Fordism

Fordism, named after Henry Ford, is a modern economic and social system based on industrial mass production. The concept is used in various social theories about production and related socio-economic phenomena.[1] It has varying but related meanings in different fields, as well as for Marxist and non-Marxist scholars. In a Fordist system the worker is paid relatively high wages in order to buy in large quantity the products turned out in mass production.

Contents

Introduction

The term was first introduced by Antonio Gramsci in his essay "Americanism and Fordism", in his Prison Notebooks. Since then it has been used by a number of writers on economics and society, mainly but not exclusively in the Marxist tradition.

Ford Motor Company

The Ford Motor Company was one of a dozen small automobile manufacturers that emerged in the early 20th century.[2] After five years of producing automobiles, Ford introduced the Model T, which was simple and light, yet sturdy enough to drive on the country's primitive roads.[3] The mass production of this automobile lowered its unit price, making it affordable for the average consumer. Furthermore, Ford substantially increased its workers' wages,[4] giving them the means to become customers. These factors led to massive consumption. In fact, the Model T surpassed all expectations, because it attained a peak of 60% of the automobile output within the United States.[5]

The production system that Ford exemplified involved synchronization, precision, and specialization within a company.[6]

Economic structure

Fordism is "the eponymous manufacturing system designed to spew out standardized, low-cost goods and afford its workers decent enough wages to buy them".[7] It has also been described as "a model of economic expansion and technological progress based on mass production: the manufacture of standardized products in huge volumes using special purpose machinery and unskilled labour".[8] Although Fordism was a method used to improve productivity in the automotive industry, this principle could be applied to any kind of manufacturing process. Major success stemmed from three major principles:

1) The standardization of the product (nothing hand-made: everything is made through machines, molds and not by skilled craftsmanship)

2) The use of special-purpose tools and/or equipment designed to make assembly lines possible: tools are designed to permit workers with low skill levels to operate "assembly lines" - where each worker does one task over and over and over again - like on a doll assembly line, where one worker might spend all day every day screwing on doll heads.

3) Workers are paid higher "living" wages, so they can afford to purchase the products they make. (modified from [9])

These principles coupled with a technological revolution during Henry Ford's time allowed for his revolutionary form of labour to flourish. It is true that his assembly line was revolutionary, but it was in no way original. His most original contribution to the modern world was his breaking down of complex tasks into simpler ones with the help of specialised tools.[10] This allowed for a very adaptable flexibility allowing the assembly line to change its components whenever the product being assembled, changed enough to warrant a change in tools.[11] In reality, the assembly line had already been around before Ford, but not in quite the same effectiveness as Ford would create. His real accomplishment was recognizing the potential, breaking it all down into its components only to build it back up again in a more effective and productive combination, therefore to produce an optimum method for the real world.[12] The major advantages of such a change was that it cut down on the man power necessary for the factory to operate, not to mention that it deskilled the labour itself, cutting down on costs of production.[13] There are four levels of Fordism as described by Bob Jessop.[14]

Fordism in the United States

Investigation of potential copyright issue

Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent.
If you have just labeled this page as a potential copyright issue, please follow the instructions for filing at the bottom of the box.

The previous content of this page has been identified as posing a potential copyright issue, as a copy or modification of the text from the source(s) below, and is now listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems:

http://www.willamette.edu/~fthompso/MgmtCon/Fordism_&_Postfordism.html (Duplication Detector report)
 

Unless the copyright status of the text on this page is clarified, it may be deleted one week after the time of its listing.
Temporarily, the original posting is still accessible for viewing in the page history.
Can you help resolve this issue?
About importing text to Wikipedia
  • Posting copyrighted material without the express permission of the copyright holder is unlawful and against Wikipedia policy.
  • If you have express permission, this must be verified either by explicit release at the source or by e-mail or letter to the Wikimedia Foundation. See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries.
  • Policy requires that we block those who repeatedly post copyrighted material without express permission.
 Instructions for filing

If you have tagged the article for investigation, please complete the following steps:

Fordism in Western Europe

According to historian Charles Maier, Fordism proper was preceded in Europe by Taylorism, a technique of labor discipline and workplace organization, based upon supposedly scientific studies of human efficiency and incentive systems. It attracted European intellectuals — especially in Germany and Italy — at the fin de siècle and up until World War I.[17]

After 1918, however, the goal of Taylorist labor efficiency thought in Europe moved to "Fordism", that is, reorganization of the entire productive process by means of the moving assembly line, standardization, and the mass market. The grand appeal of Fordism in Europe was that it promised to sweep away all the archaic residues of pre-capitalist society by subordinating the economy, society and even human personality to the strict criteria of technical rationality.[18] The Great Depression blurred the utopian vision of American technocracy, but World War II and its aftermath have revived the ideal.

