CONDE closing conference report

Closing conference of the CONDE research project, organised by the C²DH / University of Luxembourg and the Leibniz Institute for Contemporary History, Munich.

Deindustrialization can be regarded as one of the most pivotal transformations in recent history. But how can we write a comprehensive history of the transitions resulting from deindustrialization, determine which perspectives warrant further consideration and identify approaches that can be used to gain novel insights? These were the questions that the closing conference of the CONDE research project sought to answer. The conference examined the broader ramifications of Western deindustrialization since the 1970s, primarily focusing on Europe while also endeavouring to adopt a global perspective.

The conference was introduced by STEFAN KREBS (Luxembourg), CHRISTIAN MARX (Munich) and MARTINA STEBER (Munich), who situated the CONDE project within the wider research field. While the term “deindustrialization” has become somewhat of a political buzzword, they warned against jumping to over-simplistic conclusions and suggested that deindustrialization should be understood as a process that not only profoundly altered economic structures but also had a major social-economic, cultural and political impact.

Welcome by Andreas Fickers, director of the C²DH, Luxembourg
Welcome by Andreas Wirsching, Director of the Leibniz Institute for Contemporary History in Munich
Introduction by Stefan Krebs, C²DH
Introduction by Christian Marx, IfZ
Introduction by Martina Steber, IfZ

The first panel addressed industrial production in deindustrializing economies. CHRISTIAN MARX (Munich) outlined the diverging paths after the boom exemplified by the German household appliance industry. He suggested that the sector has been characterized by a silent deindustrialization. Facing increasing competition, German companies secured their existence in the 1990s and 2000s by internationalizing manufacturing, employing fewer workers in Germany and instead moving production to Eastern Europe and Asia. ANNA CALORI (Glasgow) discussed the trajectories of de-industrialization and re-industrialization between Eastern and Southern European peripheries. She connected the experience of two key refineries, ENI in Italy and INA in Croatia, as symbols of state- and capitalist-led industrialization in Europe. As Calori explained, both countries relied on private companies to provide energy, while these capitalist companies in turn relied on socialist infrastructure. And although the companies were competing for market access and resources, to confront the decline they had to cooperate to keep the stream from running dry. NICOLAS ARENDT (Luxembourg) took a critical look at the complexities of post-socialist restructuring, discussing the example of the former VEB Maxhütte Unterwellenborn in Thuringia, Eastern Germany. He explained how after the company was privatized by ARBED, neo-liberal workplace practices were embedded within social continuities inherited from the former Maxhütte. With this strategy, ARBED kept the “last remaining islands of socialism” running in a region struggling with high unemployment.

The subsequent panel engaged in a discussion on the interdependencies between deindustrialization and the environment. MAURO ELLI (Milan) presented a comprehensive history of Italian nuclear policy and asked if there was a “nuclear deindustrialization”. He deconstructed the common narrative that the 1987 referendum on nuclear power signalled a clear end point of nuclear policy. Instead, Elli emphasized the need to examine aspects of continuity in nuclear management that led to the possibility of reviving nuclear power. RIYOKO SHIBE (Glasgow) looked at deindustrialization in the Scottish petrochemical city of Grangemouth. Her analysis of oral history interviews revealed the importance of the environmental impacts of deindustrialization, which she examined by applying the sociological concept of noxiousness. She asserted that from the 1950s to the 1970s the noxious effects of petrochemical production were counterbalanced by the social democratic governance of BP, whereas with deindustrialization this paternalistic attitude was lost, increasing the level of noxiousness even further. PHILIPP KRÖGER (Siegen) discussed landscape planning in Hamburg, delineating a significant transformation in “nature making” during deindustrialization. The 1960s saw the transformation of former extraction sites into natural recreational spaces, as landscape planning mimicked industrialization by applying the same rationale. However, by the mid-1970s this idea was challenged by the environmental movement, which highlighted the need to preserve ecosystems and endangered species. In the newly emerging “post-Fordist nature”, the recreational role of nature was replaced by its ecological function, which developed into a competitive asset and a strategic element for urban marketing.

