Theories of the Information Society, Third Edition - Cryptome

REGULATION SCHOOL THEORY
assertion that capitalism tends towards equilibrium if left alone, insisting that
much more is needed to ensure social order than the ‘hidden hand’ of the free
market. Of course, it could be argued that any system which is in a constant state
of motion, and capitalism is undeniably one such, is inherently unstable and
that therefore there is something odd, perhaps even perverse, about Regulation
School’s search for the roots of stability in a dynamic economy (Sayer and
Walker, 1992). Regulation School thinkers concede the point that instability is
part and parcel of capitalist relations, freely admitting that employees will always
want more from their employers than the latter are willing to give, that inter-firm
competition will mean there is a perpetual need for innovation, that corporate
takeovers are part and parcel of economic life. However, they are also taken with
the question: How does capitalism manage to continue in spite of all these
sources of tension? In other words, Regulation School seeks to identify ways in
which instabilities are managed and contained such that continuity can be
achieved amidst change. To the degree to which they address this question they
may be thought of as trying to present an alternative to neoclassical theories of
general economic equilibrium. 1
Regulation School thinkers seek to examine the regime of accumulation that
predominates at any one time. By this they mean to identify the prevailing organisation
of production, ways in which income is distributed, how different sectors
of the economy are calibrated and how consumption is arranged. They also try
to explain the mode of regulation, by which is meant the ‘norms, habits, laws, regulation
networks and so on that ensure the unity of the process [of accumulation]’
(Lipietz, 1986, p. 19). This latter, concerned with what one might term the ‘rules
of the game’, takes us into consideration of ways in which social control is
achieved, from legal statutes to educational policies.
Regulation School adherents aim to examine the relationships between a
regime of accumulation and its mode of regulation, but in practice most studies
from within the school have focused on the mode of accumulation and, in particular,
changes in its constitution. Their contention is that, since the mid-1970s or
so, the ongoing crises with which we are all more or less familiar (recession,
unemployment, bankruptcies, labour dislocation, etc.) are being resolved by the
establishment of a new regime of accumulation which is replacing the one that
has secured stability for a lengthy period after the Second World War. The
suggestion is that the Fordist regime of accumulation which held sway from 1945
until the mid-1970s became unsustainable and that, hesitatingly and with considerable
disruption, it is giving way to a post-Fordist regime which will, perhaps,
re-establish and sustain the health of capitalist enterprise.
In what follows I shall concentrate attention in contrasting the Fordist and
post-Fordist regimes of accumulation; this will, inevitably, be at the expense of
much attention being given to modes of regulation, and readers ought to be aware
of this omission (Hirsch, 1991). Particularly as they read of attempts to construct
a post-Fordist regime during the 1980s, readers might reflect on the control
mechanisms that were introduced in Britain during those years, from Margaret
Thatcher’s (Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990) determined assault on the labour
movement through changes in the legal status of trade unions that weakened
64