The Impacts of Wal-Mart: The Rise and Consequences of the...

ANRV381-SO35-27 ARI 2 June 2009 9:41

The Impacts of Wal-Mart:The Rise and Consequencesof the World’s DominantRetailerGary Gereffi1,2 and Michelle Christian21Center on Globalization, Governance & Competitiveness, 2Department of Sociology,Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708; email: [email protected],[email protected]

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2009. 35:573–91

First published online as a Review in Advance onApril 6, 2009

The Annual Review of Sociology is online atsoc.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115947

Copyright c© 2009 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved

0360-0572/09/0811-0573$20.00

Key Words

globalization, labor, community mobilization, buyer-drivencommodity chains

AbstractWal-Mart has been both praised and pilloried as a template for twenty-first century capitalism. Therein lies the challenge in analyzing theworld’s largest retailer. We examine the sociological impact of Wal-Mart in terms of four themes: its business model and organizationalstructure, the dual impact of Wal-Mart’s labor relations in terms of itsown stores and working conditions in its global supply chain, the gen-esis and effectiveness of community mobilizations against Wal-Mart,and how Wal-Mart’s growth is linked to the emergence of buyer-drivencommodity chains in the global economy. Wal-Mart underscores thevalue of a public sociology agenda that embraces three research criteria:the incorporation of new media and audiences, the need to go globalwith our research, and the ability to work for change from within.

573

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

09.3

5:57

3-59

1. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by D

UK

E U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y o

n 11

/02/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV381-SO35-27 ARI 2 June 2009 9:41

Serious differences among social scientists oc-cur not between those who observe withoutthinking and those who would think withoutobserving; the differences have rather to dowith what kinds of thinking, what kinds of ob-serving, and what kinds of links, if any, aremade between the two.

—C. Wright Mills, The SociologicalImagination

INTRODUCTION

The adjectives used to describe Wal-Mart com-mand a range of superlatives: retail juggernaut,the template for a global economic order, mostinfluential company in the world, cultural gate-keeper, and insidious beast. Often there is littleagreement among those who talk, write, andresearch the company. Whether they fall in thepro, anti, or middle of the road categories in thebroad Wal-Mart debate, most interpretationsregarding the retailer’s impact center aroundfive sociologically relevant themes: Wal-Mart’sbusiness model, its economic impact, its laborrelations, its community mobilization, andits ties to the global economy. Within thesecategories are many subthemes, such as thepursuit of “everyday low prices,” supply-chainmanagement, culture, jobs, pricing, workingconditions, and so on. Schaeffer (2003) warnsagainst generalizing or universalizing aboutglobalization, and the same can be applied toWal-Mart. He writes, “only by taking a careful,historical analysis of its implementation inparticular settings can any assessment be madeof its benefits and disadvantages” (Schaeffer2003, p. 11). The welter of ideas and interestssurrounding this retail giant makes it virtu-ally impossible to form blanket judgmentsregarding its overall impact.

The divergent perspectives regardingWal-Mart are rooted in disciplinary orienta-tions, the types of questions asked, and basicassumptions that divide the social scientists,humanists, and nonacademics who are writingabout Wal-Mart. Where economists (Basker2005, Hicks 2007, Vedder & Cox 2006) have

focused on the dynamics of prices, inflation,and jobs using advanced econometric mod-eling, historians (French 2007, Lichtenstein2007) highlight how Wal-Mart’s labor relationsconnect to new capitalist forms. Researchersin business strategy (Bergdahl 2004, Grant2003) have surveyed the company’s rise and itsoperational model, whereas geographers (Graff2006, Vias 2004) examine the spatial dimensionof Wal-Mart’s growth. All the disciplineshave scholars who are criticizing as well aspraising Wal-Mart for varying reasons. It isthe nonacademics, however, who are leadingthe most publicly centered and contentiousinvestigations of Wal-Mart (Ehrenreich 2001;Fishman 2006; National Labor Committee2002, 2007; Norman 1999; Ortega 1998).

Where does sociology fit into this mix?Sociologists have researched Wal-Mart withvarious theoretical, methodological, andconceptual lenses, and they have touchedon many relevant contemporary topics. Webelieve that sociologists can play a unique rolein connecting the multidisciplinary inquiriesinto Wal-Mart, especially if a public sociologystance is adopted. Therefore, our review in-cludes writings by a broad set of sociologicallyoriented social scientists and nonacademics.An inclusive approach is required becauseWal-Mart has galvanized a large literatureabout its sociological implications, even whenthe authors are not sociologists.

This is illustrated in Lichtenstein’s (2006)Wal-Mart: The Face of Twenty-First Century Cap-italism and Brunn’s (2006) Wal-Mart World, thefirst edited volumes in which social scientists,historians, and activists collaborated to evaluatethe evolution, impact, and future of Wal-Mart’sfootprint. Both Lichtenstein’s and Brunn’s col-lections address the company’s impact on mul-tiple facets of society, and they serve as a modelfor public sociology.

Wal-Mart also can be viewed in the con-text of structural changes in the global economyand its connection to the U.S. retail revolution.Wal-Mart is a driver and organizer of globalprocesses, and it garners benefits from the in-ternational environment. The most common

574 Gereffi · Christian

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

09.3

5:57

3-59

1. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by D

UK

E U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y o

n 11

/02/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV381-SO35-27 ARI 2 June 2009 9:41

Table 1 Polarized themes in Wal-Mart debates

Positive NegativeLowers prices Exploits laborSupports diversity Practices gender/racial discriminationIncreases business efficiency Pushes down wagesProvides jobs Increases unemploymentEmploys nontraditional workers Increases poverty, welfare allocationsIndustry leader Erodes downtown business centersPromotes environmental sustainability Increases environmental degradation

positive and negative characteristics used to de-scribe Wal-Mart (see Table 1) arise from thissituation, and Wal-Mart’s corporate culture hasadapted to this reality. Wal-Mart is the emblem-atic case for how giant corporations impact theglobal economy via the growth of trade, foreigndirect investment, and the neoliberal agendaof economic deregulation, which has repercus-sions on wages, labor relations, and communi-ties in the United States and beyond.

The rise of Wal-Mart is significant forits scale, scope, and sociological relevance.Zook & Graham (2006) note that in 2002Wal-Mart surpassed Exxon Mobil to becomethe world’s largest corporation in terms ofsales. Wal-Mart estimates that more than 200million shoppers visit its U.S. stores each year,including Wal-Mart supercenters, discountstores, Neighborhood Markets, and Sam’s Clubwarehouses. Wal-Mart’s statistics for 2008 helpus to grasp the magnitude of the company’ssize and reach (see Table 2). Wal-Mart hadglobal net sales of $375 billion, over 2 million

Table 2 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., facts, 2008

Total net sales $375 billionNet sales, U.S. $284 billionNet sales, international $91 billionTotal associates 2 million +Total stores, U.S. 4141Total stores, international 3121Distribution centers 112U.S. customers 200 million +Suppliers 60,000 +Countries in supplier network 55 +Source: Wal-Mart Annual Report, http://www.walmartfacts.com. Accessed February 2009.

employees, and 60,000 suppliers located inmore than 55 countries. One-fifth of its profitscome from Wal-Mart stores located in 15 coun-tries, and Wal-Mart’s global reach is expanding.

In this article we focus on Wal-Mart’s busi-ness model and organizational structure, its im-pact on labor relations, community campaignsagainst the giant retailer, and its connectionsto the global economy. We forgo an analysis ofthe company’s economic impact per se becausethis field has been well covered by economists(see sidebar, Economic Impact Debate: Pricesversus Wages). Within our four main topics,

ECONOMIC IMPACT DEBATE: PRICESVERSUS WAGES

The most common topics involving the economic impact of Wal-Mart’s presence are pricing, wages, and jobs. The findings varyaccording to store location and the statistical tools used by re-searchers to control variables outside the model (Hicks 2007).One of the most widely cited economic findings is that Wal-Mart’sexpansion from 1985 to 2004 brought savings of $263 billion toU.S. consumers owing to reduced prices (Global Insight 2005).Global Insight, the economic consulting firm hired by Wal-Martto conduct a national study of retail wages, employment, andprices, updated this study in 2007, arguing that the cumulativeprice savings after adding the years of 2005 and 2006 totaled $287billion (Global Insight 2007). Bernstein et al. (2006, pp. 1, 4) findthe original Global Insight study to be “implausible” because ofthe lack of robustness of the econometric analysis as well as thelogic of their arguments. They claim that the price-versus-wagesdispute is as much a “debate about politics and values as eco-nomics” because the belief that lower prices are more importantthan higher wages neglects the larger economic climate in termsof the increased costs in housing, health care, and transportation.

www.annualreviews.org • The Impacts of Wal-Mart 575

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

09.3

5:57

3-59

1. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by D

UK

E U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y o

n 11

/02/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV381-SO35-27 ARI 2 June 2009 9:41

we address both the positive and negative as-pects of Wal-Mart. In the concluding section,we sketch in greater detail our view of what apublic sociology of Wal-Mart might look like.We support Burawoy’s (2005) call to engage“multiple publics in multiple ways.” Academicrigor and working to create eventful change canbe complementary forces rather than contestedterrains. This is the essence of a public sociol-ogy agenda.

