ABSTRACT
Inpart,thisdebatewasstimulatedbytheburgeoningcrisisinthecapitalist worldeconomyfromthesecondhalfofthe1970s.Thisledsomecommentatorstoarecognitionthat'Fordism',bothinits'narrow'senseofaparticular modelofmassproductionandinits'broad'senseofaspecificmacro-scale modelofcapitalistorganizationandgrowth,hadreacheditslimitsandwasin crisis.Forsome,Fordisminitsnarrowsenseofaproductionmethodology groundedinTayloristcontrolofthelabourprocessandstronglyvertically integratedwithinindividualcompanies,anapproachwidelyregardedasthe pivotalmassproductionmethodofthelongpost-warboom,hadreachedor wasindangerofreachingitslimits(see,forexample,PioreandSabel,1984). Recognitionofsuchanemergingcrisistookonawidersignificance,however, forFordismhadalsobeenendowedwithabroadermeaningbytheregulation school(see,forexample,Aglietta,1979;Lipietz,1986).Oneofthestrengths ofregulationistapproachesisthattheyemphasizethesocialandpolitical characterofproductionandtheconstitutionoftheeconomy.Suchanemphasisdirectsattentiontowardstherelationshipsbetweenthemainsocialactors involvedintheseprocesses,notleastofwhichisthenationalstatewhichhas acrucial(thoughwithinregulationistapproaches,somewhatundertheorized:
Within this chapter, I want to focus on a small segment of this wider debate. In particular, I wish to examine the extent to which, and the locations in which, 'Fordism' in the narrow sense remains a viable model of mass production and the ways in which it relates to other organizational forms of mass production that have emerged in recent years, forming a complex and changing pattern of geographies of production. One implication of recognizing this complexity in the organization of production is that it is untenable to argue that Fordism's successor, in either the broad or the narrow sense, is readily identifiable, or even that Fordism has a successor (a point that I will return to in the conclusion to the chapter).
