Talk:Post-Fordism

Sociology Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I'm working on the three main theories of p-fism to add here. In progress at: User:Halidecyphon/Post-fordism -- Halidecyphon 22:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Done. --Halidecyphon 23:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Does Storper and Walker belong in the Regulation School camp?

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Thanks for posting this excellent summary of post-fordism in one page (quite a feat). I am wondering whether it may be better to categorized Michael Storper and Richard Walker in the Neo-schumpeterian group. Given the lengthy discussion in The Capitalist Imperative (1989) about disequillibrum growth, and the how industries have a developmental logic all their own (which is closely tied to technological change). I also read Storper's The Regional World in a simialr manner. In this book, as I read it, he argues that industrial complexes in "core regions" remain competitive by controlling the trajectory of technical change in a given industry. Industries located in non-core region or industrial complexes which fail to keep up technologically can be wiped off the map. All this smacks of "creative destruction" to me.

-BL

Hm I'll dig out my notes on them and check- you're probably right I expect. -Halidecyphon 08:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've reviewed things and it seems we're both wrong. Micheal Storper at least is clearly associated with the flexible specialization school, he wrote with Allen Scott in the 80s about vertical disintegration and industrial districts (see eg Amin 1994 p24). I haven't read either of the Storper and Walker books you mentioned above, but it sounds to me like a flexible specialization argument to me- regional agglomeration and cooperation between small, flexible firms. I'm going to move Storper and Walker to flexible specialization for now, does this seem right to you? Really exciting to see that someone's actually interested in this stuff! -Halidecyphon 10:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Redirect from Smithian Growth

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why?? P-F has nothing to do with Smith; in fact it implies the opposite... --132.216.227.233 (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Add topic