WAL-MART’S SOCIOLOGICALIMPACT

Four broad themes characterize Wal-Mart’s so-ciological impact: (a) a new business modelbased on low prices and global sourcing, anunprecedented expansion of store locations athome and abroad, and a corporate culture thatis struggling to reconcile its conservative rootswith its cosmopolitan aspirations; (b) labor re-lations in the largest U.S. private employer,which confront different issues across Wal-Mart’s global supply chain; (c) how local com-munities are reacting to Wal-Mart in their ef-forts to preserve autonomy and control; and(d ) how Wal-Mart’s rise fits into broaderchanges in the global economy, particularly theemergence of buyer-driven commodity chains.

Business Model

Wal-Mart’s business model focuses on its dis-count format, location strategy, and corporateculture. Its rise as a retail leader embodiesits commitment to business efficiency and lowprices, mediated by a passion for technology-driven supply-chain management, while em-bracing a folksy, regional Ozark Mountains,Arkansas, corporate culture. Recently, Wal-Mart has reformulated its business model withan emphasis on new social and environmentalstandards that may reshape its core strategies(Wal-Mart 2007). We highlight implications ofthis shift in our public sociology section.

Discount format—“everyday low prices,”organizational structure, and supply-chainmanagement. Wal-Mart’s “everyday low

prices” slogan shapes all its business decisions,including the use of technology, branding,imports, and broad supplier and labor relations.Ortega (1998, p. xiv) writes that Wal-Martsaw its mission as simple: “offer the lowestprice. Cut costs to the bone, and keep cuttingso you can offer the lowest price.” George& Wilson (2004) argue that Wal-Mart re-duces complexity in its business strategiesto maintain low costs by focusing on designsimplification and centralized communicationchannels. For Bergdahl (2004, p. 3), companyfounder Sam Walton’s low price mantra wassolidified through the core business principleshe espoused, such as treating the customerright, taking care of the staff, being honestin dealings, passing savings along to the cus-tomer, keeping things simple, thinking small,controlling costs, and constantly improvingoperations.

In-store decisions such as pallet use, key itemproduct focus, convenient packaging, and pri-vate label brand imaging are implemented ina way that maintains costs at the retail end,whereas upstream activities in the supply chainare monitored by Wal-Mart’s 1,000-person in-formation division (Bianco 2006). Wal-Marthas the largest private computer database inthe business world. It controls inventory anddistribution channels with Retail Link®, cen-tralizes in-store performance figures, and workswith suppliers to coordinate product devel-opment and vendor-managed replenishmentprocedures. Because of these technical com-petencies, Wal-Mart has become “the majordrive of technology-based productivity gains inthe American economy” (Petrovic & Hamilton2006, p. 138).

Friedman (2005) calls Wal-Mart’s strengthat inventory control through supply-chainmanagement a “great flattener” of the world.He labels the distribution centers that Wal-Mart operates globally the “Wal-Mart sym-phony with no finale; it just plays over andover” (Friedman 2005, p. 152). Wal-Mart rev-olutionized the speed and efficiency of get-ting products to stores through its distribu-tion center location strategy and cross-docking


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

09.3

5:57

3-59

1. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by D

UK

E U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y o

n 11

/02/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV381-SO35-27 ARI 2 June 2009 9:41

techniques. All Wal-Mart stores are typicallylocated within a day’s drive of a distributioncenter, and the company works closely with itssuppliers to streamline deliveries. Grant (2003,p. 87) notes how the cross-docking process ofreceiving products directly from manufactur-ers with little handling in between eliminatesstore inventory overflows. Inbound trucks areimmediately unloaded and the containers arereloaded on outbound trucks, bypassing waittimes in warehouse inventory. Wal-Mart tookout the middleman (wholesalers/distributors)and revolutionized stock delivery to become thediscount format leader.

Lichtenstein (2006) argues that entire coun-tries’ economies revolve around Wal-Mart’ssupply chain because it includes so many prod-ucts. The sheer size of the enterprise, in whichalmost every consumer good is part of Wal-Mart’s “symphony” (Friedman 2005), is whatdifferentiates Wal-Mart from other retail in-novators like Woolworth’s and Sears (Strasser2006). Many researchers note, however, thatmanaging this symphony through the desire tostreamline its goods and follow its low-pricemandate has had a dramatic impact upon Wal-Mart’s vendors. Petrovic & Hamilton (2006,p. 108) argue that Wal-Mart’s relationship withsuppliers is a “market-making phenomenon”because it shapes trade, pricing, contracts, con-duct, and the standards manufacturers must fol-low to bring goods to market. Both Petrovic& Hamilton (2006) and Fishman (2006) viewthis market-making capability as the most pro-found and potent of Wal-Mart’s effects. Bloom& Perry (2001) find that Wal-Mart supplierswith high market shares (typically large multi-nationals) perform better than matched com-petitors who do not supply Wal-Mart, but sup-pliers with smaller market shares do not do aswell financially.

Fishman’s (2006) The Wal-Mart Effect andFrontline’s (2004) influential documentary IsWal-Mart Good for America? reveal Wal-Mart’supper hand in contract negotiations with sup-pliers. Traditional marketing techniques forproducers, such as slotting fees for sale items,are not allowed in Wal-Mart stores. Wal-

Mart has pushed costs onto suppliers throughmore exacting product-specification demandsand relentless pressure to lower prices and im-prove quality. Many argue that the pressuresto continually cut costs and to improve supply-chain performance have worsened conditionsin global production facilities and squeezedout small manufacturers. Keller et al. (2006)note that Mexican soap, detergent, and surfac-tant suppliers that could not attain economiesof scale often failed as vendors, but that lo-cal suppliers who were affiliated with largertransnational companies like Unilever weremore successful.

Wal-Mart has pushed for trade liberalizationto ensure a steady stream of imports, even dur-ing their ballyhooed but infamously short-livedBuy American campaign. Wal-Mart founderSam Walton claims the origin of Buy Ameri-can came from a trip to Central America wherehe witnessed sweatshop conditions. A more ac-curate picture, according to Ortega (1998), isthat Walton thought the campaign would be ex-cellent public relations and would force stiffercompetition among his suppliers. Throughoutits Buy American phase, Wal-Mart was an ag-gressive importer. Many of the finished con-sumer goods that claimed to be Made in Amer-ica actually had inputs that were sourced fromabroad.1

Location strategies—domestic ripples andinternational hubs. Under founder SamWalton, Wal-Mart’s initial role was as providerof goods for communities and rural households,which were mostly forgotten consumers. Whenit first expanded from the Ozarks in Arkansasto Oklahoma and Texas, Wal-Mart’s growthstrategy resembled concentric circles aroundits distribution centers, a rippling pebble effect(Bernstein et al. 2006, describing Dube et al.2005). The proximity helped guarantee fastinventory replenishment. Zook & Graham’s(2006) research on the density patterns

1Wal-Mart opened its first buying office in Hong Kong in1981, and by 1985, 43% of all apparel sold by Wal-Mart wasimported (Ortega 1998, pp. 204–5).


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

09.3

5:57

3-59

1. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by D

UK

E U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y o

n 11

/02/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV381-SO35-27 ARI 2 June 2009 9:41

surrounding Wal-Mart stores reveals that “60%of the entire U.S. population lives within 5 milesof a Wal-Mart location and 96% are within20 miles” and that there is an inverse relation-ship between population density and the num-ber of stores (pp. 20–21).

As Wal-Mart grew, it became a shrewd busi-ness negotiator, demanding tax breaks, infras-tructure improvements, and zoning changesfrom localities. In a widely referenced report,Good Jobs First estimated that Wal-Mart hasreceived upwards of $1 billion in subsidies andtax breaks for 244 of its stores and distribu-tion centers (Mattera & Purinton 2004). Themost recent November 2008 report from GoodJobs First claims Wal-Mart keeps more than$70 million per year in sales taxes through salestax diversion programs (Mattera & McIlvaine2008, p. i). The size of the subsidies and Wal-Mart’s habit of closing or relocating stores in or-der to open supercenters nearby, often creatinggrayfields or ghostboxes—abandoned, slightlyused, vacant commercial real estate—is com-monly maligned by critics for its potential tocreate neighborhood blight.

Creating supercenters was one of Wal-Mart’s most important growth strategies. Graff(2006) argues that since Wal-Mart opened itsfirst supercenter (i.e., a grocery store with gen-eral merchandise) in Washington, Missouri, in1988, it has destabilized traditional grocery re-tailing. Grocery stores, whose workers are com-monly unionized, have less turnover and higheroverheads and thus find it hard to compete.Fishman (2006) writes that since the onset ofWal-Mart’s supercenter strategy, 31 supermar-ket chains have sought bankruptcy protection,with 27 of them directly citing Wal-Mart aspart of their decline. In 2003, Wal-Mart sur-passed Kroger to become the largest grocerychain in the United States, although its mar-ket share varies across U.S. metropolitan areas(Lord 2006).

