Upload
aflagson
View
221
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/13/2019 Mavroudeas, Regulation Theory, Postmodens Desintegration
1/29
8/13/2019 Mavroudeas, Regulation Theory, Postmodens Desintegration
2/29
university radicalism of the 70s - was exasperated by the retreat of the radicalism of the
70s. Much of this radicalism derived from an extremely reductionist conception of class
and social structure which led to a simplistic and undialectically abstract theory. The
return from reductionist abstract theory to the level of concrete took the form of middle-
range theory (Mavroudeas (1990), Sayer (1995)). The latter, in contrast to general theories
- covering the whole spectrum, from the most abstract laws and concepts to the empirical
analysis of the concrete, in a unified framework - reject abstract general laws and the
necessity of an all-embracing theory which are deemed to be either redundant or a distant
accessory. It substitutes both with intermediate concepts with an immediate identification
with the most concrete phenomena. These concepts are not linked to a general theory but
are based on empirical observations perceived as indisputable (stylised facts). These
stylised facts are supposed to encapture important facets of historical reality and, thus, to
mark different epochs. This type of reasoning has significant problems. Stylised facts - in
contrast to dialectical materialist abstractions from concrete historical reality - are
supposed to be theory-free but also historically accurate. However, they are usually
founded on theoretical influences and perceptions which are neither explicit not
necessarily coherent and, therefore, represent an eclecticist reading of historical reality i.
The next step is the construction of a theory based on the intermediate concepts and the
periodisation derived from the stylised facts. Consequently, both concepts and
periodisation vindicate, in a circular way, the initiating empirical perceptions. Middle-range theories major weapon - their close identification with a particular historical epoch -
gives them immense popularity during the course of the particular epoch (if and when it
has been identified correctly) but, on the other hand, invalidates them when it ends. Then,
more fundamental questions re-emerge, requiring a general theory. In this case, middle-
range theorys agnosticism and/or referential pluralism becomes a major weakness.
These problems are nowadays more or less evident even to former supporters of
the middle-range approach (Sayer (1995), chs.1-2). However, back in the 80s and early
90s neither the middle-range character nor the problems associated with it wererecognised. But the recent wisdom is not without crippling misconceptions. For example,
Sayer (1995, p.20) maintains that a proper analysis should combine abstract political-
economic theory and middle-range theory. This is an impromptu treatment of concepts
and scientific approaches. If - contrary to the post-modernist visions of a fragmented
world - reality is a contradictory whole, then Marxist Political Economy should study the
dialectics of abstract and concrete not (more or less) separately but as a continuum. On
the other hand, for typical middle-range theory (as exemplified by Merton), general theory
is not necessary and, if it can be constructed, it is merely a secondary derivative. This
study will argue that these two perspectives cannot be combined because they are
8/13/2019 Mavroudeas, Regulation Theory, Postmodens Desintegration
3/29
inherently conflicting. This does not imply that abstract theorising - particularly in the
reductionist version of early Radical Political Economy - is unproblematic. Rather the
rediscovery of the Hegelian elements in Marxian dialectics - by many older (Zeleny (1980),
Ilyenkov (1982)) and newer writers (New Dialectics) represents a promising route which
can grasp accurately historical reality in both its abstract and concrete expressions.
The focus of this paper is on the theoretical structure of Regulation, rather than the
empirical evidence. Empirical support to the theoretical critique is drawn from a number of
influential studies addressing specifically this field (Brenner-Glick (1991), Dumenil-Levy
(1988) etc.). This theoretical critique attempts to contribute on three points. First, to verify
RTs middle-range nature. Second, to establish that the middle-range methodology is
undialectical and fails to grasp accurately historical reality. Third, to question the validity of
RTs theoretical structure. It should be noted that Brenner-Glick (1991) refer also in
passim, without elaborating further, to the middle-range character of Regulation in their
powerful rejection of RTs empirical perceptions. From another side, Kotzs (1994) critique
brings forward several important deficiencies of RT. However, it disputes only the close
association of SSA with RT and argues that the formers conceptual framework is superior
without touching upon their common middle-range nature.
Part II of this study gives an outline of RT and presents the common elements of
the newer middle-range theories (SSA etc.). Part III delineates the typical middle-range
perspective and contrasts it with the Marxist dialectics of abstract and concrete. Part IVfocuses on RTs methodology and conceptual framework and its shortcomings. The final
part analyses RTs subsequent stages of evolution and the attendant theoretical
weaknesses.
The general conclusion is that RT failed on all three aspects that were considered
its main merits. The recourse to middle-range intermediate concepts and historicism has
been proved unable to explain coherently historical evolution. Additionally, instead of a
solution to the structure-subject relation retaining a role for structures and at the same
time permitting degrees of freedom for agents (seen primarily as social classes) - RTproceeded from initial mild structuralist positions towards post-structuralist and post-
modernist relativism and methodological individualism, with equally dismal results. This
leads to the final aspect. RT, instead of overcoming the orthodox neo-classical dichotomy
of economics-politics etc., has been continuously slipping towards a downgrading of
socio-economic relations and the prioritisation and randomisation of politics and
ideology. Its multi-causal intermediate concepts are simply juxtaposing elements from all
these spheres in an eclecticist manner and without actually being able to analyse both the
essential unity of social relations and its formal fetishist dichotomisation in separate
spheres.
8/13/2019 Mavroudeas, Regulation Theory, Postmodens Desintegration
4/29
II. Regulation and the newer non-orthodox middle-range theories
II.1. RT: a summary presentation
Regulation emerged in the middle 1970s in France when certain authors (Aglietta,
Lipietz, Boyer etc.) produced an institutionalist and historicist theory of capitalism. This
was based on two key concepts: the "regime of accumulation" (RoA) and the "mode of
regulation". (MoR). The RoA represents the form of distribution of surplus between capital
and labour required in each period in order to co-ordinate production with social demand.
It covers the essential economic conditions for the operation of the productive system
(technology, organisation of the labour-process, relations between the departments of
production). The MoR designates the necessary institutional forms and social
compromises for the reproduction of the RoA. The RoA is posited at the level of the
compulsory economic structures, whereas the MoR is less determinate, since it relies on
concrete, historically specific institutional forms. More than one MoR can be implemented
in a certain RoA. Which will prevail is a question open to the indeterminacy of history.
However, not every MoR is suitable for every RoA.
Two types of RoA are usually considered. In extensive accumulation pre-existing
production processes were incorporated into a capitalist framework without major
changes. The traditional way of life - as expressed in the patterns of consumption - was not
radically recomposed. The combined development of the two departments of productionwas achieved with difficulty and the pace of accumulation encountered recurrent
obstacles. In intensive accumulation production was reorganised radically on capitalist
lines. A new mode of life for the working-class was created by establishing a "logic" that
operates on the totality of time and space in daily life. Consequently, a social consumption
norm was formed which no longer depended on communal life but was stratified
according to the divisions of social groups within the working-class. The two departments
of production were integrated and, hence, the pace of accumulation became more
regular.Additionally, two MoR are recognised. In the competitive MoR - which is
considered more appropriate to extensive accumulation - there was a posteriori
adjustment of the output of the various branches to price movements which were highly
responsive to changes in demand; wages were adjusted to price movements so that real
wages were either stable or rose slowly. In the monopolist MoR income distribution is
socialised via a series of compromises between capital and labour (wage formation in
relation to inflation and productivity). Market relations (pure pricing adjustment
mechanisms) play only a minor role in adjusting social demand and production. This role
8/13/2019 Mavroudeas, Regulation Theory, Postmodens Desintegration
5/29
is exercised mainly by a complex set of institutions, conventions and rules which
constantly aim at developing effective demand at the rate of production capacities.
On the basis of the historically contingent correspondence between RoA and
MoR, Regulation periodises capitalism as follows:
i. The extremely lengthy period between 17th and mid-19th century is considered
as the era of capitalisms establishment and of primitive accumulation.
ii. From the mid-19th century till W.W.I extensive accumulation accompanied by
competitive regulation predominated.
iii. The period between the two world wars was an unstable transitional phase
characterised by the emergence of intensive accumulation (mass production - Taylorism)
but without mass consumption. The 1929 crisis - perceived as an underconsumptionist
cum institutionalist crisis - marks this period.
iv. After W.W.II, intensive accumulation is coupled with mass consumption and
monopolistic regulation. This is the era of Fordism., in which the working-class
consumption has been commodified and provides the needed mass market for capitalist
mass production.
v. Fordism enters a crisis in the 1970s and Post-Fordism is proposed as its
successor. Emphasis is being put on the new information and communication
technologies, small-scale production processes, the relaxation of standardised
production tasks, the significance of the service sector, new life-styles as stimulants ofconsumption etc. However, the definition and the characteristics of this new configuration
are far from clear.
