The previous chapter questioned the extent to which deindustrialization in the Global North was and is a product of import competition from the Global South and/ or the relocation of capital from North to South. While there is evidence that this might be the case in specific sectors, at an aggregate level it is problematic, and the fact is that in many cases manufactured goods are produced using less workers. It is also the case that wage stagnation and/ or loss of benefits such as pension levels is an issue across the board – in manufacturing and services and indeed in the public sector – regardless of whether or not there is intense competition from imported goods or services. The issue of more output being produced with less workers is addressed further in this chapter, as it speaks to a different potential explanation for deindus-trialization in the North, namely that it is a product of technological change, including automation.

The chapter examines this thesis, first by reiterating and further developing the debate between the “relocationists” versus the “technologists”. It then moves on to consider in more detail the debate about technological futures, including those around robotization and automation, in both the North and South. This discussion about a second machine age is related to wider debates about a second “Great Transformation”, which highlights the importance of the new post- industrial age. The third section then provides a critical assessment of this debate, and in particular introduces the powerful critique made by Benanav (2020a) of the technologists, whose wider arguments are also considered in the next chapter. The chapter concludes that while the technologists provide a useful corrective to the relocationists considered in the previous chapter, there are some serious issues not fully addressed by this perspective.

THE RELOCATION THESIS QUESTIONED: THE TECHNOLOGIST CRITIQUE

Chapter 3 considered the question of the extent to which deindustrialization in the Global North can be explained by the industrialization of the Global South. While the discussion did not reject the relocation and/ or import competition arguments outright, it did suggest that there were important reasons for questioning its central claims.