A regulation approach interpretation of contemporary crisis

Vroey, Michel De

doi:10.1177/030981688402300103

Cited by 94 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Duharcourt 1988;Hübner 1989;de Vroey 1984;Mjøset 1985;Noel 1987). two laws and which ensure their consistency with other economic variables (de Bernis 1987: 4; di Ruzza 1987: 7).…”

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These differ not so much in terms of their Page 27 substantive focus (which still remains wide) as in the relative weight given to Marxian, Keynesian, Kaldorian, and Kaleckian concepts in the overall institutionalist perspective (cf. Duharcourt 1988;Hübner 1989;de Vroey 1984;Mjøset 1985;Noel 1987 accumulation regime, and c) a mode of regulation (cf. Leborgne and Lipietz 1988: 77).…”

Section: The Parisian Regulation Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In later work Parisian theorists have distinguished more accumulation regimes and discussed transitional periods in greater detail. They have also looked mainly at the development and dynamics of Fordism, neo-Fordism, and post-Fordism considered as regimes of accumulation and/or modes of regulation in specific national economies and stress the heterogeneity of their national variants (useful reviews are found in Boyer 1986a; Hübner 1989;Noel 1987;and de Vroey 1984).3. The PCF-CME account: inspired by Paul Boccara, the French Communist Party in the mid-60s developed a new view of state monopoly capitalism (capitalisme monopoliste d'etat or CME).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Regulation theories in retrospect and prospect

Jessop¹

1990

Economy and Society

390

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter critically assesses the regulation approach to the critique of political economy.1 It starts with the theoretical background to regulation theories; moves on to compare the main approaches and their various fields of application; and then offers some methodological and epistemological criticisms of the leading schools. Then come some more general methodological remarks on the object and subject of regulation and some specific comments on one of the weakest areas of regulation theory -its account of the state. Thus this chapter focuses on methodology and general theory rather than empirical analysis.Although somewhat abstract, these concerns are still relevant. For, as the key concepts have become common academic currency and related terms such as Fordism and post-Fordism pervade the mass media, the original methodological concerns of the pioneer regulation theorists are often forgotten. Scientific progress in a particular school often depends on forgetting its pioneers but this is no imperative: classic texts may well have a continuing relevance. In the regulationist case, three serious effects stem from this ill-judged neglect of pioneer texts. First, the approach is often falsely equated with the analysis of Fordism, its crisis, and the transition to so-called post-Fordist regimes.But not every study of Fordism is regulationist nor is every regulationist study concerned with (post-)Fordism. Second, although early studies emphasised the primacy of the class struggle in the genesis, dynamic, and crisis of different accumulation regimes and modes of regulation, more recent regulationist studies have often focused on questions of structural cohesion and neglected social agency. Sometimes this is coupled with an appeal to regulation theory to justify a 'new realism' and accommodation to the current capitalist offensive. These two problems give rise to a third: dismissing regulation theory as a whole because it is allegedly inconsistent with the first principles of Marxism (cf. Bonefeld 1987;Clarke 1988a;Foster 1988;Holloway 1987aHolloway , 1988. I. The Regulationist Research ProgrammePage 2 In most commentaries regulation theory is identified with the work of French political economists since the l970s. The French regulationists themselves can be divided into three main groups: Grenoblois, Parisian, and PCF-CME. But other approaches to regulation theory must also be considered: the Amsterdam school, West German regulationists, the 'Nordic models' group, and the American radicals. In spreading my net so widely I have interpreted regulation theory as a continuing research programme rather than an already established and monolithic theoretical system. Even the dominant Parisian theorists hardly constitute a single school with a fixed, coherent, and complete set of concepts. But they are certainly contributing, along with others, to a broad, continuing, and hopefully progressive research programme. scientific realism and Marxism and, given their particular concern with political economy, almost all regulat...

show abstract

“…Duharcourt 1988;Hübner 1989;de Vroey 1984;Mjøset 1985;Noel 1987). two laws and which ensure their consistency with other economic variables (de Bernis 1987: 4; di Ruzza 1987: 7).…”

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Parisian Regulation Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Regulation theories in retrospect and prospect

Jessop¹

1990

Economy and Society

390

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consequently, crisis remains an inherent component of the system. Three major forms of crisis have been identified by regulation theorists (Boyer, 1990;de Vroey, 1984a;Lipietz, 1987;Moulaert and Swyngedouw, 1989;compare Harvey, 1989, chapter 2).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, when a developing accumulation system is inhibited by an inappropriate MSR (for example, the depression of the 1930s). Second, when an existing accumulation system is exhausted within the prevailing MSR (for example, the crisis of Fordism) (Aglietta, 1979;Boyer, 1990;de Vroey, 1984a;Lipietz, 1987). However, Dunford (1990) argues that there is only one cause of structural crisis.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Social Regulation of Uneven Development: ‘Regulatory Deficit’, England's South East, and the Collapse of Thatcherism

1995

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The evolving methodology of regulation theory is explored, with particular reference to the problematic of uneven development. With a concentration on the subnational scale, the notion of localised modes of regulation is critically examined. With a view to operationalising some of these regulationist concepts, an analysis of the geographical contradictions of Thatcherism is presented. Thatcherism, it is suggested, should be interpreted as a failed or failing regulatory experiment, the contradictions of which are manifest in a variety of ways, including in the geographical sphere-in the collapse of the economy of the South East of England (Thatcherism's 'heartland' region) and in Britain's continuing crisis of uneven development. There is scope, it is argued, further to spatialise regulation theory through methodological refinement, and through analyses of regional restructuring and crisis."When crises endure, orthodoxies fade" (Boyer, 1990, page xxiii).Regulation theory has been enormously influential in recent years, providing as it does a means for interpreting-possibly even responding to-the present global economic malaise. We will argue here that a regulation approach can continue to yield insights into contemporary restructuring processes, but that in order to do so the theory itself needs to be refined. We consider two areas in which some further theoretical development is needed. First, the theory's rather abstract conception of social regulation must be unpacked, and analytical tools developed which are appropriate for concrete research. Second, the theory is articulated primarily at the level of the nation-state and contains no explicit conception of uneven spatial development. This void must be filled if regulation approaches are to be deployed at either the subnational or the supranational scales of analysis. By clarifying some of the more important regulationist concepts and propositions, by providing some pointers for further theoretical development, and by focusing on the question of the social regulation of uneven development at the subnational scale, we hope in this paper to make a constructive contribution to regulationist research. In so doing, we aim also to shed new light on the current debates around flexible accumulation and the politics of post-Fordism, in which the implications of regulationist approaches have sometimes been misread.Popularised in analyses of the breakdown of Fordism and, more controversially, the rise of a potential successor-regime of flexible accumulation, regulation-theoretic approaches have been much used, though perhaps just as often abused. Certainly the terminology of regulation theory has passed easily into mainstream academic discourse. Devices such as regimes of accumulation and modes of social regulation are, however, more than labels. Too often they have been casually applied, robbed of their underlying meaning, and misleadingly divorced from the conceptual architecture of regulation theory, nowhere more so than in premature treatments of

show abstract

Puzzling Out the Post‐Fordist Debate: Technology, Markets and Institutions

Elam¹

1994

Post‐Fordism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A regulation approach interpretation of contemporary crisis

Cited by 94 publications

References 3 publications

Regulation theories in retrospect and prospect

Regulation theories in retrospect and prospect

The Social Regulation of Uneven Development: ‘Regulatory Deficit’, England's South East, and the Collapse of Thatcherism

Puzzling Out the Post‐Fordist Debate: Technology, Markets and Institutions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About