Page 207 - Critical Political Economy of the Media

186 Critical investigations in political economy

criticised for their crude determinism, and failure to adequately explain the
variation and complexity of public policy. Explanations derived from capitalist
class dominance or the ‘logic of capital’ failed to engage adequately with the
variety of groups usually involved in the policy process and the multiplicity of
social and political objectives expressed, and had difficulty, in moving from
abstract to concrete analysis, in explaining how specific policies were required by
the functional needs of capitalist societies (John 2003: 97–98; Mosco 2009).
In response, radical scholars tended to depart from classic Marxist formulations
and totalising accounts, sharing a criticism of social determinist readings that ‘read
off’ politics and policies from an account of the most powerful forces at work in
the economy and society (Hill 1997). The so-called regulationist school sought to
reintegrate the economic and political, focusing on the role of public authorities
in regulating ‘regimes of accumulation’ (Aglietta 1979; Jessop 1995; Sum and
Jessop 2013). A ‘regime of accumulation’ refers to the economic, social and
political framework that allows capitalism to extract a surplus and stave off a
crisis of instability. State structures and policies reflect and regulate the techno-
logical basis of capitalist accumulation. Policy change is driven by the effect of
shifts in production techniques on capital accumulation strategies, the rate of
profit, the state and regulatory arrangements. As a regime of accumulation,
‘Fordism’, comprising mass-production techniques in large factories, required a
well-developed state bureaucracy to create conditions for mass markets, manage
demand (through Keynesian economic management), and sustain and reproduce
a healthy, trained workforce through welfare state provision. Post-Fordism arose
from responses to the crisis of capital accumulation from the late 1960s to early
1970s. With falling rates of profitability in more competitive markets, firms
sought to become more efficient and flexible in operations, and developed
products for niche markets in seeking out higher rates of profitability. With the
shift from mass production, the regulatory framework that had supported
Fordism lost its legitimacy and salience. The state came to reflect post-Fordist
characteristics and developed a new regulatory framework to assist new forms of
capital accumulation. Examples include moves toward more flexible local
government, with services contracted out to non-state providers. This new capi-
talist logic was served by the deregulation of state controls over the economy, job
protection and social welfare. The regulationist account provided an analysis of
policy shifts from welfarism, corporatism and state management of nationalised
industries, to privatisation ‘deregulation’ and promotion of labour market
‘flexibility’ (Jessop 1995).
Shifts from Fordism to post-Fordism have become staples of media and cultural
analysis, particularly in exploring shifts in cultural production and consumption,
for instance in fashion and advertising, as well as in work practices. However,
regulationist accounts are critiqued for their technological determinism in seeing
technological change as the generator for the production of public policy. The
stagist nature of such accounts is also problematic in downplaying the
significance and implications of the coexistence of features from different regimes