The Future of Work in Europe

Ignace Glorieux, Paul Littlewood, Ingrid Jonsson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN:
  9781351146586
• Topic: Sozialwissenschaften
• Subtopic: Soziologie

Recent years have witnessed major changes to the workplace across Europe. The speed of these changes requires constant monitoring and reappraisal. In this book, recent trends are analyzed and their consequences discussed, within a socio-historical context which also reveals underlying patterns of continuity. The trends analyzed include: ? the presence of high rates of endemic unemployment and underemployment, particularly amongst the young ? the growth of insecure and precarious employment ? sweeping changes to the regulation of and organization of work ? the diminution in the availability of manual work and the growth of white-collar service-sector jobs ? the growing participation of women in paid employment ? the introduction of new organizational forms and new forms of management ? the accelerating use of IT ? the growth in demand for educational and vocational qualifications by employers ? the increasing influence of European legislation on work, retirement, health, safety, etc ? the growing importance of voluntary-sector work The contributors to the volume present both primary research and a wide-ranging survey and analysis of recent major contributions in the field. Detailed empirical material is included from Belgium, Finland, Germany, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, the UK and the EU more generally. Thus, the book aims to provide a current overview of the nature of work from a pan-European perspective, illuminated by up-to-the-minute field research.

Chapter 1
Labour Market Regulation after Fordism: Five Countries Compared¹

Max Koch

Introduction

Capitalist development evolves in a constant process of change. These changes sometimes proceed steadily, sometimes in radical breaks. As the classics of political economy have shown, social coherence in the capitalist mode of production is far from self-evident. Karl Marx, in particular, in his analysis of the basic categories of capitalist economy - commodities and money, capital and its accumulation, the state and the world market - emphasised that capitalist development is crisis prone and can result in social disintegration. The great thinkers of the twentieth century have therefore confronted the phenomenon of continuity and change in modern capitalism. Authors such as Kondratieff, Polanyi, Luxemburg, and Boyer differ in many aspects of their analyses, but nevertheless they agree on the fact that capitalist development is characterised by 'minor' and 'major' crises (see Lutz, 1989): although the basic structures of the capitalist mode of production have remained remarkably unchanged, major changes within this mode have certainly emerged. The authors mentioned above are united in the view that capitalist development is discontinuous rather that continuous. This assumption is, at the same time, the starting point for the 'regulation approach'.

In this chapter I am going to discuss, in the light of this theory, labour market and welfare state reforms in five European countries. The point of departure is an outline of the basic features of the regulation approach, followed by a discussion of the classic Fordist compromise and its major pillars. Subsequently, I will deal with 'Fordism in Europe', which permits national peculiarities to be emphasised. The next section shows that these institutional arrangements have been challenged in the course of the economic crisis which began in the mid-1970s, and led to significant changes to the Fordist capital-labour nexus. However, these transformations do not move along clearly marked routes. Rather they involve alternative and sometimes opposite interests, which make this process difficult to grasp. With respect to the theoretical understanding of these developments I argue for a relatively open concept that gives space to 'different roads to post-Fordism', displaying different forms of flexibility. The last section examines if, and to what extent, measures of de-regulation and re-regulation in the UK, The Netherlands, Sweden, Spain, and Germany can be understood against the background of this model.

Capitalist Development and the Regulation Approach

The regulation school is associated with writers such as Michel Aglietta, Alain Lipietz, Bob Jessop, Joachim Hirsch, Adam Tickel, Jamie Peck and many others. Its origins lie in the late 1970s and 1980s, when Michel Aglietta (1987) published his groundbreaking analysis of long-term political and economic trends in the US. The debate on his work was at the same time the point of departure for a reinterpretation of the crisis cycle of capitalist development. The researchers from the Parisian CEPREMAP-Institute, around which the discussion was concentrated, stated that the Marxist discourse of the 1960s and 1970s allowed for only very abstract, general and partly inconsistent insights into the understanding of capitalist development after World-War II. In France especially, structuralism had been quite influential at the time. Although Althusser and Balibar (1998) insisted on the necessity of resisting the temptations of determinism and reductionism, their theory remained largely reduced to epistemological problems within Marxism, without actually addressing concrete processes of crises and development - let alone subjecting their theories to empirical verification.

