McDonough, T



McDonough, T. (2007), ‘Social structures of accumulation theory: The state of the art’, Review of Radical Political Economics, Spring, 40(2): 153-73.

Reviewed by Lynne Chester, Curtin University, Australia

Abstract: McDonough’s stated purpose is to explain, in summary form, the development of SSA theory since around 1994. Although there are some notable omissions, he outlines a range of research as evidence of the theory’s increasing application within and outside economics, and across temporal and geographic scales. The conclusion and penultimate section on the question of a new SSA are the article’s ‘choice cuts’. Here McDonough draws out the challenges facing SSA theory given the development and extension which he presents earlier in the article.

Key words: social structure of accumulation, long-wave growth theory, stages of capitalism

For those seeking an explanation of social structures of accumulation (SSA) theory, this is not the article for you.[1] For those seeking a broad-brush summary of more contemporary applications of SSA theory, this article may well go towards narrowing that gap. For those hoping for a discussion of SSA theory weighted more towards the conceptual, you may feel a tad disappointed. For those seeking a lead into the discourse about the nature of the current growth period, and the question of whether a new SSA is evident, this article does provide a good entry point.

McDonough’s stated purpose is to explain, in summary form, the development of SSA theory since the 1994 publication of Social structures of accumulation: The political economy of growth and crisis (Kotz, McDonough and Reich 1994), itself intended to draw together the burgeoning literature evident at the time. McDonough has set himself an ambitious task which, in some respects, is analogous to the 1994 volume. Yet he proposes to do this by way of a journal article which provides an overview of the literature and the theoretical contributions of these works, and concludes with a discussion about “whether or not there is presently a new SSA in the making” (2008: 154).

The first substantive section of the article discusses research, from around 1994, drawing on the SSA framework. The selected examples focus on four broad research areas. The first area discussed is the ‘operationalisation’ by SSA founder David Gordon - and colleagues - through econometric modelling of capitalist power, profits and investment in the US economy, along with determining the transition between different capital-labour regimes. The latter has been subsequently extended through research on the breakdown causes of the post-war system of labour relations.

The second area of research canvassed is that by sociologists around institutional factors of labour control deemed ‘spatialisation’ through global de-integration of production and distribution supported by telecommunications and transport developments as well as geopolitical arrangements. This ‘spatialisation’ perspective has led to a range of criminology studies such as the relationship between SSA changes, and within SSA phases, for correlations between unemployment, crime and imprisonment.

The third and fourth research areas, cited by McDonough, are SSAs outside the United States and specific institutions within the SSA. The latter’s discussion is limited to a few studies of the corporate form and the industry sectors of housing and iron and steel. But McDonough assures the reader that several of these ‘institutional SSA’ studies “have had as their primary purpose the investigation of the question of whether a new SSA has been or is under construction in the present period” (2008: 160). As for non-US applications of the SSA framework, McDonough catalogues studies of Caribbean economies, South Korea, South Africa, Greece, India and Central American states. Oddly, no mention is made of China. This is odd on two counts. First, the same journal - the Review of Radical Political Economics (RRPE) – published O’Hara’s (2006a) research on China well before this article was accepted for publication. Second, McDonough is obviously aware of O’Hara’s SSA work given his selected references later in the article.[2] Admittedly McDonough does declare at the outset that his overview of the ‘main lines of research will not be exhaustive’. But an omission of such recently published research about SSA and China seems, at least, to be remiss.

The article’s discussion moves from research inspired by SSA theory to the ‘current state’ of the theory. McDonough laments the lack of conceptual development, is critical of Gordon’s former colleagues ‘straying’ from the SSA mainstream following his death, and suggests that SSA’s Marxian pedigree “elevated this perspective to a general theory of stages of capitalism” (2008: 161). Then he takes a slap at the régulationists for allegedly abandoning their Marxian roots.[3] McDonough’s discussion of the theory’s ‘current state’ is more about deflecting criticisms of SSA, upbraiding those who have extended and developed their theoretical frameworks or empirical analysis beyond that of the ‘founding fathers’, and exhorting the reader to appreciate the gains made by application of SSA theory to different time and spatial scales.

McDonough then discusses the possibility of the consolidation of a new SSA. A strong impression is evoked that finally we have reached his real reason for the article. Across six pages, he presents a very coherent exposition of many of the arguments that have polarised around this question but McDonough is clearly of the view that a new SSA has taken root. It is disappointing, however, that this part of the discussion overlooks a further significant work by O’Hara (2006b). Nevertheless, McDonough does draw out some very pertinent questions: have SSAs transcended national boundaries? If so, is there are a limit to the global neoliberal SSA? He also highlights recent analysis of the potential contradictions that may threaten the current SSA such as energy and climate change issues.

