Regulation Theory and the Crisis of Capitalism. (Book Reviews).

Bob Jessop (ed)

Edgar Elgar, 2001, five volumes, pp. 2832

ISBN 1-85898-279-0 (hbk) [pounds sterling]615.00

One glance at this publication makes it clear: it is meant to be a landmark in regulation theory. Its five heavy red-clad volumes, assembling ninety-seven articles on regulation theory, include contributions by the 'founding fathers' of the approach, and other well-known authors, as well as some renowned critics. The contributions cover more than two decades (1978-1999) of regulationist theory production, across diverging and conflicting theoretical strands in a number of academic disciplines in various countries. The texts have been selected and edited by Bob Jessop, one of the major authors in this field. He has written the series preface, the introductions to each of the five thematic volumes and also contributed six of his own articles. The result is a weighty reference work, comprising 2,832 pages, and a most ambitious project too, as Jessop aims at nothing less than providing a comprehensive mapping of a huge and very broken landscape: twenty years of regulation theory.

'Regulation theory' is not a relatively coherent theoretical system but a 'set of research approaches' that has evolved over the past twenty-five years. Its origins are in the France of the mid-seventies with its specific political, economic and theoretical climate (student and workers' movement, rising unemployment, dominance of structuralist Marxism) after the onset of economic crises in all advanced capitalist economies.

As a first step, we can understand the regulation approach as an attempt to reformulate Marx's critique of political economy in order to analyse the reasons for economic stability, or crisis, of a concrete social formation at a given period of time. On the one hand, it opposes a-historical, determinist or static interpretations, which dominated the Marxist discourse of the time. On the other hand, it rejects neo-classical economic theory on the basis of its premises and general assumptions: rational acting individuals, transparency of markets and, especially, the self-regulation of 'pure markets' towards a general equilibrium. From this perspective, institutions appear primarily as obstacles in the process of self-regulation via markets. Regulation theorists, however, reject the idea of an automatic equilibrium, and emphasise the importance of economic and extra-economic institutions for the stabilisation of capitalist accumulation. Only the embeddedness in a network of institutions (ensemble of structural fo rms) can secure the stability of economic processes over a period of time; however, capitalist accumulation is 'by nature' crisis-prone.

In this light, we can also describe regulation theory as a (Marxist) part of the debate within institutional economics. Or, if we approach it from the level of micro-economics or industrial sociology, we can call it--with a pinch of salt--a type of 'Kern-Schale-Theorie' ('kernel-shell theory') on a macroeconomic or societal scale.

Jessop's project is ambitious: the sheer amount of publications on regulation theory since the late seventies is difficult to assess. 'Regulation theory' encompasses diverse and conflicting theoretical strands, which have become remodelled (extended, deepened or simplified), and combined with other approaches in social sciences, geography and economics. The regulation approach has been applied to a rising number of research areas at various levels of abstraction. It has found adherents and contributors in many academic communities all over the world. Some of its key terms have become quite popular, for instance 'Fordism' or 'Postfordism', and can be found in articles and contexts that have not much, or even nothing, to do with regulation theory. Well aware of the problems (Vol.I, p. IX, XXV), Jessop nonetheless tackles the task:

The following pages provide a general overview and critique of the 'regulation approach', identify its distinctive features and significant internal debates, and seek to locate it within the broader sphere of heterodox economics and the critical social sciences more generally.' (Jessop, 2001, Vol. I, p. IX)

There have been previous attempts to outline regulationist research, notably La Theorie de la regulation. Une analyse critique by Robert Boyer (1986) and La Theorie de la regulation. L'etat des savoirs, a collection of fifty-four essays on the main areas of the regulation approach, edited by Robert Boyer and Yves Saillard. Sometimes mock-reverently referred to as the 'bibles' of the regulation approach, compared to the project presented by Jessop, they operate on a much more 'modest' scale. Boyer and Saillard try to depict the results of twenty years' research in the field of 'integral economic theory' (institutional economics, political economy), mostly by the Parisian School. In his former publication on the state of art in regulation theory, Boyer confined himself to only commenting on research done by the French School, as the sheer quantity of so-called regulationist literature was too much to consider, and its quality, at least in parts, questionable (Boyer, 1986).