Wal-Mart’s entry into the grocery retail sec-tor helped fuel its internationalization pro-cess. Global markets offered the attraction ofpotentially rapid economic development, in-creased consumer spending, and the ability for

multinational retailers to leverage their su-perior distribution/logistics and informationtechnology systems (Wrigley & Lowe 2002,pp. 161–62). Wal-Mart purchased ASDA, a UKsupermarket chain, in 1999. Wal-Mart broughttechnological efficiencies and new supplier re-lations to ASDA’s business format, along with astronger role for multinational suppliers (Burt& Sparks 2006a).

Supermarket growth, particularly in devel-oping countries where a “supermarket revolu-tion” is taking place (Reardon et al. 2004), is im-pacting local food production systems in lastingways. As in the United States, Wal-Mart hasattempted to push out middlemen in Mexicoand Honduras and source directly from grow-ers, most recently from agricultural producersand small-scale farms, as witnessed through itsagreements with the Yucatecan farmers’ coop-erative and Honduran producers (Biles 2006,Charles 2008). The latter strategy could be amixed blessing for farmers. On the one hand,they receive more money for their producefrom Wal-Mart and they are participating inthe global economy, but on the other hand theyare also subject to stricter standards and regu-lation that many cooperatives do not have thecapital to meet (Dolan & Humphrey 2004). Ul-timately, though, the lure of participating in theglobal economy is powerful.

Despite the strength of its U.S. supercentergrowth, Wal-Mart’s expansion to overseaslocations has not been a completely smoothprocess. Although the company has prosperedin Mexico, the United Kingdom, and Canada,it has floundered in Germany, South Korea,Japan, Hong Kong, and Indonesia. Wal-Mart’sexpansion abroad has been a very uneven pro-cess. As Tilly (2007, p. 1809) writes, “Despiteimportant commonalities, a global Wal-Martis a varied Wal-Mart.” In its global expansionstrategy, Wal-Mart has participated in jointventures (Mexico, Brazil, China) and straightacquisitions (Canada, United Kingdom,Germany), as well as smaller investments( Japan) (Luo 2002).

Burt & Sparks (2006b) describe Wal-Mart’sinternationalization process as having three


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

09.3

5:57

3-59

1. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by D

UK

E U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y o

n 11

/02/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV381-SO35-27 ARI 2 June 2009 9:41

phases: The first involved expansion to adjacentmarkets (Canada, Mexico), which was consid-ered successful; the second was a world-marketfocus, where Wal-Mart’s moves were limitedby regulatory issues and the incompatibilityof some facets of its business model; and thelast was a strategic planning approach in whichWal-Mart concentrated on key locations, suchas China. For Govindarajan & Gupta (2001),the only way for Wal-Mart to win local battlesinternationally is to adapt to the landscape andto balance customer demands with Wal-Mart’score business model.

According to Gereffi & Ong (2007, p. 46),to succeed abroad, particularly in China, “Wal-Mart confronts three strategic imperatives: goglobal, go native, go upmarket.” Over 80% ofthe more than 60,000 factories in Wal-Mart’sdatabase of suppliers are in China, with pro-jected estimates for Chinese-sourced projectsreaching $30 billion by 2010 (Bianco 2006,p. 15). The retailer’s global procurement officeis located in Shenzhen, and it has a networkof more than a dozen field offices around theworld, sourcing from more than 60 countries(Bonacich & Wilson 2006; also Frontline 2004).Although Wal-Mart’s local supplier network isrobust, inefficiencies in distribution channelsand stiff competition have limited its expan-sion in China (Burt & Sparks 2006b). Nonethe-less, according to Lo et al. (2006, pp. 323, 325),Chinese shoppers are appreciative of the firm’slocalization strategy, “spacious, clean, and air-conditioned” stores, and its symbol of “global-ization and modernization.”

Tilly & Álvarez Galván (2006) note thatWal-Mart in Mexico has adopted much of thecompany’s main business model but differsregarding its wages and its nominal acceptanceof unionization. (The unions in Mexico’sWal-Mart are labeled protection contracts.)Wal-Mart’s pullout from Germany in 2006,losing an estimated $200 million every year ofits eight-year operation, was its greatest failure(Christopherson 2006, 2007). Christopherson(2007) blames Wal-Mart’s inability to changeits business model to cater to Germany’s reg-ulatory environment and social norms, which

include working with consultative organiza-tions and collective bargaining agreements,as the most important reason for its demise.Citing regulatory, cultural, and competitiveproblems in the cases of Wal-Mart in Germanyand Japan, Aoyama & Schwarz (2006) contendthat there is a myth of Wal-Martization withregard to its global influence. Wal-Mart facedadditional cultural and market challenges inJapan that limit its success there (IGD 2002).

In South Korea, Wal-Mart found that itsbare-bones warehouse retail style turned awaySouth Korean customers and that local distri-bution channels were weak. Han et al. (2002)argue that the lack of a competitive supply chainthat cultivated relationships with supply-chainpartners hastened the company’s fall. Halepeteet al. (2008, pp. 705–7) claim that Wal-Mart alsomisunderstood the local retail market, whichcultivates a “festive social setting” and theexpectations of customers who wanted morevalue-priced food rather than electronics.Moreover, many local Korean retailers actuallylaunched Buy Korean campaigns as a way tocompete with the U.S. retail giant.

Notwithstanding its spotty internationalrecord, Wal-Mart now hopes to break into theburgeoning Indian market. The company hasentered into a joint venture with Bharti Enter-prises, the country’s largest mobile phone com-pany. The challenges the company faces in In-dia are immense (Halepete et al. 2008). Theheterogeneity of the billion-plus population,with highly diverse values, food habits, buyingpower, and access to transportation and mar-kets, makes product specification difficult. Inaddition, the company faces competition fromthe 12 million family-run “kirana stores” thatknow local preferences and offer competitiveprices (Halepete et al. 2008, p. 709). Wal-Mart’spotential success will depend on appreciatingthese local demands and finding solutions to thecountry’s infrastructure and supply-chain prob-lems, which make efficient and low-cost distri-bution complicated.

Corporate culture. Wal-Mart corporateculture is often characterized as praising


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

09.3

5:57

3-59

1. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by D

UK

E U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y o

n 11

/02/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV381-SO35-27 ARI 2 June 2009 9:41

small-town values, hard work, conformism,and strong patriotism. This is a testament toWal-Mart’s roots in the Ozark Mountains ofArkansas, where homogeneity, isolation, andrural development forged an All-Americanbrand for the average family—a market seg-ment Sam Walton felt was ignored by cityretailers. The corporate culture envisioned bySam Walton fostered boisterous annual share-holder meetings and company cheers, strictemployee manuals outlining behavior expec-tations and testimonials about why unions arebad, and Management Tool Boxes that teachmanagers how to prevent and bust unions. ForScanlon (2005, p. 175), Wal-Mart supportsa culture that allows for “the performanceof patriotism through consumerism.” Annualmeetings are cultural events, where Wal-Martvalues are glorified and the spirit of Sam Waltonis deified. The annual meeting can be seen as “amonologue from the top that perpetuates un-even power relations while mythologizing thecreation of equality” (Schneider 1998, p. 299).

Researchers highlight how Wal-Mart triesto connect its corporate culture to the symbolicroots of American life—hard work, democ-racy, patriotism, and consumerism (Warf &Chapman 2006, Arnold et al. 2006). Zukin(2004, p. 80) notes that by distributing con-sumer goods with “everyday low prices,” thecompany has helped spearhead a “new orderof shopping.” She argues that “low prices de-fine our conception of democracy” and thatWal-Mart has attempted to create a univer-sal space where class lines disappear in thename of value. The Wal-Martization is de-scribed by Lichtenstein (2006, p. 17) as “Chris-tian entrepreneurial and faux egalitarianism.”For Bosshart (2006), it is the paradox betweenthe processes of globalization that make prod-ucts “faster, better, cheaper, and bigger,” whileaccelerating inequality.

Wal-Mart’s corporate culture is most vis-ible in its management style that centersaround increased profits, while Christian val-ues, frugality, hard work, loyalty, and patrio-tism are praised (Rosen 2006, Hoopes 2006).This management style cultivates a workforce

environment in which conformism is praisedand individualism is frowned upon. Associateswere expected by managers to embody Wal-Mart’s “people philosophy” and Sam Walton’scultural beliefs of “respect for the individual,serve the customer, and strive for excellence”(Bergdahl 2004). Most importantly, however,the managers’ key goal is to maintain costs.Bergdahl (2004) notes how managers are mea-sured by the overarching goal of increasingsales and minimizing costs. The centralizationof Wal-Mart’s operation, which controls man-agers’ budgets and the number of workers theycan hire, leaves little room for management au-tonomy or divergence from authority comingfrom Wal-Mart’s headquarters in Bentonville,Arkansas (Rosen 2006).

