Hubbry Logo
Regulation schoolRegulation schoolMain
Open search
Regulation school
Community hub
Regulation school
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Regulation school
Regulation school
Regulation school
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The regulation school (French: l'école de la régulation) is a group of writers in political economy and economics whose origins can be traced to France in the early 1970s, where economic instability and stagflation were rampant in the French economy. The term régulation was coined by Frenchman Destanne de Bernis, who aimed to use the approach as a systems theory to bring Marxian economic analysis up to date.[1] These writers are influenced by structural Marxism, the Annales School, institutionalism, Karl Polanyi's substantivist approach, and theory of Charles Bettelheim, among others, and sought to present the emergence of new economic (and hence social) forms in terms of tensions within existing arrangements. Since they are interested in how historically specific systems of capital accumulation are "regularized" or stabilized, their approach is called the "regulation approach" or "regulation theory". Although this approach originated in Michel Aglietta's monograph A Theory of Capitalist Regulation: The US Experience (Verso, 1976) and was popularized by other Parisians such as Robert Boyer,[1] its membership goes well beyond the so-called Parisian School, extending to the Grenoble School, the German School, the Amsterdam School, British radical geographers, the US Social Structure of Accumulation School, and the neo-Gramscian school, among others.

The regulation approach

[edit]

Robert Boyer describes the broad theory as "The study of the transformation of social relations, which creates new forms- both economic and non-economic- organized in structures and reproducing a determinate structure, the mode of reproduction".[2] This theory or approach looks at capitalist economies as a function of social and institutional systems and not just as government's role in the regulation of the economy, although the latter is a major part of the approach.

Regimes of accumulation and modes of regulation

[edit]

Regulation theory discusses historical change of the political economy through two central concepts, "regime of accumulation or accumulation regime" (AR) and "mode of regulation" (MR). The concept of regime of accumulation allows theorists to analyze the way production, circulation, consumption, and distribution organize and expand capital in a way that stabilizes the economy over time. Alain Lipietz, in Towards a New Economic Order, describes the regime of accumulation of Fordism as composed of mass-producing, a proportionate share-out of value added, and a consequent stability in firm’s profitability, with the plant used at full capacity and full employment (p. 6).

An MR is a set of institutional laws, norms, forms of state, policy paradigms, and other practices that provide the context for the AR's operation. Typically, it is said that it comprises a money form, a competition form, a wage form, a state form, and an international regime, but it can encompass many more elements than these. Generally speaking, MRs support ARs by providing a conducive and supportive environment, in which the ARs are given guidelines that they should follow. In cases of tension between the two, a crisis may occur. Thus this approach parallels Marx's characterisation of historical change as driven by contradictions between the forces and the relations of production (see historical materialism).

Translation and definition

[edit]

Bob Jessop summarises the difficulties of the term in Governing Capitalist Economies as follows: "The RA seeks to integrate analysis of political economy with analysis of civil society and or State to show how they interact to normalize the capital relation and govern the conflictual and crisis-mediated course of capital accumulation. In this sense, régulation might have been better and less mechanically translated as regularization or normalization" {Jessop, 2006, p.4}. Therefore, the term régulation does not necessarily translate well as "regulation". Regulation in the sense of government action does have a part in regulation theory.

History of modes of regulation

[edit]

Robert Boyer distinguished two main modes of regulation throughout the 19th and 20th centuries:

  • The "mode of regulation of competition" (1850–1930). It consisted of a first mode of regulation, from 1850 to the beginning of the 20th century, that Boyer called "extensive mode of regulation", characterized by low productivity gains, important part of the output dedicated to equipments, and high competition. The second period is called "intensive mode of regulation without mass consumption", because it consists of high productivity gains (thanks to Taylorist methods) and the production of consumption commodities.
  • The "monopolist mode of regulation" (after 1930), characterized by high productivity and mass consumption. The Fordist system made possible a regular growth of economic output and an increase in income at the same time.

Crisis

[edit]

Regulationist economists distinguish between cyclical and structural crises. They study only structural crises, which are the crises of a mode of regulation. From this distinction, they have formulated a typology of crises that accounts for various disarrangements in institutional configurations. According to its initial objective, which was to understand the rupture of the Fordist mode of regulation:

  • Exogenic crises are due to an external event; they can be very perturbing but cannot endanger the mode of regulation, and even less the mode of accumulation. Neoclassical economists (or economists of the school of rational anticipations) consider that all crises are exogenic.
  • Endogenous crises are cyclical crises that are necessary and inevitable, for they make it possible to cancel imbalances accumulated during the phase of expansion without major deterioration of institutional forms. These crises are inseparable from the operation of capitalism.
  • The crisis of the mode of regulation: unable to avoid a downward spiral, institutional forms and the ways the state intervenes in the economy must be modified. The best example is the crisis of 1929, where the free play of market forces and competition did not lead to a renewed phase of expansion.
  • The crisis of the mode of accumulation means that it is impossible to continue long-term growth without major upheaval of institutional forms. The crisis of 1929 is the best example: the interwar period marks the passage from a mode of accumulation characterised by mass production without mass consumption to a mode incorporating both mass production and mass consumption.

Current development

[edit]

Since the 1980s, the Regulation school has developed research at other socio-economic levels: firms, markets and branches studies (food and agriculture, automotive, banking…); development and local regions ("regulation, sectors and territories" research workshop); developing countries or developed economies others than France and USA (South Korea, Chile, Belgium, Japan, Algeria, etc.): political economy of globalization (diversity of capitalisms, politics and firms...). By doing so, its methods now range from institutional macroeconomics to discourses analysis, with quantitative and qualitative methods.