Jessop's claim, to provide a general outline of the regulation approach as a whole--fifteen years and many articles later--is unprecedented. Furthermore, by specifying what he intends to achieve with the reference book, he sets the bench mark even higher:

Each of the five volumes has its own individual introduction that serves to relate the pieces chosen for inclusion to the specific theme of that volume as well as to the overall development of the regulation approach. These introductions will also refer to other studies relevant for the theme that, for one reason or another, have not been included; and they will also provide cross-references to themes and material in other individual volumes without losing sight of their overall context within the regulation approach [...].' (Jessop, 2001, Vol.1, X)

In short, raking Jessop at his word, this anthology offers what anyone interested in, working with or on the regulation approach has always wanted to have to hand. Because of its multi-layered design of this work, it could be seen as a kind of 'Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Universe of Regulation Theory'.

How does he do it? How does he cope with the ambivalence and amount of literature? It is often quite helpful to look at the parameters (here: theoretical baselines) that define a discursive space. Therefore, what we will primarily do in the review is to identify the main lines of argument in the collection. Having done so, we will see what benefit derives from the anthology, and also, where problems may arise.

The five volumes are entitled as follows: 1. 'The Parisian Regulation School', 2. 'European and American Perspectives on Regulation', 3. 'Regulationist Perspectives on Fordism and Post-Fordism', 4. 'Country Studies' and 5. 'Developments and Extensions'. Roughly speaking, Volumes 3 and 4 demonstrate the range and scope of regulationist research, the other three show the main lines of development of the regulation approach.

Volume 1 is dedicated to the 'Ecole de Regulation', the most influential regulationist research centre, the origins of the approach and early phases of theory building. The main focus is the pioneering work by Michel Aglietta on phases of capitalist development in the USA and the reception of that work; it is followed by introductions, early accounts and background information by the two other leading theorists of the school, Robert Boyer and Alain Lipietz. Although Jessop, in his introduction to the volume, emphasises Boyer's significance as 'current doyen' (Vol.2, p. XXVII, XXIX) of French regulation theory and his high status in French economics more generally, the leading theorist, according to the weight of his conceptual contributions in the selection, is Alain Lipietz. This reflects, presumably, his impact on the regulationist debate abroad. Besides Aglietta's A theory of Capitalist Regulation (1979), it is chiefly the work of Alain Lipietz, which tries to combine a Marxist approach to the analysis of political economy with ecology, which has shaped the theoretical discourse.

The impact of the Aglietta-Lipietz line is also reflected in the literature of the other European schools (Vol.2). In contrast to Boyer, who recognises one school of regulation (Boyer 1986, also Jessop 2005, Vol.1, p.XIV), Jessop distinguishes six other schools: the Grenoble School (Destanne de Bernis), the work of Boccara, a PCF economist, the American Radicals with their 'structure of accumulation approach' (Gordon, Bowles, Reich, Edwards), the Amsterdam School (Overbeek, van der Pijl), the German School (Hirsch, Esser, Roth) and the Nordic School (Mjoset). None of these 'schools', however, has influenced the debate on regulation theory to the extent of the Parisian 'Ecole'. The contributions of Dutch and German protagonists try to combine concepts of the regulation approach with Gramsci's ideas on the 'integral state' and 'hegemony', as well as with their own previous contributions to a Marxist theory of the capitalist state and society--which of course is also the theoretical domain of Bob Jessop.

However, whether these strands within the regulation approach should be comprehended as 'schools' is debatable, as this collides with the (self) perception of some authors (Jessop 2005, Vol.2, XXX) and suggests a coherence that may not exist. There is also the question of whether the 'structure of accumulation approach' of the 'American Radicals' would not have been more clearly presented as a similar research paradigm in a different theoretical tradition and not as one of the regulation schools.

As there are great differences in coherence, institutional embeddedness and size of regulationist working groups (Vol.2, XXV-XXXIV), it would have been appropriate if Jessop had chosen to present his own contributions (including those of intellectually close colleagues) as a strand in his own right, especially when we look at the (relative) weight of his contributions, and the discussion of it, in the collection (especially Vol.2). In addition to the introductions he has included six articles, amongst them influential overviews, 'ground clearing operations' and innovations (Jessop 2001 Vol. 2, p. XXIVf, Vol. 5, p. XXXIX, XL). They provide an important point for reference, which is especially true for the last volume ('Extensions and Developments'). It is this interconnectedness that gives the collection a certain coherence--and the whole publication a direction.

There are three particular issues which require further comment: first, there is the depiction and evaluation of French Regulation theory; second, there is the discussion of the development of the regulation approach as a whole; and third, there is the comparison of the regulationist research paradigm to other theoretical approaches.

In the comparison and discussion of the regulation approach, either within articles, or in the successive presentation of positions, regulation theory--despite all its alleged insufficiencies--always 'proves' most fruitful for further elaboration, and best suited for the analysis of capitalist economies and societies. This is hardly surprising for a reference book on regulation theory.