Wal-Mart’s Direct and IndirectImpact on Labor Relations

How Wal-Mart treats its workers (known inthe company as associates), and the behaviorof the company’s global suppliers toward itsworkers, is a subject of intense controversyby labor unions, nongovernmental organiza-tions (NGOs), and academics alike. Accord-ing to Tilly (2007, pp. 1821–22), Wal-Martis willing to develop different labor strategiesand business forms, depending on the mar-ket, institutions, and culture of the host coun-tries where it operates. The economic literaturealso reveals that Wal-Mart’s employment prac-tices vary considerably (Vias 2004, Ketchum &Hughes 1997, Basker 2005, Stone 1997).

Wal-Mart’s labor strategies have had majorsociological consequences. Lichtenstein (2006,p. 8) argues that Wal-Mart is a leading forcebehind the “most sweeping process of pro-letarian industrialization since the dawn ofthe factory revolution nearly two centuriesago.” The reproletarianization process is sit-uated in a revamped global economy thatstrengthened the power of transnational retail-ers, eroded New Deal legislation, and helpedto create a large pool of low-skill service jobsaround the world—a process that connectssales clerks in Bentonville to truck drivers at


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

09.3

5:57

3-59

1. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by D

UK

E U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y o

n 11

/02/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV381-SO35-27 ARI 2 June 2009 9:41

the U.S.-Mexico border and line workers inGuangdong.

Bair & Bernstein (2006) echo Lichtenstein’ssentiment that the true power of the companyis witnessed in its ability to shape labor rela-tions “beyond the organizational confines of itsretail empire.” Indirect workers (those in Wal-Mart’s global supply chain) and competitors’workers (other retail outlets) feel Wal-Mart’sinfluence in their relations with their direct em-ployers. Harris (2006) claims that even eco-friendly Whole Foods is following Wal-Mart’santiunion stance.

Wal-Mart’s indirect impact on workers canbe seen in the logistics sector. Bair & Bernstein(2006) document Wal-Mart’s influence onthe Southern California grocery workers ofthe United Food and Commercial Workers(UFCW) Union, which wanted to strike againstthe supermarket chains. The threat of Wal-Mart’s entry into Southern California forcedsupermarkets to reduce costs, which inhibitedunion and supermarket contract negotiations.Bonacich and colleagues claim that unionizedlogistics workers felt the push from part-timeand noncontract workers (Bonacich & Wilson2005, 2006; Bonacich & Hardie 2006). Becauseof these workers’ racial and immigrant status,the authors assert, Wal-Mart feels less pres-sure to ensure basic worker rights, and this un-dercuts the drive of part-time and noncontractworkers for unionization. In February 2009,Wal-Mart settled a racial discrimination lawsuitfor $17.5 million. The suit claimed that Wal-Mart discriminated against African Americansin the recruitment and hiring of truck driversfor their private fleet (Swift 2009).

Employees of Wal-Mart’s vast global supplychain may also be considered an indirect work-force. The working conditions experienced byWal-Mart’s suppliers abroad first gained publicnotoriety in the Dateline NBC television exposéon child labor in Bangladesh. In an interviewwith Dateline, then Wal-Mart CEO David Glassstated that Bangladeshi children should be seendifferently from American children (Ortega1998, p. xiv). This was followed by the KathieLee Gifford scandal. Gifford’s Wal-Mart line of

apparel was being produced in Central Amer-ica with a workforce that included underagechildren. Wal-Mart and Gifford blamed theirsuppliers and tried to deny their responsibility.Brooks (2005) argues that the focus on childlabor, however, blunts an analysis of other vio-lations such as gender, class, and age discrimi-nation that are chronic in global supply chains,such as those orchestrated by Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart originally began monitoring itsoffshore suppliers in the early 1990s. Li (2007)argues that the company’s codes of conduct lacktransparency and accountability, particularly ina Chinese context. Wai-ling (2005) notes thatlabor disputes on Chinese shop floors have in-creased, and workers are beginning to press forchange. However, the company’s global stanceon unions seems malleable rather than rigid.Tilly (2007, p. 1816) writes, “When it comes tounionization, Wal-Mart appears to fight unionsin rich countries but accommodate them inpoorer ones.”

Almost all of Wal-Mart’s international asso-ciates are unionized, but the levels and formsof unionization vary. In China the unions arestate sponsored and make up part of the of-ficial All China Federation of Trade Unions;strikes are banned. In Mexico, Tilly & ÁlvarezGalván (2006), claim the unions are invisible,but in Brazil the unions are leftist and militantleaning. Nevertheless, the company’s antiunionstance in the United States and Canada remainsstrong, as witnessed by Wal-Mart’s decision toclose a Quebec tire center in October 2008that became unionized (Tomesco & Bell 2008)and a similar store closing in 2005 in Quebecand the elimination of unionized meat cuttersin Jacksonville, Texas, in 2000 (Bianco 2006).This resolve will be further tested in 2009 assome U.S. Democratic lawmakers are expectedto push for the passage of the Employee FreeChoice Act, a law that will make unionizationeasier, particularly by eliminating secret-ballotelections (Greenhouse 2009).

The labor theme, more than any, has galva-nized activists and unions to conduct their ownstudies and issue reports that document work-ing conditions in Wal-Mart facilities around the


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

09.3

5:57

3-59

1. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by D

UK

E U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y o

n 11

/02/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV381-SO35-27 ARI 2 June 2009 9:41

world. Human Rights Watch conducted an in-depth study of Wal-Mart’s domestic employeerelations (Pier 2007), and the National LaborCommittee (2002, 2007) examined workingconditions in the supply chains of top U.S.retailers and marketers, including Wal-Mart.The advocacy group Wal-Mart Watch (2007)has also issued reports. Recently, SweatFreeCommunities (2008) highlighted abuses in aBangladeshi company that primarily suppliesWal-Mart. Although these reports are not aca-demically based, they help us to understand thesociological impact of Wal-Mart, and they fitinto the public sociology agenda on Wal-Martthat we address at the end of this review.

Many of these studies, along with first-handaccounts of Wal-Mart workers and suppliers(Pierce 2006, Oluleye 2007, Ehrenreich 2001),highlight mechanisms Wal-Mart uses to con-trol labor costs for direct employees, such asusing part-time and nontraditional labor, hav-ing associates work off the clock or throughbreaks, aggressively fighting unions, cultivatinga climate of fear, and instituting wage dispari-ties between men and women. Many of thesemechanisms are the focus of lawsuits. The com-pany reached a settlement of $33 million in acase with the U.S. Department of Labor in-volving violations of the Fair Labor StandardsAct’s overtime provisions. The case involved87,000 salaried and hourly workers who werenot paid at the proper overtime rates. As of2007, there were over 80 wage violation casespending against Wal-Mart (Wal-Mart Watch2007).

Wal-Mart is accused of civil rights violationsas well (Seligman 2006). The company is cur-rently involved in the largest class action civilrights case in Dukes v. Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart ischarged to be in breach of Title VII of the 1964Civil Rights Act owing to gender discrimina-tion in promotions, job placement, and pay. InSelling Women Short, Featherstone (2004) tellsthe personal stories of many of the plaintiffsin the case. The stories of Cleo Page, Chris-tine Kwapnoski, and Deborah Gunter put a faceto what the sociologist expert witness in thecase, William Bielby, labels pervasive discrim-

ination made possible by Wal-Mart’s companyculture (Featherstone 2004, p. 68). Alleged dis-criminatory mechanisms included not postingjob openings, excluding women from the in-formal all boys networks, segregating womeninto female departments, and using stereotypi-cal gender assumptions to justify lower paid jobassignments for female workers. In February2009, Wal-Mart received a minor victory in thecase when a Californian federal appeals courtagreed to reconsider whether the lawsuit willproceed as a class action case (Swift 2009).

Community Mobilization—Site Fights

The expansion of Wal-Mart has led numerousU.S. communities to mobilize site fights againstthe company. Some academic studies chroniclethe success or failure of these anti-Wal-Martmovements (Halebsky 2006, DeWeese-Boyde2006, Walker et al. 2006, Barcus 2006), whereasothers focus more broadly on issues like a livingwage (Robinson 2004) and the politics of localcommunity development (Bianchi & Swinney2003, Mitchell 2006, Norman 1999, Shuman2006). Similar to the case of the labor relationsliterature, these works are often instigated bycommunity activists and not academics. Mostare impassioned pleas for community controlthat explain how to partake in site battles. Theyare sociologically pertinent because, like la-bor activism, they symbolize how Wal-Marthas spurred new forms of community mobi-lization against the scale and scope of globalretailers.

Wal-Mart has spent large sums of moneyto combat these community initiatives. Wal-Mart Watch (2008) estimates that there are 69current site fights against the company as ofAugust 2008. Halebsky (2006) studied six anti-superstore conflicts in small cities to determinewhich movements were most likely to succeed.He found that success was determined by fivecriteria: widespread opposition, broadly framedissues, media support, no counter movement,and key mistakes made by Wal-Mart in fight-ing the opposition. The last characteristic is alsoattributed to Wal-Mart losing site fight battles


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

09.3

5:57

3-59

1. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by D

UK

E U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y o

n 11

/02/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV381-SO35-27 ARI 2 June 2009 9:41

in Flagstaff, Arizona, and Inglewood, California(Bianco 2006, Fishman 2006).

