Beyond the Fordist/Post-Fordist Dichotomy: Working ThroughThe Second Industrial Divide

Abstract

The publication of The Second Industrial Dividehelped to initiate a sustained inquiry into the transformation of work under industrial capitalism in the late twentieth century. The argument that the breakdown of Fordist mass production ushered in a new production paradigm in the shape of flexible systems of work organization is reexamined. The dominant role of high-volume mass production and its craft-based counterpart can continue to coexist well into the future. Nevertheless, current income and employment trends appear to disadvantage the traditional blue-collar Fordist worker and industrial unions. The cause of these trends may not, however, be directly linked to skills associated with computer technology. Finally, the type of flexibility most closely associated with the work of Piore and Sabel—flexible specialization—is discussed. It is argued that flexible specialization within industrial districts that (a) foster the development of socially informed economic action and (b) constrain competitive behavior may form the basis for the creation of different employment opportunities that challenge the dominant logic of capitalist development through which flexible employment strategies are used in tandem with corporate downsizing and increased managerial control.Fordism, flexible specialization, industrial district, work organization, employment, skill,

Gender and family status differences in leisure-time sports/fitness participation

“…Certainly, in the post-Fordist era, production practices must be “flexible” in utilizing human, material, and spatial resources to maximize product value and differentiation and respond to ever-changing domestic and global market demands (Piore and Sabel, 1984). The flexible use of human resource often means that workers are made easily expendable (Pietrykowski, 1999). Research evidence suggests that in the flexible economy people feel more, not less, rushed and often end up engaging in less leisure (Southerton, 2003).…”

Deep Recession and Financial Instability or a New Long Wave of Economic Growth for U.S. Capitalism? A Regulation School Approach

“…The dominant technical relations of Fordism included semiautomatic assembly line processes; mass production; economies of scale in the big corporations; and the utilization of an oil, coal, and combustion engine system of production. The Fordist technological style and long wave upswing could not be more fully developed until a mode of regulation of consumption, a system of social relations of production and distribution, and a series of institutional forms were formed (see Ruccio 1989 andPietrykowski 1999).…”

The welfare state and privatization

“…For Jessop (2002) the globalizing "knowledge economy" represents a transformation in the nature of capitalist modes of production from Fordist mass production to Post-Fordist processes, where the latter is described in terms of increasing flexibility, especially of the labour force, and changes in transactions based on information and communications technologies (see also Pietrykowski, 1999). Jessop (2002: 99) explains:…”