Henslin James M. Sociology: A Down to Earth Approach

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

appreciable control, and control of wealth without appreciable ownership” (Berle and

Means 1932). Sociologist Michael Useem (1984) put it this way:

When few owners held all or most of a corporation’s stock, they readily dominated its board

of directors, which in turn selected top management and ran the corporation. Now that a

firm’s stock [is] dispersed among many unrelated owners, each holding a tiny fraction of the

total equity, the resulting power vacuum allow[s] management to select the board of direc-

tors; thus management [becomes] self-perpetuating and thereby acquire[s] de facto control

over the corporation.

Management determines its own salaries, sets goals and awards itself bonuses for meet-

ing them, authorizes market surveys, hires advertising agencies, determines marketing strate-

gies, and negotiates with unions. The management’s primary responsibility to the owners is

to produce profits.

Because of this power vacuum, at their annual meetings the stockholders ordinarily

rubber-stamp management’s recommendations. It is so unusual for this not to happen

that these rare cases are called a stockholders’ revolt. The irony of this term is generally

lost, but remember that in such cases it is not the workers who are rebelling at the con-

trol of the owners but the owners who are rebelling at the control of the workers!

Functions and Dysfunctions on a Global Scale

The globalization of capitalism has forged a new world structure. Three primary trading

blocs have emerged: North and South America, dominated by the United States; Europe,

dominated by Germany; and Asia, dominated by Japan and China. Functionalists stress

that this new global division benefits not only the multinational giants but also the citizens

of the world.

Consider free trade. Free trade increases competition, which, in turn, drives the search

for greater productivity. This lowers prices and brings a higher standard of living. Free trade

also has dysfunctions. As production moves to countries where labor costs are lower, mil-

lions of U.S., U.K., French, and German workers have lost their jobs. Functionalists point

out that this is merely a temporary dislocation. As the Most Industrialized Nations lose pro-

duction jobs, their workers shift into service and high-tech jobs. Meanwhile, some of the

poor of the Least Industrialized Nations have new jobs and the chance for a better life.

The adjustment is not easy. As the U.S. steel industry lost out to global competition,

for example, the closings of plants created “rust belts” in the northern states. The global-

ization of capitalism has also brought special challenges to small towns, which were already

suffering long-term losses because of urbanization. Their struggle to survive is the topic

of the photo essay on the next two pages. The most visible dysfunction, however, is the

global economic crisis, discussed in the Cultural Diversity box on page 414.

The Conflict Perspective on the

Globalization of Capitalism

Conflict theorists say that to place the focus on global interdependence is to miss the

point. What we should look at is the interconnected power of the wealthy and how they

use it to exploit workers.

The Changing Inner Circle of Corporate Capitalism

Table 14.2 on page 415 lists the world’s twenty-five largest multinational corporations—

companies that operate across national borders. You can see that the largest multinationals are

spread around eleven countries. You can also see the dominance of the United States. What

is not apparent from this list is the decline of the United States and the rise of China. In the

preceding year, twelve U.S. companies were on this list of the world’s twenty-five largest com-

panies—and none from China. Now it is nine from the United States and three from China.

The Conflict Perspective on the Globalization of Capitalism 411

stockholders’ revolt the re-

fusal of a corporation’s stock-

holders to rubber-stamp

decisions made by its managers

multinational corporations

companies that operate across

national boundaries; also called

transnational corporations

I was struck by the

grandiosity of people’s

dreams, at least as

reflected in the names

that some small-towners

give their businesses.

Donut Palace has a nice

ring to it—inspiring

thoughts of wealth and

royalty (note the

crowns). Unfortunately,

like so many others, this

business didn’t make it.

People do whatever they can to survive.This enterprising

proprietor uses the building for an unusual combination of

purposes: a “plant world,” along with the sale of milk, eggs,

bread, and, in a quaint southern touch, cracking pecans.

In striking contrast to the grandiosity of some small town

business names is the utter simplicity of others. Cafe tells

everyone that some type of food and drinks are served

here. Everyone in this small town knows the details.

The small towns are filled with places like this—small businesses, locally owned, that

have enough clientele for the owner and family to eke out a living.They have to offer

low prices because there is a fast-food chain down the road. Fixing the sign? That’s one

of those “I’ll get-to-its.”