As his 'rebellious sons' (Lipietz), regulationists critically went beyond Althusser. On the one hand they held onto the most important insights of Marx's 'Critique of Political Economy' such as the differentiation between a 'mode of production' and 'social formations': like Althusser and Poulantzas they emphasised that empirically 'concrete' social formations cannot be derived from concepts that correspond to the analytical level of the mode of production. But, on the other hand, they went beyond structuralism by stressing the fact that continued capital accumulation depends on a range of social, cultural and political factors. Aglietta's original work can be read as a double critique of textbook economics and a Marxism that does not reach beyond the limits of the 'mode of production'. It should not be assumed that the economy is in a permanent and stable equilibrium, neither does capitalism necessarily break down in the face of a series of crises. Historically, these crises were often a springboard for capitalism in its youth and a solution was found in a new set of institutional conditions, which allowed the fundamental structure of capitalist society to continue functioning. Such institutional arrangements emerge and develop, experience crises in turn, and eventually give way to a new modus operandi.

While regulationists regard the abstract features of capitalism as largely trans-historical, both crises in the accumulation process and phases of expanded production must be addressed in the context of their institutional, social and political 'embedding'. At the heart of the approach are not so much the 'general laws of accumulation' as laid out by Marx but rather, stress is placed on the historical variability of economic and social dynamics. For Bob Jessop (1997, p. 288), it 'aims to study the changing combinations of economic and extraeconomic institutions and practices which help to secure, if only temporarily and always in specific economic spaces, a certain stability and predictability in accumulation - despite the fundamental contradictions and conflicts generated by the very dynamic of capital itself. The institutional settings necessary for continued and expanded capital accumulation are socially, culturally and politically constructed and contested in a myriad of societal struggles, in which the relations both within and between social classes, play a prominent part (Koch, 2001).

At this point it is appropriate to define five concepts central to the debate (for further details, see Hirsch, 1995; Jessop, 1997; Goodwin, 2001). (A) An industrial paradigm refers to the dominant division of labour. (B) Regimes of accumulation are associated with certain historical phases and development paths characterised by economic growth, 'under which (immanent) crisis tendencies are contained, mediated or at least postponed' (Tickel and Peck, 1995, p. 359). Such growth, if successful, takes the form of compatible commodity-streams of production and consumption, reproducible over a long period of time. (C) A mode of regulation is 'an ensemble or rules, norms, conventions, patterns of conduct, social networks, organisational forms and institutions which can help to stabilise an accumulation regime' (Goodwin, 2001, p. 73). It includes both economic and political elements and is usually described in terms of five dimensions: the wage relation; the enterprise form; the nature of money; the state; and international regimes. (D) An economically and politically successful constellation can furthermore achieve the state of a hegemonic project in the Gramscian sense, if it is supported by the existence of a dominant ideology, formulated by the most powerful classes or their agents and adopted by the dominated classes and strata. (E) Lastly, regulationists refer to a model of development in conditions where these elements complement each other sufficiently to secure a long era of economic expansion and social cohesion. Aglietta's most famous example of such a model is American Fordism.

The Fordist Compromise

The great economic slump of the early 1930s had put the restructuring of capital-labour relations on top of the post-war agenda. In spite of different interests, which from time to time led to violent conflicts, most political parties and collective actors contributed substantially to the rebuilding of national economies. While the unions began to accept 'scientific' management methods, in return they established that wage earners would benefit from productivity gains through direct wage increases. On the one hand, managers were recognised as having the leading role in the organiation of the production process and in making strategic choices about markets and investments, while on the other hand, the unions struggled to achieve a fair share of the profits arising from productivity increases for their members.

The ideal type 'Fordism' - the prevailing regime of accumulation after World War II and named after the production model developed and applied by Henry Ford in his automobile factories - is characterised by a parallel restructuring of both the technological and organisational basis of the production process and the lifestyle of the wage earners. The economy was dominated by large, vertically integrated companies, which applied mass production technologies and Taylorist practices of work organisation. The latter involved a clear distinction between conception and execution, production and sales, marketing and finance and so on. This progressive division of labour characterised not only the original terrain of Fordism - the manufacturing sector - but also the related tertiary sectors. Productivity continued to rise through economies of scale, together with strict control over the majority of workers who worked on the assembly line and required little training. Fixed capital was written off quickly and the amortisation costs were incorporated into prices (Friedman, 2000, p. 59). Profits were supported by consumer demand based on high and growing wages, which were usually determined in collective agreements and tied to achieving productivity targets. Furthermore, collective bargaining created unprecedented wage equality. Whereas in the nineteenth century and the inter-war period labour struggles used to create wage differentials across skill levels, sectors and regions, within the Fordist capital-labour relations system wage rises in one sector often led to wage increases at the national level. This was due to centralised collective bargaining at the national level, the mobility of workers seeking the best paid jobs, and finally the existence of a minimum wage. Promoted by the state, the overall result was not only increasing real wages but also, compared to pre-Fordist periods, the stabilisation of wage differentials.