The principles of Taylorism were quickly picked up by Lenin and applied to the industrialisation of the Soviet Union.

Later under the inspiration of Antonio Gramsci, Marxists picked up the Fordism concept in the 1930s and in the 1970s developed "Post-Fordism." Antonio and Bonanno (2000) trace the development of Fordism and subsequent economic stages, from globalization through neoliberal globalization, during the 20th century, emphasizing America's role in globalization. "Fordism" for Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci meant routinized and intensified labor to promote production. They argue that Fordism peaked in the post-World War II decades of American dominance and mass consumerism but collapsed due to political and cultural attacks on the people in the 1970s. Advances in technology and the end of the Cold War ushered in a new "neoliberal" phase of globalization in the 1990s. They argue that negative elements of Fordism, such as economic inequality, remained, however, and related cultural and environmental troubles surfaced that inhibited America's pursuit of democracy.

Fordism and the Soviet Union

Historian Thomas Hughes (Hughes 2004) has detailed the way in which the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s enthusiastically embraced Fordism and Taylorism, importing American experts in both fields as well as American engineering firms to build parts of its new industrial infrastructure. The concepts of the Five Year Plan and the centrally planned economy can be traced directly to the influence of Taylorism on Soviet thinking. Hughes quotes Joseph Stalin:

"American efficiency is that indomitable force which neither knows nor recognises obstacles; which continues on a task once started until it is finished, even if it is a minor task; and without which serious constructive work is inconceivable.... The combination of the Russian revolutionary sweep with American efficiency is the essence of Leninism." (Hughes 2004, 251)

Hughes describes how, as the Soviet Union developed and grew in power, both sides, the Soviets and the Americans, chose to ignore or deny the contribution of American ideas and expertise. The Soviets did this because they wished to portray themselves as creators of their own destiny and not indebted to their rivals. Americans did so because they did not wish to acknowledge their part in creating a powerful rival in the Soviet Union.

In Regulation theory

Fordism is a key concept in the theories of the Regulation school, often in contrast to post-Fordism, and is also used in in Western Marxist thought.

In Regulation theory, it is a "regime of accumulation" or macroeconomic pattern of growth developed in the US and diffused in various forms to Western Europe after 1945. It consisted of domestic mass production with a range of institutions and policies supporting mass consumption, including stabilizing economic policies and Keynesian demand management that generated national demand and social stability; it also included a class compromise or social contract entailing family-supporting wages, job stability and internal labor markets leading broadly shared prosperity—rising incomes were linked to national productivity from the late 1940s to the early 1970s. At the level of the labor process Fordism is Taylorist and as a national mode of regulation Fordism is Keynesianism.

The social-scientific concept of "Fordism" was introduced by the French regulation school, sometimes known as regulation theory, which is a Marxist-influenced strand of political economy. According to the regulation school, capitalist production paradigms are born from the crisis of the previous paradigm; a newborn paradigm is also bound to fall into crisis sooner or later. The crisis of Fordism became apparent to Marxists in late 1960s.

Marxist regulation theory talks of Regimes of Capital Accumulation (ROA) and Modes of Regulation (MOR). ROAs are periods of relatively settled economic growth and profit across a nation or global region. Such regimes eventually become exhausted, falling into crisis, and are torn down as capitalism seeks to remake itself and return to a period of profit. These periods of capital accumulation are "underpinned", or stabilised, by MOR. A plethora of laws, institutions, social mores, customs and hegemonies both national and international work together to create the environment for long-run capitalist profit.