Members of the Regulation School

[edit]

[6][7][8]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Regulation school

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Regulation school, known in French as l'école de la régulation, is a heterodox economic developed in during the 1970s that analyzes the structural and institutional mechanisms enabling the stability and transformation of capitalist economies amid inherent contradictions. Originating from Marxist-inspired critiques of , it emphasizes how capitalism sustains accumulation through successive "regimes of accumulation"—such as , characterized by and consumption—and complementary "modes of ," including wage bargaining, state intervention, and monetary policies that temporarily resolve crises without altering core class relations. Pioneered by economists like Michel Aglietta, Robert Boyer, and Alain Lipietz at institutions such as CEPREMAP, the approach gained prominence with Aglietta's 1976 analysis of the Fordist crisis, explaining post-World War II growth and its 1970s breakdown as a shift toward flexible, finance-led accumulation. Key contributions include frameworks for understanding long-term economic cycles, the role of institutions in , and transitions to , influencing heterodox studies of and uneven development, though critiqued for overemphasizing structural over agency and empirical variability across national contexts. Despite its left-leaning theoretical foundations, which may embed assumptions of inevitable capitalist contradictions, the school's empirical focus on historical phases has informed policy analyses in and beyond, highlighting causal links between institutional forms and economic performance without relying on equilibrium models.

Origins and Development

Emergence in French Political Economy

The Regulation School arose in French political economy during the mid-1970s, as economists grappled with the crisis and the unraveling of post-World War II expansion, which exposed limitations in both neoclassical equilibrium models and deterministic interpretations of capitalist contradictions. This heterodox approach sought to explain long-term and through the interplay of institutional structures and accumulation processes, diverging from mainstream French traditions like while engaging critically with them. It developed in Parisian academic and research circles, including affiliations with institutions such as CEPREMAP, amid an intellectual environment shaped by structuralist influences and dissatisfaction with orthodox tools for analyzing structural shifts. Michel Aglietta's 1976 book Régulation et crises du capitalisme: l'expérience des États-Unis (1945-1971) marked the foundational text, applying empirical analysis to the U.S. case to theorize how specific "modes of regulation"—institutional norms, wage relations, and state interventions—sustain phases of expanded reproduction despite underlying tensions in capital accumulation. Published by Calmann-Lévy, the work drew on macroeconomic data to demonstrate that the Fordist regime's viability depended on wage indexation to productivity gains and credit mechanisms, which began faltering by the early 1970s due to rising social costs and international competition. Aglietta, then a researcher in French economic circles, positioned regulation not as mere state control but as emergent social forms resolving accumulation contradictions temporarily, influencing subsequent French debates on crisis management. By the late 1970s, Robert Boyer extended these ideas, emphasizing wage-labor nexus as pivotal to regulatory viability, while Alain Lipietz contributed analyses of international dimensions, solidifying a collaborative "Parisian" network that formalized the school's emphasis on historical over universal laws. This phase reflected France's post-1968 intellectual milieu, blending Marxist insights on class conflict with Keynesian and , yet prioritizing verifiable macroeconomic patterns—such as U.S. GDP growth averaging 4% annually from 1945 to 1965 before declining—over prescriptive . The school's early traction stemmed from its capacity to model regime transitions empirically, contrasting with the era's dominant monetarist responses in policy circles.

Intellectual Influences and Early Works

The Regulation School emerged from a synthesis of Marxist , which provided the foundational critique of capitalism's inherent contradictions and class struggles, with the long-term historical analysis of the , emphasizing structural transformations over conjunctural events. Key influences included John Maynard Keynes's theories on macroeconomic demand management and the role of state intervention in stabilizing economies, as well as Michał Kalecki's extensions of these ideas to incorporate oligopolistic pricing and investment cycles in capitalist systems. These elements were adapted to explain how temporary institutional arrangements could mitigate but not eliminate the crises endemic to accumulation, diverging from orthodox Marxism's emphasis on inevitable collapse by incorporating post-Keynesian insights into and wage-profit dynamics. Early theoretical development centered on the work of Michel Aglietta, whose 1976 monograph Régulation et crises du capitalisme: l'expérience des États-Unis introduced core concepts like the wage relation and monetary forms as regulatory mechanisms stabilizing Fordist accumulation in the post-World War II . Published by Calmann-Lévy, the book drew from U.S. economic data spanning the 1920s to the 1970s, arguing that regulation—through norms, institutions, and social compromises—temporarily resolves mismatches between production and consumption without altering capitalism's structural imperatives. Aglietta's analysis, rooted in his doctoral research at the University of Paris-Dauphine, marked the school's shift from abstract Marxist crisis theory to concrete historical-periodization, influencing subsequent researchers at institutions like CEPREMAP. Robert Boyer's contemporaneous contributions, including his 1976 publications on and growth regimes, further elaborated regulation as a meso-level bridging macro accumulation and micro institutional forms. Collaborations among Aglietta, Boyer, and Alain Lipietz in the late , often through seminars at the Centre d'études prospectives d'économie mathématique appliquées à la planification (CEPES), formalized the approach, with early papers addressing the 1973-1975 oil crisis as a signal of Fordist regulation's breakdown. These works prioritized empirical validation over doctrinal purity, critiquing both neoclassical equilibrium models and rigid structuralist determinism for underestimating capitalism's adaptive capacity via state and wage regulations.

