Fordism and Post-Fordism Article View On the File menu, click Print to print the information.
Fordism and Post-Fordism Fordism and Post-Fordism, stages of modern capitalism, comprising the so-called “Golden Age of Capitalism” from the 1940s and the early 1970s, characterized by institutions of large-scale mass production and Taylorist production methods, an increased division of labour, and the growth of credit to facilitate mass consumption, plus its aftermath up to the present day. Fordist production methods were initially embraced by the Ford Motor Company in Detroit in 1913 under Henry Ford and quickly generalized throughout manufacturing industry. The narrow definition of Fordism has subsequently been extended by commentators to cover a set of “rules” that enabled this phase of capitalism to function in a stable way, these rules covering not only the organization of production (particularly the role for labour), but also the aims of production and methods for resolving conflict. The Fordist mode of production involved the conjunction of “Taylorism” and increasing mechanization within large, multidepartment firms, most famously associated with the introduction of the moving assembly line, and the standardizing of components and finished products. Taylorism, based on principles of “scientific management” developed by Frederick Winslow Taylor, can be seen as the rationalization of production based on the separation of conception and execution of tasks, or the separation of the organizers of production (engineers, etc.) and the (semi-skilled) operatives actually carrying out production ensuring increased managerial control of the process. Thus the mental and manual aspects of work became completely separate. This represented a complete break from the past, where production was organized along the lines of crafts, with the craftsman possessing skills of organization and operation. There was considerable resistance to the changes of Taylorism, but the trade union movement eventually accepted a compromise; in exchange for acceptance of Taylorist methods of production, unions asked for a share of the productivity gains accruing from rationalization and intensification of work. This compromise was initially accepted by a small number of employers (among them Henry Ford), and despite the support of key figures in economics, notably John Maynard Keynes, it was only after World War II that the compromise was widely accepted as a series of governing rules. In seeing employees not only as inputs in the production process, but also as consumers of the final products, the gains in productivity, and the subsequent sharing out of the associated value added (via increases in the real wage), Fordism matched mass production and technical progress with higher mass consumption. The post-war Golden Age became associated with a period of full employment, high levels of capital investment or accumulation, full plant capacity, and high levels of firm profitability. Underpinning Taylorism and mass production were a series of institutions covering collectivism in industrial relations, a form of “welfare state” which ensured a basic standard of living, so that even when not economically active (retired, unemployed, etc.) all agents remained consumers, and the development of modern banking and credit systems. This conferred on the state an active role in the management of the economy, both directly through the use of government spending (via Keynesian demand management policies), and in its role of regulator of the credit system. At an international level, coordination and trade between the developed world economies (with Fordist regimes in place) grew significantly under the leadership (or hegemony) of the United States, the dollar being accepted as the basis for international payments. The United States was keen not to see the proliferation of Communism and spent vast sums (as in the Marshall Plan) ensuring the conclusion of a Fordist compromise within the economies of Europe and East Asia. Like most compromises, the very essence of the Fordist compromise contained the seeds of its own destruction. This manifested itself initially as indications that the increased productivity gains contained within Taylorist methods were gradually being exhausted. The increased intensification of work, deskilling, and alienation on the part of workers led to forms of resistance that were sporadic and uncoordinated but all the more significant with increased automation and complexity of production. High levels of capital accumulation made any stoppages and decreases in productivity increasingly costly, and this led to a decline in the rate of profits. Towards the end of the 1960s the basis of the Fordist systems was being put into question as relations between the social partners became more antagonistic, and commitments such as full employment and the escalating cost of the welfare state put pressure on national governments. This “crisis” of Fordism has lead many commentators to argue that developed market capitalism has moved towards a post-Fordist system of production and social relations. The pattern of post-Fordist capitalism is said to be characterized by a reversal of many of the features of Fordism through methods of production based on new product technologies, such as biotechnology, but especially microelectronics and information technology. This has lead to the replacement of Taylorism, and post-Fordist work relations and practices are claimed to be characterized by “flexibility”, as witnessed in the work relations of the typical Japanese corporation. Keynesianism became somewhat discredited as monetarism (characterized by a faith in market forces to deliver the optimal economic outcomes) became established throughout the discipline of economics. A new individualism replaced the previous faith in the collectivist institutions of the Fordist era. Associated with these changes have been a much-reduced social role for trade unions (and declining membership) that has forced them to accept a “new realism” over the issues over which they can influence, and a reduction of state intervention in industry—as witnessed by the extensive privatization process in the developed free market economies. It should, however, be noted that there exists considerable academic debate over the exact nature and effect of the institutions characterizing the post-Fordist era, undoubtedly a consequence of the array of institutions in capitalist market economies and associated divergence of industrial performance. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contributed By: Simon Peck, B.Sc., M.A. Research Fellow, University of Leeds. "Fordism and Post-Fordism," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2009 http://uk.encarta.msn.com © 1997-2009 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved. © 1993-2009 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved. _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
