The mass culture of mass production and consumption is referred to as Fordism. As a business model, it has created a culture of making more products in less time. Fordism has benefitted the American industry in the post-World War I era. However, it was not an all-encompassing economic model; it is beneficial in certain economic conditions.
Fordism refers to the industrial revolution initiated by Henry Ford, the pioneer of Ford motors. He brought significant changes in the car production and added chapters to the academic books of management on how to be efficient. He recruited people specializing in one skill and made them repeat that specific task in specified areas of the factories, something that was unprecedented before 1914.
Although Ford was paying almost double the wages of an average factory worker, however, the tasks did not require years of learning skills to be able to master them. This served as an attraction for the workers. However, the workers were replaceable cogs in the wheel of the factory. Hiring workers were not difficult in those times but with the added benefit of making specified sections requiring a repetitive task alone made the production faster.
With these arrangements in his factories, he was able to produce cars that normally cost about $700 to under $400. This made it possible for the factory workers to be able to buy the products that they were making. With these economic shifts, the trends changed and more cars hit the roads than had ever before. The factories started producing more affordable goods. Suddenly everyday household items that used to be ‘expensive’ for an average American suddenly started finding their way into average homes. People started enjoying better lifestyles.
The trend of Fordism turned into something philosophical. The coming together of the government, big businesses and organized labor culminated into something more than the ‘managed economy’. Fordism emphasized on production functions and separating conception from execution (Berberoglu 51). Right before and after the First World War, Ford seized the opportunity as there was a wave of progressive professionals who were entering into the corporate world (Gartman 51).
The environment not only supported household items production but of the housing itself. Ford had a vision of transforming the lives of workers where their leisure times could be turned into private “home-based consumption” (Gartman 51). As a result home ownership also became a very powerful trend in America.
The boom in the housing industry was a result of Fordism. The way it transformed the way Americans used to live and how they dreamed of living can be attributed to industrialism. A single family home became part of the American dream. Now the goods could be produced in more quantities in lesser time. This meant that having electronic appliances in the home was accessible.
The impact of Fordism on American economy and culture was unprecedented. He was probably the first industrialist who truly brought the high priced products to the masses. His managerial model of standardization made it possible for an average American to afford a car. He did the opposite of what other businesses were doing. The norm was to make expensive products for the elite of the society. But Ford did the opposite, he made cars for the middle class Americans.
Exactly how Ford achieved this cultural and economic shift was his managerial principles. To get a better understanding of this process it would be better to evaluate the four basic principles of Fordism; 1) it promoted standardization; 2) the tasks were similar so they could be mechanized; 3) It comprised of Taylorism, where complex tasks were broken down into simpler ones and given to individual workers; 4) using assembly lines, which meant that instead of workers moving around in the factory the object or products would move on conveyer belts to them.
Assembly line management is still being used in factories across the world. In this sense, Fordism did help the industry, not only in the US but across the world. The question whether Fordism helped the economy in the long run is an absolute yes. The counter arguments such as Fordism is dead are also true, however, Fordism served its purpose. It made Ford Motors an international brand, an American automotive icon. It also introduced the standardization process that is an excellent example of mass production.
Fordism did revolutionize the industry and created more jobs than there were ever before. With the changing market trends and the advent of technology, Fordism faded away. But it would be fair to say that it transformed into something different. The victory and significant for Fordism is such that after the end of Ford era the new beginning is also attributed in a way to Henry Ford, by naming it the post-Fordism era. Fordism only got implemented fully in the post-World War II era (Berberoglu 51). In today’s times, it would be almost impossible to replicate Henry Ford’s model.
Fordism thrived on mass scale production where the intent was to produce more at cheaper rates. In the post-Fordism era, the emphasis is on small batch productions governed by the economies of scope. Although the definition of post-Fordism era is vague to a certain extent as to what exactly it represents, however, there is no denying the fact that new age technology has a critical role in its success.
