Theories of the Information Society, Third Edition - Cryptome

REGULATION SCHOOL THEORY
in 1960, underlining the hold of large corporations. Moreover, indigenous companies
had a firm hold on the domestic market, as late as 1968 manufacturing
industry being 87 per cent British by output.
With hindsight we can see that British industry was rather comfortably
situated. It controlled most of the domestic market, it had few competitors, it was
participating in steadily growing and secure markets and, increasingly, it
was vertically and horizontally integrated such that it could maximise control
and co-ordination over its interests.
Planning
Underpinning much else was an acknowledged role for planning (Addison, 1975),
something most vividly manifested in the growth of the Welfare State, but also
expressed in a broad consensus as regards the legitimacy of state involvement
in the economy (Keynesian policies). Significantly, for example, the tide of nationalisations
in the UK that followed the Second World War and took over much
energy supply and communications was turned back by the Conservatives only
in the steel industry during the 1950s. Other areas such as coal, gas and electricity
were accepted across the party divide. The suggestion of Regulation School
theorists is that this sort of accord bolstered extensive planning in many areas of
life, as well as winning support from most people who felt that state-supplied
education and health especially were of great benefit to themselves, thereby
helping maintain stability through the Fordist system.
This description of the Fordist regime of accumulation involves much
generalisation, a good deal of which critics will find objectionable. For example,
portraying the post-war decades in Britain as stable and prosperous too easily
underestimates stubborn problems of poverty, conflict and economic uncertainty.
Many who have lived through the 1950s and 1960s may find it somewhat strange
to see this period described as an era in which taboos against credit were
removed or as a time when British industries were immune from foreign competition.
Further, the depictions of Fordism too easily generalise from the particular
North American and West European experiences of post-war development. Just
what application this has for, say, Malaysia, Japan or even for Italy and Greece
is a moot point.
Again, the question of periodisation is problematical – when, precisely, was
Fordism? As we have noted, Henry Ford established his factories in the early
years of the twentieth century, and it is worth remembering that the concept was
originated by Marxist Antonio Gramsci in an essay written during the early 1930s
(Gramsci, 1971, pp. 277–318). It is generally argued that Britain lagged behind
the leading Fordist country, the United States, but the fixing of dates (why 1945
onwards?) is rather puzzling as, indeed, is a label applied to nations with markedly
different forms of state intervention (compare, for instance, the more laissez-faire
orientation of the United States with Britain).
At a later stage I shall present further criticisms of the Regulation School
model, but here one may get a better appreciation of the depiction of a Fordist
68