Seen from a wider perspective, Regulation's project is an attempt to construct a
dynamic and historically concrete theory of the crises and transformations of capitalism
on the basis of appropriate intermediate terms. It is a project that can hardly be objected in
principle. But RT has chosen to accomplish this task by recoursing to middle-range
theory; a choice that compromised seriously its project.
An important consequence of this type of theory is its rapidly changing landscape.Indeed, a lot of things have changed within Regulation since its launching and many of its
previous supporters have accused it for betraying its initial radical perspective. These
accusations are rather unjustified - although it is true that most of RTs radical elements are
now discarded - because it is its very constitutive structure that warranted both its
previous radical theses and its present realignment to socio-economic orthodoxy.
Regulations spinal column consists of a corpus of middle-range method, stylised
facts, and intermediate concepts, which constitutes the common ground of all those
diverse writers that come under its name. Noel (1987, p.327) praises RT, Segmented
Labour Market theory and certain post-keynesian trends for their "theoretically informed
8/13/2019 Mavroudeas, Regulation Theory, Postmodens Desintegration
6/29
understanding of time-changing empirical patterns". Jessop (1990,1988, p.162) also
declared that:
Their research programme shows a clear commitment to concrete analysis of
concrete conjunctures through a rich and complex range of economic and
political concepts directly related to the nature of the capitalist exploitation and
domination... it is only through the detailed conjunctural analyses which this
method facilitates (but whose accuracy it cannot guarantee) that one can develop
alternative strategies which have some chance of success... Both the state
derivation debate and the regulation school have produced concepts at a middle
range, institutional level; both are concerned with stages and phases of capitalist
development rather than with the abstract laws of motion and tendencies
operating at the level of capital in general; ... both are committed to conjunctural
analysis...
The set of stylised facts is the sine qua non counterpart of RTs middle-range
method. It is based chiefly on a number of empirical perceptions about two historical
periods: the interwar years and the post-W.W.II epoch. The second is the main
benchmark, whereas the first is treated as a transitional era between the previous status
quo and the new one. The other periods are theorised neither on their own nor via a
general theory but according to the principles set in, and by comparison with, the
benchmark period. The transitional period is essential in providing the links and also inoperating as the measure for the application of those principles.
II,2, The newer non-orthodox middle-range theories
RTs similarity with a number of other theories (SSA, Flexible Specialisation (Piore-
Sabel (1984)) etc.) is nowadays well-documented (Boyer (1991), Jessop (1992)),
although significant differences also exist (Hirst-Zeitlin (1992), Kotz (1994)). Most studies
recognise the equivalence of intermediate concepts (e.g. RoA-MoR and SSA) and the
congruence of theoretical fields and stylised facts. All these trends seek to explain thehistorical evolution of capitalism by relating the capital accumulation process to a set of
social institutions (not only economic but political and ideological ones as well). They,
also, adopt a similar historicist perspective, since their aim is the creation of detailed
conjectural analyses. Additionally, they share the same stylised facts; particularly
regarding the 1929 crisis as an underconsumptionist one. The supposed subsequent
creation of a capital-labour accord is founded upon the sharing of productivity increases
and an appropriate institutional formation of consumption norms and wages. Finally, their
periodisation of capitalism is cognate beginning with the era after WW.I which is
considered as one of structural changes and continuing with Fordism and post-Fordism.
8/13/2019 Mavroudeas, Regulation Theory, Postmodens Desintegration
7/29
But what most studies miss is that these similarities derive from the common character of
these theories, namely of being middle-range theories.
These newer non-orthodox middle-range theories appeared in Radical Political
Economy during the 1970s. The marxist variants of this trend were born out of the post-
60s crisis of the epigones of Western Marxism. The first steps were characterised by a
relativisation and a relaxation of a number of crucial tenets of the theoretical traditions
from which they were derived. There were references to the old general theoretical
traditions, but in a remote and detached sense. In contrast, attention focused on specific
historical periods (usually the period after W.W.II) - assuming that major transformations
took place during them, which changed radically the nature and the operation of the social
system thereafter - and a quest began for the theorisation of their specificities. This
intentional relativisation and relaxation of many of their most significant and strict
assumptions, in correlation with the recourse to the historically specific ii, opened the way
for the implementation of the middle-range methodology. Since it was supposed that the
previous general theories could not explain the new situation, either because they were
totally inadequate or because they needed significant changes, there was a recourse to
the concrete and an attempt to discover within it the appropriate new theoretical tools. In
this process, "abstract general laws", the supposed main attribute of general theories,
were rejected and were substituted by the more lax and allegedly more appropriate
intermediate concepts. This, partly justified, course was coupled with a growingdisillusionment with the old general theories. The next step, after the relativisation of the
fundamental concepts, was a relativisation of the very scope and method of theory. The
middle-range methodology was, explicitly or implicitly, accepted as the scientific method
par excellence and the need for even a detached and relativised general theoretical
framework was discarded. "Essentialism", or its scapegoat, was exiled from the sphere of
theory. The usual implication of this purge from "essentialism" for the marxist variants of
those theories was that economism (posited as the basis of marxist essentialism) was
denounced. Anti-essentialism led to a search for a multi-causal, non-reductionist theory.This eclectic multi-causality set the framework for the intermediate concepts of most of the
middle-range theories (Noel (1987)) which are supposed to unify the economy with a
number of other factors (politics, ideology, culture etc.). These factors were considered as
more or less equally important and it was difficult or non-permitted to construct a coherent
hierchisation based on relations of determination. The concrete, according to Marx, is the
unity of many determinations. If a theory is organised directly at this level, then its
concepts and their causality should be based on the whole variety of these
determinations. The result is a set of eclecticist categories with ambiguous theoretical
content and limited explanatory poweriii.
8/13/2019 Mavroudeas, Regulation Theory, Postmodens Desintegration
8/29
The historicism of the newer non-orthodox middle-range theories assumed the
form of the occasionally dominant intellectual fashions of each period. Effectively, this
meant that they opted for some more or less evident version of institutionalism and most of
their intermediate concepts were referring to institutional forms. The attractions of this
were manifold. Firstly, institutional arrangements proliferated widely in the post-W.W.II
period and seemed to express, if not to encompass, all the ongoing transformations.
Secondly, these arrangements appeared to provide the perfect explanation for the
supposed structural incorporation of the whole working-class or major sections of it within
capitalism. Thirdly, for European variants of the newer non-orthodox middle-range
theories, Althusserian structuralism provided the initial inclination towards institutionalism.
Despite its verbal adherence to the Marxian primacy of the economy, via its separation of
different instances (economic, political etc.) and the pursuit of "regional theories" of these
instances, it ended up with the "State Ideological Mechanisms". The latter, under a mainly
institutional form and through the covert prioritisation of the "regional theory" of the
political, tended to encompass all reality or at least all the field of theory. Last, but not the
least, the institutional forms provide, perhaps, the most appropriate material for the
construction of their multi-causal intermediate concepts. Not only are they immediately
observable, but they also have a high and impressionable profile. On the other hand, they
are not a crude, simple factor but they are founded on a wide variety of determining
parameters (such as the economy, culture, politics, ideology, legal forms, social strugglesetc.).
The historicism and institutionalism of the newer non-orthodox middle-range
theories was also informed by the philosophical trends and fashions of the times. Different
philosophical traditions operated as their referential framework in different periods. It
seems that at least the European versions started from some form of structuralism, since
Althusserianism was still a dominant trend within Western Marxism - although already
declining, at the beginning of the '70s. With the emergence of post-structuralism and post-
modernism the referential framework of those theories moved towards the new fashion.Structural forms were rejected or weakened and the whole conceptual framework was
relativised. Projects and strategies, fragmentation of the collective agents (such as
classes) into more fluid and less structurally determined factors (volatile social groups
organised on a short or mid-term basis, firms and even individuals etc.) became central for
middle-range theories.