Core Concepts

Regimes of Accumulation

In regulation theory, a of accumulation refers to a historically specific and relatively stable pattern of economic evolution that coordinates the production and realization of , ensuring the expanded reproduction of capitalist relations over a prolonged period. This concept, first systematically developed by Michel Aglietta in his analysis of the economy, describes the macro-level regularities that temporarily resolve or postpone inherent contradictions in , such as mismatches between productive capacity and . Aglietta defined it as achieving "a certain match between the transformation of the conditions of production... and transformation in the conditions of final consumption," thereby stabilizing the valorization of capital at the scale of the total social product. Key components of a regime of accumulation include the organization of production within firms, the temporal horizons guiding and decisions, the distribution of among wages, profits, and other shares, the volume and structure of , and the integration with non-capitalist sectors or activities. For instance, these elements form a coherent where rising in aligns with expanding consumption outlets, preventing chronic overaccumulation or crises. Robert Boyer, building on Aglietta, emphasized that such regimes depend on "the set of regularities that ensure the general and relatively coherent progress of , allowing resolution or postponement of distortions and disequilibria." Unlike abstract models of equilibrium, regimes are empirically grounded in observable historical phases, such as the shift from extensive accumulation—reliant on labor extensification and simple circulation in the —to intensive accumulation, which incorporates technological intensification and mass consumption patterns. Regimes of accumulation do not operate in isolation but articulate with a complementary mode of , comprising institutionalized norms, laws, and social compromises that govern wage-labor relations, , and monetary flows to sustain the regime's viability. Together, they constitute a "mode of development," a temporary configuration that institutionalizes class conflict in ways compatible with ongoing accumulation, as theorized by Aglietta and extended by Boyer and Alain Lipietz in the . This interplay highlights the regime's fragility: while providing structural stability—evident in phases like the post-1945 boom, where U.S. GDP growth averaged 3.8% annually from 1948 to 1973—regimes eventually exhaust due to internal rigidities, such as wage rigidities outpacing or international imbalances, precipitating structural crises. Empirical validation draws from quantitative data on , profit rates, and consumption shares, underscoring the theory's focus on causal mechanisms over ideological narratives.

Modes of Regulation

In regulation theory, the mode of regulation denotes the historically specific ensemble of norms, institutions, organizational forms, and behavioral patterns that stabilize a given regime of accumulation by aligning individual actions with systemic requirements for capitalist reproduction. This configuration mediates inherent contradictions, such as those between production and realization of value, through "situated rationalities" embedded in institutional networks, rather than through abstract market mechanisms alone. Unlike purely competitive equilibria, modes of regulation incorporate extra-economic factors, including state interventions and social compromises, to defer crises and sustain growth phases. The mode of regulation is analytically decomposed into five key institutional forms, each governing specific spheres of economic and social coordination:
  • Wage-labor nexus: Structures the relation between capital and labor, determining , work organization, and productivity norms to ensure matches supply, as seen in systems stabilizing mass consumption under .
  • Forms of : Defines inter-firm , ranging from price-based in fragmented markets to oligopolistic coordination via pricing strategies or technological standards, influencing investment and innovation patterns.
  • Monetary and financial regime: Regulates credit allocation, payment systems, and financial intermediation to synchronize monetary flows with real accumulation, such as through policies linking savings to investment.
  • State and forms: Encompasses fiscal, regulatory, and welfare policies that internalize externalities and enforce compromises, adapting to accumulation needs via provision or macroeconomic stabilization.
  • : Manages cross-border , capital flows, and exchange rates to embed national accumulation within global constraints, exemplified by fixed exchange systems supporting export-led growth.
These forms co-evolve, with compatibility among them enabling a viable mode of development; disruptions, such as mismatched wage rigidities with flexible competition, precipitate regime shifts. Historically, regulation theorists like Robert Boyer identify a transition from a competitive mode in the —characterized by markets and gold-standard monetary constraints—to a monopoly mode in the , featuring cartelization, welfare-state interventions, and managed currencies to accommodate intensive accumulation. Empirical analysis emphasizes that no mode is eternal; each erodes under structural contradictions, necessitating reconfiguration, as evidenced by the post-1970s crisis of Fordist .

Interplay Between Accumulation and Regulation

In regulation theory, the regime of accumulation refers to the macroeconomic coherence achieved through specific forms of production and consumption that enable the expansion of capital, while the mode of regulation encompasses the institutional, legal, and normative frameworks that stabilize this process by reconciling contradictions inherent in capitalist dynamics, such as class conflict and uneven development. The interplay between the two is contingent and historically specific: a given regime of accumulation becomes viable only when supported by a compatible mode of that ensures the reproduction of social relations and economic circuits over extended periods, typically spanning decades. Without this alignment, decentralized economic decisions by firms, workers, and states lead to instability, as the pursuit of accumulation generates imbalances that must mediate. The mode of regulation operates through five key institutional forms—wage labor relations, forms of competition, the monetary , the state apparatus, and international regimes—which collectively normalize and constrain the contradictions of accumulation, such as or , by fostering social compromises that align individual behaviors with aggregate macroeconomic stability. For instance, in periods of sustained growth, these forms enable the of accumulation to function by channeling conflicts into institutionalized outlets, like or fiscal policies, thereby preventing immediate systemic breakdown despite capitalism's tendency toward . This supportive role is not mechanistic but adaptive; regulation evolves in response to accumulation's pressures, renewing conditions for viability through trial-and-error adjustments in norms and practices. Over time, the interplay generates a "mode of societal ," where accumulation's expansionary logic increasingly strains regulatory forms, leading to structural crises when the mode can no longer accommodate deepening contradictions, such as profitability declines or intensified class antagonisms. These crises signal the exhaustion of the existing configuration, prompting shifts toward new regimes and modes, as seen in theoretical analyses of post-war Fordism's transition, though the theory emphasizes path-dependent experimentation rather than deterministic succession. Empirical validation of this dynamic relies on historical case studies, with proponents like Michel Aglietta arguing that 's mediatory function explains capitalism's , alternating between stability and rupture, rather than perpetual crisis as in .

