Challenges in the Era of Globalization - iaabd

Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference © 2011 IAABD
and Ndhlovu, 2000; 2001; Cole, Cameron and Edwards, 1991; Ndhlovu, 2011a; 2011b; Ndhlovu and
Spring, 2009).
Clearly, the division of labour serves to justify unequal rewards within capitalist societies. Incentives
arguably motivate workers, who are hired and fired in accordance with the patterns of commodity
demand. Moreover, workers could be ‘persuaded’ to acquire more or different skills in order to perform
particular functions. Such division of labour can ensure that (executive) managers allocate jobs
accordingly, while keeping in reserve their ‘right to manage’, that is, discipline the workforce, co-ordinate
production and preserve their authority. If one accepts these duties as legitimate tasks of managers,
requiring specialised skills of decision-making and responsibility, then this can justify their higher
salaries. Further emphasis on differences rather than community of interest ensures that workers are
divided according to skills, responsibilities, manual and non-manual tasks etc, whilst their cohesiveness
and organisation is reduced. Indeed, sexual and racial differences can then be exploited in ways that raise
barriers to occupational mobility; and break down the unity of experience of workers, thus dividing them
into distinct groups.
Conclusion
The BWA 2010 Census concludes that, while women comprise more than half the working population of
South Africa, they represent “less than a quarter of the business decision-makers” (BWA, 2010: 13).
While strides have been made in basic education and on political representation, there are still challenges
on the economic front. The BWA is to be commended for giving us the tools to analyse some of the
trends, particularly for professional women in business, although a much more complete picture should
involve quantitative analysis of women in different strata of the economy. Further work thus needs to be
done to address this quantitative gap.
Suffice it to say that the political economy approach arguably gives us insights into questions of equity
and inequality within a capitalist society. However, what is required is a multidisciplinary and
multidimensional approach by historians and political economists to examine the historical roots of
inequalities in South Africa. In other words, what needs to be explained - especially given the prominence
of women during the struggle against apartheid; and their being at the forefront of democratic struggles in
the new South Africa, at all levels and in all organisations – is why there has been such slow progress in
reshaping gender as well as racial inequalities. Why does it seem like the opportunity for fundamental
change has been missed? Apart from economic factors, to what extent is this inertia also due to deepseated
racial and patriarchal relations? Has historical experience not shown us that culture, like any other
facet of society, is changing and dynamic? In this dialectic relationship, there are signs that South Africa
could be a model for the rest of the world in terms of gender equity, as well as liberation of both men and
women from class, racial and cultural oppression, but this requires redoubled activism to
demonstrate/evaluate effectively.
References
Ashana, A. (2010). “Equality report slams divided Britain”, The Observer, 10 October.
Businesswomen’s Association (BWA) (2009). South African Women in Leadership Census 2009,
sponsored by NedBank in association with The Gauteng Enterprise Propeller (GEP).
Businesswomen’s Association (BWA) (2010). South African Women in Leadership Census 2010,
sponsored by NedBank and InWEnt.
Cameron, J. and Ndhlovu, T.P. (2000). “Development economics: an institutional bastion”, Journal of
Interdisciplinary Economics, Vol. 11: 3/4, 237-253.
Cameron, J. and Ndhlovu, T.P. (2001). “The comparative economics of EU ‘Subsidiarity’: Lessons from
322