In his keynote lecture, DIETMAR SÜß (Augsburg) asked whether deindustrialization had led to a “barbarization of social conflict”. He argued that when looking at the social history of deindustrialization, it is imperative to consider four dimensions: the relationship between labour and, respectively, deindustrialization, recognition and democracy, as well as the differences between old and new concepts of classes. Acknowledging that vulnerable groups have still not been adequately incorporated into debates on social and contemporary history, Süß highlighted the need to include these “underclasses” in the historical analysis and to look at new social citizenship. Hence, he proposed writing the history of deindustrialization as a history of diverse struggles for social recognition.

The second day started with the keynote lecture by STEFAN BERGER (Bochum), who discussed the consequences of deindustrialization from a global historical perspective, focusing especially on its memory regimes. Aiming to understand the striking differences between areas where significant efforts have been made to preserve and protect industrial heritage landscapes, such as the Ruhr area, and regions where few physical remnants remain, Berger developed a typology of five categories of deindustrialization. Acknowledging that these groups are shaped by marked internal differences, he nonetheless distinguishes the Anglo world, continental Europe, post-communist Eastern Europe, post-communist China and the Global South. According to Berger, they differ in how deindustrialization is both managed and above all remembered.

In the third panel, MATHIEU DUBOIS (Rennes) discussed the European response to deindustrialization. He suggested that the debate was shaped by two competing strategies to combat the protectionist policies implemented in the early 1980s in reaction to deindustrialization. While Germany preferred the creation of an open single market, France suggested the implementation of a European Trade Act. Dubois emphasized how this debate reflected not only the traditional divide between liberalism and protectionism, but also broader discussions about the extent to which globalization should be regulated. Panel 4 then turned to the role of space in the process of deindustrialization, with PASCAL RAGGI (Nancy) offering a comparative analysis of the deindustrialization of Luxembourg and the Lorraine region in France, known as Lorraine du fer. Focusing on the challenges their iron mines and steel industries faced as a result of rising international competition and technological change, he presented cross-border experiences of deindustrialization. Despite similarities in social aspects, Raggi highlighted major differences in processes of reindustrialization, tertiarization and heritage preservation. JAN KELLERSHOHN (Halle) discussed how conceptualizations of regionality were influenced by the process of deindustrialization, claiming that industrial regions themselves were subject to political debate and historical change. By comparing the importance of regional identity in the industrial Ruhr area and the central German district, he suggested that regionality was part of the political response to manage the economic and social consequences of deindustrialization.

The fifth panel focused on deindustrialization and gender orders. HELENA SCHWINGHAMMER (Munich) started with a study about the deindustrialization of a German textile region (Vogtland). She observed that the decline of the textile industry transpired silently and connected this “silent farewell” to the gender of its workers: most workers were female and as such their employment was considered as dispensable. Women were not only the first to lose their jobs; they also had the most difficulties in rejoining the labour market. STEFAN HÖRDLER (Göttingen) presented unemployment initiatives during the steel crisis, looking at the Hoesch mining company in Dortmund. Using new archival material, he showed that it was in fact women, later referred to as “Hoesch-Frauen”, who organized initiatives, demonstrations and strikes to fight for their husbands’ jobs. By 1988 the women had managed to create a national network that was gaining increasing public visibility. A new perspective on gendered impacts of the deindustrialization of East German shipbuilding was envisioned by NORA KÜTTEL (Bremen). She incorporated the findings of her oral history project into an autoethnographic narrative and showed how women in the shipbuilding industry experienced and internalized traditional gender clichés, trying to mimic male suppression to fit into the patriarchal society.

The second day was brought to a close with a round table discussion based on a screening of the film Identity Disputes. The Image of Life in the Minett by Viktoria Boretska and Lars Schönfelder (2022). The film shows how life in the mining district of Luxembourg has been visualized through different photographers’ lenses. In the discussion, JÖRN ARNOLD (Munich), JACQUES MAAS (Luxembourg) and JOANNA WAWRZYNIAK (Warsaw) talked about experiences and memories of deindustrialization in different countries. Arnold stated that while deindustrialization is still seen as a threat in Germany, it has already become part of memory in the United Kingdom, where it is remembered by former workers as a story of community and resilience by working-class heroes against their antagonists from above. Maas pointed out how in Luxembourg deindustrialization was a shock for the whole population since steel production was the country’s most important industry. Finally, Wawrzyniak offered perspectives from Eastern European countries, highlighting how economic and political changes happened simultaneously. However, she stressed that deindustrialization in Eastern Europe has so far been discussed in a scholarly discourse rather than a public one.

