You are on page 1of 4

Boyer, Robert, e Jean-Pierre Durand. After Fordism. Springer, 2016.

INTRODUCTION pgs 3-5


How does a new production system emerge? From a process that is
both contradictory and uncertain. To put it succinctly with great
difficulty. Why is this so?
A production system creates and maintains complementarities among
the internal organisation of companies, forms of competition,
industrial relations, the education system and, last but not least,
macroeconomic

adjustment

processes,

that

is,

the

mode

of

regulation. Accordingly, a system that was viable and coherent


under one paradigm may well encounter considerable difficulties
when evolving towards new principles.
This proposition is particularly relevant to the quest for alternatives to
Fordism (flexible production, lean production, Toyotaism or perhaps
even Uddevallaism?), given that industrial principles never fully
determine the organisation of production, which depends in part on
the way they are inserted into the network of relationships from which
the concrete economic and social fabric is woven.
The analysis in this part of the book is both theoretical and historical.
First, the idea of the production model is defined in terms of
complementarity and coherence among management principles, the
internal organisation of the company and employment relations. It
follows from this definition that, once established, a production
system becomes structurally stable, thus blocking the innovations
that might give rise to what in a new context might be a superior
system, but which is incompatible with the forms of coordination
associated with the existing system.
Notwithstanding these difficulties, history shows that since the first
industrial revolution a series of production system configurations have
succeeded one another. In part it is variations in the national and

international context that explain the transition from one system to


another. However the internal dynamics that emanate from a
production paradigm bring about tendencies that, in the long term,
destabilise its very foundations. Taking the example of Fordism, we
can give precise meaning to this idea of a structural crisis of the
model composed of manage way they are inserted into the network of
relationships from which the concrete economic and social fabric is
woven.
The analysis in this part of the book is both theoretical and historical.
First, the idea of the production model is defined in terms of
complementarity and coherence among management principles, the
internal organisation of the company and employment relations. It
follows from this definition that, once established, a production
system becomes structurally stable, thus blocking the innovations
that might give rise to what in a new context might be a superior
system, but which is incompatible with the forms of coordination
associated with the existing system.
Notwithstanding these difficulties, history shows that since the first
industrial revolution a series of production system configurations have
succeeded one another. In part it is variations in the national and
international context that explain the transition from one system to
another. However the internal dynamics that emanate from a
production paradigm bring about tendencies that, in the long term,
destabilise its very foundations. Taking the example of Fordism, we
can give precise meaning to this idea of a structural crisis of the
model composed of management principles, company organisation
and industrial relations.
The destabilisation of a regime may be due largely to endogenous
factors, but this is rarely the case with the emergence of an an
alternative regime. In fact it can be shown that the crisis of the Fordist
production system was concealed throughout the 1970s and

PAG 4

1980s because commentators leaned towards partial analyses that


emphasised the role of exogenous shocks instead of the loss of
structural coherence.
By the early 1990s it had been more widely acknowledged that
Fordisms production principles had been over turned, to the point
that there was a quasi consensus on the issue. It is therefore even
more necessary to demonstrate that this interpretation is no mere
caprice of fashion but instead reflects a far-reaching change
extending over several decades. New production principles may in
fact counter the disequilibria inherited from Fordism. They may
materialise within those organisations that are most resistant to
instability and most capable of absorbing an increased flow of in
novations.
Moreover the adoption of this new paradigm is spreading far beyond
the assembly industries to encompass a wide variety of sectors,
including modern services. Does the new paradigm define a single
optimal production system along the lines of a Taylorist one best
way? The current fashion is to answer yes, and to presume that the
Japanese form of organisation, or more generally speaking lean
production','

will

impose

itself

as

the

alternative

to

Fordist

organisation in the long run. This prognosisis, however, debatable,


since it fails to take into account the complexity of the coordination
procedures needed to establish a production system: procedures that
have to be borrowed from national traditions, the configuration of the
education system and the role of the state, not to mention relations
with the international system and the mode of regulation currently in
force. Under such circumstances different national trajectories may
coexist. For not only are existing institutions liable to obstruct
acceptance of the new principles and indulge a nostalgia for Fordism,
which is precisely what is happening in the United States and France,

but different forms of organisation can in fact fulfil the same function
and

thus

guarantee

the

long-term

competitiveness

of

the

corresponding production systems. Thus the new model is not only


Japanese, it is also German, and it is certain that we not have not
heard the last of the Swedish experiment to reorganise mental and
manual work.

Pag 5
Inspired by the flexible production of high-quality products, each of
these systems has its strengths and weaknesses, which are activated
to varying degrees as a function of short-run economic conditions and
macroeconomic developments. Moreover the often static way in
which the newly emerging model of production is discussed can be
criticised: it often seems as though all companies, economies or
regions are supposed to converge on some optimal form of
organisation, in other words a stationary state. On the contrary, each
production model sets in motion numerous internal dynamics that in
the long term threaten its very viability. Further, to varying degrees
each model is sensitive to different external shocks. It is unlikely that
production systems will cease to evolve during the 1990s. We must
therefore explore the causes of a possible structural crisis in
Toyotaism, several signs of which are emerging during the 1990s.
Even in the most successful of models tensions are beginning to
appear, not least because the international context is evolving
considerably.

You might also like