Small Town USA

Struggling to Survive

THROUGH THE AUTHOR’S LENS

ll across the nation, small towns are struggling to survive.

Parents and town officials are concerned because so few

young adults remain in their home town.There is little to

keep them there, and when they graduate from high

school, most move to the city.With young people leaving

and old ones dying, the small towns are shriveling.

How can small towns contend with cutthroat global

competition when workers in some countries are paid a

couple of dollars a day? Even if you open a store, down

the road Wal-Mart sells the same products for about

what you pay for them—and offers much greater variety.

There are exceptions: Some small towns are located

close to a city, and they receive the city’s spillover. A few

possess a rare treasure—some unique historical event or

a natural attraction—that draws visitors with money to

spend. Most of the others, though, are drying up, left in a

time warp as history shifts around them.This photo essay

tells the story.

There is no global competition for this home-grown business. Shirley has

located her sign on a main highway just outside Niceville, Florida. By the looks

of the building, business could be better.

This general store used to be the main business in the area;

it even has a walk-in safe. It has been owned by the same

family since the 1920s, but is no longer successful.To get

into the building, I had to find out where the owner (shown

here) lived, knock on her door, and then wait while she

called around to find out who had the keys.

This is a successful business.The

store goes back to the early

1900s, and the proprietors have

capitalized on the “old timey”

atmosphere.

One of the few buildings consistently in good repair in the small

towns is the U.S. Post Office. Although its importance has

declined in the face of telecommunications, for “small towners”

the post office still provides a vital link with the outside world.

With little work available, it is difficult to afford adequate

housing.This house, although cobbled together and in

disrepair, is a family’s residence.

414 Chapter 14 THE ECONOMY

Cultural Diversity (Unity) around the World

When Capitalism Fails:

Consequences for All of Us

f there were any doubt that we live in an integrated

world united by capitalism, that doubt was erased

with the economic crisis that stunned the world in

2008.What started as a financial problem with a few

Wall Street firms spread to a full-

blown credit crisis in the United

States, then morphed into a bank-

ing–financial crisis that spread

across the globe. Stock markets in

New York plunged. So did those in

Tokyo, Moscow, London, Berlin,

and Beijing. The prices of houses

and commercial property

dropped not just in Los Angeles

and Miami but also in Lisbon and

Hong Kong. I was in Spain at the

time, and you could actually see

the crisis: Cranes on construction

sites suddenly idled, when just a

week or so before they had been carrying building ma-

terials to scores of workers.

Panic hit. Banks refused to loan money, even to cus-

tomers who were quite profitable. The thinking was,

Who knows what might really be lurking in the com-

pany’s accounting records? Millions of U.S. homeowners

fell behind on their mortgage and credit card payments.

Foreclosures became so common that it was not unusual

to drive down a neighborhood street and see multiple

“bank repossessed properties” for sale.

The heads of General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler—

who just a short time before had been reporting rosy fu-

tures to their stockholders—stood hats-in-hand before

Congress, begging for a handout, pleading that without

help they would have to close up their factories in a few

months, the not-so-hidden threat that if they didn’t get

their share of the newly-printed billions then millions of

workers related to the auto industry would be walking

the streets. Congress almost gave in, but not quite.They

said to come back with a plan—adding that it didn’t look

good for these executives to fly to Washington in private

jets when they were begging for money.

These three did come back—this time letting the

media know they were driving to Washington, and in

gas-saving hybrid vehicles. Congress relented and gave

out cash—billions of dollars to those outstretched

hands. Ford turned it down, but Chrysler took it. GM

grabbed it, asked for more, and promptly went belly up.

Although the Europeans thought at first that they

could stay above the “American” financial crisis, banks in

England, Spain, and France suddenly discovered that they,

too, were holding billions in bad loans. Frightened, pan-

icked depositors demanded their money, a crisis that hit

so suddenly and severely that to prevent strikes and riots,

the European governments stepped in and guaranteed

their banks’ deposits.“If they can’t return your money,

we’ll print more and give it to

you” was their overnight re-

sponse. That was sufficient to

quiet the depositors.