Global Retailers and Buyer-DrivenCommodity Chains

The final area of research on Wal-Mart isless about Wal-Mart specifically and more onthe global environment that fostered Wal-Mart’s rise. Whereas the global division of laborcharacterized by Wallerstein’s (1974) world-system paradigm focused on core, peripheral,and semiperipheral states that occupied dis-tinct production roles as manufacturers (core)and input suppliers (periphery/semiperiphery),contemporary globalization has generated anew division of labor that “involves the pro-duction of goods and services in cross-bordervalue-added activities that redefine the kind ofproduction processes contained within nationalboundaries” (Gereffi 2005, p. 163).

Dicken (2007) posits that the landscape ofcontemporary global economic structures isone of fragmentation and dispersion, basedon supply chains that extend beyond nationalboundaries. Although transnational manufac-turers initially pioneered the search for cheapoffshore labor through the use of export-processing zones to make consumer goods likeclothes, shoes, and toys, they were displaced inthe 1970s and 1980s by global sourcing net-works set up by retailers (Sears, JC Penney,Kmart, and Wal-Mart, among others) and mar-keters (such as Nike, Liz Claiborne, The Gap,and Disney). These new global buyers gave theorders, specifications, and product standardsto their international suppliers, and thus theypioneered the shift from producer-driven tobuyer-driven global commodity chains (Gereffi1994, 2005). According to McMichael (2008),the world during this period moved from the“development project” to the “globalizationproject.”

The edited volumes by Gereffi &Korzeniewicz (1994) and Bair (2009) ex-amine how these new sourcing networks inthe global economy have evolved to transform

production relationships between global buy-ers, local suppliers, and their associated work-forces around the world (also Dicken 2007).Large global retailers such as Wal-Mart play aparticularly powerful role in this internationalsubcontracting system. U.S. retailers led theway, as they cut back on their domestic orders totake advantage of the opportunity for increasedimports, and they became more concentratedin the process (Wrigley & Lowe 2002). Newchain specialty stores, such as The Gap, HomeDepot, and Best Buy, emerged alongside thelarge discount retailers, such as Target, Kmart,and Wal-Mart (Petrovic & Hamilton 2006). Asbuyer-driven commodity chains with retailerslike Wal-Mart became fully established, theyalso created demand-responsive economies inEast Asia, such as Taiwan and South Korea(Hamilton & Gereffi 2009).

Offshore procurement was made more effi-cient with technological innovations in supply-chain management. Retailers invested in tech-nology such as Universal Product Codes (UPC)and distribution centers to curtail overstockingand to satisfy customer preferences. The neweconomic development models that advocatedexport-led growth in developing countries werecreating the capabilities to meet the needs of theglobal buyers in the form of lean retailing andjust-in-time delivery (Abernathy et al. 1999).Halebsky (2004) calls this the “rationalization”of retail development.

This is the global context in which Wal-Mart became the world’s biggest retailer. Thisalso led to a de facto joint venture betweenWal-Mart and the world’s largest exporter oflow-cost goods, China (Gereffi & Ong 2007).The documentary Is Wal-Mart Good for Amer-ica? explores this phenomenon, as does itssupplementary Web site in a section called“The China Connection” (Frontline 2004). Thestrong ties between Wal-Mart and China havefueled U.S. labor and NGO opposition to Wal-Mart’s global sourcing model on the groundsthat it promotes a race to the bottom in termsof favoring countries with relatively weak laborand environmental standards.


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

09.3

5:57

3-59

1. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by D

UK

E U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y o

n 11

/02/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV381-SO35-27 ARI 2 June 2009 9:41

A PUBLIC SOCIOLOGY VIEW OFWAL-MART’S ROLE IN SOCIETYThe writers who are part of the four themeswe highlight encompass the entire spectrum ofthe Wal-Mart debate. Whereas those who fo-cus on the business model and global economiccontext of the company tend to take a more an-alytical stance devoid of final judgment, writ-ers in the labor relations and community mo-bilization camps have veered to the negativeside of the debate. Researchers who contributeto the economic impact literature, althoughnot part of this review, are positioned on bothends of the spectrum (see sidebar, above, Eco-nomic Impact Debate: Prices versus Wages).Overall, the range of perspectives regardingWal-Mart is rooted, as critical sociologist C.Wright Mills (2000) wrote nearly 50 yearsago, in the type of thinking, observing, andlinks researchers and writers make between thetwo.

Sociology as a discipline has a unique capa-bility to bring together the disparate researchstrategies and views on Wal-Mart. Burawoy(2005) highlighted the role of public sociol-ogy in his 2004 American Sociological Asso-ciation presidential address. His typology ofsociologists—professional, policy, public, andcritical—is a useful bridge in considering theliterature on Wal-Mart because the labels caterto different standards, goals, and research au-diences. What separates a public sociologyagenda from ordinary research is that knowl-edge is not left within the confines of academia.It educates and helps to promote desirablechange. This is only possible by acknowledg-ing that all kinds of research are needed: InBurawoy’s (2005) typology, they can be har-nessed toward an “organic solidarity” and“interdependence,” all the while representinga public form creating both “reflexive” and“instrumental” knowledge.

As sociologists, we have the tools to under-stand how Wal-Mart and other corporationsplay a powerful role in distributing societal re-sources and benefits. This characteristic allowsmeaningful engagement in the Wal-Mart de-bate that fits into the four literatures we have

outlined. For us, this engagement entails a formof public sociology based on three objectives:(a) embrace new media, (b) go global, and(c) work for change from within.

New Media

Academics have been slow to adopt new ways ofpresenting their work that go beyond the tradi-tional book and peer-reviewed journal format.We should also not be confined to the custom-ary public sociology venues, like op-eds andnewspapers. Web sites, blogs, and documen-taries are looking at Wal-Mart in ways sociolo-gists should embrace. We also need to cater ourresearch and writing style to a wider audience.We can learn from journalists like Ehrenreich,who wrote Nickel and Dimed (2001), Feather-stone, who wrote Selling Women Short (2004),and Fishman, who authored The Wal-Mart Ef-fect (2006). Lichtenstein’s (2006) edited volumeis a good example of an effective public soci-ology text. Based on an interdisciplinary con-ference, he brought together a diverse group ofwriters, theorists, and activists to focus on Wal-Mart based on their research traditions and ex-pertise, which led to an extremely accessible andinformative volume.

Although books and journal articles are stillhighly valued publication forms, the future maylie in Internet Web sites, blogs, and documen-taries. These sites are reaching new audiences asa means of education, debate, and change. Thetwo most popular Wal-Mart sites, Wal-MartWatch (http://www.walmartwatch.com)and WakeUp Wal-Mart (http://www.wakeupwalmart.com), incorporate fact-sheets, organizer recommendations, mediareports, and publications, and they providefora for personal stories and commentary.These Web sites/blogs are sometimes chastisedfor their activist positions and special interestfunding (e.g., labor unions),2 but they areundeniably reaching a wide audience.

2The UFCW union launched WakeUp Wal-Mart, and theService Employees International Union gave $1 million inseed money for Wal-Mart Watch, although the latter is a


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

09.3

5:57

3-59

1. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by D

UK

E U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y o

n 11

/02/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV381-SO35-27 ARI 2 June 2009 9:41

One of the biggest accomplishments ofthese fora is in creating an interactive user-friendly interface to address sociological phe-nomena (Wal-Mart Watch’s issues section in-cludes entries on corporate culture, supplychain, labor relations, environment, healthcare, and discrimination). Wal-Mart has foughtback through its own Web site, http://www.walmartfacts.com, and also with its owncontroversial blogs, Working Families for Wal-Mart and Wal-Marting Across America.3 Thecompany has recently launched a “mommybloggers” initiative where moms make videoson how to save money.

Documentaries are another medium thatcaptures the public’s attention while dissect-ing complex subjects into tangible examples,such as Robert Greenwald’s (2005) documen-tary Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices andPBS’s Frontline (2004), Is Wal-Mart Good ForAmerica? They combine academic commentary,including several sociologists, along with per-sonal stories of individuals whose lives were al-tered by Wal-Mart in some way. Pelad’s (2001)documentary Store Wars, which focuses on com-munity mobilization against Wal-Mart, is an-other example.

Go Global

A second challenge for public sociology is togo global. As the research on Wal-Mart hasshown, Wal-Mart’s growth has been condi-tioned by a number of broad trends, histor-ical events, mitigating circumstances, and di-verse institutional arrangements (Brunn 2006).Wal-Mart may have started in a rural moun-tain town in Arkansas, but its reach, influence,and continued growth have touched individu-als and groups from workers in the Pearl RiverDelta in China, to farmers in Chile, truckers inMexico, and consumers in Brazil. These actors

coalition of various social groups, including labor, environ-mental, and religious organizations.3Wal-Mart has disbanded http://workingfamiliesforwalmart.com owing to criticism that it was a fake blog.

need to be on our research agenda, and we needto be working with international sociologists inlocal research settings to do more comparativeresearch.

