In this paper, I discuss the possibilities of transnational worker solidarity, with a focus on the potential of digital communication that became normalized during the Corona pandemic. I draw on Sally Scholz’s distinction between different types of solidarity and argue that historical forms of worker solidarity were often a combination of social and political forms of solidarity, in concrete local settings responding to concrete local problems. I also draw on economic and psychological considerations for explaining how these constellations helped bring about solidaristic action. I then provide arguments for why, despite various reasons for pessimism, transnational worker solidarity is, today, needed maybe more than ever. New digital technologies and the social habits that are developing around them have the potential to give a new impulse to transnational worker solidarity, because they can create levels of connectedness and trust that are closer to those experienced by certain historical worker communities, for whom social and political solidarity overlapped. But these opportunities can often not be grasped because of legal obstacles. Therefore, I conclude by postulating that workers should have a right to “know their colleagues” along value chains, allowing those who work together to connect in ways that potentially lead to solidaristic action.

This chapter investigates the legal instruments that govern MERCOSUR and the degree to which they have facilitated prosperity in the region. Even though it is an international regime, MERCOSUR remains a project for a future single market. In comparison with other regional integrations in this book, MERCOSUR members’ implementation of commitments has not unleashed regional prosperity. This is generally attributable to incongruity between the normative interests and beliefs in the state parties’ responses to MERCOSUR’s regime. Therefore, institutional functions and the level of implementation are not proportionate to the level of prosperity so far experienced. Indeed, MERCOSUR has not totally dismantled restrictions on intra- MERCOSUR trade, which couples with the delay in adoption of a number of secondary rules. To realise the prosperity gains of regional integration, state parties must synchronise the normative interests and beliefs in the implementing institutions.

Chapter 4 discusses the integration of child labor into the capitalist relations of production in the Imperial Arsenal. It connects the militarization of labor with industrial and urban modernization in the context of migration crises throughout the second half of the nineteenth century. It analyses how children were forcefully drafted before the Tanzimat and how child labor was central to the transition from tributary to military labor. It then explores how children served to the efforts to maintain military labor in the Arsenal. As the flow of refugees to Istanbul increased in the 1860s, the demanding need for industrial production and the failure of previous schemes of coercion merged with an emerging middle-class consciousness among urban elites who desired to convert the orphaned and refugee children into industrious citizens. The chapter narrates the formation of naval-vocational schools and boys’ companies and battalions within this context and introduces wages and profiles of Muslim and non-Muslim children throughout the different phases of their employment in the Arsenal and the Yarn Factory.

This chapter focuses on the choices that families made about birthing practitioners and where women would deliver. From the eighteenth century, man-midwives dominated the delivery of babies in England. Historians’ accounts have suggested that this incursion was a transformative moment in which men wrestled control of childbirth from women. This chapter shows that because men were so involved in shaping the experience of making babies throughout the seventeenth century, the arrival of men-midwives was not the surprising development represented by other historians. Although birthing chambers in the seventeenth century were almost always female-only, the medical and material preparations for delivery were not at all homosocial. Women gave birth amidst objects that had been procured by female and male family members. The location of the birthing chamber was also often a family one: in the woman’s father’s or father-in-law’s home. Male midwives therefore had a much easier job convincing families to choose them over female practitioners than previous histories have imagined.

This chapter describes and discusses the pragmatic argument. Whereas the previous chapters have generally served to develop and defend sufficientarianism, this chapter primarily debunks a familiar argument that is increasingly, but mistakenly, taken to speak in favour of sufficientarianism. This argument, called the pragmatic argument, says that the ideal of sufficiency is more easily achieved and more feasible than the ideals of equality and priority, and that this pragmatic advantage speaks in favour of a sufficientarian theory of justice. The chapter argues against both these claims. First, once we understand the substantial requirements of the sufficiency threshold in reference to a rather demanding multiple-threshold view such as the umbel view, we understand that sufficiency is not necessarily more feasible than other ideals of justice. Second, even if the ideal of sufficiency was easier to achieve than other ideals, this is not a relevant theoretical advantage of a sufficientarianism theory of justice. Hence, we have strong reasons to reject the pragmatic argument. Upon this conclusion, the chapter reflects on what sufficientarianism implies for public policy.

Researchers and policy makers are in basic agreement that refugees admitted to the European Union constitute a net cost and fiscal burden for the receiving societies. As is often claimed, there is a trade-off between refugee migration and the fiscal sustainability of the welfare state. This chapter argues that the consensual cost-perspective on migration is built on a flawed economic conception of the orthodox ‘sound finance’ paradigm. By shifting perspective to examine migration through the macroeconomic lens offered by Modern Monetary Theory, the chapter demonstrates sound finance’s detrimental impact on migration policy and research. Most importantly, however, this undertaking offers the tools with which both migration research and migration policy could be modernized and put on a realistic footing. As will be shown, this also has fundamental consequences for our conception of human rights and solidarity.

This chapter explores whether there is a link between racial rhetorical representation and legislative behavior. We take a more nuanced examination of the link between rhetorical outreach and legislative activity than previous research. Rather than treating all discussions about a topic as being the same, we explore whether proactive (as measured by low-profile racial outreach) and reactive (as measured by high-profile racial appeals) rhetorical representation differ in their correlation to legislative activity. This allows us to better understand whether some forms of rhetorical outreach provide more accurate information to voters about the member of Congress’ legislative intent. Using our rhetorical outreach data and 18,025 primary sponsored bills, 417,925 co-sponsored bills, 108,255 statements from congressional hearings, and 1,300 unique voting scores, we find strong evidence that elected officials who engage in racial rhetorical outreach also engage in racial legislative actions across all of our measures. We also find that both high- and low-profile forms of racial rhetorical outreach are consistently significant correlates of legislative activity. However, elected officials who engage in more lower profile (i.e. proactive) forms of racial outreach are generally the most likely to advance Black political interests through the primary and co-sponsorship of legislation. Overall, racial rhetorical representation provides an accurate picture of how legislators behave in elected office. However, some forms of racial outreach provide a clearer signal of legislative priorities than others. While legislative communications are aimed at winning votes, they also are communicating to each other and forming alliances. While it is not guarantee that these bills will turn into laws, racial rhetorical representation is linked to other forms of substantive representation.

Chapter 9 explores whether racial rhetorical representation matters in the presence or absence of tangible legislation. To answer this question, we return to our experiment and inform respondents that the topic the elected official spoke about in the press release either became law or failed. After providing information about the fate of legislation, we ask respondent whether this changes their opinion of the elected official. We find that even when rhetorical representation does not lead to policy, most Black and White respondents do not view the hypothetical politician as engaging in cheap talk. Instead, their qualitative responses reveal that they understand that a single politician cannot will the passage of legislation. They also express appreciation for the elected official for speaking out about a particular topic as they perceive it as laying the groundwork for future action. In this sense, rhetorical representation without legislation still matters to voters. With that said, when rhetorical representation was matched up with the passage of pertinent legislation, respondents gave the elected official a boost in approval. Thus, speaking out about a topic and failing does not hurt elected officials, engaging in rhetorical representation and succeeding leads to a bonus in support.