This new international division of labor (NIDL) resulted in a "deindustrialization" of center states and regions (Bluestone and Harrison, 1982; Caloren, 1978; Laxer, 1973; Starks, 1978).
The NIDL has had the combined effect of expanding capital's global reserve army of labor (cf.
What is new is that now this all is also threatening the proletariat to their great horror" (Werlhof, 1984: 138). Yet, as continuing evidence of contradiction, while there may be a sort of deproletarianization in the center, the NIDL has served to expand "global proletarianization" (Barkin, 1985).
(13.) For example, the NIDL is based primarily on capital's drive to cut production costs by running off to Third World low-wage zones like Mexico to produce for the so-called world market.
At the height of the debate over dependency and development (Baran, 1957; Frank, 1967; Dos Santos, 1970; Amin, 1974; Warren, 1973, 1980; Brenner, 1977; Cardoso and Faletto, 1979) Frobel, Heinrichs and Kreye (1980) came forward with the thesis that an international division of labor with manufactures originating in the core and raw material production in the periphery, an image which suffuses the work of Baran, Frank and the dependistas, was being replaced by a new international division of labor (NIDL).
The idea of an NIDL which threatened security of employment in the older industrial working class, implied a substantial conceptual and empirical departure from models which seemed to depend on a stagnation thesis for the periphery or upon the privileged position of the industrial working class of the core.
Some writers in the monopoly capitalist tradition interpreted the NIDL material with skepticism (e.g., Petras, Haven, Morley and DeWitt, 1981), while others argued that industrialization in the Third World could be explained according to the essential elements of the theory of monopoly capitalism (e.g., Szymanski, 1981; Weisskopf, 1978).