Change from Within

Lastly, public sociology includes engagementwith Wal-Mart itself. Dialogue and interroga-tion with Wal-Mart may lead to quicker andmore lasting results than direct confrontation.A key question is: How can Wal-Mart be-come part of the solution? Given Wal-Mart’ssize, power, and global reach, working to makechange from within the company, or pressuringthe company from outside but through directengagement with it, can revolutionize the abil-ity to create lasting change throughout all seg-ments of society. Fishman (2006, p. 181) writesthat the “result could be a completely new kindof Wal-Mart effect.” Many large companies arenow driven to pursue more socially responsi-ble initiatives for intrinsic as well as extrinsicreasons. Milton Friedman’s famous claim thatcorporations’ only responsibility is to increaseprofits is increasingly without merit if corpora-tions share responsibility for societal problemsand their solutions.

Since former CEO Lee Scott’s 2005 speechentitled “Twenty First Century Leadership,”Wal-Mart has been engaged in a well-publicized campaign to recast its businessmodel. Low prices are still the baseline, butthe company is now making a strong businesscase for more ethical practices with regard tosupplier relations, labor, and the environment.The environment has been a central focus forWal-Mart in this regard (see sidebar on Wal-Mart’s Environmental Initiatives). In October2008, it unveiled a new agreement with over20,000 Chinese suppliers, who will be expectedin 2009 to meet new environmental and socialstandards. Plans are also in the works for a Sus-tainability Index Summit with multiple stake-holders (Birchall 2008, Roberts 2008). Wal-Mart has started a Jobs and Opportunity Zoneprogram to help small businesses in the mar-kets they are entering. In the area of supplier


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

09.3

5:57

3-59

1. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by D

UK

E U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y o

n 11

/02/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV381-SO35-27 ARI 2 June 2009 9:41

WAL-MART’S ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES

Wal-Mart claims that it has always had a concern for the environ-ment, including instituting recycling into its early business model(McInerney & White 1995). Since former CEO Lee Scott’s 2005speech “Twenty First Century Leadership,” however, the com-pany proclaimed that environmental sustainability would be a sta-ple for all of the company’s business decisions (Wal-Mart 2005).Wal-Mart has lofty goals such as zero waste, 100% renewableenergy, and more sustainable products (Wal-Mart 2007). Theseinitiatives, to date, have been greeted with both praise and skep-ticism. Some critics such as the Big Box Collaborative of 23 non-profit organizations have questioned Wal-Mart’s commitmentand motivation (Miu 2007, Barbaro 2008). Nevertheless, promi-nent NGOs such as Environmental Defense Fund, which hasset up an office near Wal-Mart’s headquarters in Bentonville,Arkansas, believe that working with Wal-Mart may bring forthfaster and better changes in the long run. The future relationshipbetween Wal-Mart and these organizations highlights the trade-offs NGOs face in working directly with corporations. Are incre-mental and selective environmental initiatives better than none,or does partnering with Wal-Mart to promote change damagethe credibility of the environmental movement? These are cru-cial and ongoing questions for researchers and advocates alike.

labor standards, they have reemphasized theirEthical Standards Program, conducting 16,700audits in 8,873 companies in 2006 (Wal-Mart2006). Lastly, in health care they are workingto create more accessible and affordable healthcare for their associates and customers, evencarrying out discussions with Andy Stern, pres-ident of the Service Employees InternationalUnion.

These initiatives do not mean that the neg-ative fallout from Wal-Mart has ceased or thatWal-Mart has truly implemented meaningfulchange. Wal-Mart has been accused of mak-ing changes for public relations purposes. Theirethical standards audits were self-administered,and only 26% of them were unannounced(Wal-Mart 2006).4 Furthermore, their greeninitiatives do not tackle larger environmentalconcerns regarding the big-box retail format.Nevertheless, their efforts provide an openingto work with the company to address the in-sights and concerns of their multiple stakehold-ers. They also provide an important area for fur-ther research by sociologists regarding the con-ditions under which large firms might changetheir business models and the implications ofsuch shifts at both local and global levels.

A public sociology stance does not requirea partisan position. Synergies can be pursuedbetween disciplines, and bridges can be built.Massey is correct when he argues that “effectiveaction requires an accurate understanding ofthe groups and structures one seeks to modify”(quoted in Clawson et al. 2007, p. 13). With-out empirically driven studies, solid argumentscannot be made, but without engagement andaccountability to multiple publics, particularlythose who are most marginalized and withoutvoice, social research might miss opportunitiesto generate knowledge in the service of society.By examining the impacts of one of most pow-erful global companies in contemporary capi-talism, recent research on Wal-Mart shows howwe can also advance a public sociology templatefor the twenty-first century.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The authors are not aware of any biases that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of thisreview.

LITERATURE CITED

Abernathy FH, Dunlop JT, Hammond JH, Weil D. 1999. A Stitch in Time: Lean Retailing and the Transformationof Manufacturing—Lessons From the Apparel and Textile Industries. New York: Oxford Univ. Press

4According to the company’s most recent factsheet, they are attempting to create a “single third party auditing system for

retailers,” which may help improve their auditing standards.


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

09.3

5:57

3-59

1. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by D

UK

E U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y o

n 11

/02/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV381-SO35-27 ARI 2 June 2009 9:41

Aoyama Y, Schwarz G. 2006. The myth of Wal-Martization: retail globalization and local competition inJapan and Germany. See Brunn 2006, pp. 275–91

Arnold SJ, Bu N, Gerhard U, Pioch E, Sun Z. 2006. The institutional semiotics of Wal-Mart flyers and signagein the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and China. See Brunn 2006, pp. 143–62

Bair J, ed. 2009. Frontiers of Commodity Chain Research. Palo Alto: Stanford Univ. PressBair J, Bernstein S. 2006. Labor and the Wal-Mart effect. See Brunn 2006, pp. 99–113Barbaro M. 2008. Wal-Mart’s detractors come in from the cold. New York Times, June 5. http://www.

nytimes.com/2008/06/05/business/05walmart.html?scp=1&sq=Wal-Mart%20Watch&st=cseBarcus H. 2006. Wal-Mart-scapes in rural and small-town America. See Brunn 2006, pp. 63–75Basker E. 2005. Job creation or destruction? Labor market effects of Wal-Mart expansion. Rev. Econ. Stat.

87(1):174–83Bergdahl M. 2004. What I Learned from Sam Walton: How to Compete and Thrive in a Wal-Mart World. Hoboken:

WileyBernstein J, Bivens J, Dube A. 2006. Wrestling with Wal-Mart: tradeoffs between profits, prices and wages. Work.

Pap. 276, Econ. Policy Inst., Washington, DCBianchi D, Swinney D. 2003. Wal-Mart: a destructive force for Chicago communities and companies. Spec. Rep.

New Chicago Sch. Community Econ. Dev., Cent. Labor Community Res., Chicago, ILBianco A. 2006. The Bully of Bentonville: How the High Cost of Wal-Mart’s Everyday Low Prices Is Hurting America.

New York: DoubledayBiles J. 2006. Globalization of food retailing and the consequences of Wal-Martization in Mexico. See Brunn

2006, pp. 343–55Birchall J. 2008. Wal-Mart seeks green in China. Financ. Times, Oct. 21. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/

67a5e066-9faa-11dd-a3fa-000077b07658.html?nclick check=1Bloom P, Perry V. 2001. Retailer power and supplier welfare: the case of Wal-Mart. J. Retail. 77:379–96Bonacich E, Hardie K. 2006. Wal-Mart and the logistics revolution. See Lichtenstein 2006, pp. 163–87Bonacich E, Wilson J. 2005. Hoisted by its own petard: organizing Wal-Mart’s logistics workers. New Labor

Forum 14(2):67–75Bonacich E, Wilson J. 2006. Global production and distribution: Wal-Mart’s global logistics empire (with

special reference to the China/Southern California connection). See Brunn 2006, pp. 227–42Bosshart D. 2006. Cheap: The Real Cost of the Global Trend for Bargains, Discounts and Consumer Choice. Philadel-

phia: Kogan PageBrooks E. 2005. Transnational campaigns against child labor: the garment industry in Bangladesh. In Coalitions

Across Borders: Transnational Protests and the Neoliberal Order, ed. J Bandy, J Smith, pp. 121–39. Lanham,MD: Rowan & Littlefield

Brunn S, ed. 2006. Wal-Mart World: The World’s Biggest Corporation in the Global Economy. New York: RoutledgeBurawoy M. 2005. For public sociology. Am. Sociol. Rev. 70(1):4–28Burt S, Sparks L. 2006a. ASDA: Wal-Mart in the United Kingdom. See Brunn 2006, pp. 243–60Burt S, Sparks L. 2006b. Wal-Mart’s world. See Brunn 2006, pp. 27–43Charles D. 2008. The supermarket revolution moves into Honduras. National Public Radio, Aug. 5.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93050486Christopherson S. 2006. Challenges facing Wal-Mart in the German market. See Brunn 2006, pp. 261–74Christopherson S. 2007. Barriers to ‘US style’ lean retailing: the case of Wal-Mart’s failure in Germany.