In the next panel, JONAS FEY (Bonn) presented an empirical study about how deindustrialization and adult education in Germany affected each other from the 1970s onwards. Fey explained that, while the importance of continuing education grew between the 1970s and 2000 on both a political and an individual level, its governance changed dramatically from public provision to a more market-oriented education system. His main thesis was therefore that the adult education system itself was impacted more by deindustrialization, than it was able to lessen the outcomes of deindustrialization. ZOÉ KONSBRUCK (Luxembourg) discussed the management of the Luxembourg steel crisis from 1975 to 1985. She challenged the national narrative of deindustrialization as a successful period of transformation through the rapid growth of an extensive service sector by claiming that the comparably low unemployment rate was kept artificially low through a hybrid model of interventionist measures adopted by the government, local authorities and the ARBED steel corporation. She stressed that the narrative of a successful “Luxembourg model” overshadows the struggles of individual workers adjusting to the new realities of work.

The last panel started with CHRISTOPHER LAWSON (Berkeley), who presented his findings on deindustrialization, decolonization and the remaking of urban communities in Oldham and Coventry in the UK. He showed how deindustrialization especially impacted migrant workers, who were not included in the working-class identity. Lawson claimed that racial poverty therefore became a major problem in these areas, spotlighting deindustrialization’s impact on minorities. PAROMA GHOSE (Munich) explained how the narratives of French rap were impacted by deindustrialization. She explained that the consequences of industrial decline were felt unevenly through the community, especially affecting people of migrant descent. She showed how French rappers document both France’s relationship with deindustrialization and postcolonial realities in their lyrics. Their music therefore offers insights into an identity crisis that is highly influenced by a majority culture and excludes migrants’ perspectives. The last presentation was a joint effort by HERRICK CHAPMAN (New York) and LIZABETH COHEN (Cambridge MA), who used oral histories to shed light on how ethnic and racial minorities survived deindustrialization. Racial minorities, like African Americans in the US and North Africans in France, were faced with stubborn conditions of poverty and inequalities regarding working conditions and salaries. But Cohen and Chapman showed how both groups constantly tried to improve their living situation through activism like the civil rights movement and industrial strikes.

In their concluding remarks, STEFAN KREBS (Luxembourg), CHRISTIAN MARX (Munich) and MARTINA STEBER (Munich) summarized several recurring tensions that emerged during the conference. First, they emphasized the need to pay closer attention to the relationship between the “runaway factory” and the role of technological change in explaining deindustrialization. Second, they called for further analysis of the discrepancies between narratives of decline and stories of structural change or modernization. Third, they suggested taking a closer look at the role of space and the links between regional, local and national elements of deindustrialization. Fourth, they proposed a stronger cross-European perspective focusing more on the differences, similarities and links between Eastern and Western Europe. Finally, the organizers stressed the need to include cultural perspectives from the new political history in the study of deindustrialization, such as interdependencies between deindustrialization and the history of democracy, going beyond the often-made connection between deindustrialization and the rise of right- and left-wing populism.

The conference revealed several misconceptions of deindustrialization and highlighted the need to question broader narratives, not only those that see deindustrialization as a definite end point and thereby negate aspects of continuity, but also those which convey a one-sided success story of deindustrialization, marginalizing its negative effects. Despite its potential for historical analysis, regionality has also been identified as an obstacle inasmuch as it can overshadow the identity of local workers if this identity does not align with the academic understanding of regionality. The conference therefore underlined the need to take a closer look at individuals, how their lives changed and how their identities were altered through deindustrialization. Connected to this, it also became apparent that research has to consider the “silent deindustrialization” of invisible actors as well as gendered and racialized tensions when analyzing how deindustrialization is remembered.

Conference Overview

Introduction: Stefan Krebs (Luxembourg), Christian Marx (Munich) and Martina Steber (Munich)

Panel 1: Industrial Production in Deindustrializing Economies (Chair: Sabine Pitteloud, Brig)

Christian Marx (Munich): Diverging Paths after the Boom: Deindustrialization in the German Household Appliance Industry (1960–2000s)

Anna Calori (Glasgow): The Steady Stream? De-industrialization and Re-industrialization in the Petro-Chemical Industry in Yugoslavia and Italy

Nicolas Arendt (Luxembourg): ARBED’s Takeover of the Former VEB Maxhütte Unterwellenborn 1992-2001: The “Last Remaining Island of Socialism”?

