158 Political-economic capitalist transformationcustom-markets has not necessarily led, however, to any diminution<strong>of</strong> corporate power. Indeed, to the degree that information and theability to make swift decisions in a highly uncertain, ephemeral, andcompetitive environment become crucial to pr<strong>of</strong>its, the well orga izedcorporation has marked competitive advantages over small busmess.'Deregulation' (another <strong>of</strong> the political buzz-words <strong>of</strong> the era <strong>of</strong>flexible accumulation) has <strong>of</strong>ten meant increased monopolization(after a phase <strong>of</strong> intensified competition) in sectors such as airlines,energy, and financial services. At one end <strong>of</strong> the business scale,flexible accumulation has been conducive to massive mergers andcorporate diversifications. US companies spent $22 billion acquiringeach other in 1977, but by 1981 that had risen to $82 billion, crestingin 1985 at an extraordinary $180 billion. Though mergers and acquisitionsdeclined in 1987, in part as a response to the stock marketcrash, the total value still stood at $165.8 billion for 2,052 transactions(according to W.T. Grimm, a merger consultant group). Yet in 1988the merger mania kept going. In the United States merger dealsworth than $198 billion were completed in the first three-quarters <strong>of</strong>the year, while in Europe, de Benedetti <strong>of</strong> Olivetti's attempt to takeover the Union Generale <strong>of</strong> Belgium, a bank which controlled aboutone third <strong>of</strong> that country's productive assets indicated the globalspread <strong>of</strong> merger mania. Most <strong>of</strong> those employed by the Fortune 500top companies in the USA now work in lines <strong>of</strong> activity that havenothing to do with the primary line <strong>of</strong> business with which theircompany is identified. '<strong>The</strong> duty <strong>of</strong> management is to make money,not steel' announced James Roderick, Chairman <strong>of</strong> US Steel, in 1979,and he promptly launched into a campaign <strong>of</strong> acquisitions and expansionsto diversify that company's activities. At the other end <strong>of</strong>the scale, small businesses, patriarchal and artisanal organizationalstructures have also flourished. Even self-employment, which haddeclined steadily in the United States after 1950, underwent,according to Reich's (1983) account, substantial revival after 1972,expanding by more than 25 per cent in less than a decade (a trendwhich encompassed everything from casual work by the unemployedto highly paid consultants, designers, craft workers and specialists).New systems <strong>of</strong> co-ordination have been put in place either throughan intricate variety <strong>of</strong> sub-contracting arrangements (that connectsmall firms to large-scale, <strong>of</strong>ten multinational, operations) throughthe formation <strong>of</strong> new production ensembles in which agglomerationeconomies have become <strong>of</strong> increased significance, or through thedomination and integration <strong>of</strong> small businesses under the aegis <strong>of</strong>powerful financial or marketing organizations (Benetton, for example,engages in no production directly, but simply operates as a powerfulFrom Fordism to flexible accumulationmarketing machine, which transmits commands to a wide array <strong>of</strong>independent producers).. Wlat tis uggests is that the tension that has always prevailedWithm capItalIsm between monopoly and competition, between centraliationand decentralization <strong>of</strong> economic power, is being workedout m fundament lly .ne ways. This does not necessarily imply,however, that capItalIsm IS becoming more 'disorganized' as Offe(1985) and Lash an? Ur : ;, (! 987) sugg st. For what is most interestingabout the cu rent sItuatlo IS the way m which capitalism is becominge;r r more tlgh tly orgamzed through dispersal, geographical mo.bIlIty, and fleXIble responses in labour markets, labour processes,and consumer markets, all accompanied by hefty doses <strong>of</strong> institutional,product, and technological innovation.<strong>The</strong> tihter organization and imploding centralization have in factbeen a hIeved by two parallel developments <strong>of</strong> the greatest importance.FIrst, accu.r ate and up-to-date information is now a very highlyvued commodIty . .Access .to, and control over, information, coupledWIth a strong capacIty for mstant data analysis, have become essentialto the ce tralized .co-ordination <strong>of</strong> far-flung corporate interests.