The common descent and the theoretical and personal continuity between
structuralism and post-structuralism has been established adequately (see Anderson
(1988, p.40-55)). Wood (1985) has shown that this trajectory assumed flesh and bones in
the journey of certain authors from Althusserianism to post-marxism; Poulantzas being its
8/13/2019 Mavroudeas, Regulation Theory, Postmodens Desintegration
9/29
forerunner. For them the explanatory primacy of discourse is based on the
autonomisation of ideology and politics from the economy. This is supplemented with the
randomisation of history and politics. The first implies that the discursive elements cease
to be determined, even in the last instance, by the economy. This is part and parcel of their
anti-essentialist and anti-reductionist drive and their quest for "openness" and an
"unsutured" theory. On the other hand, the randomisation of history and politics initiates a
recourse to historicism. The result is an awkward hybrid of (implicit) absolute determinism
and absolute contingency, with the emphasis on the latter. Following their Althusserian
structuralist past, Laclau and Mouffe theorise structures and laws in a rigid, static and non-
dialectical way (worthy, indeed, of mechanistic determinism) which, in return, enables
them - but now under the new banner of post-structuralism -to reject them in favour of the
indeterminacy of the historically specific.
Callinicos (1985) distinguished two major post-modernist strands. The first,
associated with Lyotard, draws heavily on a version of analytical philosophy of language.
The second strand is post-structuralism, which is itself divided into two sub-strands. On
the one hand, Derrida's textualism denies the possibility of ever escaping the discursive;
discourse has no extra-discursive referents and encompasses all the aspects of reality.
On the other hand, Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari propose a version of "worldly post-
structuralism", which, in contrast to Derrida's idealist theory, proposes an articulation of
the discursive and the non-discursive. It is the "worldly post-structuralism" that providesmost of the discreet links between certain newer non-orthodox middle-range theories,
post-marxist theories and post-modernism (though Lyotard advances a variant of post-
marxism, as well). It meets the post-structuralist and post-marxist theories of those
deriving from Althusserian structuralism (typically represented by Laclau-Mouffe (1985)).
According to Wood (1986, p.62):
Laclau and Mouffe have followed the now familiar trajectory from structuralism to
post-structuralism - though they seem uncertain whether the post-structuralist
dissolution of reality into discourse can be regarded as a general law of history (asit were) or whether it is only in the modern age, and particularly with the advent of
"industrial society", that social reality has dematerialized and become susceptible
to discursive construction.
The proliferation of such middle-of-the-road theories was founded upon the
problem of the structure-subject relationship and the relation between economy, politics
and ideology. RT supplied the ideal ground for such an experiment. It considered the
structure-subject relation as crucial because it aimed to explain the crisis but also the
reproduction of the system. Moreover, many regulationists shared a common social and
8/13/2019 Mavroudeas, Regulation Theory, Postmodens Desintegration
10/29
intellectual past with post-modernists and post-marxists. On the other hand, post-
structuralism and post-marxism, apart from being the new trend, appeared to solve many
of its broader referential problems. It is not strange, therefore, that there have been several
attempts for relate post-modernism and post-marxism with RA.
Lashs (1990, p.37) political economy of post-modernism maintains that a "regime
of signification" is co-articulated with a RoA. On this basis, he defines the new restructured
form of capital accumulation as "post-fordism" or "disorganised capitalism", which is
characterised by a turn from mass production and consumption to the services and
information economy, flexible production and specialised consumption. With regard to
the social aspect, the working-class is being shrinked and fragmented, resistance is
apportioned to decentralised and multi-collective (inter-class) social movements and
individualism returns. Additionally, Lash argues that this new (post-fordist) RoA is being
rapidly transformed to a regime of signification, because both the means and the forces of
production acquire an increasingly cultural - rather than strictly economic - hue. The
forces of production are no longer mediated by the material means of production but
constitute issues of discourse and communication between management and workers.
Lash suggests that the wide-spread implementation of quality circles and team briefings
are obvious and undeniable proofs of this alleged transformation. Laclau and Mouffe also,
when they attempted to give a solitary and vague economic reference to their elaborations
they invoked the RoA.This does not mean that the RT or any other newer non-orthodox middle-range
theory adhere heart and soul to post-modernism and/or post-marxism. On the contrary,
they represent a middle-of-the-road choice. Their new post-structuralist overtures co-exist
with significant doses of structuralism. In this sense, they are close to similar attempts in
sociology, such as Giddens and Bourdieuiv ( Lipietz (1985, p.12), (1988) and Aglietta-
Brender (1984, p.14)). On the other hand, a change in the scope of their theory and their
concept-building axis can be detected in certain cases. It is a shifting from a middle-range
perspective informed by a latent and qualified structuralism to an even more randomisedand relativised framework. When this middle-of-the-road position begins to crack, under
the burden of its internal contradiction between structure and historical specificity, then
considerable differences appear among the exponents and result in diverse associations
with other traditions. This is typical for middle-range approaches. Even when they
establish a certain degree of coherence, its unresolved internal contradictions, seldom in
transformed forms, re-emerge and destroy it.
III. Foundations for a Critique: Dialectics and the middle-range method
8/13/2019 Mavroudeas, Regulation Theory, Postmodens Desintegration
11/29
Late Radical Political Economy has a rather casual understanding of middle-range
theory. It is considered as simply something between the abstract and the concrete. This
intermediate level can - or must - correspond to a general theory through some form of
dialectical abstraction. However Merton (1968, p.39), who introduced middle-range
theory in contemporary social sciences, gives a different picture:
Middle-range theory is principally used in sociology to guide empirical inquiry. It is
intermediate to general theories of social systems which are too remote from
particular classes of social behavior, organisation and change to account for what
is observed and to those detailed orderly descriptions of particulars that are not
generalized at all. Middle-range theory involves abstractions, of course, but they
are close enough to observed data to be incorporated in propositions that permit
empirical testing. Middle-range theories deal with delimited aspects of social
phenomena, as indicated by their labels.
For Merton it is difficult to have a general-theoretical analysis. If general-theoretical
reference is required, then a middle-range approach - although not derived from a single
general theory - can be consistent with a variety of such theories. He suggests that middle-
range theory transcends the mock problem between (a) the general and the altogether
particular, (b) generalizing sociological theory and historicism and, (c) the micro and the
macro level. Hence, it is only through the aggregation of middle-range studies thatultimately a general theory may be produced. It is evident in his approach that general
abstract theory is not necessary. Additionally, a general theory can be produced only
through an adding-up procedure of middle-range analyses. This generalisation on the
basis of middle-range analyses - by aggregating their common elements and discarding
the more specific ones - is not equivalent to dialectical abstraction.
Marxian dialectical analysis follows a different path. First, the basic level of
analysis is that of the essence, whereas for middle-range theory is a rather obscure
intermediate level between the abstract and the concrete. For Marx (1981, p.100) the onlycorrect method of appropriating the concrete and reproducing it as concrete-in thought is
by ascending from the abstract to the concrete. Dialectical abstraction should provide the
point of departure and the foundation of the movement of investigation, through a
continuum of mediations, towards the concrete. The starting point of the investigation is
the "cell-form" or essence (Marx (1982, p.90), Zeleny (1980), Banaji (1979, p.17)). The
movement from the essence to the concrete is continuous, so that in approaching the
concrete forms in which the world exists we do not abandon the sphere of essence;
rather, we now investigate this very essence in its form of appearance. This is a journey
from the simple (the abstract) to the combined (the concrete is the unity of many
8/13/2019 Mavroudeas, Regulation Theory, Postmodens Desintegration
12/29
determinations). This process is supplemented with a movement from the concrete to the
abstract. In this dual-way process the movement from the abstract to concrete is the
leading or determining aspect (Ilyenkov (1982), p.138). In contrast, middle-range theories
advance directly to study the concrete and produce almost immediately a set of
intermediate concepts without any reference to abstract essences.
Second, middle-range theories either refute or have a different understanding of
the method of abstraction in general. In the first case, abstraction is rejected outright and it
is substituted by the inductive-deductive method of positivism (usually, in the traditional
form of successive approximation). In the second case, when abstraction is not altogether
discarded, it is substituted by the contentless abstraction which is characteristic of the
positivist method. Abstraction becomes either a purely logical trick, which enables us to
approximate reality (similar to the neo-classical method), or an average of immediately
observable factors.