Russians, too, started to grum-

ble. The good times that they had

just started to enjoy under capi-

talism—after so many decades of

communist shoddiness and

shortages—started to evaporate

before their eyes. Seeing the

writing on the wall,Vladimir Putin

appeared on prime-time

television to soothe his

constituents.“We won’t let the

problems of those bad foreigners become ours,” he told

his stone-eyed skeptics. But as the price of oil, on which

Putin’s new empire depended, plunged, so did the confi-

dence of the Russians—and, with it, Putin’s political se-

curity. The former Soviet slave states—from the Baltic

to Poland—felt themselves crushed by the economic

crisis. Their rush to capitalism and the EU money that

flowed to them had made them feel financially secure.

But as the reality of the crisis began to sink in, their

newfound pride in economic development and its cor-

nucopia of consumer goods began to come crashing

down around them.As the Ukrainians watched in hor-

ror, their currency, the hryvnia, lost half its value in just

three months. Now how can you live with that? At first,

China, too, felt smugly immune from the West’s prob-

lems, but as the West cut its consumption, factory or-

ders declined. Panicked, some newly wealthy owners

grabbed whatever money there was left and fled to

parts unknown. Suddenly dumped, millions of urban im-

migrants returned dejected to their villages.

An economically integrated world? And how! United

by capitalism—with good times rolling around the

globe, and bad times shaking the globe.

For Your Consideration

What effects has the economic crisis had on your life?

How do you think it will affect your future? Why is the

phrase, the globalization of capitalism, an accurate one?

The economic crisis moved quickly from an American to

a global problem. This billboard in Seoul represents the

drop in value of the South Korean won.

The heads of these top twenty-five corporations wield power beyond their own com-

panies. Not only do they move capital around the globe, but they also serve on the boards

of directors of their nation’s most influential foundations and universities. Although in

competition with one another, they are united by a common interest—making capital-

ism flourish (Carroll and Carson 2003; Rothkopf 2008).

The inner circles that head a country’s top corporations have access to high-level politi-

cians, which they use to promote legislation favorable to big business. Some also use those con-

tacts for more sinister purposes. In the 1950s, the newly elected president of Guatemala,

Jacobo Árbenz, wanted workers to get higher wages. The largest employer in Guatemala, The

United Fruit Company, a U.S. corporation, opposed this plan. The CIA then funded and

trained an army, which overthrew Árbenz (Shefner 2008). In 1973, another U.S. company,

the International Telephone & Telegraph Company (ITT), joined the CIA in a plot that led

to the assassination of Salvador Allende, the president of Chile (Coleman 1995; Rohter 2002).

In 2009, a Dutch company, Royal Dutch Shell, paid $16 million to settle a claim that it was

complicit in hanging a man who led a protest against the company’s destruction of the envi-

ronment (Mouawad 2009).

How would you like to be a fly on the wall as such a conspiracies develop? Here’s your

chance. Listen as the CEO of a leading aircraft manufacturer talks to a ranking member

of the Senate’s Armed Services Committee:

The Conflict Perspective on the Globalization of Capitalism 415

TABLE 14.2 The World’s Largest Corporations

1 General Electric United States Conglomerates 183 17 798

2 Royal Dutch Shell Netherlands Oil & Gas Operations 458 26 278

3 Toyota Motor Japan Consumer Durables 263 17 325

4 ExxonMobil United States Oil & Gas Operations 426 45 228

5 BP United Kingdom Oil & Gas Operations 361 21 228

6 HSBC Holdings United Kingdom Banking 142 6 2,520

7 AT&T United States Telecommunications 124 13 265

Services

8 Wal-Mart Stores United States Retailing 406 13 163

9 Banco Santander Spain Banking 96 13 1,319

10 Chevron United States Oil & Gas Operations 255 24 161

11 Total France Oil & Gas Operations 223 15 165

12 ICBC China Banking 54 11 1,188

13 Gazprom Russia Oil & Gas Operations 97 27 277

14 PetroChina China Oil & Gas Operations 114 20 145

15 Volkswagen Group Germany Consumer Durables 158 7 244

16 JPMorgan Chase United States Banking 101 4 2,175

17 GDF Suez France Utilities 116 9 233

18 ENI Italy Oil & Gas Operations 158 13 140

19 Berkshire Hathaway United States Diversified Financials 108 5 267

20 Vodafone United Kingdom Telecommunications 70 13 252

Services

21 Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Japan Banking 61 6 1,931

22 Procter & Gamble United States Household & Personal 84 14 138

Products

23 CCB-China China Banking 43 9 903

Construction Bank

24 Verizon United States Telecommunications 97 6 202

Communications Services

25 Petrobras-Petroleo Brazil Oil & Gas Operations 92 14 121

Brasil

Rank Company Country Industry Sales ($bil) Profits ($bil) Assets ($bil)

Source: “Global 2000,” 2009.

