Abstract
This paper uses the analytical tools of regulation theory to analyse critically claims about the emergence of post-Fordism. It is argued that prevailing notions of post-Fordism are inconsistent with the central tenets of regulationist method, devaluing as they do the critical importance of social regulation and the ways in which a putative post-Fordist economy may be macro-economically pieced together. Rather than representing the basis for a renewed period of sustained growth, flexibility and its corollary, neo-liberalism, are argued to represent the politics and economics of sustained capitalist crisis. Only when the systemic instability at the global level can be regulated can we expect a durable replacement for Fordism. This requires not only a new macro-economic regime but, crucially, a new ‘institutional fix'.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 357-386 |
| Number of pages | 30 |
| Journal | Economy and Society |
| Volume | 24 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Aug 1995 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:We would like to thank Ash Amin, Colin Hay and Bob Jessop for their comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Responsibility for the contents remains, of course, our own. More formally, Adam Tickell would like to thank ESRC for their support for the research fellowship 'Regulating finance: the political geography of financial services' (award number H52427001394).
Keywords
- neo-liberalism
- post-Fordism
- Regulation theory
- uneven development
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- History
- Economics and Econometrics
- General Social Sciences