The first choice - abstraction as a purely logical tool -in a strong version, hinges on
the more general proposition that logic stands outside the object of the study and that
"reasoning" exists solely in the mind and has no organic relation with the world outside. In
a weaker version, it denotes that not all theory, but only abstraction is merely a logical
construction. From the point of view of dialectics both versions are equally unacceptable,
since Marx's method does not separate logic from object as in the positivist "model-real
world" dichotomy. In the dialectical world, the object under investigation determines thepath and the movement of logic, while the latter retains its separate identity. According to
Marx (1981, p.101-102), "the totality as it appears in the head, as a totality of thoughts, is a
product of a thinking head, which appropriates the world in the only way it can... the real
subject retains its autonomous existence outside the head just as before; namely as long
as the head's conduct is merely speculative, merely theoretical". For Zeleny (1980, p.23),
Marx's advance from Ricardo's fixed essence to a new materialist relativist-substantialist
logic has nothing to do with the relativism which disputes the possibility of perceiving
objective reality correctly; it is rather a presupposition of true objective knowledge.Instead of a dichotomy between reality and its appropriation by thought, characteristic of
positivism, Historical Materialism posits a dialectical relationship between them, which is
grounded in reality and operates simultaneously on both the level of theoretical or logical
development and on the level of real historical events. This does not imply a crude and
vulgar naturalistic identification of theory and objective reality:
It would therefore be infeasible and wrong to let the economic categories follow
one another in the same sequence as that in which they were historically decisive.
Their sequence is determined, rather, by their relation to one another in modern
bourgeois society, which is precisely the opposite of what it seems to be their
8/13/2019 Mavroudeas, Regulation Theory, Postmodens Desintegration
13/29
natural order or which corresponds to historical development. The point is not the
historic position of the economic relations in the succession of different forms of
society. Even less is it their sequence "in the idea" (Proudhon) (a muddy notion of
historic movement). Rather, their order within modern bourgeois society.
(Marx (1981), p.107-108)
But, on the other hand, the level of theoretical development is derived from real
historical events. Activity on this level, insofar as it diverges from and runs counter to the
actual historical events (and the level of immediate appearances), is not an a priori
construction, but reflects the "life of the material" in its essence and expresses the
essential and necessary relations of reality. There is, therefore, a continuous dialectical
oscillation between abstract dialectical development and concrete historical reality
relating them through a continuous spiral pattern, each time at more complex levels
(assuming more determinations).
The weaker version (not all theory but only abstraction is a logical trick) confuses
real with reasoned abstraction. The latter has to do with the discovery of categories which
permit social relations to be understood, while the former is the consequence of a real
process and has an immediate (non-mediated) material presence. Moreover, this
conception does not imply that reasoned abstraction is a purely logical tool. Reasoned
abstraction is no less realistic than real abstraction; it only does not have a non-mediatedmaterial presence (for example, abstract and social labour):
Insofar as "the concrete" is opposed to "the abstract", the latter is treated by Marx
first and foremost objectively. For Marx, it is by no means a synonym of the "purely
ideal", of a product of mental activity, a synonym of the subjectively physiological
phenomenon occurring in man's brain only. Time and time again Marx uses this
term to characterise real phenomena and relations existing outside
consciousness, irrespective of whether they are reflected in consciousness or not.
(Ilyenkov (1982, p.33-34))
The second choice - i.e. abstraction as the average of immediately observable
factors - represents an empiricist approach, which expects to find the determinants of
essence almost directly underneath the immediate appearances and for which the
movement of dialectical investigation is flattened down to a simple feed-back between
immediately observable factors and perceived essences. This is often based on some
statistical research; abstraction is, in fact, substituted for by quantitative techniques.
The inescapable consequence of both these two methodological choices is a
twinned dependence upon absolutism, at one time, and relativism at others.
8/13/2019 Mavroudeas, Regulation Theory, Postmodens Desintegration
14/29
Consequently, the relation between theory and reality is only bridged arbitrarily with a
frequently remaining gap between theory and the historical process. The unavoidable
outcome is a recourse to empiricism and historicism, in order to fill the holes in the riddled
and shaky frame of the particular middle-range theory. Contentless positivist abstraction
cannot progress from the abstract to the concrete through a series of specifications and
mediations because it contains nothing that can be specified or mediated and, instead, it
must attempt to grasp reality directly (Kay (1986, p.58-59)). History is called upon to dress
in the wealth of the concrete the nakedness from any substantive content of the middle-
range theories. Usually, this recourse to empiricism and historicism assumes the form of
the intellectual fashion of that historical period (institutionalism, action theory etc.).
Finally, middle-range theories are usually extremely vocal in their denunciations of
"fixed essences", considering them as unable to grasp the multiplicity of real phenomena.
Insofar as Marxism is concerned, this is a gross misinterpretation. Zeleny (1980, ch.3)
shows that one of the fundamental differences between Marx's and Ricardo's conception
of abstraction is that "while for Ricardo essence is something qualitatively fixed and non-
differentiable, Marx sees and investigates the alteration of that essence; he understands it
as something historically transitory which proceeds through different levels of
development and qualitatively changes". This dialectical method is necessarily absent
from middle-range theories but nothing stands in its place to deal satisfactorily with the
relation between theory and complex, concrete development.Indisputably, middle-range theories are particularly popular in periods when
general-theoretical paradigms are in crisis. Their main thrust is that they enable many
authors to continue working while their previous theoretical perceptions are, justifiably or
unjustifiably, crumbling. Because of their inherently eclectic nature and their ability to
conform with a wide variety of more general theories and trends, They facilitate an
accommodation between the previous theses of their contributors (albeit in a
transforming version) and the new intellectual fashions. On the other hand, this retreat
from the level of high theory has little, and chiefly a negative, impact on the general-theoretical and social problems causing the crisis. Merton's naive conception of a step by
step building from below of one unified theory depends upon empiricism and historicism
and is informed by positivism. It is impossible to construct any intellectually coherent and
operationally efficient theory of any "macro" or "meso" period phenomenon without a
general theoretical reference; and even the most "micro" phenomena require such a
framework if their analysis is to be anything more than a theoretically informed
description. Middle-range theories attempt to bypass this dilemma by juxtaposing
arbitrarily and eclectically several abstract factors with the most concrete elements. This
provides them with a quasi-general theoretical facade, insofar as a number of
8/13/2019 Mavroudeas, Regulation Theory, Postmodens Desintegration
15/29
assumptions from this level are necessary for the construction of a particular middle-
range theory. On the other hand, the rest of the necessary framework of a general theory is
evaded by turning it into a non-problem or by permitting each contributor the liberty to
ascribe to one of a variety of different general theories. This referential pluralism results in
an intellectual agnosticism with regard to problems of theory and policy concerning the
long-run.
IV. Middle-Range Theory and the Conceptual Framework of RT
IV.1 The question of method
The middle-range approach is almost openly accepted by the regulationists. For
Boyer (1987, p.6-8), all general economic theories (Keynesian, neo-classical and Marxist)
mistreat reality. He argues for a historicist-institutionalist approach based on intermediate
concepts. If abstract concepts are required, then these can be drawn from a number of
equally suitable general theories (Marxism, Keynesianism, institutionalism).
This ostentatious display of general-theoretical referential pluralism characterises
RT from its very beginning; setting aside the special case of Aglietta's first work. In
CEPREMAP (1977) collective work, Lipietz was presenting its marxist pedigree, whereas
Benassy proposed a neo-Keynesian interpretation; the rest concentrated on historical
and quantitative research.
The methodological attributes and consequences of its middle-range perspectivedid not take long to appear in each of its three major representatives (Boyer, Lipietz and
Aglietta).
Boyer (1991) begins with concrete historical cases (basically specific historical
periods of specific national economies) and focuses upon their institutional forms. He
employs historiography in order to produce a periodisation of the institutional forms. This
is effected by searching for key-dates that mark significant changes in the institutional field
and by comparing two phases: one during which the operation of the institutional forms
(and the regulation by them of social relations) proceeds unhindered, and a second that ischaracterised by the crisis of the previous institutional forms and the transition towards
new ones. Then he defines the implicit logic of every institutional form (each one
expressing and regulating a social compromise on a specific subject) and examines its
applicability. In doing so, the economist should bear in mind that there is no such thing as
a general theory and that historical specificities are the primary determinants. Boyer
suggests that econometric tests are of paramount importance in verifying the degree of
correspondence of these ideal-type models to the specific historical periods. The third
stage aims at the synthesis of all those partial regulations in an overall structure
guaranteeing the reproduction of the whole system. This implies a macroeconomic and
8/13/2019 Mavroudeas, Regulation Theory, Postmodens Desintegration
16/29
econometric modeling. Finally, the last stage requires the modeling of different RoAs,
linked explicitly to specific historical periods. This, for Boyer, constitutes an alternative to
the traditional marxist conception, which considers accumulation as equipped with laws-
tendencies which are ultimately enforced irrespectively of transitional and conjunctural
factors . The time for the construction of "general hypotheses" will come only when a
sufficient number of specific long-run studies of national economies has been gathered.