J. Econ. Geogr. 7:451–69

Spurred by Burawoy’s(2005) presidentialaddress to the AmericanSociologicalAssociation, sociologistsdebate legitimacy,academic standards,knowledge production,disciplinary boundaries,and power and privilegein sociology.

Clawson D, Zussman R, Misra J, Gerstel N, Stokes R, et al., eds. 2007. Public Sociology: Fifteen EminentSociologists Debate Politics & the Profession in the Twenty-First Century. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press.

DeWeese-Boyde M. 2006. Community versus development? Land use and development policy in Vermont asa tool toward community viability. Community Dev. 41(3):334–51

Dicken P. 2007. Global Shift: Mapping the Changing Contours of the World Economy. New York: Guilford. 5thed.

Dolan C, Humphrey J. 2004. Changing governance patterns in the trade in fresh vegetables between Africaand the United Kingdom. Environ. Plan. A 36:491–509

Ehrenreich B. 2001. Nickel and Dimed. On (Not) Getting By in America. New York: Owl Books


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

09.3

5:57

3-59

1. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by D

UK

E U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y o

n 11

/02/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV381-SO35-27 ARI 2 June 2009 9:41

Featherstone L. 2004. Selling Women Short: The Landmark Battle in Workers’ Rights at Wal-Mart. New York:Basic Books

Fishman C. 2006. The Wal-Mart Effect: How the World’s Most Powerful Company Really Works—and How It’sTransforming the American Economy. New York: Penguin

French JD. 2007. Wal-Mart, retail supremacy, and the relevance of political economy: the intermestic challengeof contemporary research (academic, agitational, and constructive). Labor Stud. Work. Class Am. 4(1):33–40

Friedman TL. 2005. The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. New York: Farrar, Straus &Giroux

Wal-Mart’s supplierrelations, impact oncommunities, Americanjobs, and close ties withChina are addressedwith academiccommentary bysociologists (GaryGereffi and EdnaBonacich) and otherobservers; narration byHedrick Smith.

Frontline. 2004. Is Wal-Mart Good for America? Public Broadcasting System (PBS) television docu-mentary, Nov. 16. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/etc/script.html.

George M, Wilson S. 2004. Conquering Complexity in Your Business: How Wal-Mart, Toyota, and Other TopCompanies Are Breaking Through the Ceiling on Profits and Growth. New York: McGraw-Hill

Gereffi G. 1994. The organization of buyer-driven global commodity chains: how U.S. retailers shape overseasproduction networks. See Gereffi & Korzeniewicz 1994, pp. 95–122

Gereffi G. 2005. The global economy: organization, governance, and development. In The Handbook of EconomicSociology, ed. N Smelser, R Swedberg, pp. 160–82. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. 2nd ed.

Gereffi G, Korzeniewicz M, eds. 1994. Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism. Westport, CT: GreenwoodGereffi G, Ong R. 2007. Wal-Mart in China: Can the world’s largest retailer succeed in the world’s most

populous market? Harvard Asia Pac. Rev. 9(1):46–49Global Insight. 2005. Measuring the economic impact of Wal-Mart on the U.S. economy. http://www.globalinsight.

com/walmart/2005studyGlobal Insight. 2007. The price impact of Wal-Mart: an update through 2006. http://www.globalinsight.

com/MultiClientStudy/MultiClientStudyDetail2438.htmGovindarajan V, Gupta A. 2001. The Quest for Global Dominance: Transforming Global Presence into Global

Competitive Advantage. San Francisco: Jossey-BassGraff TO. 2006. Unequal competition among chains of supercenters: Kmart, Target and Wal-Mart. Prof.

Geogr. 58(1):54–64Grant R. 2003. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., May 2002. In Cases in Contemporary Strategy Analysis, ed. RM Grant,

KE Neupert, pp. 71–97. Oxford: Blackwell. 3rd ed.Greenhouse S. 2009. Bill easing unionizing is under heavy attack. New York Times, Feb. 9.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/us/09labor.html?html?ref=us&pagewaGreenwald R. 2005. Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices. Documentary. http://www.walmartmovie.comHalebsky S. 2004. Superstores and the politics of retail development. City Community 3(2):115–34Halebsky S. 2006. Explaining the outcomes of anti superstore movements: a comparative analysis of six

communities. Mobilization 11(4):443–60Halepete J, Seshadri Iyer KV, Park SC. 2008. Wal-Mart in India: a success or failure? Int. J. Retail Distrib.

Manag. 36(9):701–13Hamilton G, Gereffi G. 2009. Global commodity chains, market makers, and the rise of demand-responsive

economies. See Bair 2009, pp. 136–61Han D, Kwon IG, Bae M, Sung H. 2002. Supply chain integration in developing countries for foreign retailers

in Korea: Wal-Mart experience. Comput. Ind. Eng. 43:111–21Harris MT. 2006. Welcome to ‘Whole-Mart’: rotten apples in the social responsibility industry. Dissent

53(1):61–66Hicks M. 2007. The Local Economic Impact of Wal-Mart. Youngstown, NY: CambriaHoopes J. 2006. Growth through knowledge: Wal-Mart, high technology, and the ever less visible hand of

the manager. See Lichtenstein 2006, pp. 83–104IGD. 2002. Wal-Mart in Japan—The Implications. Watford, Herts., UK: IGDKeller W, Smarzynska Javorcik B, Tybout JR. 2006. Openness and industrial responses in a Wal-Mart world: a case

study of Mexican soaps, detergents and surfactant producers. CEPR Disc. Pap. 5823, Cent. Econ. Policy Res.,London, UK. www.cepr.org/pubs/dps/DP5823.asp

Ketchum BA, Hughes JW. 1997. Walmart and Main: the effects on employment and wages. Maine Bus. Indic.42(2):6


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

09.3

5:57

3-59

1. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by D

UK

E U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y o

n 11

/02/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV381-SO35-27 ARI 2 June 2009 9:41

Li Y. 2007. Beyond codes of conduct: Wal-Mart and China workers’ rights. Seminar in Int. Labor Rights Glob.Econ., Harvard Law Sch., Cambridge, MA

Lichtenstein N, ed. 2006. Wal-Mart: The Face of the Twenty-First Century Capitalism. New York: New PressLichtenstein N. 2007. Supply chains, workers’ chains, and the new world of retail supremacy. Labor Stud.

Work. Class Hist. Am. 4(1):17–31Lo L, Wang L, Li W. 2006. Consuming Wal-Mart: a case study in Shenzhen. See Brunn 2006, pp. 315–30Lord D. 2006. Wal-Mart supercenter market share of grocery retailing in U.S. metropolitan areas. See Brunn

2006, pp. 55–61Luo Y. 2002. Multinational Enterprises in Emerging Markets. Copenhagen, Den.: Copenhagen Bus. Sch. PressMattera P, McIlvaine L. 2008. Skimming the Sales Tax: How Wal-Mart and Other Big Retailers (Legally)

Keep a Cut of the Taxes We Pay on Everyday Purchases. Washington, DC: Good Jobs First. http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/pdf/skimming.pdf

Mattera P, Purinton A. 2004. Shopping for Subsidies: How Wal-Mart Uses Taxpayer Money to Finance its Never-Ending Growth. Washington, DC: Good Jobs First. http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/pdf/wmtstudy.pdf

McInerney F, White S. 1995. The Total Quality Corporation: How 10 Major Companies Turned Quality andEnvironmental Challenges to Competitive Advantage in the 1990s. New York: Truman Talley Books

McMichael P. 2008. Development and Social Change: A Global Perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge. 4thed.

Mills CW. 2000. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. 40th anniversary ed.Mitchell S. 2006. Big-Box Swindle: The True Cost of Mega-Retailers and the Fight for America’s Independent

Businesses. Boston: BeaconMiu Y. 2007. At Wal-Mart green has various shades. Washington Post, Nov. 16. http://www.

