Theories of the Information Society, Third Edition - Cryptome

REGULATION SCHOOL THEORY
offers the prospect of widespread improvement in ways of life. Moreover, because
this theorisation places particular emphasis on the role of information/knowledge
in post-Fordist work situations, it merits here separate review from the more
general Regulation School theory.
The argument is that during the era of Fordism, when mass production
predominated, large-volume manufacture of standardised products demanded
specialisation of machinery and a congruent specialisation of labour which was,
unavoidably, characterised by low levels of skill. Conjure the image of the assembly
line in the large factory and one can readily picture this scene. It was one in
which Taylorist techniques (rigid time and motion, hierarchical supervision,
restriction of operatives to narrowly conceived routines designed by management)
were the norm and semi-skilled and unskilled labour the typical requirements.
For reasons I review below, Piore and Sabel contend that ‘we are living
through a second industrial divide’, comparable to the first which brought about
mass production in the late nineteenth century. The most recent heralds ‘flexible
specialisation’, a radical break with the repetitious and low-skilled labour of
Fordism, one which will increase the skills of employees and allow greater variety
in the production of goods. This flexibility is the keynote of the new age, a chord
already struck in the Italian region of Emilia-Romagna (Sabel, 1982), and one
which portends an end to stultifying labour and a return to craft-like methods of
production – Piore and Sabel (1984) dream even of a revival of ‘yeoman democracy’
(p. 305) – in small co-operative enterprises that can respond rapidly to
shifting market opportunities.
Three main reasons are adduced to explain the emergence of flexible specialisation.
First, it is suggested that labour unrest during the 1960s and the early
1970s encouraged corporations to decentralise their activities by, for example,
increasing the amount of subcontracting they used and/or divesting themselves
of in-house production facilities. This stimulated the spread of small, technically
sophisticated firms, themselves often established by those displaced in consequence
of the restructuring strategies of large firms, but eager for work, possessing
high skills, and adaptable. Second, changes in market demand have become
evident, with a marked differentiation in consumer tastes. This provided opportunities
for low-volume and high-quality market niches to which flexible specialisation
was well adapted. Third, new technologies enabled small firms to produce
competitively because the advantages of economies of scale were reduced as
skilled outfits began to maximise their versatility thanks to the flexibility of modern
computers. More than this, though, the new technologies, being extraordinarily
malleable through appropriate programming, at once increase the competitive
edge of the fast-footed small firm and upgrade existing skills because they ‘restore
human control over the production process’ (Piore and Sabel, 1984, p. 261).
This is a simplification of flexible specialisation theory, making little reference
to, in some versions at least, the ways in which it finds accord with Japanese
kanban (just-in-time) systems and total quality practices. For my purposes it is
necessary only to make two major points about flexible specialisation.
The first concerns the quite extraordinary diversity of opinion which
endorses the notion. In what appears to be a generalised reaction against Harry
90