For Boyer (1991, p.108) the ascendancy of the process of abstraction (whose
beginning he attributes to A.Smith and which, he argues, resulted in the modern theories
of general equilibrium) over a historical and institutional perspective was a major setback.
Boyer appears suspiciously ignorant of the fact that Marxian dialectics differ radically both
from the Ricardian fixed essences and Marginalist general equilibrium. For him
abstraction equals general theory equals departure from tangible historical reality. This is
a gross misrepresentation with regard to the Marxian dialectics. His conception derives
from the "model-real world" dichotomy, which characterises neo-classicism and this
makes his denunciations of orthodox economics sound completely hollow.
Whereas Lipietz attempts persistently to cling to some version of Historical
Materialism, the usual lapses of the middle-range methodology are evident. Despite his
praises of dialectics and his denunciations of positivism, he proposes a crude collapse of
the dialectics of essence and appearance in the simplistic distinction between "esoteric"
and "exoteric". Lipietz (1985, p.14-15), on the one hand, declares that it is impossible toseparate substance and form, the esoteric and the exoteric but maintains also that:
the positioning of the dialectic between esoteric and exoteric within theory (at the
very end of the Marxist theory of Capital) and in the texts (a few words at the end of
"Capital", III, but mostly in "Theories of Surplus Value") has meant that this part of
his work has remained little known or studied. To be precise, the distinction is
there in Marx from the beginning of "Capital", but it only becomes a major source
of contradictions right at the end. Through most of the work Marx shows how the
real essence of things differs substantially from their appearance; but it is not untilthose appearances become objective elements of economic reality that the real
problems appear.
Lipietzs arguments are extremely problematic. Firstly, as Banaji (1979) shows,
appearance is not external to essence (as the distinction esoteric-exoteric tends to imply).
On the contrary, essence is not a static formless thing to which form has to be added, but
rather a self-evolving substance. It is simultaneously the starting point (as "what requires
only itself for its existence") and the initiator of the dialectical spiral (the movement by
which it reflects into itself as the totalising unity of form and essence). Secondly, the
8/13/2019 Mavroudeas, Regulation Theory, Postmodens Desintegration
17/29
dialectics of form and content do not appear only at the end of the Marxian analysis but are
explicitly present from the beginning. For Marx - contrary to Ricardo - appearance would
almost always diverge from essence, although it is dialectically determined by the latter.
This contradiction is recognised at every level of abstraction, from the higher one of Vol.I
to the lower one of Vol.III. For this reason he begins "Capital" with the concept of the
commodity. Furthermore, the distinction between "capital in general" and "many capitals",
which Lipietz invokes as a justification for his methodology, is a further stage in the
dialectical spiral of form and content. The structure of "Capital" is an "expanding curve" or
spiral-movement composed of specific cycles of abstraction (Banaji (1979, p.27)). Each
cycle of abstraction, and thus the curve as a whole, begins and ends with the sphere of
circulation (the realm of appearances), which is finally, at the end of the entire movement,
itself determined specifically as the sphere of the Competition of Capitals. Lipietzs errors
are even more exacerbated when supplemented with the assertion of the "autonomy of
the exoteric:
How was it that the distinction between esoteric and exoteric, so important to
Marx, got lost in the course of the historic debates between then and now? Part of
the answer is that circumstances were responsible: it is only contemporary
capitalism which has actually asserted the autonomy of the exoteric, particularly in
the present crisis.
(Lipietz (1985), p.13)
This "autonomy of the exoteric" is quite questionable and its dressing in the
historically-specific (the emergence and expansion of credit money, according to Lipietz)
does not make it more plausible. Appearances are in no way autonomous from essence.
The result is all too familiar. The esoteric-exoteric distinction is finally attributed to the
difference between the standpoint of social relations and the direct standpoint of
individual agents, and therefore covers broadly the same areas as the macro/micro
distinction (Lipietz (1985), p.15). This position represents a recourse to individualism:agents are first and foremostly individuals; therefore, the macro/micro approach is
necessary in order to relate them to the general framework. The relaxation and
relativisation of the concept of structure follows swiftly. Structure is nothing else but the
conceptualisation of the observed compatibility of individual trajectories. The latter are
informed by the individual's dispositions (his "habitus"v) and perception of other actors
intentions, expressed, ultimately, as an external social pressure by incorporated norms or
explicit social institutions (Lipietz (1988), p.23,8). Thus, in the end, institutionalism,
provides the proper coverage for individualism:
8/13/2019 Mavroudeas, Regulation Theory, Postmodens Desintegration
18/29
As far as economic agents are concerned, the independence or efficacy of
external connections constitutes the only reality they come into contact with,
determining their motives, their expectations, their behaviour and what Bourdieu
would call their "habitus"... In fact social relations have no material existence
outside this network of institutions, the permanence of these ways of behaving
and so on.
(Lipietz (1985), p.12)
The end of the journey is a version of covert positivism. Lipietz takes Marx's well-
known premonition against the "realism of the concepts" and turns falsely into the
proposition that "the Universal is no more than an intellectual systemization of our
practical experience of the real, and it takes no account of the concrete nature of the real"
(Lipietz (1987), p.11). The orthodox dichotomisation of theory and reality appears, again,
in all its glory:
The "capitalist mode of production" does not exist. It is a construction of our
thought, which refers to the regularity with which certain contradictory social
practices are reproduced.
(Lipietz (1985), p.19)
In later works there are significant additions in the conceptual framework as wellas rearrangements of the hierarchy and the inter-relations of the concepts. These
changes, although not unwarranted by the previous theory, alter significantly the status of
Lipietzs approach. Lipietz ((1987), (1988), (1989), Lipietz-Leborgne (1987)) proposes a
variety of new terms such as social and hegemonic bloc, social (or societal) paradigm,
model of industrialisation and technological paradigm. His new organising formula is the
following. The model (or pattern) of development - the more general principle - refers to
the historically different solutions to the basically unchanged difficulties arising from the
commodity-producing nature of capitalism, from the wage relation and from internationalrelations. The adoption by one or several countries, with a hegemonic position in the
world capitalist system, of variants of the same model marks the hegemony of this model.
This pattern of development, then, can be analysed from three different angles: a) as a
model (or paradigm) of industrialisation (i.e. as the general principles which govern the
organisation of labour, but which are not confined only to industry), b) as a RoA (i.e. the
macro-economic principle which describes the compatibility over a prolonged period
between the transformations in production conditions and in the uses for social output)
and, c) as a MoR (i.e. the ensemble of forms of adjustment of the expectations and
8/13/2019 Mavroudeas, Regulation Theory, Postmodens Desintegration
19/29
contradictory behaviour of individual agents to the collective principles of the regime of
accumulation; these forms include cultural habits as well as institutions).
Lipietz (1989) supplements and extends further the previous framework,
proposing that RoA (designating an explicit macro-economic regularity) is built upon the
technological paradigm (i.e. the general principles of organisation of labour and of the
usage of techniques; in fact, it is the same with his previous term of the model (or
paradigm) of industrialisation). Then, because, he argues, the imperatives of RoA are not
translated functionally as norms of behaviour of the agents, a MoR is necessary. The latter
delineates a space, and provides constraints and incentives which reduce the uncertainty
with which individual agents are faced. The basis of MoR is primarily the sphere of politics.
Struggles and their, more or less effective, resolutions via politico-social armistices and
institutionalised compromises (since there is no struggle without end) provide the content
of MoR. These struggles and compromises are in the domain of politics, just as
competition, labour conflicts and RoA are in the domain of economics (Lipietz (1989, p.4).
