Quick
Notes on: Aglietta, M. (1982) 'World
Capitalism in the Eighties'. New
Left Review 136: 5-42
[Aglietta was a member of the 'French Regulation'
school analyzing international capitalism. He also
produced a good account of 'postfordism'
from this perspective]
The introduction says that we should not pursue
the 'capital logic' approach to the world
economy. In practice, there are two
hegemonic centres in the UK and the U.S. The
capital logic approach is also 'mute as to the
role of the class struggle' [although this is
hardly discussed in this article too. People
like Rancière or Roggero
offer a better accounts].
This article discusses various kinds of national
and international regulation as forms of
cohesion. Regulations are found in various
kinds institutions, but they correlates with
'underlying tendencies of accumulation'(seven)
it's possible to compare American and British
hegemony to discuss this: there are major
structural differences, and comparison involves
looking at 'forms of international regulation'
(comparative or monopolistic); main patterns of
specialisation (vertical or horizontal, between
countries); modes of internationalisation of
capital (export capital, import of labour, and so
on); International Financial mediation (through
the finance market, investment or debt); the
monetary system; the international structure of
claims and debts (whether private banks hold
Sterling deposits, for example); the regulation of
the balances of payments; factors determining
trade balances.
Cohesion is a matter of not polarising the
differences between countries either in surplus or
debt. It takes the form of the establishment
of the hegemonic centre whose principles of
regulation diffuse outwards, and can even
eventually undermine peripheral activities.
[This leads to a lengthy analysis of economic
stability as the mechanisms changed in various
ways, producing 'the cohesion of crisis']
including inflationary pressures and the U.S., a
convergence of industrial structures, partly to
undermine American advantage, and the development
of the distinctive model in Japan, which grew and
escaped international links by refusing imports,
and allowing a private money market to grow in
dollars which would escape American
regulation. Japan's expansion was driven by
banking practices rather than the means to
trade. There was also the rise in oil rents
above the rate of accumulation of capital leading
to increased costs with no increased consumption
for oil states. There was also a
polarisation of world debts between first and
third worlds.
These crises emerge because the regulation
mechanisms obviously did not work. Cohesion
arises when all economies are monetarized through
the international money market [of course there
were massive instabilities to come in 2008].
This ran the risk of a virtuous cycle turning into
a vicious one, however.
Sources of instability include those devices used
by firms to convert assets to different currencies
in money markets. They do this to escape
state regulation, but they risk 'self fulfilling
speculation'(30). The conversion to money
disengages money from economic conditions, and
[takes on a life of its own] through the financing
of debts or the transfer of capital. There
is now no common reference point for these
transfers of value and so no possible
regulation. Further, the scale of operations
is now so big that the National Banks can't
control it by the usual devices such as buying
currencies, without destabilising internal
economies by permitting fluctuations [we know a
lot more about this these days as well!].
One effect of this instability is to produce odd
combinations of monetary and fiscal developments,
so that countries can have, for example, a good
trade balance but a high rate of inflation and
high interest rates (34).
The possibilities for the future include a general
stagflation, a revival of the American economy, a
revival of Western Europe, or financial collapse
and the fragmentation of the world economy!
So attempts to install hegemonic regulation began
as an attempt to hold potentially competing
countries together. National states are
inevitably in relation with each other, and want
to assert national control over their currency,
but also aware that they depend on international
stability. National control is necessary to
avoid the devaluation of national assets.
There are clearly political dimensions as well,
for example Europe is unlikely to be a new
regional centre because it is so unstable
internally, between the nations (40, 41) [pretty
good prediction of the fate of the Euro].
Stability will require some sort of state
intervention, and further unification of the EEC
[dead right!].
more social theory
home
|