Social cohesion in Western Europe after World War II was tied to the Fordist accumulation and regulation context. Fordism rested predominantly on the productivity growth associated with the general achievement of economies of scale. This growth was the basis for the simultaneous and proportionate development of the two departments of social production. The share of wages within the total costs of employers decreased, but the real wages of workers increased. Employment could grow to its full potential because the total volume of capital rose by a greater proportion than the increase in the number of workers made redundant due to productivity gains in the work process. The cheapening of industrial products raised the purchasing power of wage labourers, so that both the employers' profits and the employees' wages increased. The state benefited from this favourable situation and used its growing income from taxation for the expansion of a welfare state system, which, in turn, provided a guaranteed minimum standard of living for those who, for whatever reason, could not participate in the labour market.

Due to real wages that would rise because of the collective agreements, which allowed wage-earners to buy mass-produced goods (cars, home appliances and so on) and the rising demand for these commodities that would in turn boost the production of consumption goods, the growth of fixed capital normally coincided with the growth of variable capital. Until the early 1970s most European countries were therefore characterised by almost full capacity utilisation of the male workforce. In many countries there were even labour shortages, which were compensated for through the recruitment of foreign labourers. The demand for the female workforce likewise began to increase, but for most women gainful employment was only acceptable until marriage and motherhood. The basic structures of the patriarchal division of labour remained largely untouched.² Nevertheless, some changes occurred though the new role of the state. It was no longer restricted to fostering growth and productivity agreements between employers' organisations and trade unions, by promoting capital accumulation through public infrastructure spending and permissive credit and monetary policies. The creation and expansion of the welfare system initiated substantial income redistribution through Keynesian inspired counter-cyclical economic policies and supplemented and sometimes replaced interpersonal and intergenerational solidarities, which used to operate through family ties, with more collective and horizontal institutions.

Fordism in Europe

The overall aim of the regulation approach according to Tickel and Peck (1995, p. 363) is that it is concerned with 'analysing the institutional infrastructure around and through which capitalist development proceeds'. In comparative research we should therefore not be surprised to find that Fordism was characterised by a range of common features, but nevertheless, manifestations of Fordism varied significantly from country to country.

The USA is seen as the classic or genuine case of Fordism by regulationists due to the fact that the work process followed quite directly Fordist and Taylorist principles. Divisions between blue- and white-collar workers as well as between engineers and manual workers were common, whereas the levers of control were concentrated in the hands of managers. In the United States Fordism has been portrayed as largely synonymous with the commodification of private consumption and lifestyles (Aglietta, 1987). The British cas...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Dedication
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• List of Contributors
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction: Patterns of Change at Work
• 1 Labour Market Regulation after Fordism: Five Countries Compared
• 2 ICT, Organisations and Labour in the Information Society
• 3 Transnational Labour Markets, Citizenship and Welfare State Reforms
• 4 Incentive and Action: Work and Income Decisions at the Intersection of the Labour Market and the Welfare State
• 5 Revealing the Traits of Workfare: The Swedish Example
• 6 Unpaid Work: A Case from the Voluntary Sector
• 7 Women and Work: New Patterns and Directions
• 8 Reconciliation of Work and Family Life: Policies and Practices in Western Europe
• 9 The Transition from School to Work in Flanders: Gender Inequality and the Role of Household Formation
• 10 Putting the Garden on the Market: Vocationalisation, Commodification and Privatisation in Education and Training in Great Britain
• 11 The State, Education and the Market: The Case of Engineering in Finland
• 12 Retirement as the Future of Work: An Empirical Analysis of Early Exit from the Labour Market in Belgium
• Index