The Sociology Of Development by Ray Kiely

Author:Ray Kiely [Kiely, Ray]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Social Science, Sociology, General
ISBN: 9781317821663
Google: 8RZIAwAAQBAJ
Publisher: Routledge
Published: 2014-04-04T05:56:12+00:00

Regulation theory: a critique

It should be clear from the above discussion that, despite protestations to the contrary (see Lipietz 1987: 4–5), regulation theory reproduces the methodological errors of dependency theory. Therefore, the criticisms applied to the theory of the new international division of labour are equally valid when applied to regulation theory. Moreover, there are further methodological criticisms that can be made.

The first point refers to Lipietz's assertion that the NIDL does not apply simply to the relocation of labour-intensive industries to the periphery, but also incorporates the rise of some capital-intensive, Fordist industry. This basically sound statement is all well and good but it does not tell us why capital-intensive industry has been set up; as Amsden (1990: 9) argues, “to recognize and label the emergence of more complex production in the Third World as peripheral Fordism is not to explain it”. This problem is intensified by the problematic ‘application of Fordism’ to an inappropriate setting. The Fordist “mode of regulation” in the core was a response to the basic problem of underconsumption, which was resolved by higher wages for the workforce. However, this is not the basic problem of capitalist development in the Third World; instead, the problem is one of “raising productivity and creating international competitiveness, not effective demand” (ibid.: 10). This problem has been tackled in the successful NICs by a highly interventionist state, which has deliberately fostered a policy of raising foreign exchange, savings and public revenue in order to increase both productivity and competitive advantage in the international economy. These factors are neglected by regulationist work on the periphery, just as they are by neoclassical and NIDL theory, and this can again be explained as a product of a highly questionable methodological approach, which is one of “trying to understand the periphery in terms of the centre” (Amsden 1990: 9).

This problem may be derived from the weaknesses of regulation theory more generally. The empirical question of flexible production is examined in the next section, but here I want to examine one of the recurring methodological problems of this theory, namely its tendency to lean towards a functionalist mode of analysis (Bonefeld 1987: 109, Clarke 1988: 68). Astable, coherent regime of accumulation is seen as the normal state of affairs, while crises are exceptional breaks from the norm, which are functional to it in that they secure the conditions for a new mode of regulation (see Amin & Robbins 1990: 15). Social relations are relegated to a secondary place, derived from the determining structure, which is the prevailing regime of accumulation. In this way, the crisis of mass production is seen as inevitably giving way to a new structure of flexible accumulation, which will again act to serve the needs of capital. As one proponent of this thesis, Allen Scott (1988: 172), argues, regulatory forms “come into being alongside the regime of accumulation as a means of stabilising its operation through time”. This leaves us with a theory that is strangely familiar; like modes of

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.