Revival: Post-Fordism, Gender and Work (2001)

Andrea Wigfield

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351753029
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Sciences sociales
• Subtopic: Sociologie

This title was first published in 2001. Addressing a significant gap in existing literature, this book presents a gender-informed analysis of the post-fordist economy. It incorporates a gender dimension into the economic restructuring debate on both a theoretical and a practical level, and explores the implications of economic restructuring in the workplace for gender relations..

PART 1
THE THEORY

1 Introduction

Since the 1980s there has been extensive debate concerning the extent to which advanced industrialised nations have experienced economic restructuring. Much of this discussion focuses upon the pattern of economic development, in the western world, during the last two centuries. Particular attention is paid to the shift away from craft production towards the end of the nineteenth century, the dominance of Fordism during the twentieth century and the emergence of a more flexible mode of production from the 1970s onwards.

The classification of this restructuring, following the Fordist era, has provoked most academic discussion, drawing in commentators from various political and ideological backgrounds, incorporating Monetarists, Neo-Classicists, Keynesians, Regulationists and Neo-Marxists. These commentators can be divided into two principal schools of restructuring: the French Regulationist School, as exemplified by scholars such as Aglietta (1979), Boyer (1988a) and Leborgne and Lipietz (1988, 1990) who refer to the replacement of Fordism as Neo or Post-Fordism; and the Institutionalist School, advanced by commentators such as Piore and Sabel (1984), who refer to the Fordist successor as Flexible Specialisation.

Extensive differences exist between the underlying assumptions of these two theories, but there are also some similarities. Both indicate that in recent years there has been a search for a new form of economic development based on production and labour flexibility. Further, and perhaps more importantly in the context of this book, both largely fail to incorporate a gender dimension into their analysis. Neither adequately address changing gender relations as part of their account of the search for flexibility. A factor which is surprising given that women’s participation in the labour force has continued to increase (McDougall, 1998; Central Statistical Office, 1999b). It is therefore crucial that these inadequacies are redressed and that the restructuring debate is ‘genderised’.

This book attempts to do just that. It incorporates a gender dimension into the economic restructuring debate, thus challenging and developing existing knowledge in this field. Part one links Post-Fordist and feminist theoretical perspectives in order to explore the implications of economic restructuring in the workplace for gender relations. This raises a number of questions relating to issues around numerical flexibility, functional flexibility and technological change. Part two attempts to answer these questions by drawing upon an empirical study of 33 clothing companies, half of which have adopted Post-Fordist production techniques based on team working.

The book is divided into six main chapters. Chapters two and three form part one of the book and chapters four, five, six and seven constitute part two. The principal aim of chapter two is to examine the Institutionalist and Regulationist theories of economic restructuring. It explores the stages of economic development which preceded the new mode of production, paying particular attention to the Fordist phase and explanations for its rise and decline. The conflicts, contradictions and similarities between the two accounts of the Fordist successor are then explored and attempts are made to outline a preliminary model of economic restructuring within which a gender informed analysis can be inserted.

Chapter three draws upon existing feminist theoretical knowledge, particularly that concerned with gender relations and the labour market, to develop a series of theoretical arguments concerning the implications of economic restructuring for gender relations. The discussion centres around three main issues: numerical flexibility; functional flexibility; and technological change. Examples are drawn from the implementation of team working in the manufacturing sector.

In order to test accurately the theoretical arguments arising out of part one of the book, part two examines the empirical investigation of the introduction of team working in the Nottinghamshire clothing industry. Chapter four provides an introduction to this part of the book, explaining the nature of and rationale for the empirical investigation. It outlines the key characteristics of the clothing sector in Nottinghamshire, and explains the choice of the sector and locality. The research methods utilised are also briefly outlined.

The empirical investigation explores a number of questions which fall into two categories: 1. numerical flexibility - does team working lead to an expansion of numerical flexibility which has damaging effects for female labour? How does this affect women who have caring responsibilities? Does team working facilitate flexible working arrangements and the provision of childcare facilities, thereby mediating the constraints faced by working women?; 2. functional flexibility and technological change - are models of team working which lead to job enlargement and which utilise technology in a way which deskills more likely to be implemented than those which lead to job enrichment and which utilise technology in a way which upskills when the workforce is predominantly female?

Chapter five focuses upon the former. The extent to which team working encourages an expansion of numerical flexibility is examined, particular attention being paid to the level of redundancies and part-time work. The implications of these findings for female team members, especially those who have caring responsibilities, are then analysed and the extent to which team working can mediate the constraints faced by working women is explored.

Chapter six explores the latter. The extent to which team working leads to functional flexibility, in terms of job enlargement and job enrichment is examined, and the role that technological change plays in this process is explored, particularly the way in which new technology can upskill or deskill. The resulting implications for the female workforce are analysed and the validity of the various dichotomies (job enlargement versus job enrichment and upskilling versus deskilling) are assessed. The way in which the method of work reorganisation and gender relations play a part in this process are then examined.

