Discuss the differences between Fordist and Post-Fordist work.

Authors Avatar

Essay Title: Discuss the differences between Fordist and Post-Fordist work.

This essay will focus on the differences between fordist work and post-fordist work. To make the statement clear, I will first present a general definition on both fordism and post-fordism which will involve the back ground of emergence of these two systems. Questions such as how do two systems work in different period, and how do systems developed economics in different ways will be also explained in the essay. Economic change driven by technology change, labour practice change, industrial organization change and market demand change in consumption patterns. Although there are conflicts between fordist work and post-fordist work, however, they may exist in the same society. Therefore, I will give some examples to support this point in the end.

Fordism takes its name from Henry Ford, the American car manufacturer at the turn of the 20th century. The concept itself describes a particular form of economic process based on the idea of a production line. Henry Ford was the first person using the assembly line—the ultimate embodiment of division of labour theory. Ford set up plants in the USA and Britain at the start of the twentieth century to manufacture the Model ‘T’ Ford. The poster of his company is ‘you can have any colour you like, so long as it is black’. This summarizes quite well what Fordist assembly line technology is all about—a standardized product but manufactured at a low price to make it available to the masses.

Fordism refers to the system of mass production and consumption characteristic of highly developed economies during the 1940s-1960s. (Scott, P749) Under Fordism, mass consumption combined with mass production to produce sustained economic growth and widespread material advancement. Fordism is a model for the low cost production of standardized goods for a mass market. Fordism is also an example of the deskilling of work that Braverman considered characteristic of capitalist production. Braverman thinks that assembly-line technology maximized alienation.

Under fordism, work was divided into small tasks. These tasks were carried out by low skilled workers with little training. There is a clear division between a mass of semi-skilled workers and a small number of skilled workers carrying out key tasks. Production was controlled by a centralized management.

Under fordism, workers need little skill. Braverman accepted that all societies have had social divisions of labour. In these societies, individuals carry out separate and specialized roles. However, he claimed that only modern capitalism has produced the manufacturing division of labour. By breaking the work into small tasks, the capitalists can reduce the labour cost. They no longer need to employ skilled craft workers at a high wage rate to make a whole product. Unskilled workers can carry out the simplest parts of production. The more work is divided up and break down, the smaller proportion of work requiring skilled labour. As a consequence, work is deskilled.

Join now!

Braverman saw deskilling as the product of management decisions rather than technology. The techniques used to manage labour in the early factories depended largely on punishment. Later in nineteenth century, there is a movement. Managers made a bigger use of positive incentive schemes intended to increase productivity by paying workers accounting to the amount they produced. This approach is known as scientific management. Braverman thought that the scientific management of Frederick W Taylor had had an impact on upon the organization of work in capitalism. Scientific management is major innovation to the turn of the century. Scientific management is ...

This is a preview of the whole essay