Note: Size is measured by sales, market value, assets, and profits.

Here’s the deal. I want to sell a plane to Muammar Qaddafi and he wants to buy one. But

we have sanctions in place that won’t let me sell to him. The U.S. wants the guy dead. So,

what I’m thinking is, if you help me get the okay to sell him the plane, I’ll build it with

explosive bolts connecting the wings to the fuselage. Then, one day he’s up flying over the

Med and we push a button. He’s gone. I make my sale. Everyone’s happy. (Rothkopf 2008:xix)

The CEO was wrong, of course, not just morally, but in his facts. Not everyone would

be happy about such an arrangement—at least not Qaddafi and his family. By the way,

the senator didn’t take the CEO up on his offer.

Most economic-political connections are not sinister. Most consist of politicians

passing legislation to protect corporate profits. But the interests between business and

politics do overlap to such a degree that business leaders have even been able to get a

sitting U.S. president to help them sell airplanes. Here is the report from the Associated

Press (October 29, 1995):

The White House celebrated Saudi Arabia’s $6 billion purchase of U.S.-made airplanes

Thursday, calling it a victory for both American manufacturers and the Clinton administra-

tion. . . . President Clinton helped broker the sale. . . . Prince Bandar bin Sultan, [Saudi

Arabia’s] minister of defense and aviation, credited Clinton for closing the purchase. Clinton

personally pitched the quality of the U.S. planes to Saudi King Fahd. [Italics added]

. . . The Clinton Administration worked this sale awfully damn hard because of the pres-

ident’s commitment to promoting U.S. business abroad. . . . He has done that routinely, in-

structed his ambassadors and his diplomats to put the economic interests of Americans

forward as they conduct their diplomacy.

Although the president wasn’t selling underarm deodorant, it was the same principle.

Concentration of Power

Conflict theorists stress how power is concentrated in the capitalist class described on

pages 270–271. A tool that unites and magnifies their power is interlocking directorates.

Individuals serve on the board of directors of several major companies, and so do their fel-

low board members. Like a spider’s web that starts at the center and fans out in all direc-

tions, these overlapping memberships join the top companies into a single network. As

one chief executive said:

If you serve on, say, six outside boards, each of which has, say . . . five experts in one or an-

other subject, you have a built-in panel of thirty friends who are experts who you meet reg-

ularly, automatically each month, and you really have great access to ideas and information.

You’re joining a club, a very good club. (Useem 1984)

This is not just a characteristic of capitalism in the United States, but of capitalism

throughout the world.

The Global Superclass

The overlapping memberships of the globe’s top multinational companies enfold their lead-

ers into a small circle that we can call the global superclass (Rothkopf 2008). The superclass

is not only extremely wealthy, as we reviewed in Chapter 9 (see Figure 9.1 on page 237), but

it is also extremely powerful. These people have access to the top circles of political power

around the globe. Here is how a member of this superclass describes these tight connections:

Every country has its large financial institutions that are central to the development of that

country, and everyone else in finance knows somebody who will know the head of one of

those companies. That person knows a senior person in their government that could be use-

ful in a situation. . . . the key is the network. . . . it is twenty, thirty, fifty people worldwide

who ultimately drive the decisions. (Rothkopf 2008:129–130)

416 Chapter 14 THE ECONOMY

interlocking directorates

the same people serving on

the board of directors of sev-

eral companies

global superclass a small

group of highly interconnected

individuals in which wealth and

power are so concentrated

that they make the world’s

major decisions

Twenty to fifty individuals who make the world’s major decisions! Could this possibly be

true? The individual who said this, Stephen Schwarzman, is an insider who was describ-

ing the way things work at the top. Pay attention to this real-life example of how this in-

terconnected global power works out in practice:

When Schwarzman, the head of a major U.S. investment company, had a problem with some

policy of the German government, he called a German friend. The friend arranged for

Schwarzman to meet with the Chancellor of Germany. After listening to Schwarzman, the

Chancellor agreed to support a change in Germany’s policy.