Historical Applications

Fordist Regime (Post-WWII Era)

The Fordist regime of accumulation, as analyzed in regulation theory, emerged in the aftermath of , spanning approximately 1945 to 1973, and represented a stable phase of capitalist development characterized by intensive growth through and synchronized mass consumption. This regime integrated a production model rooted in Taylorist and assembly-line techniques, pioneered by in the early but matured postwar, with institutional arrangements that sustained expanding domestic markets. Productivity gains from standardized, high-volume output of durable consumer goods like automobiles and household appliances were linked to rising , forming a "virtuous circle" where workers' purchasing power supported demand for the very commodities they produced. Central to this regime was the mode of regulation, comprising institutional forms such as agreements that indexed wages to increases, enabling labor to capture a share of without eroding profitability. In Western economies, particularly the and , governments implemented Keynesian macroeconomic policies, including deficit-financed public spending and demand stimulation, to buffer economic cycles and promote . The , established in 1944, provided international monetary stability through fixed exchange rates pegged to the U.S. dollar and gold convertibility until its suspension in 1971, facilitating trade expansion and capital flows that underpinned global Fordist synchronization. Social compromises, including the expansion of welfare states with unemployment insurance, pensions, and healthcare, further stabilized class relations by mitigating income insecurity and fostering consumer confidence. Empirical indicators of Fordism's success included sustained GDP growth rates averaging 4-5% annually in countries during the and , with often below 5% in leading economies like the U.S. and . Industrial concentration in oligopolistic sectors, such as automotive manufacturing—where firms like and Ford captured over 80% of the U.S. by the —drove , while credit institutions extended consumer loans and mortgages, amplifying ; U.S. household debt-to-income ratios rose from around 40% in 1945 to over 60% by 1970. Regulation theorists like Michel Aglietta argued this configuration resolved contradictions of earlier extensive accumulation phases by internalizing tendencies through institutionalized , though it presupposed national-scale coherence rather than fully global integration. By the late 1960s, rigidities in the Fordist model surfaced, including wage-push inflation exceeding productivity growth—U.S. inflation hit 5.7% in 1970—and international imbalances that eroded Bretton Woods viability, culminating in the 1973 oil crisis and stagflation. These pressures exposed limits in the regime's ability to adapt to rising competition from Japan and Germany, declining profit rates (U.S. manufacturing profit share fell from 25% in 1965 to 15% by 1973), and social unrest over work monotony and inequality, signaling the onset of crisis and transition toward post-Fordist forms.

Transition from Fordism to Post-Fordism

The regime of accumulation, dominant from the late 1940s through the , encountered a profound structural crisis in the late and 1970s, characterized by declining profitability, surging inflation, and rising unemployment—collectively termed . According to regulation theorists, this crisis stemmed from the rigidities inherent in Fordist institutions, such as standardized , rigid wage indexation tied to productivity gains, and national-scale Keynesian , which proved unable to adapt to intensifying international competition and technological bottlenecks in core industries like automobiles and . The U.S. economy, epicenter of Fordism, saw manufacturing productivity growth slow from an annual average of 2.8% in the 1950s- to near stagnation by the mid-1970s, exacerbating contradictions between over-accumulation in and under-consumption pressures. Triggering events amplified these internal contradictions: the 1971 Nixon administration's suspension of dollar-gold convertibility ended the Bretton Woods monetary order, unleashing currency volatilities and speculative capital flows that undermined Fordist monetary regulation; the 1973 OPEC oil embargo quadrupled energy prices, hitting energy-intensive Fordist sectors with costs that rigid wage-price spirals could not absorb without eroding profit margins. Regulation school analyses, such as those by Michel Aglietta and Robert Boyer, frame these shocks not as exogenous but as revealing the regime's exhaustion, where the wage relation—central to Fordism's virtuous circle of rising incomes funding mass consumption—fractured amid labor militancy and employer pushback, with U.S. real wage growth halting after 1968. National variations emerged; in , Fordist crises intertwined with social democratic welfare strains, while Japan's lean production challenged Western norms earlier. The transition to involved tentative institutional adaptations toward flexible accumulation regimes, marked by of labor markets, , and to restore profitability. Regulation theorists like Boyer posit that disparate national trajectories—U.S. emphasizing market liberalization from the , versus Europe's varied "neo-Fordist" hybrids—reflected uneven searches for new modes of , without a singular global successor to Fordism's coherence. By the , elements such as just-in-time inventory systems and precarious employment supplanted Fordist standardization, enabling accumulation amid , though theorists debate whether these form a stable regime or merely crisis-management forms prone to further contradictions like inequality and financial .

Theoretical Mechanisms and Crises

Role of Crises in Regime Shifts

In regulation theory, economic crises arise from deepening contradictions between a given of accumulation—characterized by the macroeconomic coherence of production and consumption—and its corresponding mode of regulation, which comprises institutional forms that temporarily stabilize these contradictions through social compromises. When rigidities in these institutions prevent adaptation to changing structural conditions, such as shifts in or class relations, overaccumulation or intensifies, manifesting as profitability declines, , or inflationary pressures. Theorists like Michel Aglietta argue that these crises reveal the inherent instability of capitalist reproduction, where monetary constraints and uncoordinated individual behaviors undermine stability. Crises function as pivotal mechanisms for regime shifts by dismantling obsolete regulatory frameworks and opening windows for reconfiguration, rather than merely disrupting equilibrium. This process involves trial-and-error institutional experimentation, where state interventions, labor market restructurings, and competitive norms evolve to forge new modes of compatible with emergent accumulation patterns. Unlike exogenous shocks, regulationists view crises as endogenous expressions of regime exhaustion, propelling transitions through heightened class conflicts and policy innovations that realign wage-labor nexus, monetary circuits, and interstate relations. For example, the 1929 crash exposed the limits of competitive accumulation's price-based , catalyzing the Fordist 's wage-productivity link and mass consumption norms by the 1930s–1940s. The 1970s stagflation crisis similarly underscored Fordism's breakdown, as rigid and Keynesian demand management faltered amid oil shocks and profit squeezes, fostering neoliberal and financialized accumulation from the onward. Regulation theory posits that such shifts are neither automatic nor teleological; successful transitions depend on contingent political struggles, with failed adaptations risking prolonged depression, as critiqued in analyses of uneven post-Fordist trajectories across nations. Empirical applications, such as Aglietta's examination of U.S. from the Civil War era, illustrate how crises iteratively refine institutional forms, though skeptics note the theory's retrospective bias in interpreting path-dependent evolutions as inevitable.