The article’s conclusion nicely pulls together his earlier points about the development and extension of SSA across shorter time periods than the ‘long swing’ and to sub-national and global levels, as well as the distinguishing of phases within social structures of accumulation and the production of new institutional histories. Then the prize! McDonough uses the final four paragraphs to tease out a range of issues that remain unresolved. This is a good read. It encapsulates the challenges facing SSA theory given the development and extension exposed by McDonough. What is the nature of the current period? How rapid and consistent should accumulation be to qualify an institutional structure as a specific SSA? How do institutional structures relate at different spatial levels? Can there be different national SSA within global neoliberalism? Are there some invariant relations between institutions across SSA for different times or locations? Are there specific principles underpinning institutions support, other than general state support, for the accumulation process? Are there specific common principles of institutional decay? Strong similarities can be found in the theoretical questioning and resolution of the régulationists (For example, Boyer and Saillard 2002: 36-54, 320-33).

In my view, it is these latter sections in the article - the conclusion and penultimate section on the question of a new SSA - that are the ‘choice cuts’. McDonough set himself an ambitious task. The first two-thirds of the article read more like a ‘defence’ and ‘call to arms’ for SSA warriors which diluted the clarity of important points about the extending application of the SSA framework, not just in terms of areas of research but to different scales. But there is no doubt that the article does enhance our knowledge about the current ‘state of SSA play’.

Finally, it should be noted that this article was submitted to the RRPE in July 2005, accepted for publication in February 2007 and published Spring 2008. This same article - minus five paragraphs, footnotes and a few references - was presented to the November 2006 First International Conference on Social Structure of Accumulation Theory and forms the first chapter in the subsequently published e-book (McDonough, Reich, Kotz and Gonzalez-Perez 2006). It is disappointing that McDonough’s final version of the RRPE article does not even allude to this Conference or the excellent contributions ranging across both theoretical questioning and empirical application. This e-book collection of papers would certainly enrich the base from which McDonough chose to base his article including the extension of earlier works by, for example, Reich and Lippit.

References:

Boyer, R. and Saillard, Y. (eds) (2002), Régulation theory: The state of the art, English translation, First published 1995 as Théorie de la régulation: l’état des savoirs, London: Routledge.

Gordon, D. (1980), ‘Stages of accumulation’, in Hopkins, T.K. and Wallerstein, I. (eds), Processes of the world system, Beverly Hills: Sage, 9-45.

Gordon, D., Edwards, R. and Reich, M. (1982), Segmented work, divided workers: The historical transformation of labor in the United States, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kotz, D.M. (1987), ‘Long waves and social structures of accumulation: A critique and reformulation’, Review of Radical Political Economics, 19(4): 16-38.

Kotz, D., McDonough, T. and Reich, M. (1994) (eds.), Social structures of accumulation: The political economy of growth and crisis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lippit, V. (1997), ‘The reconstruction of a social structure of accumulation in the United States’, Review of Radical Political Economics, 36(3): 11-21.

McDonough, T., Reich, M., Kotz, D.M. and Gonzalez-Perez, M-A. (2006) (eds), Growth and crisis: Social structure of accumulation theory and analysis, Papers from the First International Conference on Social Structure of Accumulation Theory and Analysis held at the National University of Ireland, 2-4 November, Published 11 December and available at: .

O’Hara, P.A. (2006a), ‘A Chinese social structure of accumulation for capitalist long-wave upswing’, Review of Radical Political Economics, Summer, 38(3): 397-404.

--- (2006b), Growth and development in the global political economy: Social structures of accumulation and modes of regulation, London: Routledge.

--- (2008), ‘A social structure of accumulation for long wave upswing in Australia’, Journal of Australian Political Economy, June, 61: 88-111.

Lynne Chester is Senior Research Fellow at the John Curtin Institute of Public Policy, Curtin University, Perth, Australia. She is a member of the editorial boards of the Journal of Australian Political Economy and the International Journal of Global Energy Issues, and has reviewed articles for the Journal of Economic Issues, The Economic and Labour Relations Review, and The Energy Journal. Her research focuses on régulation theory and its application to energy issues, the changing role of the state, and varieties of capitalism.

-----------------------

[1] A good starting point for an understanding of SSA theory would be Gordon (1980), Gordon, Edwards and Reich (1982), Kotz (1987) and Lippit (1997).

[2] O’Hara (2008) more recently has extended the application of the SSA framework to Australia.

[3] McDonough’s claim is very contestable. For those interested in drawing their own conclusions, see Boyer and Saillard (2002), particularly pp. 320-33.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download