Theories of the Information Society, Third Edition - Cryptome

REGULATION SCHOOL THEORY
1
1
1
2
It should be said that within these two schools there are sharp differences of
opinion, and in what follows I shall try to indicate something of this variety among
commentators, at the same time holding on to my analytical framework. In
my discussion of a purported transition from Fordism to post-Fordism it is my
intention to concentrate on ideas emanating from what has become known as
Regulation School theory. Here major originators are economists Alain Lipietz
(1987), Michel Aglietta (1979, 1998) and Robert Boyer (1990), though I shall
incorporate several independent analysts, notably David Harvey (1989b) and
Scott Lash and John Urry (1987, 1994), who appear to have a good deal of agreement
about major facets of change. As I turn to flexible specialisation theorists I
shall focus attention on the most influential single publication in that area,
Michael Piore and Charles Sabel’s The Second Industrial Divide (1984).
To present the full depth, disagreement and diversity of all of these contributions
is too formidable a task for a single chapter, so I shall inevitably be
offering a simplified account of what I intend to be an encompassing review. That
said, in my discussion I shall pay particular attention to the role and significance
of information in change and in these explanations. I do this not only for the
obvious reason that information is the subject of my book, and not only because,
as we shall see, information is at the centre of all these accounts of supposed
transition, but also because it will allow greater appreciation of information’s
salience and particular forms in the contemporary epoch.
Regulation School theory
1
1
Regulation School theory emanated from, and continues to be driven by, a group
of French intellectuals (Boyer and Saillard, 2002), themselves influenced, especially
early on, by Marxist economic thinking, though several key contributors,
notably Michel Aglietta, distanced themselves from such traditions while others,
such as Alain Lipietz, have been particularly responsive to questions raised by
ecological movements. Regulation School theory, however, retains one element
closely associated with at least some Marxist traditions, namely the search for a
holistic explanation of social relations which attempts to grasp the overall character
of particular periods. In doing so it also lays stress on the ways in which a
range of features interconnect to enable a society to perpetuate itself. To these
thinkers it is unacceptable to centre, say, solely on technological innovations in
the workplace or the home as a means of understanding change. It is not that
these are ignored, but rather that technological developments must be contextualised
among several connected elements such as the state’s role, class
compositions, corporate trends, consumption patterns, changed gender relations
and other features of a functioning system.
The fundamental question asked by Regulation School is: How does capitalism
ensure its perpetuation? How does a system that is premised on the successful
achievement of profit and consistent expansion of capital achieve stability?
Or, to put this in terms Regulation Theory thinkers prefer, how is capitalist
accumulation secured? They have little patience with neoclassical economists’
63