Institutional Forms and Social Compromises

In regulation theory, institutional forms represent the historically contingent and geographically specific embodiments of capitalism's core structural relations, including the wage-labor nexus, monetary and financial systems, state interventions, competitive dynamics among firms, and international economic frameworks. These forms function as stabilizing mechanisms within a mode of regulation, channeling the inherent contradictions of accumulation—such as class conflict and overproduction—into reproducible patterns without resolving them fundamentally. For instance, the wage-labor nexus encompasses not merely contracts but broader arrangements like labor market segmentation and skill formation, which vary across regimes; in the Fordist era, it materialized through collective bargaining and internal labor markets that tied wage increases to productivity gains, thereby supporting mass consumption. Social compromises underpin these institutional forms by denoting negotiated equilibria among antagonistic social forces, particularly capital and labor, that temporarily align divergent interests to sustain accumulation. These compromises emerge from political and ideological struggles, crystallizing into enduring institutions that defer crises rather than eliminate their structural roots; they are inherently unstable, as shifts in power relations or economic conditions can unravel them. In practice, such compromises often involve concessions like welfare provisions or union recognition, which legitimize capitalist reproduction by distributing in ways that mitigate immediate class antagonisms—evident in post-World War II arrangements where labor accepted productivity discipline in exchange for rising and social security, fostering a "class compromise" specific to national contexts. The interplay between institutional forms and social compromises is dialectical: the former provide the material scaffolding for regulation, while the latter supply the normative and coercive glue through which contradictions are managed at the meso- and macro-levels. Regulation theorists identify five principal institutional forms—wage relation, monetary regime, state form, competition norm, and international regime—as interdependent elements whose coherence defines a viable mode of regulation; disruptions in one, such as monetary instability, can cascade to undermine social compromises elsewhere. Empirical analysis, as in studies of the 1970s stagflation, reveals how eroding Fordist compromises—exemplified by declining union density and fiscal austerity—exposed rigidities in institutional forms, precipitating transitions to new configurations like flexible labor markets in post-Fordism. Critically, these concepts emphasize and national specificity, rejecting universal models; social compromises are not mere epiphenomena but active of accumulation, with their durability tested by crises that reveal underlying asymmetries in class power. While regulation theory attributes stability to such forms' ability to internalize contradictions, empirical divergences—such as varying state capacities across versus the U.S.—underscore that compromises reflect contingent historical struggles rather than deterministic outcomes.

Criticisms and Limitations

Methodological and Empirical Critiques

Critics have argued that the Regulation school's core concepts, such as regimes of accumulation and modes of regulation, suffer from vagueness and imprecision, allowing for flexible but inconsistent interpretations across studies, which undermines theoretical rigor. This lack of precision extends to terms like and , often invoked without clear operational definitions, leading to ad hoc adaptations rather than a unified explanatory framework. Methodologically, the approach is faulted for its descriptive, historically narrative style, which prioritizes institutional forms over formal modeling or falsifiable hypotheses, resembling post-hoc rationalization more than . Furthermore, it exhibits weak integration with foundational economic theories, including , resulting in ambiguous linkages between structural imperatives and regulatory outcomes. A notable methodological shortfall is the absence of a robust state theory, as the school's analysis of state-economy interactions remains underdeveloped, often treating the state as a residual regulator without specifying causal mechanisms for its interventions. Ontologically, while the approach rejects neoclassical in favor of holistic institutional , it struggles to delineate clear boundaries between stability-inducing forms and inherent capitalist contradictions, inviting functionalist interpretations despite protestations to the contrary. Empirically, the Regulation school faces challenges in verifying regime shifts through quantifiable data, as concepts prove difficult to operationalize; for instance, post-Fordist transitions since the oil crises lack consensus on defining features, with evidence of persistent Fordist elements in advanced economies contradicting clean paradigmatic breaks. Historical applications, such as the Fordist regime's reliance on wage-labor pacts for mass consumption, oversimplify dynamics by overemphasizing institutional compromises while downplaying underlying class conflicts and accumulation barriers, as seen in uneven growth data from the post-World War II era (e.g., U.S. manufacturing output rising 3.2% annually from 1948-1973 but stalling thereafter). The theory's predictive capacity is limited, as crisis resolutions are portrayed as indeterminate outcomes of political struggles, failing to anticipate specifics like the or the resilience of financialized accumulation without new regulatory modes. Additionally, empirical scope is narrow, predominantly Eurocentric and nationally focused, neglecting global peripheries where regulation forms do not align with core-country models, such as in Latin American debt cycles of the .

