Rowley's comment offers a partial view of industrial restructuring in the British pottery industry and is too dismissive of recent theoretical developments in industrial geography. The bounded time frame of his analysis weakens his substantive criticisms of my paper and his own research has little by way of an historical referent to comment on the transformative nature of industrial restructuring in the industry.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeynonH, 1984Working for Ford (Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, Middx)
2.
BurawoyM, 1979Manufacturing Consent (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL)
3.
BurawoyM, 1985The Politics of Production (Verso, London)
4.
ImrieR F, 1985, “Positivist and realist method in industrial geography”, Papers in Planning Research 93, Department of City and Regional Planning, University of Wales College of Cardiff, Cardiff
5.
ImrieR F, 1989a, “Industrial restructuring, labour, and locality: The case of the British pottery industry”Environment and Planning A213–26
6.
ImrieR F, 1989bIndustrial Change in a Local Economy: The Case of Stoke-on-Trent unpublished PhD thesis, Department of City and Regional Planning, University of Wales College of Cardiff, Cardiff
7.
ImrieR F, 1991, “Industrial change and local economic fragmentation: The case of Stoke-on-Trent”Geoforum20433–453
8.
MasseyD, 1984Spatial Divisions of Labour (Macmillan, London)
9.
RainnieA, 1991, “Just-in-time, subcontracting, and the small firm”Work, Employment, and Society5353–376
10.
RowleyC, 1992, “The British pottery industry: A comment on a case of industrial restructuring, labour, and locality”Environment and Planning A241645–1650
11.
SayerA, 1989, “Post Fordism in question”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research13666–693
12.
ScottA, 1988New Industrial Spaces (Pion, London)
13.
WalkerR, 1989, “Machinery, labour, and location”, in The Transformation of Work Ed. WoodS (Unwin Hyman, London)