This high concentration of power is new on the world scene. Although hidden from

view, it is highly significant for our lives—and for everyone around the world. The deci-

sions of this global superclass affect our present and future.

Global Investing

“This Bud’s for you!” —Thanks to InBev, a Belgian brewer

“Fill up at Shell!” —Thanks to a Dutch refinery

“Tums for your tummy!”—Thanks to Beecham Group, a British corporation

Corporations have expanded well beyond their national borders, as illustrated by the

Social map below and the one on the next page. Cross-border investments have become so

extensive that about 1 of every 22 U.S. employees—over 5 million people—works for a

business owned by people in other countries (Statistical Abstract 2011:Table 1292).

Although we take multinational corporations for granted—as well as their cornucopia of

products—their power and presence are new to the world scene. As multinational corpora-

tions do business across national borders, they tend to become detached from the interests

and values of their country of origin. The head of Intel made this revealing statement, “Intel

can thrive today and never hire another American. It is not our intention, but we can do

that.” (Rothkopf 2008:120). These global giants move investments and production from one

part of the globe to another—with no concern for consequences other than profits.

The Conflict Perspective on the Globalization of Capitalism 417

FIGURE 14.3 The Globalization of Capitalism: U.S. Ownership in Other Countries

Source: Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 2011:Table 1295.

Less than $5 billion

$5 billion to $25 billion

Over $25 billion

North

America

South

America

Africa

Europe

Asia

Australia

How opening or closing factories affects workers is of no concern to them. With profit their

moral guide, the conscience of multinational corporations is written in dollar signs.

This primary allegiance to profits and market share, rather than to their workers or to any

country, accompanied by a web of interconnections that span the globe, is of high sociolog-

ical significance. The shift in orientation and organization is so

new, however, that we don’t yet know its implications. But we

can consider two stark contrasts. The first: Removed from tribal

loyalties and needing easy access across national boundaries,

the global interconnections of the multinational corporations

could unite the world’s nations and produce global peace. The

second: They could create a New World Order dominated by

a handful of corporate leaders. If so, we all may find ourselves

at the mercy of a global elite in a system of interconnected so-

cieties, directed by the heads of the world’s corporate giants.

We will discuss this possibility in the next chapter.

Work in U.S. Society

With this broad, even global, background, let’s turn our

focus on work in U.S. society.

The Transition to Postindustrial Society

Analysts often use the term postindustrial society to describe

the United States. Figure 14.5 illustrates why this term is ap-

propriate. The change shown in this figure is without parallel

in human history. In the 1800s, most U.S. workers were farm-

ers. Today, farmers make up about 1 percent of the workforce.

With the technology of the 1800s, a typical farmer produced

418 Chapter 14 THE ECONOMY

Less than average: 1.9% to 3.4%

Average: 3.5% to 5.0%

More than average: 5.1% to 7.3%

How much of a state's employment is from foreign

companies?

FIGURE 14.4 The Globalization of Capitalism: Foreign Ownership

of U.S. Business

Source: Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 2011:Table 1292.

Percentage

100

1920

1940

1960 1980

2000

2020

1900

Year

White-collar

Blue-collar

Farming

FIGURE 14.5 The Revolutionary Change

in the U.S.Workforce

Source: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United

States, various years, and 2011:Tables 615, 1370.

enough food to feed five people. With today’s powerful machinery and hybrid seeds, a farmer

now feeds about eighty. In 1940, about half of U.S. workers wore a blue collar; then chang-

ing technology shrank the market for blue-collar jobs. White-collar work continued its as-

cent, reaching the dominant position it holds today.

When you look at Figure 14.5, the change in type of work is readily apparent, but what

you see here is merely the surface. The significance of this change in work is that it indicates

the arrival of a new type of society. To live in a postindustrial society is to live in a differ-

ent world. Not only is your work different but so are your lifestyle, your relationships, the

age at which you marry, the amount of education you attain, the number of children you

have, your attitudes and values, and even the way you view the world.

Women and Work

Let’s look at another major change that has transformed our world, the unprecedented in-

crease in the numbers of women who work for wages. In Chapter 11 (Figure 11.5, page

316), you saw how this number has increased so greatly that today almost half of all U.S.

workers are women. Look at Figure 14.6 to see how the United States ranks among other

Western nations.

