industrial Democracy, 21: 283310.
Piore, M. and Sabel, C., (1984), The Second Industrial Divide: Prospects for Prosperity, New York:
Basic Books.
Reimer, S., (1998), Working in a Risk Society, Transactions of the Institute of British Geogra-
phers, 23: 116127.
Roberts, K., (1995), Youth and Employment in Modern Britain, Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Rose, H., (2000), Risk, Trust and Scepticism in the Age of the New Genetics, in Adam, B., Beck,
U. and van Loon, J. (eds), The Risk Society and Beyond: Critical Issues for Social Theory,
London: Sage.
Russell, H. and OConnell, P., (2001), Getting a Job in Europe: The Transition from Unemploy-
ment Among Young People in Nine European Countries, Work, Employment and Society, 15
(1): 124.
Saunders, P., (1984), Beyond Housing Classes: The Sociological Significance of Private Property
Rights in Means of Consumption, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 8
(2): 202227.
Savage, M., (2000), Class Analysis and Social Transformation, Buckingham: Open University
Press.

148 The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2005

 Employment, individualization and insecurity

Scheuer, S., (1998), Denmark: A Less Regulated Model? in Hyman, R. and Ferner, A. (eds),
Changing Industrial Relations in Europe, Oxford: Blackwell.
Scott, A., (2000), Risk Society or Angst Society? Two Views of Risk, Consciousness and Com-
munity in Adam, B., Beck, U. and van Loon, J. (eds), The Risk Society and Beyond: Critical
Issues for Social Theory, London: Sage.
Seyfang, G., (2001), Working for the Fenland Dollar: An Evaluation of Local Exchange Trading
Schemes as an Informal Employment Strategy to Tackle Social Exclusion, Work, Employment
and Society, 15 (3): 581594.
Skeggs, B., (1997), Formations of Class and Gender, London: Sage.
Skinner, J., (2000), The Eruption of Chances Peak, Montserrat and the Narrative Containment
of Risk in Caplan, P. (ed.), Risk Revisited, London: Pluto Press.
Smith, M., Law, A., Work, H. and Panay, A., (1997), The Reinvention of Politics: Ulrich Beck
and Reflexive Modernity, Environmental Politics, 8 (3): 169173.
Social Trends, 31 (2001), London: HMSO.
Tulloch, J. and Lupton, D., (2003), Risk and Everyday Life, London: Sage.
Wales, C. and Mythen, G., (2002), Risky Discourses: The Politics of GM Foods, Environmental
Politics, 11 (2): 121144.
de Witte, M. and Steijn, B., (2000), Automation, Job Content and Underemployment, Work,
Employment and Society, 14 (2): 245265.

The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2005 149