Panel 2: Deindustrialization and the Environment (Chair: Christian Kleinschmidt, Marburg)

Mauro Elli (Milan): Nuclear Deindustrialization? Italy’s Experience in the Long Decommissioning (1970s–1990s)

Riyoko Shibe (Glasgow): Deindustrialization of the Scottish Petrochemical Industry and the Experience of Noxiousness: BP Chemicals in Grangemouth from 1970 to 2000

Philipp Kröger (Siegen): From Fordist to Post-Fordist Nature? Landscape Planning and the Management of Urban Nature in Hamburg, 1960s–1980s

Keynote Lecture 1 (Chair: Martina Steber, Munich)

Dietmar Süß (Augsburg): “Barbarisation of Social Conflict”? Work, Recognition, and Vulnerability in the History of Deindustrialization

Keynote Lecture 2 (Chair: Christian Marx, Munich)

Stefan Berger (Bochum): Deindustrialization in a Global Perspective

Panel 3: The International Politics of Deindustrialization, Chair: Benoît Majerus (Luxembourg)

Mathieu Dubois (Rennes): European Trade Act or Open Single Market? Devising a European Response to Deindustrialization in the early 1980s

Panel 4: Spaces of Deindustrialization (Chair: Emmanuel Droit, Strasbourg)

Pascal Raggi (Nancy): The Deindustrialization of the Lorraine du fer and Luxembourg from a Comparative Perspective

Jan Kellershohn (Halle): Contested Spaces of Decline: Deindustrialization in the Ruhr and in the Central German Industrial Region

Panel 5: Deindustrialization and Gender Orders (Chair: Jackie Clarke, Glasgow)

Helena Schwinghammer (Munich): A Silent Farewell: The Deindustrialization of a German Textile Region (1970-2008)

Stefan Hördler (Göttingen): The Intertwined History of Male Unemployment and Women’s Initiatives: Scenarios of Decline and Socio-Economic Consequences in the Steel Industry since the 1980s

Nora Küttel (Bremen): Shifting Tides: Gendered Impacts of the Deindustrialization of East German Shipbuilding

Memories of Deindustrialization, Round Table Discussion (Chair: Stefan Krebs, Luxembourg)

Round Table Discussion with Jacques Maas (Luxembourg), Jörg Arnold (Munich) and Joanna Wawrzyniak (Warsaw)

Panel 6: Deindustrialization and the European Welfare State (Chair: Christoph Brüll, Luxembourg)

Jonas Fey (Bonn): Deindustrialization and Adult Education in Germany since the 1970s: Politics, Participation and Effects

Zoé Konsbruck (Luxembourg): Steel Towns and Crisis Management: The Dynamics between Industrial Towns and the “Luxembourg Model” during the 1975-1985 Steel Crisis

Panel 7: Migration and Race in Deindustrializing Societies (Chair: Machteld Venken, Luxembourg)

Christopher Lawson (Berkeley): No Going Back: Deindustrialization, Decolonisation, and the Remaking of Urban Communities in Western Europe

Paroma Ghose (Munich): “Quand la justice slalome”: Sounding Deindustrialization through French Rap Narratives (1981-Present)

Herrick Chapman (New York) & Lizabeth Cohen (Cambridge/MA): Surviving Deindustrialization as Ethnic and Racial Minorities

Final Remarks: Stefan Krebs (Luxembourg), Christian Marx (Munich) and Martina Steber (Munich)

Authors(s)

Patricia Zeitz, Institute for Contemporary History, Munich – Berlin
Thaisa Cäsar, Institute for Contemporary History, Munich – Berlin

This conference report was first published on H-Soz-Kult: Thaisa Cäsar / Patricia Zeitz, Tagungsbericht: Challenges of Deindustrialization in European Societies since the 1970s, in: H-Soz-Kult, 28.08.2025, https://www.hsozkult.de/conferencereport/id/fdkn-156752.