Fordism, Toyotism and Flexible Accumulation

2021 ◽  
pp. 5-23
1996 ◽  
Vol 28 (12) ◽  
pp. 2179-2200 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Gough

In this and a previous paper, work by geographers that is based on the idea that we are in a period of transition to an epoch of flexible accumulation, or post-Fordism, is examined. It is argued that this thesis relies on abstracting the technical and organisational aspects of current restructuring from its value relations. An account which includes value relations shows that the phenomena said to characterise flexible accumulation are more contradictory and unstable, more varied, and more open to struggle than is supposed in work in which a new epoch is assumed. In this second part of the study internal regimes of regions, the relations between regions, and regulation of national space economies are discussed. It is argued that the politics flowing from the flexible accumulation accounts oscillate between fatalism and utopianism, and that an approach based on value relations is able to provide a clearer basis for political struggle.


Revista Labor ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (17) ◽  
pp. 62
Author(s):  
João Kaio Cavalcante de Morais ◽  
Dante Henrique Moura

FROM TAYLORISM / FORDISM TO FLEXIBLE ACCUMULATION: IMPLICATIONS OF THE ACCUMULATION SCHEMES FOR THE WORLD OF WORKResumo: Como atividade predominantemente humana, o trabalho se constitui enquanto ação de transformação da natureza para suprir as necessidades e os interesses dos homens. Apesar disso, nota-se que esse sentido foi desapropriado pela lógica do capital ao longo dos últimos três (3) séculos. Esse artigo tem como objetivo analisar a categoria trabalho no contexto dos regimes de acumulação de capital. Para isso, consultou-se os textos de Marx (1980), Harvey (2014), Antunes (2009), dentre outros. O que caracterizou essa pesquisa enquanto bibliográfica a partir de uma abordagem qualitativa. Percebeu-se, a partir dos textos dos autores, a existência de 2 (dois) regimes de acumulação: o Taylorismo/Fordismo e a Acumulação Flexível. O primeiro teve como principal característica a produção em massa e a divisão do trabalho em manual e intelectual. Já no segundo notou-se uma maior flexibilização da produção, com o intuito de atender as demandas do mercado, o que ocasionou mudanças significativas no mundo do trabalho, culminando em jornadas de trabalho mais flexíveis, empregos temporários e terceirizados, bem como perda de direitos trabalhistas.Abstract: Work is an action of transformation of nature to meet the needs and interests of men. This sense has been expropriated by the logic of capital over the last three (3) centuries. The purpose of this article is to analyze the category of labor in the context of capital accumulation regimes. We have recourse to Marx (1980), Harvey (2014), Antunes (2009). What characterized this research as a bibliographical from a qualitative approach. From the authors' texts, we can see the existence of two (2) regimes of accumulation: Taylorism / Fordism and Flexible Accumulation. The first one had as main characteristic the mass production and the division of the work in manual and intellectual. In the second, production was more flexible, in order to meet the demands of the market, which led to significant changes in the world of work, culminating in more flexible working hours, temporary and outsourced jobs, as well as loss of rights Labor markets. Keywords: work – capitalismo – Fordism – Flexible build-up. 


Geografie ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 100 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-121
Author(s):  
David Uhlíř

This article deals with two theoretical concepts: flexible specialization and flexible accumulation. It starts with a very brief description of the changes in organization of production that occurred in the recent decades as a consequence of the 1970s and early 1980s crises. Their single most important characteristic is a great flexibility. Subsequently, the ways in which the two theories explain the changes themselves and their consequences are described in a more detailed manner. This includes reactions of the economic subjects involved, i.e. the state and the individual enterprises. Further on, the author aims to clarify the difference between two "flexible concepts" that are often misinterpreted in geographical literature. The distinction leads to an evaluation of the flexible specialization theory as an important contribution to the theories of regional development: on the other hand the flexible accumulation theorizes more generally the social and economic change. Several critical remarks concerning both theories are quoted in the last part of this article.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document