Chapter seven pulls together the various strands of the book. It revisits the conclusions of each of the preceding chapters and discusses the theoretical and policy implications.

2 Flexible Specialisation or Post-Fordism?

Introduction to the Economic Restructuring Debate

Two principal theories of economic restructuring have recently emerged. On the one hand, there is the French Regulationist School, exemplified by Neo-Marxists such as Aglietta (1979), Boyer (1988a), Leborgne and Lipietz (1988, 1990) and Lipietz (1997). Piore and Sabel (1984), on the other hand, pursue a different political and ideological perspective, forming the Institutionalist School. Other theorisations of the transition also exist but are peripheral to the debate and therefore shall not be elaborated upon here (see Amin, 1994 for an overview of other literature in the field).

Regulationists and Institutionalists agree that Fordism (having been the dominant mode of production during the twentieth century) is now in decline and is being replaced by more flexible modes of production. However, there are major discrepancies between the two theories, which encompass explanations for the decline of Fordism, the classification of its replacement, and the implications for labour relations. These disparities can be explained by the contrasting ideological underpinnings of the two theories. The Institutionalists (Piore and Sabel, 1984) take an indeterminacy view, arguing that a new technological paradigm of Flexible Specialisation ‘just happened’ to develop, whilst those grounded in Regulationist theory offer a deterministic explanation, suggesting that economic development is determined by the capitalist mode of production and the mode of regulation.

However, there are variations within the Regulationist framework. For example, Aglietta (1979) suggests that the new mode of development can be classed as Neo-Fordism, based on a simple expansion of the fundamentals of Fordism. Other Regulationists argue that a single solution to the crisis of Fordism has yet to emerge, and that a number of replacements for Fordism are possible. This is particularly true of Leborgne and Lipietz (1988, 1990) and Lipietz (1997) who argue that Post-Fordism (which encompasses a range of alternative regimes of accumulation) can be viewed as the Fordist successor.

Both schools analyse the implications of economic restructuring in terms of production and labour organisation. The way in which they explore the latter, in particular, has consequences for the extent to which gender relations can be incorporated into the debate. The principal aim of this chapter is therefore to critically examine these two schools, exploring the conflicts, contradictions and similarities between them in terms of production and labour flexibility.

The chapter is split into three main sections. The first section explores Fordism, drawing upon the Regulationist and Institutionalist explanations for its rise and decline. The second and main part of the chapter concentrates upon the replacement of Fordism, exploring the two contrasting theoretical viewpoints of this phase of ‘flexible’ production. Attempts are then made in the third section to outline a preliminary model of economic restructuring within which a gender informed analysis can be inserted.

The Fordist Phase of Economic Development

During the evolution of industrial society four distinct phases of economic development have been encountered, the first three of which have previously been identified elsewhere (Blackburn, 1985): phase one - 1750s to 1850s - craft production; phase two - late nineteenth century to the end world war I - Taylorism; phase three - the inter war period to 1973 - Fordism; and phase four - 1970s to date - Post-Fordism or Flexible Specialisation. Each of these phases are characterised by the methods of production and work organisation dominant in that period. However, this does not indicate the exclusive existence of any particular prototype in any one time period. We are interested here only in the third phase - Fordism.

Characteristics of Fordism

During the Fordist era, multinational corporations became dominant and the region became the secondary location for economic activity. Large numbers of workers were employed in organisations, working on the Taylorist principles of scientific management (Gartman, 1979). The crucial date surrounding the development of Fordism was 1914, which was when Ford introduced the $5, eight hour day, working week on the first car assembly line at Michigan, in the USA. Ford combined the assembly line with Taylor’s principles of the division of labour. The coordination of these two concepts allowed work to be conveyed to the workers, enabling the speed of work to be determined by the movement of the assembly line (ibid.). Consequently, Fordism facilitated a rise in labour intensification and therefore productivity (see table 2.2 for a more detailed definition of the production techniques utilised under Fordism), the latter occurring to such an extent that commodities could be mass produced (Harvey, 1989; Aglietta, 1979).

These two concepts, labour intensification and mass production, are central to the notion of Fordism. Firstly, to examine labour intensification. As Fordism involved the utilisation of Taylorist principles based on the division of labour it led to the emergence of an unskilled workforce, performing highly fragmented tasks. Wherever possible Ford attempted to reduce the number of jobs requiring skill, knowledge and judgement, replacing these by simple, repetitive, unskilled tasks. A good example of this deskilling process is provided by Gartman:

There applied for work at this factory one day a man who represented himself to be a skilled erector of automobiles. The plant needed such a man and so hired the applicant and assigned him to the assembly of an automobile. It soon became apparent that the employee did not even know where or how to commence the assembly.