The implementation of these compromises is dictated and, at the same time, based on the
existence on each occasion of a social bloc which is hegemonic. He defines the social
bloc as a stable system of relations of domination, of alliances and of concessions
between different social groups (dominant and subordinate)vi. A social bloc is hegemonic
when it is able to pose its particular interests as the interests of the whole nation; setting,
thus, the criterion for acceptability or non-acceptability of the aims of other social groupsand blocs. RoA, MoR and hegemonic bloc construct a triangle (Lipietz (1988), p.4) whose
coherence requires another element operating at the level of discourse and political
representation: the societal paradigm. The latter is defined as the mode of structuration of
the identities of individuals and social groups which are legitimately defensible within the
"Universe of Discourse Political Representations". RoA, MoR, the hegemonic bloc and the
societal paradigm are all, according to Lipietz, fruits of the conflictual historical evolution.
Their reciprocal adequacy, as the all-encompassing model of economico-social
development, is historically contingent without guaranteeing eternal stability. It is "mined"with contradictions; either those of the model or those that the model ignores. Therefore,
two forms of struggle appear: (a) struggles within the paradigm and, (b) struggles against
it, in the name of another paradigm.
There is a major change of position in Lipietz's last formulation. Contrary to the
previous, MoR is posited almost exclusively at the realm of politics. In addition, all his
recent versions of the regulationist framework represent a shift towards even more
relativisation and historical contingency coupled with a recourse to a covert
methodological individualism. The structural parameters become even more fluid and
8/13/2019 Mavroudeas, Regulation Theory, Postmodens Desintegration
20/29
vague. In fact, they represent, to a greater or lesser extent, taxonomic formalisms rather
than essential determinations.
Moreover, while the economy is still considered as the founding level (the basis of
the hegemonic bloc is the existence of RoA (Lipietz (1988, p.4)), politics and ideology
achieve more than a relative autonomy; and Lipietz's recent positions exacerbate this
even more. The randomisation of history and politics, additionally, is present from RTs
very beginning. The latest acquisition of another level, that of the "Universe of Discourse
and Political Representations", brings Lipietz even more closer to the post-marxist and
post-structuralist formulations. This "Universe", now separated from politics as such (since
the latter come under MoR), from the economy (attributed to RoA) and the society
(belonging to the societal paradigm), informs and shapes all of them. Furthermore, there
is not even a trace now of such "reductionist" and "essentialist" elements as the mode of
production and the law of capital accumulation. Struggle achieves an even wider
autonomy, albeit at the cost of losing its class character. Classes have a rather precarious
existence. The instrumental agents are individuals and social groups. In addition, struggle
is mainly confined within the existing social order. Despite classificatory formalisms, such
as that of the struggles against the dominant paradigm, in fact RT (and Lipietz as its left
variant) become more and more preoccupied with "realistic", attainable solutions.
Hence, their main interest lies in the theorisation and policy proposals about struggles
within the dominant social order.Agliettas approach has an eccentric character. Most readers bear in mind his
path-breaking first work where Aglietta (1979, p.380) tried to elaborate concepts
appropriate for historically concrete social relations (and thus a theory of regulation) on
the basis of Marxs general theory of capitalism. However, in his later works (not published
in English), Marxism is equated to liberalism as one of the ideologies (Aglietta-Brender
(1984)) and rejected. In its place Aglietta-Orlean (1982) apply Girardianvii individualism-
cum-institutionalism in economics. The individual becomes the primary object of study
and discursive elements and consumption/status relations (routines, styles, habits) -rather than relations of production - is the vehicle for its socialisation. Capital is conceived
as a mode of communication between different modes of production and Labour Value
Theory is completely discarded. The outcome is a post-structuralist (and post-
modernist?) theory. For many this abrupt change of perspective remains unexplained. A
more thorough look can, however, discover middle-range elements in his first work and
understand the surreptitious links between his works. For example, Aglietta (1979, p.187-
188) argued that it is impossible to conceive immediately the unity of the abstract social
space and the concrete space of activities. An intermediary theoretical space is required;
that of social forms. These are founded on structural forms, which are modes of cohesion
8/13/2019 Mavroudeas, Regulation Theory, Postmodens Desintegration
21/29
of basic social forms arising from the development of one and the same basic social
relation. Basically, the structural forms are ensembles of factors (economic, politico-legal
and ideological), which are usually expressed as institutional forms and linked to the state
(Aglietta (1979), p.19). Aglietta fails to define properly both the social and the structural
forms (see Robles (1994, p.71)). All this methodological construction, despite its nominal
adherence to the dialectics of the abstract and the concrete (see Aglietta (1979), p.15), is
quite questionable. His distinction between "abstract social space" and social forms is not
at all clear; although, at some point (Aglietta (1979), p.187), it appears to denote the
distinction between the level of essence (labour value) and the level of appearances
(commodity circulation). If this is the case - and Aglietta is rather obscure on this point - it is
just a formalism, without any significant impact on the development of his analysis. What is
left, then, from his whole methodological construction, is the emphasis on the structural
(institutional and historically specific) forms. These, initially within a mild structuralist and
afterwards in a more relativised post-structuralist framework, have a permanent and
unambiguous role.
IV.2 RTs conceptual framework: more dark than light
The shift towards post-structuralism is evident in the evolution of RTs conceptual
framework. There is an almost continuous slippage away from essential economic (class)
determinants and towards relativised, historically contingent, discursive interactingfactors.
Aglietta's initial formulation of the relationship between RoA and MoR was based
on some acceptance of the primacy of the economic (class) structure over its political and
institutional facets. The process of reasoning was the following (in order of greater
generality and higher abstraction):
law of accumulation RoA MoR
abstract economic concept concrete economic concept institutional counterpart
In CEPREMAP (1977), the relationship between the last two concepts was
relativised, with the rejection of a one-to-one relation between them and the assertion that
more than one MoR can correspond to a RoA, but the logical hierarchy was not changed.
What happened to the first concept? It was, it seems, neglected; not explicitly rejected but
implicitly thrown to oblivion. Boyer, for example, substituted it with the modes of
production and their articulation. This substitution, although still retaining traces of its
predecessor, is a downgrading. There is not one set of fundamental relations but a
historically contingent articulation of several such sets. Additionally, the mode of
8/13/2019 Mavroudeas, Regulation Theory, Postmodens Desintegration
22/29
production tends to be understood as simply a form of distribution of surplus between
capital and labour in almost Keynesian terms.
With regards to MoR, Regulation attempted, in its initial formulations, to propose it
as the economic-cum-institutional meso-period basis of the social hegemony necessary
for the smooth operation of capitalism. Firstly, it was not strictly economic since this area
was covered by the longer long-run macro-economic concept of accumulation and by the
long-run one of RoA. Secondly, it was not purely contingent and "concrete" since it
encompassed meso-period economic and institutional variables or "regularities". In
addition, it covered ideological and political factors (in contrast to RoA which was purely
economic). Finally, it was not fixed but variable and dynamic: several types of MoRs could
be employed in succession by a RoA and everyone is a discovery of historical
contingency. Hence, it was with the one foot on the structural level (and moreover an
economic and institutional one) and with the other on the individual, "subjective" level (that
of the habits, individual actions of the agents etc.). The initial regulationist definition of
MoR represented a middle-of-the-road choice, a blend of economic and culturalist
elements, supposedly unifying the level of economics with that of society and of politics.
However, the blend did not seem to hold very well together. For example, Lipietz's new
formula re-introduces a variant of the Althusserian theory of instances. The only difference
is that he does not suggest that regional theories of each instance should be created.
These problems of definition mark RTs whole evolution. With the furtherdistancing from previous general-theoretical traditions and the emergence of an openly
middle-range theoretical period, characterised by the intermediate concepts, these
problems were exacerbated further. How abstract and how concrete should these
concepts be? For example (as Verhagen (1988, p.19-20) points out) RoA has been
defined at a more abstract level: a situation where imbalances in the process of
accumulation are limited. Its most "concrete" interpretation is given via a scheme of
reproduction with two sectors (one for the production of investment goods and one for
consumption goods). So when one wants to analyse a specific historical situation he isobliged to abstract important aspects of it (e.g. the state sector, the export oriented
sector) which may be significant. On the other hand, it is difficult to distinguish different
forms of MoR. The traditional distinction (that between monopolistic and competitive
regulation) is of a rather high level of abstraction that it is almost impossible to apply it to
concrete cases. This is the reason for its fall into disuse lately.