Researchers have found two primary distinctions between women and men in the

world of work. First, women seem to be more concerned than men with maintaining

Work in U.S. Society 419

Iceland

Norway

Sweden

Switzerland

Denmark

Canada

Great Britain

Portugal

United States

Germany

Australia

Austria

Japan

France

Spain

Ireland

Luxembourg

Poland

Greece

Italy

Mexico

Turkey

10 20 30 40 50

Percentage

70 80 90 100

85%

79%

78%

76%

72%

71%

70%

67%

66%

65%

64%

60%

58%

56%

52%

48%

27%

FIGURE 14.6 Women in the Labor Force: A Global View

Note: Female labor force participation rates are derived by dividing the female labor force of all

ages by the female population ages 15–64. These totals include women who work part-time.

Source: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 2011:Table 1368.

a balance between their work and family lives (Statham et al. 1988; Caproni 2004).

Second, men and women tend to follow different models for success: Men seem to

place more emphasis on individualism, power, and competition, while women seem

more likely to stress collaboration, encouragement, and helping (Miller-Loessi 1992;

Mayer et al. 2008).

Note the caution with which I have presented these findings—the use of seem to and

tend to. I am not convinced that there are any substantial or essential differences be-

tween women’s and men’s orientations to work. The few studies that we have on this

topic could be tapping core differences—or they could be measuring temporary ten-

dencies owing to women having more recently entered the paid workforce. If so, as

women’s work experiences accumulate, these differences will disappear. It will be in-

teresting to see what happens as more women reach the top levels of their professions

and attain the more powerful positions in the business world.

How likely is it that a woman will be in the labor force? Figure 14.7a on the next

page shows how working for wages increases with each level of education. This is

probably because women who have more education find more satisfying work—and

get higher pay. Figure 14.7b shows the influence of marital status. You can see that

single women are the most likely to work for wages; married women follow closely be-

hind; and divorced, widowed, and separated women are the least likely to be in the

workforce. From Figure 14.7c, you can see that African American women are the

most likely to be in the workforce, but that race–ethnicity makes little difference in

whether women work for wages. You can also see that the racial–ethnic groups have

been following a parallel course.

The changes shown in Figure 14.7 have profound implications for social life. Be-

cause of this, sociologists use the term quiet revolution to refer to the consequences of

so many women joining the ranks of paid labor. This quiet revolution has transformed

self-concepts, spending patterns, and relations at work. It has also changed relation-

ships with boyfriends, husbands, and children. It has even transformed views of life. I’ll

give just one example. It used to be considered most undesirable—perhaps immoral—

for women with preschoolers to work for wages. Believing that they would be neglect-

ing their children and that neighbors would talk, mothers of preschoolers took jobs

only as a last resort. Now, as Figure 14.7d shows, most mothers of preschoolers have paid

jobs—even those who have children under age 3. The neighbors don’t gossip, for what

was once considered wrong is now considered right—and most of the mothers in the

neighborhood are at work.

As discussed in Chapter 11, women face discrimination at work. The Down-to-Earth

Sociology box on page 422 explores how some women cope with this discrimination.

The Underground Economy

The underground economy. The term has a sinister ring—suggestive of dope deals

struck in alleys and wads of bills hastily exchanged. The underground economy is this,

but it is a lot more—and it is usually a lot more innocent. If you pay the plumber with

a check made out to “cash,” if you purchase a pair of sunglasses from a street vendor or

a kitchen gadget at a yard sale, if you so much as hand a neighbor’s kid a $20 bill to mow

the lawn or to baby sit, you are participating in the underground economy. (Pennar and

Farrell 1993)

Also known as the informal economy and the off-the-books economy, the underground

economy consists of economic activities—whether legal or illegal—that people don’t

report to the government. What interests most of us is not unreported babysitting money,

but the illegal activities that people could not report even if they wanted to. As a 20-year-

old child care worker in one of my classes who also worked as a prostitute two or three

nights a week told me, “Why do I do this? For the money! Where else can I make this kind

of money in a few hours? And it’s all tax free.”

420 Chapter 14 THE ECONOMY

quiet revolution the funda-

mental changes in society that

follow when vast numbers of

women enter the workforce

underground economy

exchanges of goods and ser-

vices that are not reported to

the government and thereby

escape taxation