The superintendent said to him:

We thought that you were a skilled erector of automobiles

I thought I was

Where did you work?

At Ford Motor Company

What did you do?

I screwed in nut number 58

(Gartman, 1979, p.203).

Attempts to break down work tasks into the most repetitive, least skilled form possible continued to prevail throughout the post-war years as Fordism spread, not only throughout the USA but to other advanced industrialised sectors (Brecher, 1979). This deskilling process, together with the mechanisation of the pace of work, led to labour intensification. At the same time the piecerate payment system, whereby workers are paid in relation to the volume of the commodities produced, became widespread. This exacerbated the degree of labour intensification, with workers being forced to produce at substantially higher rates than previously, in order to achieve equivalent or higher levels of income (Gartman, 1979; Lamphere, 1979).

It was not, however, solely the labour process which was affected by the emergence of Fordism, it had implications too for the production process. This is where the second concept of Fordism becomes apparent - mass production. Production was structured around the semi-automatic assembly line, which together with fixed purpose, product specific equipment facilitated the mass production of standardised commodities. Mass production realised the benefits of economies of scale, whereby unit costs fall continuously with output. Large multinational corporations therefore became widespread, enabling the large batch production necessary to maximise these economies of scale (Schoenberger, 1988; Harvey, 1988).

However the success of mass production was not just dependent upon the presence of multinational corporations but also on the transportation and sale of large batches of commodities to the consumer. This link between the producer and consumer was facilitated by technological advances in transportation systems which facilitated the distribution of mass produced commodities (Piore and Sabel, 1984) and mass retailing which enabled the storage and the sale of mass produced commodities (ibid.).

However, neither the multinational corporation alone, nor advances in transportation and retail systems could solve the basic dilemma of mass production, i.e. that the success of mass production is dependent upon the existence of its counterpart, mass consumption (Schoenberger, 1988). Ford recognised this, and it is widely agreed that this is what distinguished him from Taylor. He acknowledged that mass production required mass consumption and that this necessitated not just changes in production techniques, but changes in the mode of life too (Harvey, 1988; Lipietz, 1988; Schoenberger, 1988).

Ford initially advocated that a mass consumption society could be achieved via a $5, eight hour day, working week, thereby ensuring worker discipline and providing them with sufficient disposable income and leisure time to consume mass produced commodities (Harvey, 1988). Ford believed that corporate power could be utilised to regulate the economy, by increasing wages to increase effective demand. However, corporate power proved an insufficient tool and so the state intervened in order to reinforce the trend of mass consumption. Hence the welfare state emerged, enabling those who were either not employed on the Fordist production line or were unemployed to enjoy mass consumption. This was achieved by a comprehensive system of social security benefits and in some instances the introduction of a minimum wage. Simultaneously, Keynesian demand management policies were adopted which helped to insulate the Fordist system against cyclical fluctuations in demand and maintain stable levels of mass consumption. At times of depressed demand, government spending was raised in order to stimulate effective demand and stabilise the economic system (Piore and Sabel, 1984; Harvey, 1988; Jessop, 1993).

The development of Fordism, with the aid of multinational corporations, technological advances in transportation systems, the growth of mass retailing systems, the development of the welfare state and Keynesian demand management policies stimulated a period of unprecedented economic growth in the USA. This success was recognised throughout the western world and consequently by the end of the second world war, countries such as France, Germany and the UK had followed suit. Hence Fordism became the dominant mode of production in advanced industrialised countries during the post war period and remained dominant until the early 1970s.

Explanations for the Rise and Decline of Fordism

Although the Institutionalists and Regulationists agree on the broad definitions of Fordism, their explanations for its rise and decline tend to diverge somewhat. The Institutionalists take an indeterminacy view of economic restructuring, arguing that society is not a totality and that relationships are not governed by a single principle (Piore and Sabel, 1984). They recognise a range of possibilities in terms of economic development and that a number of distinct choices can be made between two dominant technological paradigms - Fordism (mass production) and Flexible Specialisation (craft production).

They argue that throughout industrial society these two types of production coexist, but periodically ‘branching points’ are encountered where choices between the two are required. At the first branching point, what Piore and Sabel (1984) refer to as the first industrial divide, mass production and therefore Fordism was chosen in preference to craft production. Although the latter continued to exist.

The Institutionalists argue that there was nothing inevitable about the development of Fordism and that a number of occurrences just happened to prevail simultaneously, allowing it to expand. Thus Piore and Sabel (1984) argue that Ford’s $5, eight hour day, working week and later the development of both Keynesian economic policies and the welfare state ens...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Dedication
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Acknowledgments
• Part 1 The Theory
• Part 2 Evidence from the Clothing Industry
• Bibliography
• Index