Subject: Re: M-TH: regulationists? Date: Thu, 2 Oct 97 15:52:14 -0000 From: Bill Cochrane <wrc1961-AT-midland.co.nz> Apologies Eric, I seem to have sent the beginnings of a response to your request for information regarding the regulationists rather than the brilliantly executed exposition I had planned.I would like to think this was someone elses fault but alas it would seem to be due to my own ineptitude. Rather than going into some depth as to the specifics of the Regulation school(RS) approach here is a sketch of some of the features that I think go toward defining its project. (1)a concern with the political economy of capitalism and the anatomy of bourgeois society. (2)a particular concern with the manner in and through which the expanded reproduction of capitalism is secured, albeit temporarily, in the face of the immanent crisis tendencies of capitalism (3)a concern with the dialectic between the =8Cinternal relations=B9 that determine the dynamic of capitalism, and the manner in which they appear =8Con the surface=B9 to economic agents.=B2 (4)a methodological commitment to realism and what has been termed the method of articulation in the construction of explanatory frameworks and concepts. (5) A desire to articulate analytical categories and concepts intermediate between the extreme abstraction of concepts such as the mode of production and the empirism of the everyday. Not all variants of the RS exhibit all of these features and certainly many who subscribe to a regulationist analysis of a particular phenomenon would not have consciously committed themselves to any of these propositions. I must point to point 3 as being particularly contentious but a personal favorite. While many identify the RS wholly with the Fordist/post-Fordist debate it is important to remember that the RS is a methodology and hence can not be completely appropriated to any particular usage. In the extreme I would argue that one could adopt the RS without necessarily adhering to any particular set of beliefs about the merits of Fordism/post-fordism ( I for instance see little merit in most of the debate about an emergent post fordist regime of accumulation/mode of regulation viewing such prognostication as premature and not in keeping with the methodological precepts of the RS). Point 5 above is probably the most obvious feature of the RS with different theorists developing a plethora of terms and categories, most notably the terms, Regime of Accumulation (RA)- Jessop briefly describes a RA as comprising a particular distinctive pattern of production and consumption which can be reproduced over time despite its conflictual tendencies Mode of Regulation (MR) -lipietz describes a MR as an ensemble of institutional forms, networks and explicit or implicit norms which assure the compatibility of market behavior within a RA, in keeping with the actual pattern of social relations, and beyond or (even through) the contradictory, conflictual nature of relations among economic agents and social groups=B2 Fordism The particular coupling of MR/RA that allegedly created the long boom of the 1950-1970(?) period. The last of these terms in particular has been open to alot of abuse as people seek to cram every national experience into the concept, how about semi peripheral dependent agricultural fordism for size ( a case of totally dependent peripheral academics leaping aboard passing band wagons). Any questions? and yes I know this looks nothing like a brilliant exposition Bill Cochrane Ngaruawahia New Zealand --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005