Professor Michael Dowdle's Comparative Legal Tradition Class: Post-Fordism

For my write up today, I shall write about the lesson I had for Professor Michael Dowdle’s comparative legal tradition class on post-industrialism and globalization. The lesson focused on a subject known as post-Fordism which seems to me like some sort of industrialization method that characterizes the way the world works today. I am not sure what the relevance of this topic is to comparative legal tradition though. It appears to me like a social science topic. It is an interesting lesson nonetheless, allowing me to know how industrialization methods evolved in response to the given circumstances that affects the world.

This terminology of Fordism and Post-Fordism is indeed an interesting one. It bears allusion to one of the great US automobile industrialist named Henry Ford. I suppose the use of his name to connote the stage of industrialism stems from the notion that Henry Ford’s methods to industrialization was a revolution which affects the way industrialization was characterized thenceforth in the early 20^th century. If I could recall my reading on Henry Ford on Wikipedia, he invented the concept of the assembly line method to industrial production. This leveraged on the economic concept of economies of scale, boosting production and lowering cost, making industrial production greatly affordable to the common man.

I haven’t heard of the notion of post-Fordism until today though. I suppose that the economics of production has since moved on from the time of Henry Ford and humans have found more innovative ways in their industrial methods for production. As Professor Michael Dowdle characterized this Post-Fordist stage of industrialization, the emphasis is on responsiveness rather than on production. This is is response to the volatile nature of global circumstances that at the start of the 1970s. For one, there is the formation of the oil cartel in the Middle Eastern countries known as OPEC, and these greatly affected oil prices which affects the industrialization methodology. Information technology also made events in distant parts of the world an affecting cause of things in local nations.

The first nation to develop a new method of industrialization was the Japanese, who had to build up their industrial capacity after the decimation of their industrial capabilities in World War 2. Japan developed an industrial method known as flexible specialization. This allowed it a niche in competing with the US industries, which leveraged on the concept of mass production to achieve economies of scale. By using this method of flexible specialization, the Japanese were able to compete by being more flexible to change. This gave the Japanese an advantage in industries such as the automobile industry. Japan was famous for producing cheap automobiles, but 10 years later, could produce high tech and fuel efficient automobiles that captured the high-end markets.

I am interested to know what theories of production economists have to explain this phenomenon of production. I remember studying the concept of economies of scales in Junior college, and other concepts such as comparative advantage. I wonder how far these economic concepts of production actually work in the actual world. It seems like there are many other innovative methodologies of productions that are carried out which allows firms to corner the market even though they cannot achieve economies of scales. These production methodologies may not be as easily presented in a model easily understandable to the average A level students I suppose.

Japan also used a bifurcated production process, outsourcing the production of standardized parts to cheaper production countries while maintaining focusing the local industry on designing. State economies started becoming more interdependent. In turn, states began decentralizing regulation, giving localities more autonomy and responsibility for managing their own economic and social environments. On the other hand, certain types of regulation move up into the transnational sphere, resulting in a phenomenon known as meta-governance/meta-regulation. Rather than regulating directly by forming and implementing national legislation, nations chose from existing regulatory frameworks presented and implementing them.

So continuing on this idea of the transnational regulatory sphere, there are the likes of international organization like ASEAN, UN, and the WTO. A less visible type of regulatory methodology is the creation of intergovernmental network like the global competition network (GCN). This methodology helped circumvent certain resistance to the US’ bid to introduce competition laws amongst countries so as to further their ability to spread their industrial powers across the world. I never saw it that way, but it is an interesting point. Apparently, all the talks about free trade propounded by western economists might be a strategy to propagate US interest to furnish their exports. Thinking about it, there might be a case for protectionist measures amongst countries by raising tariffs so as to protect their industries. Of course, a trade war might be detrimental to all.

Another feature of the post-Fordist world is the creation of non-governmental organization to regulate the globalized nature of industrialization. One type is the QUANGOS (Quasi non-government organization) such as the World Bank and the IMF, which are in actual fact proprietary arms of the US which seeks to protect western interest more than global economic interest. 

Professor Michael Dowdle’s seminar on Post-Fordism was a really interesting account of the industrial milieu proceeding apace in our modern world and impacting the way our world works.