Post-Fordism
Post-fordism describes a shift in production methods that emerged in the 1980s in response to the stagnation and profitability crisis of Fordist production, which had become rigid, bureaucratic, and less profitable. Post-fordism is defined by flexible production, the individualization of labor relations and fragmentation of markets into distinct segments. The concept of post-Fordism was originally invented by the economist Robin Murray in the British magazine Marxism Today in 1988.
The concept of "Fordism", as a distinct phase in the history of capitalist industrialization, was first developed by Antonio Gramsci in 1934. It gained further attention through Michel Aglietta's book Régulation et crises du capitalisme in 1976. Since the 1980s, the labels of "Fordism" and "post-Fordism" have been widely adopted by labor economists in Europe and North America. However, the exact definition of post-Fordism remains debated among scholars.
Fordism was the leading business model for industrial mass production by corporations roughly from the 1910s to the 1960s, adopted during the great expansion of the manufacturing sector in North America, Europe and Japan. Characteristics of Fordism was a division of work tasks according to the assembly-line model perfected by Henry Ford, and the in-house organization at one large plant location of almost everything required for the enterprise to function. Some theorists of post-Fordism argue that the end of the superiority of the US economy is explained by the end of Fordism, across most of the world, and its replacement by more competitive and efficient production models invented mainly in Japan.
Post-Fordist production is a competitive business approach which aims to respond quickly, precisely and effectively to the existence of increased consumer choice as well as to the increased importance of the identity and personal development concerns that individuals have. For this purpose, a great deal of effort goes into collecting consumer data and business data using information technology, to understand what the business trends and changes in consumer demand are. Post-Fordist production networks require much greater flexibility from their workforces, providing more variation in job roles for employees, more individualized labour relations, and more flexible production techniques such as lean manufacturing.
Unlike Fordist enterprises, which concentrate nearly all production on-site, in one location, the Post-Fordist enterprises act as a hub in a network of smaller, specialized organizations spread across different locations. Each organization contributes a specific input or service under contractual agreements. Many administrative, technical and maintenance tasks which are not considered to be part of the "core business" are outsourced. The Post-Fordist model is often more cost-effective, competitive, and flexible, because resources are only held or used when needed, allowing businesses to adapt more quickly to market changes.
Given that not all of the production process is centralized in one site, Post-Fordist enterprises usually involve a mix of subsidiaries and out-sourced contractors This can make it difficult for outsiders to see how the whole system operates; unlike a typical Fordist factory, a lot of the work is not visibly carried out in one single location, building, or office, or company.
Overview
Post-Fordism is characterized by the following attributes:- Small-batch production
- Economies of scope
- Specialized products and jobs
- Use of new information technologies
- Greater emphasis on types of consumers and market segments
- The increase of all sorts of service workers and white collar workers
- The feminisation of the work force
Consumption and production
Post-Fordist production prioritizes increased flexibility, in particular lean production and just-in-time production methods. This creates an economic geography of greater interaction between suppliers, manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and customers. In Post-Fordist labor markets, there a shift from workers in fixed roles within the division of labor to workers who are more adaptable to performing different roles in production. It may lead also to greater involvement by workers in the whole labor process, and greater autonomy of workers in their own work. There is an increase in "non-standard" forms of employment which are suited to changing work tasks.
The typical Post-Fordist enterprise has three main strata of employees: the core managerial staff, technocrats, and other skilled specialists with permanent labour contracts, the regular production workers on annual contracts, and parttime and casual employees on temporary contracts, who are brought in to perform projectwork, support and maintenance tasks, and specialized tasks, for a limited time. Workers may have fewer labour rights, but greater freedoms at work, and they are hired and fired according to their perceived performance and the amount of work that needs to be done.
Theoretical approaches
According to geographer Ash Amin, the academic study of post-Fordism is commonly divided into three schools of thought: the regulation school, flexible specialization, and neo-Schumpeterianism.Regulation school
The regulation approach was designed to address the paradox of how capitalism has both a tendency towards crisis, change and instability as well as an ability to stabilize institutions, rules, and norms. The theory is based on two key concepts. "Regimes of Accumulation" refer to systems of production and consumption, such as Fordism and post-Fordism. "Modes of Regulation" refer to the written and unwritten laws of society which control the Regime of Accumulation and determine its form.According to regulation theory, every Regime of Accumulation will reach a crisis point at which the Mode of Regulation will no longer support it, and society will be forced to find new rules and norms, forming a new Mode of Regulation. This will begin a new Regime of Accumulation, which will eventually reach a crisis, and so forth. Proponents of Regulation theory include Michel Aglietta, Robert Boyer, Bob Jessop, and Alain Lipietz.
Flexible specialization
Proponents of the flexible specialization approach believe that fundamental changes in the international economy, especially in the early 1970s, forced firms to switch from mass production to a new tactic known as flexible specialization.Instead of producing generic goods, firms now found it more profitable to produce diverse product lines targeted at different groups of consumers, appealing to their sense of taste and fashion. Instead of investing huge amounts of money in the mass production of a single product, firms now needed to build intelligent systems of labor and machines that were flexible and could quickly respond to the whims of the market. The technology associated initially with flexible production was numerically controlled machine tools. The development of the computer was very important to the technology of flexible specialization. Not only could the computer change the characteristics of the goods being produced, but it could also analyze data to order supplies and produce goods in accordance with current demand. These types of technology made adjustments simple and inexpensive, making smaller specialized production runs economically feasible. Flexibility and skill in labor were also important. The workforce was now divided into a skill-flexible core and a time-flexible periphery. Flexibility and variety in the skills and knowledge of the core workers and the machines used for production allowed for the specialized production of goods. Modern just-in-time manufacturing is one example of a flexible approach to production.
Likewise, the production structure began to change on the sector level. Instead of a single firm manning the assembly line from raw materials to finished products, the production process became fragmented as individual firms specialized in their areas of expertise. As evidence for this theory of specialization, proponents claim that Marshallian "industrial districts," or clusters of integrated firms, have developed in places like Silicon Valley, Jutland, Småland, and several parts of Italy.
Neo-Schumpeterianism
The new-Schumpeterian approach to post-Fordism is based upon the theory of Kondratiev waves. The theory holds that a "techno-economic paradigm" characterizes each long wave. Fordism was the techno-economic paradigm of the fourth Kondratiev wave, and post-Fordism is thus the techno-economic paradigm of the fifth, which is dominated by information and communication technology.Notable Neo-Schumpeterian thinkers comprise Carlota Perez and Christopher Freeman, as well as Michael Storper and Richard Walker.
Post-Fordist theory in Italy
In Italy, post-Fordism has been theorised by the long wave of workerism or autonomia. Major thinkers of this tendency include the Swiss-Italian economist Christian Marazzi, Antonio Negri, Paolo Virno, Carlo Vercellone, Maurizio Lazzarato. Marazzi's Capital and Language takes as its starting point the fact that the extreme volatility of financial markets is generally attributed to the discrepancy between the "real economy" and the more speculative monetary-financial economy. But this distinction has long ceased to apply in the post-Fordist New Economy, in which both spheres are structurally affected by language and communication. In Capital and Language Marazzi argues that the changes in financial markets and the transformation of labor into immaterial labor are two sides of a new development paradigm: financialization through and thanks to the rise of the new economy.In terms of the development of the 'technical and political class-composition', in the post-Fordist era the crisis explains at the same time 'high points of the capitalist development' and how new technological tools develop and work altogether.