Firms traditionally claim that they downsize (i.e., make permanent per

Actually a reasonably interesting passage! And if you disagree, take some advice from a friend of mine: whenever you read RC, pretend that somebody you find incredibly attractive is reading this passage to you. Lol.

Anyway, whenever I start reading an RC passage, my main goal is to understand the structure of the argument. Why is each part of this passage there? I don't really give a crap about the details yet -- they'll be on the screen if I need them. I mostly just want to know how the author is constructing his or her argument.

This particular passage is a one-paragraph blob, but there's still some structure here. Let's break this sucker down sequentially -- since we'll need to understand the structure if we want to dive into the passage's primary purpose:


The author is just telling us about firms' traditional claims of downsizing in these first few sentences, and how it connects to organizational theory. And then the word "yet" catches my eye. Looks like we're heading for some sort of counter-claim...



That's nice and clear: the author is saying that firms' traditional claim -- that downsizing is economically rational -- isn't really the whole story, and that we need to consider non-economic factors. This seems like a really, really key part of the passage. Continuing...



And here we have an explanation of the non-economic factors: downsizing is "greeted favorably by the business press", it is "viewed positively by key actors", and its "mythic properties give [firms] added prestige in the business community." So even though downsizers don't become more economically efficient, there's a "powerful business myth" surrounding downsizing -- and that confers benefits to firms.

To summarize, the passage proceeds in this order:

1) describes the traditional claim firms make about downsizing -- it's economically rational, as suggested by organization theory
2) pivot: since economic consequences are negative, organization theory can't explain downsizing; need to consider non-economic factors
3) explains those non-economic factors ("mythic properties give firms added prestige", etc.)

On to your questions:



Only a small sliver of the passage deals with the negative economic impact of downsizing, and there's really no analysis of the negative economic impact itself. It's only mentioned as evidence to debunk firms' traditional claims for the purpose of downsizing. The rest of the passage goes on to explain the real reasons for downsizing.



There's really no mention of how perceptions of downsizing have changed over time. Sure, the passage references perceptions of downsizing -- the business press, for example, seems to love downsizing -- but those perceptions don't really change over time. Instead, the passage is focused on the alternative ("non-economic") reasons why firms downsize.



The passage mentions that the traditional claim (that downsizing leads to efficiency) is wrong, and discusses why firms nevertheless choose to downsize. There's no indication that firms have changed their behavior: "There is evidence that firms believe they are behaving rationally whenever they downsize... managers simply believe that downsizing is efficacious." Notice that both of these statements are in the present tense, so firms presumably still believe that downsizing leads to greater efficiency. ("Efficacious" is basically a pretentious synonym for "effective.")



(C) is directly contradicted by the passage:



Happy reading, everybody!