RTs latest phase is characterised by the attempts around the creation of a new
societalisation paradigm, more or less culturalist. At this stage the concept of the mode of
production (or the law of capital accumulation) is eliminated, since it does not hold well
with the "concretisation" of theory and the relativisation of history and is suspected of
8/13/2019 Mavroudeas, Regulation Theory, Postmodens Desintegration
23/29
"abstract laws". Furthermore, the distinction between the last two concepts (RoA and
MoR) is blurred since there is a tendency towards an equalisation of the weight of
economy and polity (similar to neo-Weberian trends). Hence, it is no longer obvious
whether RoA is the fundamental and determining principle and MoR its, non-linear,
institutional product but also requirement. Moreover, because many of the institutional
regularities formulated under the concept of MoR are economic and, also, because RoA is
increasingly defined in terms of struggle -and, hence, relativised and more dependent
upon policies and strategies there is a tendency, implicitly or explicitly, to consider them
as identical.
Furthermore, class and class struggle are, openly or silently, substituted by the
"new social subjects and movements". The lack of a theory of class - despite Aglietta's
initial inclinations towards a class-struggle approach, which, however, remained
superficial - facilitated this substitution. Naturally, and despite Lipietz's declaration of
Regulation as its unreconstructed opponent, methodological individualism slips gradually
in; openly in Agliettas Girardian methodology, more covertly in Boyer's regularities. It
even creeps into Lipietz's recent endeavours on the structure-subject problem. RTs last
stage of evolution is a showcase for this move from a mild and relativised structuralism to
some version of equally mild and relativised post-structuralism. The role of structure is not
rejected but it is relativised almost beyond recognition. It is within this context that
although individualism is - besides certain exceptions - not openly advocated and,moreover, nominally denounced, its methodological aspects (in the form of a prioritisation
of the individual as the main agent) achieve a subliminal existence.
V. Conclusions
Regulations evolution can be divided in three major periods. The first is marked
by Aglietta's (1979) work. Marxism was accepted as the general theory and Regulation
aspired to provide a methodological formulation and a historical interpretation of the latter
appropriate for modern times. However, the middle-range perspective was alreadylurking underneath, in the articulation of a quasi-empiricist methodology with the stylised
facts. In the second period, when the 60s radicalism ebbed away, the contradiction with
the general theory emerged and the latter fell away, while RT assumed an explicitly
middle-range character. On this basis it attracted support from other general-theoretical
non-orthodox traditions (post-Keynesianism, institutionalism etc.) which were also in a
crisis of identity. The common ground was provided by the middle-range approach and
general-theoretical questions were either relegated to each author's allegiances or were
approached agnostically. The last period is characterised by the realignment of all
contributors around the stylised facts, the intermediate concepts and the methodology,
8/13/2019 Mavroudeas, Regulation Theory, Postmodens Desintegration
24/29
but also by a crisis of identity. RTs middle-range character is the very cause of this crisis.
The alleged end of Fordism brought forward general-theoretical questions, which
Regulation was unable to answer. As a response, it was attempted to reconstruct a new
quasi-general theory - differentiated by both neo-classicism and Marxism - based on
some theorisation of the societalisation process and the structure-subject relation. Marxist
class analysis was, implicitly or explicitly, rejected and individuals and "horizontal"
contradictions crept in. Post-structuralism and post-modernism, provided the vehicle for
this move, which however failed, leading to the present weathering away of Regulation.
RTs methodological problems take their toll in its theoretical structure and its
periodisation of capitalism. Its middle-range perspective was standing uneasily with
Marxist Value theory. The exacerbation of these problems led to the later abandonment of
any value-theoretical reference. These frictions are reflected in a crucial area: the
conception of the value of labour-power and the determination of wage. Labour-power is
considered as commodified only in Fordism. Additionally, wage in Fordism ceases to
express the value of a bundle of subsistence goods and is determined according to
institutional arrangements reflecting class struggle in income distribution. There is only a
weak and distant link to class struggle in production, since these institutional
arrangements are supposed to reflect a linkage of wage to labour productivity. The
corollary of this approach is the - popular among non-orthodox middle-range theories -
view of a social accord between capital and labour. RTs theory is heavily flawed on allthese areas (Mavroudeas (1990, ch.III). First, the commodification of labour-power is one
of the fundamental and sine qua non relations of the capitalist mode of production.
Moreover, as historical evidence also suggests, working-class consumption from its very
first steps was covered by capitalist commodities and not by petty-commodity production.
The latter covered only a portion of workers consumption and it certainly did not
dominated such a lengthy period as the regulationist era of extensive accumulation.
Second, RTs conception of the wage as separated from the wage-goods bundle and
linked institutionally to productivity departs from Marxs theory - resembling more to that ofCarey - and also from historical reality, since the alleged linkage of wage to productivity
has been disputed convincingly.
RTs general macroeconomic model projects directly changes in the labour-
process to the overall macroeconomic structure. This has been accurately criticised by
Brenner-Glick (1991) as an unwarranted primacy of class struggle in the labour-process.
Indeed, although the sphere of production - and moreover the immediate production
process - represent the determining moment of the total circuit of capital (see Fine-Harris
(1979)), they are dialectically related to the other moments of this circuit. Their primacy
cannot be generalised simplistically and mechanically but it should take into account that
8/13/2019 Mavroudeas, Regulation Theory, Postmodens Desintegration
25/29
whereas the capital-labour contradiction in production is the main antithesis of the
capitalist system, this is expressed in the form of capital-capital competition in exchange.
This dialectical contradictory relation of the primacy of production shaped and expressed
according to forms of exchange cannot be grasped either by the older mild Althusserian
structuralist nor the newer relativised and pro-postmodernist perspective of Regulation.
Additionally, RT has three other crippling weaknesses. The first is that, although it
stresses the importance of institutional forms, it lacks a coherent theory of the state. The
second weakness is that although crisis is a central element of its theory, it lacks also a
coherent theory of crisis. Regulation - based on the middle-range rejection of abstract
general tendencies - does not recognise a general cause and an associated mechanism
creating crises. Instead, it has only a formalistic typology of disconnection of economic
structure and institutional arrangements. In its first stages RT discovered the driving forces
of this disconnection in the immediate labour-process - inability to increase the level of
exploitation - together with an almost-Keynesian emphasis on the lack of effective
demand. The definition of Fordism as the functional linkage of Taylorist mass production -
where increased exploitation was smoothed by the indexing of wages to productivity -
with mass consumption - the working class gaining access to capitalistically produced
commodities and, thus, providing the supposedly necessary market outlet - is a typical
and also crucial example. On the other hand, in more recent works the driving force of the
disconnection of economic structure from institutional arrangements is increasinglydiscovered in changes in consumption patterns - the end of mass standardised
consumption pattern and the appearance of diffused consumption patterns - as well as
the failure of previously successful institutional arrangements. This gradual withdrawal of
the unwarranted emphasis on the immediate labour-process does not represent a
dialectical conception of the total circuit of capital but rather a post-modernist emphasis
on consumption as a field of cultural struggles and differentiations which have almost
ceased to reflect class divisions. Moreover, institutionalism along quasi-Shumpeterian
lines assumes an increasingly important explanatory primacy in more recent regulationistworks. The third weakness is the lack of a coherent theory of international relations and
the relationship between the national and the international dimension. It began with a
Poulantzian emphasis on the national dimension which added international relations
almost externally. On the other hand, under the pressure of the increasing
internationalisation of capital in the 80s and 90s, appeared regulationist works theorising
the international economic and societalisation aspects of regulation, such as Beaud
(1987) and Lipietzs peripheral Fordism. However, these attempts have not solved the
problem.
8/13/2019 Mavroudeas, Regulation Theory, Postmodens Desintegration
26/29
RTs concomitant periodisation of capitalism is extremely problematic. Its method
of periodisation, which is founded on the relationship between RoA and MoR, covers a
number of fields (production-process, income distribution, capitalist competition, states
economic functions, international regime etc.) and recognises accordingly different
epochs. Whereas its aim to construct a stages theory is commendable, its middle-range
methodology creates two unsurmounted problems. First, it recognises general patterns
by just bundling together empirical cases and, implicitly, considering some of them - as
the US in the case of Fordism - as typical. Inadequate quantitative formalisms instead of
dialectical abstraction are implemented in order to derive these general patterns. The
problem with this methodology is exactly the one against which it is arguing. It bends facts
in order to confine them into its middle-range concepts or it ostracises them as irrelevant.
Second, unjustified emphasis is placed on institutional forms, to the point that social forms
are almost totally identified with institutions. This is a grave error since social relations
cannot be confined solely to institutional arrangements but rather cover a more general
and usually more important area.