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/15/AR2007111502519.htmlNational Labor Committee. 2002. Toys of Misery: Made in China, Mattel, MGA, Sega, Wal-Mart. New York:

Natl. Labor Comm.National Labor Committee. 2007. Another Wal-Mart Bargain Made in China. New York: Natl. Labor Comm.Norman A. 1999. Slam-Dunking Wal-Mart! How You Can Stop Superstore Sprawl in Your Hometown. Atlantic

City: Raphael MarketingOluleye K. 2007. Life with Wal-Mart: A Vendor’s Story. Stone Mountain: IROK SolutionsOrtega B. 1998. In Sam We Trust: The Untold Story of Sam Walton, How Wal-Mart Is Devouring America. New

York: Times BusinessPelad M. 2001. Store Wars: When Wal-Mart Comes to Town. Documentary. PBS television broadcast, Aug. 28.

http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewarsPetrovic M, Hamilton G. 2006. Making global markets: Wal-Mart and its suppliers. See Lichtenstein 2006,

pp. 107–41Pier C. 2007. Discounting rights: Wal-Mart’s violation of U.S. workers’ right to freedom of association. Rep. Human

Rights Watch, New York, NYPierce J. 2006. “The Wal-Mart Way” Not Sam’s Way: An Associate’s View from Inside the Stores. Philadelphia:

XlibrisReardon T, Timmer P, Bergedue J. 2004. The rapid rise of supermarkets in developing countries: induced organiza-

tional, institutional, and technological change in agri-food systems. Conf., Int. Soc. New Inst. Econ., Tucson,AZ, Sept. 30–Oct. 3

Roberts D. 2008. Wal-Mart plans a crackdown on Chinese suppliers. Business Week, Oct. 24.http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/oct2008/gb20081024 159130.htm?chan=top+news top+news+index+-+temp global+business

Robinson T. 2004. Hunger discipline and social parasites: the political economy of the living wage. Urban Aff.Rev. 40(2):246–68

Rosen E. 2006. How to squeeze more out of a penny. See Lichtenstein 2006, pp. 243–59Scanlon J. 2005. Your flag decal won’t get you into heaven anymore: U.S. consumers, Wal-Mart, and the

commodification of patriotism. In The Selling of 9/11: How a National Tragedy Became a Commodity, ed. DHeller, pp. 174–99. New York: Palgrave MacMillian

Schaeffer R. 2003. Understanding Globalization: The Social Consequences of Political, Economic, and EnvironmentalChange. Lanham: Rowan & Littlefield


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

09.3

5:57

3-59

1. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by D

UK

E U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y o

n 11

/02/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV381-SO35-27 ARI 2 June 2009 9:41

Schneider MJ. 1998. The Wal-Mart annual meeting: from small-town America to a global corporate culture.Hum. Organ. 57(3):292–99

Shuman M. 2006. The Small-Mart Revolution: How Local Businesses Are Beating the Global Competition. SanFrancisco: Berrett-Koehler

Seligman B. 2006. Patriarchy at the checkout counter: the Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., class action suit. SeeLichtenstein 2006, pp. 231–42

Stone K. 1997. Impact of the Wal-Mart phenomenon on rural communities. In Increasing Understanding ofPublic Problems and Policies, pp. 189–200. Oak Brook: Farm Found.

Strasser S. 2006. Woolworth to Wal-Mart: mass merchandising and the changing culture of consumption. SeeLichtenstein 2006, pp. 31–56

SweatFree Communities. 2008. Sweatshop Solutions? Economic Ground Zero in Bangladesh and Wal-Mart’s Re-sponsibility. Bangor, Maine: SweatFree Communities

Swift K. 2009. Wal-Mart settles discrimination lawsuit. Wall Street Journal, Feb 20. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123516971846636581.html?mod=rss whats news us

Tilly C. 2007. Wal-Mart and its workers: NOT the same all over the world. Conn. Law Rev. 39(4):1805–23Tilly C, Álvarez Galván JL. 2006. Lousy jobs, invisible unions: the Mexican retail sector in the age of global-

ization. Int. Labor Work. Class Hist. 70(Fall):1–25Tomesco F, Bell K. 2008. Wal-Mart closes Quebec tire center after labor accord. Bloomberg.com, Oct. 16.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2067001&refer=canadaVedder R, Cox W. 2006. The Wal-Mart Revolution: How Big-Box Stores Benefit Consumers, Workers, and the

Economy. Washington, DC: AEI PressVias A. 2004. Bigger stores, more stores, or no stores: paths of retail restructuring in rural America. J. Rural

Stud. 20:303–18Wai-ling J. 2005. Chinese migrant workers in action: bringing Wal-Mart to global corporate responsibility.

Soc. Policy 32–36Walker M, Walker D, Villagómez Veláz Y. 2006. The Wal-Martification of Teotihuacán: issues of resistance

and cultural heritage. See Brunn 2006, pp. 213–24Wallerstein I. 1974. The Modern World-System. New York: AcademicWal-Mart. 2005. Twenty first century leadership. Presented by CEO H. Lee Scott. Oct. 24 http://

walmartfacts.com/reports/2006/sustainability/documents/21stCenturyLeadership.pdfWal-Mart. 2006. Sourcing ethically through a socially responsible program. http://walmartfacts.com/

reports/2006/ethical standards/documents/2006ReportonEthicalSourcing.pdfWal-Mart. 2007. Sustainability progress to date 2007–2008. http://walmartfacts.com/reports/2006/

sustainability/documents/SustainabilityProgressToDate2007–2008.pdfWal-Mart. 2008. Annual Report. http://walmartstores.com/sites/AnnualReport/2008Wal-Mart Watch. 2007. Wal-Mart’s wage and hour violations. http://walmartwatch.com/img/blog/wage and

hour.pdfWal-Mart Watch. 2008. Battle mart site fights. http://walmartwatch.com/battlemart/site fightsWarf B, Chapman T. 2006. Cathedrals of consumption: a political phenomenology of Wal-Mart. See Brunn

2006, pp. 163–78Wrigley N, Lowe M. 2002. Reading Retail. A Geographical Perspective on Retailing and Consumption Spaces.

London: ArnoldZook M, Graham M. 2006. Wal-Mart nation: mapping the reach of a retail colossus. See Brunn 2006,

pp. 15–25Zukin S. 2004. Point of Purchase, How Shopping Changed American Culture. New York: Routledge

RELATED RESOURCES

Wal-Mart. 2009. http://www.walmartfacts.comIn an effort to rebut critics, Wal-Mart set up this Web site to provide factsheets on the company

ranging from health care, wages, associate benefits, diversity, and community giving, alongwith its latest corporate reports.


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

09.3

5:57

3-59

1. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by D

UK

E U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y o

n 11

/02/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV381-SO35-27 ARI 2 June 2009 9:41

WakeUp Wal-Mart. 2009. http://www.wakeupwalmart.comOne of the most prominent of the anti-Wal-Mart Web sites, WakeUp Wal-Mart highlights the

company’s alleged poor record on social issues like labor, health care, and wages and offerstips for organizing against the company.

Wal-Mart Watch. 2009. http://www.walmartwatch.comWal-Mart activists use this Web site to distribute the latest news about the company, and it provides

forums for networking, along with bilingual Spanish resources.


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

09.3

5:57

3-59

1. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by D

UK

E U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y o

n 11

/02/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR348-FM ARI 2 June 2009 9:48

Annual Reviewof Sociology

Volume 35, 2009Contents

FrontispieceHerbert J. Gans � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � xiv

Prefatory Chapters

Working in Six Research Areas: A Multi-Field Sociological CareerHerbert J. Gans � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1

Theory and Methods

Ethnicity, Race, and NationalismRogers Brubaker � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �21

Interdisciplinarity: A Critical AssessmentJerry A. Jacobs and Scott Frickel � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �43

Nonparametric Methods for Modeling Nonlinearityin Regression AnalysisRobert Andersen � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �67

Gender Ideology: Components, Predictors, and ConsequencesShannon N. Davis and Theodore N. Greenstein � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �87

Genetics and Social InquiryJeremy Freese and Sara Shostak � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 107

Social Processes

Race Mixture: Boundary Crossing in Comparative PerspectiveEdward E. Telles and Christina A. Sue � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 129

The Sociology of Emotional LaborAmy S. Wharton � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 147

Societal Responses toTerrorist AttacksSeymour Spilerman and Guy Stecklov � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 167

Intergenerational Family Relations in Adulthood: Patterns, Variations,and Implications in the Contemporary United StatesTeresa Toguchi Swartz � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 191

v

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

09.3

5:57

3-59

1. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by D

UK

E U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y o

n 11

/02/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR348-FM ARI 2 June 2009 9:48

Institutions and Culture

Sociology of Sex WorkRonald Weitzer � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 213

The Sociology of War and the MilitaryMeyer Kestnbaum � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 235

Socioeconomic Attainments of Asian AmericansArthur Sakamoto, Kimberly A. Goyette, and ChangHwan Kim � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 255

Men, Masculinity, and Manhood ActsDouglas Schrock and Michael Schwalbe � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 277

Formal Organizations

American Trade Unions and Data Limitations: A New Agendafor Labor StudiesCaleb Southworth and Judith Stepan-Norris � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 297

Outsourcing and the Changing Nature of WorkAlison Davis-Blake and Joseph P. Broschak � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 321

Taming Prometheus: Talk About Safety and CultureSusan S. Silbey � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 341

Political and Economic Sociology

Paradoxes of China’s Economic BoomMartin King Whyte � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 371

Political Sociology and Social MovementsAndrew G. Walder � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 393

Differentiation and Stratification

New Directions in Life Course ResearchKarl Ulrich Mayer � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 413

Is America Fragmenting?Claude S. Fischer and Greggor Mattson � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 435

Switching Social Contexts: The Effects of Housing Mobility andSchool Choice Programs on Youth OutcomesStefanie DeLuca and Elizabeth Dayton � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 457

Income Inequality and Social DysfunctionRichard G. Wilkinson and Kate E.

The Impacts of Wal-Mart: The Rise and Consequences of the...

Documents

Transcript of The Impacts of Wal-Mart: The Rise and Consequences of the...