Fordism is a tag used to characterise the post-1945 long boom experienced by western nations. It is typified by a cycle of mass production and mass consumption, the production of standardized (most often) consumer items to be sold in (typically) protected domestic markets, and the use of Keynesian economic policies. Whilst the standard pattern is post-war America, national variations of this standard norm are well known. Regulation theory talks of National Modes of Growth to denote different varieties of Fordism across western economies.

Fordism as an ROA broke down, dependent on national experiences, somewhere between the late 1960s and the mid-1970s. Western economies experienced slow or nil economic growth, rising inflation and growing unemployment.

Cultural references

In Aldous Huxley's novel Brave New World. "Our Ford" (evocative of Our Lord), is a centre-point in the quasi-religious celebrations. The name is used both as an incantation and source of authority throughout the book, which can be read as a satire of Fordist industrial society.

Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times parodied the alienation and stress that the worker in a Taylorist production plant is subjected to.

Other senses

The term may also refer to Henry Ford's social views.

Post-Fordism

Main article: Post-fordism

The period after Fordism has been termed Post-Fordist and Neo-Fordist. The former implies that global capitalism has made a clean break from Fordism (including overcoming its inconsistencies), whilst the latter implies that elements of the fordist ROA continued to exist. The Regulation School preferred the term After-Fordism (or the French Après-Fordisme) to denote that what comes after Fordism was, or is, not yet clear.

In Post-Fordist economies:

See also

References

  1. ^ Fordism & Postfordism, www.willamette.edu, http://www.willamette.edu/~fthompso/MgmtCon/Fordism_&_Postfordism.html, retrieved 2008-12-26 
  2. ^ Foner, Eric (2006). Give Me Liberty!: An American History. New York:W.W Norton & Company, p.591-592.
  3. ^ Foner, Eric (2006). Give Me Liberty!: An American History. New York:W.W Norton & Company, p.591-592.
  4. ^ Sward, Keith (1948). The Legend of Henry Ford. New York: Rinehart & Company, p. 53.
  5. ^ Rae, John B. (1969). Henry Ford. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, p. 45.
  6. ^ Rae, John B. (1969). Henry Ford. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, p. 36.
  7. ^ De Grazia 2005. p. 4.
  8. ^ Tolliday, Steven & Zeitlin, Jonathan. The Automobile Industry and its Workers: Between Fordism and Flexibility, St.Martin's Press (New York: 1987) pp. 1-2.
  9. ^ Tolliday, Steven & Zeitlin, Jonathan. The Automobile Industry and its Workers: Between Fordism and Flexibility, St.Martin's Press (New York: 1987)pp.1-2.
  10. ^ Edited by; Burrows, Rober; Gilbert, Nigel; Pollert, Anna. Fordism and Flexibility: Divisions and Change St. Martin's Press (New York: 1992)pp.13-17.
  11. ^ Edited by; Burrows, Rober; Gilbert, Nigel; Pollert, Anna. Fordism and Flexibility: Divisions and Change St. Martin's Press (New York: 1992)pp.13-17.
  12. ^ Edited by; Burrows, Rober; Gilbert, Nigel; Pollert, Anna. Fordism and Flexibility: Divisions and Change St. Martin's Press (New York: 1992)pp.13-17.
  13. ^ Edited by; Burrows, Rober; Gilbert, Nigel; Pollert, Anna. Fordism and Flexibility: Divisions and Change St. Martin's Press (New York: 1992)pp.13-17.
  14. ^ Jessop, Bob (1992), "Fordism and post-fordism: A critical reformulation", in Storper, M; Scott, A J, Pathways to industrialization and regional development, London: Routledge, pp. 42–62 
  15. ^ Hounshell 1984.
  16. ^ Abernathy 1978.
  17. ^ Maier, Charles S. (1970), "Between Taylorism and Technocracy: European Ideologies and the Vision of Industrial Productivity in the 1920's", Journal of Contemporary History (Sage Publications) 5 (2): 27–61, doi:10.1177/002200947000500202, JSTOR 259743 
  18. ^ Edited by; Burrows, Rober; Gilbert, Nigel; Pollert, Anna. Foridsm and Flexibility: Divisions and Change St. Martin's Press (New York: 1992)pp.13-17.

Bibliography