Ideological Assumptions and Predictive Failures

The Regulation school's theoretical edifice rests on Marxist-inspired assumptions that is defined by structural contradictions—such as the tension between production for profit and social needs—requiring periodic institutional interventions to avert . Proponents like Michel Aglietta and Robert Boyer contend that these "modes of regulation," encompassing wage norms, monetary policies, and state forms, temporarily reconcile accumulation with its contradictions, enabling distinct historical regimes like . This perspective inherently frames markets as anarchic and prone to or overaccumulation crises unless buttressed by class compromises and regulatory frameworks, reflecting a predisposition to prioritize collective institutional fixes over decentralized competitive processes. Critics, including and Mark Glick, highlight how this approach embeds an ideological bias by subordinating capitalist dynamics to regulatory superstructures, thereby underemphasizing the primacy of inter-firm and profitability as drivers of and resolution. Rather than deriving crises primarily from supply-side barriers to valorization—as classical Marxian might—the school leans toward demand-management narratives, potentially echoing interventionist preferences prevalent in French intellectual circles influenced by post-1968 . This institutional overemphasis obscures how enforces cost discipline and reallocates resources, treating such mechanisms as secondary to negotiated social forms. Empirical applications, such as analyses of U.S. growth, often retrofits data to fit regime typologies without rigorous falsification, revealing methodological looseness in linking macro-patterns to micro-behaviors. In terms of predictive capacity, the theory faltered in forecasting the post-1973 transition from . Regulationists anticipated a novel stable regime—variously termed flexible accumulation or neo-Fordism—emerging from crisis-induced adaptations, with diversified production and renewed mass consumption stabilizing advanced economies by the 1990s. Instead, data from the show global wage share declining from 51.0% in 1995 to 48.8% by 2019, correlating with stagnant household demand and reliance on credit-fueled consumption rather than institutional wage pacts. The , triggered by deregulated finance rather than resolved industrial contradictions, exposed the absence of anticipated social compromises; U.S. GDP growth averaged 2.3% annually from 2009–2019, below Fordist peaks, amid rising household debt-to-GDP ratios exceeding 100% by 2007. These outcomes challenge the model's teleological regime cycles, as neoliberal persisted without yielding the predicted equilibrium, underscoring the theory's limited explanatory power for supply-chain and profit shifts to immaterial sectors.

Comparisons with Alternative Economic Theories

The Regulation school diverges from neoclassical economics by rejecting the latter's assumption of self-equilibrating markets driven by rational agents and price signals, which it views as overly abstract and detached from historical contingencies. Instead, regulation theorists contend that capitalist reproduction hinges on contingent institutional "modes of regulation"—encompassing labor market norms, credit systems, and state policies—that temporarily stabilize accumulation amid inherent contradictions, such as overproduction and declining profitability. This approach critiques neoclassical universality for neglecting how economic laws manifest differently across regimes, as evidenced in the shift from Fordist mass production to flexible post-Fordist accumulation in advanced economies during the 1970s-1980s. In relation to , the Regulation school modifies rather than discards Marxian , arguing that while generates structural instabilities rooted in class antagonism and the , these can be regulated through social compromises and institutional forms to sustain long waves of growth, averting immediate collapse. For instance, the Fordist regime post-1945, with its and welfare provisions, exemplified such temporary resolutions, contrasting with Marxism's emphasis on escalating contradictions leading inexorably to breakdown. Regulationists thus position their framework as a "middle-range" theory bridging Marx's abstract analysis with empirical regime shifts, though critics note this dilutes revolutionary imperatives by overemphasizing institutional adaptability. Compared to Keynesianism, which prioritizes management and countercyclical fiscal-monetary policies to mitigate equilibria, the Regulation approach adopts a more structural lens, examining how entire "regimes of accumulation" integrate production, distribution, and exchange via interlocking institutional forms. While both endorse state intervention—evident in Keynesian-inspired policies paralleling early regulationist insights on crisis mediation—the school faults pure Keynesianism for insufficient attention to supply-side dynamics, international monetary regimes, and the evolution of forms, as seen in the 1971 Bretton Woods collapse precipitating post-Fordist transitions. This broader purview aligns regulation theory with post-Keynesian extensions but emphasizes historical specificity over general demand-side stabilizers. The school's institutional focus also distinguishes it from other heterodox strands like the American Social Structures of Accumulation (SSA) theory, which similarly identifies stabilizing blocs but lacks regulation theory's emphasis on five key institutional forms (wage relation, enterprise governance, monetary , state intervention, and global configuration). Empirical applications, such as analyzing the as a regime exhaustion rather than mere liquidity failure, underscore these divergences, with regulationists highlighting finance's decoupling from production—a dynamic underexplored in SSA's more nationally bounded analyses.

Key Figures and Legacy

Prominent Theorists and Their Contributions

Michel Aglietta, often regarded as the foundational figure of the regulation school, introduced the core concepts of regimes of accumulation and modes of in his 1976 book A Theory of Capitalist : The Experience, which analyzed the historical development of American from the Civil War era through the 1970s by examining how institutional forms stabilize the contradictions inherent in Marxist accumulation theory. Aglietta argued that progresses through distinct phases, such as the extensive accumulation of the late and the intensive Fordist regime post-World War II, where and consumption were regulated via wage indexation, credit expansion, and state intervention to manage structural crises like overaccumulation. His framework emphasized empirical historical analysis over abstract modeling, positing that —encompassing economic, social, and political institutions—temporarily resolves the tension between production and realization of without eliminating 's inherent instabilities. Robert Boyer expanded and systematized the regulation approach through collaborative works and his 1990 book The Regulation School: A Critical Introduction, which delineated two primary modes of in 19th- and 20th-century : competitive regulation (prevalent in the , relying on market competition and constraints) and monopolistic regulation (characteristic of , involving coordinated wage bargaining and state macroeconomic policies). Boyer co-authored seminal texts like The Search for Labour Market Flexibility (1988) with others in the school, applying the theory to explain the crisis of Fordism in the 1970s as a breakdown in the institutional compromises that sustained high growth rates, such as those averaging 4-5% annually in countries from 1945 to 1973. His contributions highlighted the role of national variations in , critiquing overly deterministic Marxist crisis theories by stressing path-dependent institutional and the potential for diverse post-Fordist trajectories, though he noted empirical challenges in predicting stable new regimes. Alain Lipietz advanced the school's analysis of post-Fordist transitions and global dimensions in works like Mirages and Miracles (1987), where he critiqued "peripheral " in developing economies and proposed "Toyotist" flexible accumulation as a partial successor to rigid , characterized by just-in-time and subcontracting networks that reduced costs but intensified labor exploitation. Lipietz integrated ecological concerns into regulation theory, arguing in later writings that 's resource-intensive growth exhausted natural limits, necessitating "" regulatory forms to address environmental crises alongside economic ones, though he acknowledged the theory's limitations in fully accounting for financialization's role in amplifying instabilities. His empirical focus on international imbalances, such as Europe's chronic trade deficits in the , underscored how uneven development frustrates uniform regime shifts, drawing on data from IMF and OECD reports to challenge optimistic narratives of seamless .

