Fordism and Post-Fordism

Generally used to refer to the organizational structure of production and consumption, the concepts of Fordism and post-Fordism have been applied to describe other institutional arrangements from the state to education to culture, art, and the media. Historically, the Fordist mode of production and consumption emerged in America during the turn of the twentieth century, when Henry Ford established mass production techniques in his automobile factories. Ford based his production techniques on a model of scientific management that was informed by the research of Frederick Taylor. According to Taylor, the productivity of workers could be increased if each component of the production process was broken down into simple, repetitive tasks. This assemblyline labor method meant that workers did not need to acquire specialized skills to perform their jobs and that managers could achieve absolute control over the movements of workers. Equipped with the knowledge of sequence and timing, managers had the ability to measure and predict productivity levels with precision and ensure that production quotas were achieved with minimal problems. Thus, the rigid production process of the assembly line was matched with a hierarchical model of management and decision making.

Recognizing the critical relationship between production and consumption, or supply and demand, Ford instituted a fixed wage of $5 per day for his workers. It was Ford's vision that if workers made a fair wage, they would be able to purchase the automobiles they assembled. The automobiles produced at Ford's factories were cheap in price and homogeneous in design, and the fact that they were mass produced provided consumers with a large quantity of them to mass consume. As other manufacturers began to imitate Fordist production and consumption methods, a largely unskilled but unionized industrial workforce began to emerge that earned enough in wages to support a stable, mass consumer market.

[Page 283]The Fordist mode of production operated relatively well in an era dominated by large-scale, capital-intensive industry. However, by the 1980s, Fordism began to be challenged by a number of critics who suggested that it was too rigid for the economic growth of advanced industrial societies. Michael Piore and Charles Sabel presented one of the first critiques of Fordism in The Second Industrial Divide (1984), in which they introduced the theory of flexible specialization to discuss the changing organizational forms of economic activity in advanced industrial societies. According to Piore and Sabel, two seemingly contradictory developments are beginning to make Fordism obsolete: the reemergence of craft production and the introduction of new technologies in the manufacturing sector. Both developments are seen as a result of the changing tastes and demands of consumers and the rise of segmented marketing techniques. Both are also characterized by flexible specialization methods. On one hand, the reemergence of craft production (the second industrial divide) is coming to supersede mass production (the first industrial divide). On the other hand, large firms are beginning to use new manufacturing technologies to meet the specialized desires of various consumers. Interestingly, the second industrial divide requires skilled workers whether they engage in craft production or perform technological jobs. Piore and Sabel feel that workers in the second industrial divide experience more autonomy than those working under Fordist conditions. They have more control over the production process and also increased solidarity with other workers, even if they are not unionized.

...