Jessop's outline of regulationist research starts with the pre-history and early history of French regulation theory, i.e. with the historical and theoretical background, conception and consolidation in the pioneering work of Aglietta and elaborations of Parisian Theorists (Vol.1). It is followed by an introduction of variants within the paradigm-the different 'schools' (Vol.2), and moves on presenting a range of regulationist studies and different types of application, on various scales and theoretical levels. Here we clearly see what Jessop means when stressing the difficulty in striking the balance between showing the unity, i.e. the common core, of regulationist research, and giving an idea of the transgressive diversity of subsequent modifications. However, not all theoretical strands within this discourse have the scope for further development. Consequently, Jessop dedicates the last volume to examples of work with 'progressive potential', be it in the application of the approach to new issues, the conc eptual deepening of the theory, arid--above all--the creative remodelling of regulation theory through 'articulation' with other approaches, or the 're-thinking' of its concepts from other theoretical viewpoints (Vol. 5). The examples of progressive re-thinking of regulation theory in recent years (here the last decade) do not include 'ruptures' but rather are instances of compatible combinations along quite familiar and traditional lines of regulationist debate (for instance, combinations with institutionalist approaches, Gramscian ideas, and Bourdieu's concept of habitus). Anyway, as the search for further development of regulation theory through combination with 'similar' approaches is one of the foci in Jessop's work, it is consistent that his publications are a point of reference for other contributors as well. This gives the debate as a whole, as presented here, a sense of direction.

Thirdly, last but not least, we return to Jessop's analysis of the successes and failures of regulation theory in terms of its original objectives, i.e. the claims of French regulation theory, that is, the Parisian School. However innovative and fruitful this approach has proved to be--concerning quality and quantity of research, its impact on debates in critical social sciences and theory building etc.--in terms of its original objectives, it has clearly failed: regulation theory has neither succeeded in becoming an alternative to neo-classic theory within economics, nor managed to provide an integrated account of economic and extra-economic factors in the regulation of capitalism; nor could it promote the application of alternative economic policies in France (Vol.5, p.509ff,; XLII). If we add to this sobering assessment of twenty years' work the fact that we find only one French contribution in the last section--a short article on political ecology by Alain Lipietz--the impression is that 'L'ecole de Paris ' is past its prime. 'Paris' could not, or would not, acknowledge the existing range of regulationist research, it failed according to its own standards, and it lost its vanguard position in theory building. The king is dead; long live the king!

So, should we perceive Jessop's collection as a attempt to take over the leadership from 'L'ecole de Paris'? Yes.

In summary, Jessop's collection has a number of strengths and weaknesses.

1. It is the most comprehensive account of regulationist work available, which goes well beyond the boundaries of previous attempts to depict the history, range and state of the art regulation theory. The range of contributions provides the reader with a multi-faceted picture of the regulation approach, concerning areas of work, theoretical orientation and 'styles of thought'.

2. Jessop's real strengths are his ability, and courage, to structure complex and contradictory theoretical discourses. It goes without saying that bold classifications and structuring provoke dissent. This applies to this collection as well as to the alternative accounts which would have been possible, depending on the standpoint and research interest of the author. However, whether one agrees with Jessop's presentation of significant features or not, it provides a framework for discussion.

3. This leads us to the question: 'Who is it for?' The reading is quite demanding and requires some background knowledge of Marxist theories, if not a certain acquaintance with regulation theory. This is especially true for Jessop's introductions which, although they are obviously intended to provide the reader with a general orientation, tend to be theoretically dense.

4. Jessop's enthusiasm for the subject and involvement in the discussion leads him, at times, to offer too much guidance. Judgements as to whether contributions are simplistic, die-hard Marxist, overly polemic or one-sided or, on the contrary, highly innovative or ground-clearing, could have been left to the reader. Some of the introductions are uneven and there are times when Bob Jessop as contributor to regulationist theory supplants Bob Jessop as editor. But these are minor reservations about a major contribution to our understanding of regulation theory.

References:

Boyer, R (1986) La Theorie de la regulation. Une analyse critique, Paris

Boyer, R and Saillard, Y (eds.) (r994) La Theorie de la regulation. L'etat des savoirs, Paris

Ingrid Skrypietz is a 'Diplom-Politologin' and teacher in higher education (German and Political Studies). She is working on a PhD thesis on the reception and modification of regulation theory in Britain and Germany on a part-time basis.