Influence on Policy and Academia

The Regulation School has exerted notable influence within and adjacent fields such as , , and , particularly through its framework for analyzing historical phases of capitalist accumulation and regulation modes. Emerging in the 1970s from French Marxist-Keynesian roots, it gained traction internationally in the and as a for institutional and , challenging neoclassical assumptions by emphasizing social compromises and crisis tendencies. Scholars like Bob Jessop extended the approach to state theory and governance, integrating it with Gramscian and Poulantzian concepts to explore spatial and scalar dimensions of regulation, thereby influencing analyses of post-Fordist transitions in and beyond. Its concepts, such as regimes of accumulation, have informed heterodox critiques of , fostering interdisciplinary work in and regional studies, though it remains peripheral to due to its reliance on historical specificity over universal models. In policy spheres, the school's impact has been more circumscribed and indirect, primarily manifesting as analytical tools for critiquing rather than prescribing reforms. French theorists like Michel Aglietta contributed to state economic expertise, linking regulation ideas to and growth strategies during the 1980s, yet the approach failed to significantly shape French macroeconomic despite some adherents holding positions in the . Alain Lipietz, a prominent regulationist, applied its insights to advocate for ecologically oriented post-Fordist alternatives as a MEP from 1999 to 2009, influencing debates on sustainable accumulation and European , but these efforts did not translate into dominant frameworks amid neoliberal dominance. Overall, the school's emphasis on crisis-prone structural contradictions limited its appeal to policymakers favoring market-liberal solutions, resulting in greater resonance in academic diagnostics of and than in actionable agendas.

Contemporary Applications and Assessments

Extensions to Globalized and Financialized Capitalism

Regulation theorists, particularly Robert Boyer, extended the framework to analyze the transition from Fordist national economies to a more fragmented, finance-dominated accumulation regime amid accelerating starting in the late . This involved recognizing that of Fordism—characterized by rigid and Keynesian wage-productivity linkages—gave way to flexible accumulation patterns, where global trade liberalization and capital mobility disrupted national modes of regulation. Boyer argued that emerged as a compensatory mechanism, with finance-led growth substituting for industrial investment by channeling household and corporate savings into speculative assets, as evidenced by the U.S. economy's shift post-1980s . In this extension, globalization is not viewed as a uniform "end of history" but as a variegated process amplifying institutional diversity across capitalist economies, with supranational entities like the WTO and IMF attempting partial modes of regulation that fail to fully stabilize accumulation. Financialization, per Aglietta and Boyer, intensified after the 1980s with innovations like securitization and derivatives, leading to boom-bust cycles; for instance, U.S. household debt-to-GDP ratios rose from 65% in 1980 to over 130% by 2007, sustaining demand absent wage growth. This regime's viability remains contested within the school, as it lacks the social compromises of Fordism, fostering instability rather than long-term equilibrium, as demonstrated by the 2008 global financial crisis originating in over-leveraged mortgage markets. Critics within and outside the school note that these extensions overemphasize institutional adaptation while underplaying endogenous contradictions like rising inequality; Gini coefficients in countries increased by an average of 10% from 1985 to 2015 under financialized . Nonetheless, the approach highlights how fragmented regulations—such as financial harmonization efforts post-1992 —attempt to mitigate global finance's volatility without restoring national sovereignty. Recent assessments, including Boyer's post-2008 analyses, posit hybrid "finance-led" regimes as transient, potentially evolving toward state-coordinated variants in response to geopolitical tensions like U.S.- trade frictions since 2018.

Relevance in Light of Recent Economic Data

The Regulation school's framework, which posits that capitalist stability depends on alignments between accumulation regimes and corresponding modes of regulation, illuminates the structural fragilities revealed by economic data since the 2008 global financial crisis. That event precipitated a 1.3 percent contraction in world output in 2009, the first postwar decline, as financial deregulation decoupled speculative finance from productive investment, eroding the wage-labor nexus central to prior Fordist compromises. In the ensuing finance-dominated regime, particularly in the United States, the finance and insurance sector drove 73 percent of capital growth from 1980 to 2017, prioritizing shareholder value over real economy expansion and amplifying crisis tendencies through over-indebtedness and asset bubbles. The shock extended this analysis, acting as an exogenous amplifier of endogenous contradictions in globalized, flexible production systems. Worldwide employment plummeted by 400 million jobs in 2020, while rigidities—rooted in post-Fordist just-in-time —fueled , with U.S. consumer prices surging 9.1 percent year-over-year by June 2022, the steepest rise in four decades. Fiscal interventions, pushing U.S. federal debt to 125 percent of GDP by 2020, functioned as provisional regulatory fixes to sustain , yet they exacerbated financialization's imbalances, as evidenced by a 58 percent increase in U.S. wealth amid the despite broader economic contraction. These patterns affirm the theory's causal emphasis on institutional mismatches, with recent indicators—such as stagnant and recurrent stagflationary risks—suggesting no emergent stable regime. Regulation theorists interpret ongoing geopolitical disruptions and policy experiments, like macroprudential tools, as tentative efforts toward new social structures of accumulation, though empirical persistence of overhangs and inequality metrics cautions against over-optimism for resolution without deeper and pacts.