<strong>The</strong> ca pa Ity for mstantaneous response to changes in exchangerates, fashIOns and tastes, and moves by competitors is more essentialto orporate .survival than it ever was under Fordism. <strong>The</strong> emphasison nformatl n has also spawned a wide array <strong>of</strong> highly specializedb smess .serVIces .and consultancies capable <strong>of</strong> providing up-to-themmutemformatIOn on market trends and the kind <strong>of</strong> instant dataa aly es seful n corporate decision-making. It has also created aSItuatIOn m whIch vast pr<strong>of</strong>its stand to be made on the basis <strong>of</strong>privileged a cess to information, particularly in financial and currencymarkets (WItness the proliferating 'insider trading' scandals <strong>of</strong> the1980s that struck both New York and London). But this is, in a ense, o ly the illegal tip <strong>of</strong> an iceberg where privileged access tomformatIon <strong>of</strong> any sort (such as scientific and technical know-how,government policies, and political shifts) becomes an essential aspect<strong>of</strong> successful and pr<strong>of</strong>itable decision-making.Access to scientific and technical know-how has always been importantin the competitive struggle, but here, too, we can see arenew .al <strong>of</strong> interest and emphasis, because in a world <strong>of</strong> quickchangmgta tes and needs and flexible production systems (as opposedto the relatIvely stable world <strong>of</strong> standardized Fordism), access to theates technique ? :e lates producṭ, the latest scientific discoveryImplIes the p '0sslbllIty <strong>of</strong> selzmg an Important competitive advantage.Knowledge Itself becomes a key commodity, to be produced andsold to the highest bidder, under conditions that are themselves159
160 Political-economic capitalist transformationincreasingly organized on a competitive basis. Universities and researchinstitutes compete fiercely for personnel as well as for beingfirst in patenting new scientific discoveries (whoever gets first to theantidote for the Aids virus will surely pr<strong>of</strong>it handsomely, as the agreementreached between US researchers and France's Pasteur Instituteover the sharing <strong>of</strong> information and royalties clearly recognized).Organized knowledge production has expanded remarkably overthe past few decades, at the same time as it has been increasingly putupon a commercial basis (witness the uncomfortable transitions inmany university systems in the advanced capitalist world from guardianship<strong>of</strong> knowledge and wisdom to ancillary production <strong>of</strong> knowledgefor corporate capital). <strong>The</strong> celebrated Stanford Silicon .Valleyor the MIT - Boston Route 128 'high-tech' industry connectlOns areconfigurations that are quite new and special to the era <strong>of</strong> flexibleaccumulation (even though, as David Noble points out in Americaby design, many US universities were set up and promoted bycorporate capital from their very inception).Control over information flow and over the vehicles for propagation<strong>of</strong> popular taste and culture have likewise b come vitalweapons in competitive struggle. <strong>The</strong> startling concentration <strong>of</strong> economicpower in book publishing (where 2 per cent <strong>of</strong> the publisherscontrol 75 per cent <strong>of</strong> the books published in the USA), the mediaand the press cannot be explained simply in terms <strong>of</strong> the productionconditions conducive to mergers in those fields. It has a lot to dowith the power <strong>of</strong> other large corporations, as expressed throughtheir controls over mechanisms <strong>of</strong> distribution and advertising expenditures.<strong>The</strong> latter have grown markedly since the 1960s, and eatup even larger proportions <strong>of</strong> corporate budgets because, in a ighlycompetitive world, it is not simply products but the corporate Imageitself that becomes essential, not only to marketing but also forraising capital, pursuing mergers, and gaining leverage over the production<strong>of</strong> knowledge, government policy, and the promotion <strong>of</strong>cultural values. Corporate sponsorship <strong>of</strong> the Arts (Exhibition sponsoredby -), <strong>of</strong> universities, and <strong>of</strong> philanthropic projects is theprestige end <strong>of</strong> a scale <strong>of</strong> activities that include everything fromlavish brochures and company reports, public relations stunts, andeven scandals that constantly keep the company name in the publiceye.<strong>The</strong> second development - and this has been far more importantthan the first - was the complete reorganization <strong>of</strong> the global financialsystem and the emergence <strong>of</strong> greatly enhanced powers <strong>of</strong> financialco-ordination. Again, there has been a dual movement, on the onehand towards the formation <strong>of</strong> financial conglomerates and brokers<strong>of</strong> extraordinary global power, and, on the other hand, a rapidFrom Fordism to flexible accumulation 161proliferation and decentralization <strong>of</strong> financial activities and flowsthrough the creation <strong>of</strong> entirely new financial instruments and markets.In the United States, this meant the deregulation <strong>of</strong> a financial'system that had been rigorously circumscribed ever since the reforms<strong>of</strong> te .1930s. h .e US Hunt Commission Report <strong>of</strong> 1971 was the firstexplIcIt recogllltlOn <strong>of</strong> the need for reforms as a condition <strong>of</strong> survivaland growth <strong>of</strong> the capitalist economic system. After the traumas <strong>of</strong>1973, the pressure for financial deregulation gathered pace in the1 970s and had engulfed all <strong>of</strong> the world's financial centres by 1986(L