Dumenil-Levy (1988) and Brenner-Glick (1991) have criticised accurately RTs
stylised facts and the attendant Fordism/post-Fordism periodisation. For example, the
interwar period and the crisis of 1929 do not represent a transitional period in the sense
that Regulation maintains. Furthermore, most of the elements that are supposed to
constitute the post-W.W.II epoch were already in place long before. The extraction ofrelative surplus-value, mass production, rising mass consumption, the emergence of
finance capital, credit money all date back to the 18th century. Additionally, even their
institutional counterparts (social reforms, monopolisation, economic power of the state
etc.) had been developing slowly since the second half of the 19th century.
The critique delineated above should not lead to the conclusion that the initial task
set by Regulation - the operationalisation of Marxist general theory in a historically
dynamic context - was neither wrong nor accomplished. It simply suggests that the
middle-range road is not the proper one. However, the task remains.
REFERENCES
Aglietta Michel (1979), A Theory of Capitalist Regulation, NLB
Aglietta Michel - Brender Anton (1984), Les metamorphoses de la societe salariale,
Calman-Levy
Aglietta Michel - Orlean Antre (1982), La violence de la monnaie, PUF
Anderson Perry (1988), In the tracks of Historical Materialism, Verso
Banaji Jairus (1979), From the commodity to capital: Hegel's dialectic in Marx's Capital
8/13/2019 Mavroudeas, Regulation Theory, Postmodens Desintegration
27/29
in Elson Diane (ed.), Value: the representation of labour in capitalism, CSE
Books
Beaud Michel (1987), Le systeme national modiale hierarchise, La Decouverte
Bourdieu Pierre (1977), Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge UP
Boyer Robert (1985), Analyses de la crise americaine, CEPREMAP no.8501
Boyer Robert (1987). Wage formation in historical perspective, Cambridge Journal of
Economics vol.3
Boyer Robert (1989), The eighties: the search for alternatives to Fordism, CEPREMAP
no.8909
Boyer Robert (1991), The Regulation School, Columbia UP
Brenner Robert - Glick Mark (1991), The Regulation Approach: Theory and History,
New Left Review no.188
Callinicos Alex (1985), Post-modernism, Post-structuralism, Post-Marxism', Theory,
Culture and Society, vol.2 no.3
CEPREMAP-CORDES (1977), Approches de l inlfation: l exemple Francais (Benassy
J.-Boyer R.-Gelpi R.-Lipietz A.-Mistral J.-Munoz J.-Ominami C.)
Dumenil Gerard -Levy Dominique (1988), What can we learn from a century of history of
the U.S. economy?, Baercelona Conference
Fine Ben - Harris Lawrence (1979), Rereading Capital, Columbia UP
Girard Rene (1982), Le bouc emissaire, GrassetHirst Paul - Zeitlin Jonathan (1992), Flexible Specialisation Versus Post-Fordism in M.
Storper-A.J.Scott (eds) Pathways to Industrialisation and Regional Development,
Routledge
Ilyenkov Evald (1982), The dialectics of the abstract and the concrete in Marx's
Capital, Progress
Jessop Bob (1990), Regulation theories in retrospect and prospect, Economy &
Society vol.19 no.2
Jessop Bob (1992), Post-Fordism and Flexible Specialisation: Incommensurable,contradictory, complementary, or just plain different perspectives? in H. Ernste-V.
Meier (eds) Regional Development and Contemporary Industrial Response:
Extending Flexible Specialisation, Belhaven
Kay Geoffrey (1986), Why Labour is the starting point of Capital, in Elson D. (ed.),
Value: the representation of Labour in Capitalism, CSE Books
Kotz David (1994), The regulation theory and the social structure of accumulation
approach in Kotz D.-McDonough T.-Reich M. (1994), Social structures of
accumulation, Cambridge UP
Laclau Ernesto - Mouffe Chantal (1985), Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, Verso
8/13/2019 Mavroudeas, Regulation Theory, Postmodens Desintegration
28/29
Lash Scott (1990), Sociology of Postmodernism, Routledge
Lipietz Alain (1985), The Enchanted World, Verso
Lipietz Alain (1987), An alternative design for the 21stcentury, CEPREMAP
Lipietz Alain (1988), Deux strategies sociales dans la production des nouveaux
espaces economiques, CEPREMAP no.8911
Lipietz Alain - Leborgne Danielle (1987), New technologies, new modes of regulation:
some spatial implications, CEPREMAP no.8726
Mavroudeas Stavros (1990), The Regulation Approach: a critical appraisal, Ph.D
thesis, Birkbeck College, University of London
Merton Robert (1968), Social Theory and Social Structure, The Free Press
Noel Alain (1987), Accumulation, Regulation and Social Change, International
Organisation no.41
Pilling Geoffrey (1986), The law of value in Ricardo and Marx in Fine Ben (ed.), The
Value Dimension, Routledge
Piore Michael - Sabel Charles (1984), The second industrial divide, Basic Books
Robles Alfredo (1994), French theories of Regulation and conceptions of the
international division of labour, Macmillan
Sayer Andrew (1995), Radical Political Economy: a critique, Blackwell
Verhagen Marinus (1988), Once more on the United States, Barcelona Conference on
Regulation, mimeoWood Ellen (1981), The separation of the Economic and the Political in Capitalism,
New Left Review vol.12
Wood Ellen (1986), The Retreat from Class, Verso
Zeleny Jydrich (1980), The logic of Marx, Blackwel
i For example, the belief that post-WW.II capitalism was characterised by massconsumption derives from Keynesian influences and can make sense - although
empirically unjustified - within an underconsumptionist theory. However, it representsa theoretical slay of hands when it is posited as an indisputable fact.ii Anderson (1988, p.21, 26-27) praises this "new appetite for the concrete" ofthe epigones of Western Marxism as a positive contribution to the abolition of thetheir academic character and the re-unification of theory with social praxis. However,relativisation together with the "middle-range" methodology led to exactly theopposite results.iii Critics of economism usually rely either on the neo-classical dichotomy
between economics and politics or on the cruder Marxist versions of base-superstructure. The neo-classical dichotomy is obviously unacceptable since itproduces a theory void of social relations, methodologically individualist andrestricting economic relations to exchange. On the other hand, a proper dialectical
materialist approach should avoid separating economic from political relationswhereas, at the same time, keeping a dialectical (i.e. contradictory and involving
8/13/2019 Mavroudeas, Regulation Theory, Postmodens Desintegration
29/29
feedback relations) primacy of the former. Wood (1981) but also the German StateDerivation Debate (based on the work of Pashukanis) have advanced such aperspective. The capitalist system - contrary to previous class systems - while beingbased on a unified set of social relations, it fetichistically separates them in differentspheres. Marxist theory should be able to discover both its essential unity (as socialrelations of production, primarily established at the economic sphere) and its formalseparation.iv All these theories have close affinities with post-modernism. For Lash (1990)Bourdieu unconsciously belongs to the post-modern problematics; particularly hisnotion of the "cultural economy".v Bourdieu's theory of the "habitus", starting from a structuralist framework,attempts to transcend the structure-agent dilemma - similarly to the duality ofstructure theory of Giddens. It is defined as a set of internalised dispositions thatmediate between social structures and individual practical activity.vi Individualism creeps into Lipietz's theory not only when individual agents areconsidered the main and primary subjects of MoR but also when he defines social
groups. For Lipietz (1989, p.4), social groups are defined by their every dayconditions of existence and particularly by their place in economic relations. It isdifficult to find a more contradictory definition. Firstly, the every day conditions ofexistence belong to the sphere of appearances and, of course, classes do notappear immediately as such at this level, but only in exceptional cases. For example,it is difficult to see a homogeneous working-class at this level, except on criticaloccasions. Secondly, if by economic relations he means the fundamental classrelations of production, then these also are not always and primarily immediatelyobservable, especially in every day life. If, on the other hand, he implies "exoteric" (touse his terminology) economic relations (such as income differentiations, forms ofincome appropriation or hierarchical positions), then these are admittedly observablein everyday life. However, class does not have a position among them. What it is
finally left from Lipietz's self-proclaimed ardent anti-individualism is the propositionthat individuals do constitute collectivities and social groups. This is hardly a novel orsignificant proposition; let alone one that any prudent version of individualism willdeny. What matters after all is that the main and primary determining agent is theindividual. Ultimately, it is telling that these theses are more and more oftensupplemented with