References

  1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/regulation-theory
  2. https://newleftreview.org/issues/i188/articles/robert-brenner-mark-glick-the-regulation-approach-theory-and-history.pdf
  3. https://theorie-regulation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/nes-rt-new-state-of-the-art-sept-22.pdf
  4. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/social-structures-of-accumulation/regulation-theory-and-the-social-structure-of-accumulation-approach/BF3743355E512F3E3F1879A8312C9742
  5. https://shs.hal.science/halshs-03378447/
  6. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/resrep14209.6
  7. https://newleftreview.org/issues/i188/articles/robert-brenner-mark-glick-the-regulation-approach-theory-and-history
  8. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800907000067
  9. https://archive.org/details/regulationetcris0000agli
  10. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/7408093.pdf
  11. https://www.workersliberty.org/story/2025-05-06/michel-aglietta-1938-2025
  12. https://hal.science/hal-01719977v1/document
  13. https://journals.openedition.org/regulation/11869
  14. https://newleftreview.org/issues/i232/articles/michel-aglietta-capitalism-at-the-turn-of-the-century-regulation-theory-and-the-challenge-of-social-change.pdf
  15. https://web.stanford.edu/class/sts175/NewFiles/Harvey%2C%2520Fordism.pdf
  16. https://bobjessop.wordpress.com/2013/11/05/fordism-and-post-fordism-a-critical-reformulation/
  17. http://gesd.free.fr/mvidal13.pdf
  18. https://core.ac.uk/download/71860.pdf
  19. https://bobjessop.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/what-follows-fordism-on-the-periodisation-of-capitalism-and-its-regulation/
  20. https://www.eshet.net/workshops-and-conferences/275-1763/-the-history-of-regulation-theory-and-its-contributions-to-the-analysis-of-global-capitalism-following-the-covid-19-crisis
  21. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/030981688803400110
  22. http://tankona.free.fr/boyer2018.pdf
  23. https://www.ppesydney.net/content/uploads/2020/05/Post-Fordism-the-French-regulation-school-and-the-work-of-John-Mathews.pdf
  24. https://robertboyer.org/download/presentandfutureofglobalisationRB13.pdf
  25. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/030981688803400110
  26. https://www.versobooks.com/products/157-a-theory-of-capitalist-regulation
  27. https://www.elgaronline.com/display/book/9781788973939/b-9781788973939.regulation.school.pdf
  28. https://ideas.repec.org/a/cpo/journl/y2003i44p79-101.html
  29. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/25095/1/MPRA_paper_25095.pdf
  30. https://www.ipe-berlin.org/fileadmin/institut-ipe/Dokumente/Working_Papers/Working_Paper_254_2025_.pdf
  31. https://www.imk-boeckler.de/data/downloads/OEA/Veranstaltungen/2024/v_2024_10_25_cahen-fourot.pdf
  32. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233061020_The_Regulation_School_the_Employment_Relation_and_Financialization
  33. https://d-nb.info/1192013182/34
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800925001235
  35. https://theorie-regulation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/grouiez-lamarche.pdf
  36. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233463502_Regulation_Theory_in_Retrospect_and_Prospect
  37. https://bobjessop.wordpress.com/2014/05/11/twenty-years-of-the-parisian-regulation-approach-the-paradox-of-success-and-failure-at-home-and-abroad/
  38. https://bobjessop.wordpress.com/2014/04/26/regulation-theories-in-retrospect-and-prospect/
  39. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1530770
  40. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/comparative-studies-in-society-and-history/article/regulation-theory-postmarxism-and-the-new-social-movements/1A8BB5C9B3F4B4582D1FA54B520F7497
  41. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298519500_The_transition_towards_finance-dominated_capitalism_French_regulation_school_social_structures_of_accumulation_and_post-Keynesian_approaches_compared
  42. https://www.boeckler.de/pdf/v_2008_07_27_lavoie_lecture_1.pdf
  43. https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/edcoll/9781784715069/9781784715069.00007.xml
  44. https://newleftreview.org/issues/i232/articles/michel-aglietta-capitalism-at-the-turn-of-the-century-regulation-theory-and-the-challenge-of-social-change
  45. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377672522_Michel_Aglietta_and_Regulation_Theory
  46. https://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-regulation-school/9780231065481
  47. https://www.generation-online.org/h/hregulationschool.htm
  48. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/030981680307900110
  49. http://lipietz.net/ALPC/MET/MET_1988h-en1.pdf
  50. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228287252_Regulation_Theory_The_Road_from_Creative_Marxism_to_Post-Modern_Disintegration
  51. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosr042.pub2
  52. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312233138_Twenty_years_of_the_regulation_approach_Has_it_been_worth_it
  53. https://journals.openedition.org/regulation/23840?lang=en
  54. http://lipietz.net/Rebel-sons-the-Regulation-school-750
  55. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/030851400360587
  56. https://pseweb.eu/ydepot/semin/texte0607/COR2006HAR14.pdf
  57. https://robertboyer.org/en/category/topics/regulation-theory/
  58. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2016/12/31/World-Economic-Outlook-April-2009-Crisis-and-Recovery-22575
  59. https://theorie-regulation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/gibadullina-2022-txt-complet.pdf
  60. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/12/6/187
  61. https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2022/consumer-prices-up-9-1-percent-over-the-year-ended-june-2022-largest-increase-in-40-years.htm
  62. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDGDPA188S
  63. https://robertboyer.org/en/category/topics/regulation-theory/theory-of-crisis/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.