Many people fail to understand Fordism in its true entirety and form opinions based on its alleged success or failure. Fordism is attributed to mass production, which can only be possible if there is mass demand, people have the purchasing power and the raw materials are available in mass quantities affordable to a particular industry. During the 1910s and 1920s steel and other car related parts were easily available, helping Fordism succeed. Fordism is not only confined to the World War I US industrialization, the impact of Fordism and post-Fordism can be found in the social and economic development of the 1970s to 1990s (Jessop 58).
Fordism has been referred to as a mode of regulation to sustain a specific kind of economy (Kuper 310). It needs an economy where mass consumption and mass production feed off each other. It has also been attributed to having hegemonic role in the economy (Kuper 310), but this argument goes back to the same mass production industries. In other words, government regulation and industrial policies also support or work against the Ford model depending on where and how the managerial process is being implemented.
In the 21st century, there is a visible rise in entrepreneurship and lean businesses. Internet businesses are on the rise, so much so that the conventional brick and mortar business cannot help but get on the internet. They are aware that the future belongs to the e-commerce. Fordism will probably not be affordable to many industrialists as the model requires complex assembly system.
In Fordism, all the work on a product from start to finish was performed under one roof. It was preferred to make everything within the factory premises by hiring special labor. Outsourcing was not a practice appreciated in those times. Today, outsourcing in many ways brings in more profit and frees up time and resources for people to concentrate on the most challenging aspects of the business.
Also, technology is reducing the number of jobs available to people. Factory owners would prefer investing in a machine that can take care of work which would otherwise require 5-10 factory workers. Perhaps, this is the modern form of Fordism. Henry Ford was looking to mechanize his car assembly line, where laborers would learn a simple task and keep repeating it. Machines do it better and faster, which is why factory worker jobs have seen a downward trend.
Another contributing factor in the demise of Fordism was variation. Ford’s technique could not have been implemented in every assembly line in the world. There are limited number of products that can be mass-produced using Ford’s Taylorism technique. Any product that requires variety would not be profitable in Ford’s model.
Under Fordism, not every part of a car was manufactured the way it is perceived to be. The Taylor assembly line attributed to Fordism was a part of the automobile making process, not the whole manufacturing. In other words, the factory still had to rely on other conventional manufacturing tactics to make the product.
It can be proposed that Fordism heavily depends on the nature of the product and the specific sectors. It is not to undermine the utility of Fordism. In certain circumstances, Ford’s model does give an edge to the producer. This goes without saying that when the competition is based on mass production specific sectors, Fordism has its advantages
On the contrary, certain fields might not benefit largely from Fordism. Certain countries have their unique economic structures that support certain ‘types’ of products and services. For instance, using Fordism in agriculture of fashion goods would probably be extremely difficult as compared to an automotive industry operating the US.
Similarly, tourism, livestock, and design-intensive products would not be able to generate the required number of products through Fordism. Also, there has to be a steady demand for the product to use Ford’s model. If the demand is volatile as is the case in certain economies then mass scale productions become a problem.
Ford’s managerial model has its advantages but it is applicable in certain business environments. It did extremely well in shaping the American industrialization of the early twentieth century and made huge profits. This types of model do well in economies of scale, which also thrives on centralized managerial structure. Even though many industrial models still benefit from centralized control but a huge number of businesses are emerging that readily accept a decentralized managerial model, giving autonomy to various units.
Work Cited
Berberoglu, Berch. Labor and capital in the age of globalization: the labor process and the changing nature of work in the global economy. Rowman & Littlefield, 2002. Print.
Gartman, David. From autos to architecture: Fordism and architectural aesthetics in the twentieth century. Chronicle Books, 2012. Print.
Jessop, Bob, and Ngai-Ling Sum. Beyond the regulation approach: putting capitalist economies in their place. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2006. Print.
Kuper, Adam, The social science encyclopedia. Routledge, 2013. Print.
