248 RÜDIGER HACHTMANN
production sites. It has resulted in a steady increase in labor productivity
in all economic sectors (see table 5.2). Admittedly, “labor productivity”
is somewhat vague as a macroeconomic indicator. It not only obscures
diff erences according to industry, plant size, etc., but also factors in the
simple (raw) intensifi cation of work. Additionally, it does not provide any
indications about the degree and depth of the radical changes in produc-
tion or information technology that have taken place, even though they
were quite hefty in the last thirty years of the twentieth century.
The structural changes in the industrial sector have often been termed
a “crisis” or the “end of Fordism” in economic and sociological dis-
course. These phrases involuntarily invoke the exceptional signifi cance
that was attached to “Fordism” (and “Taylorism”) in the core industrial
sectors for a long time. A key element of the ideal type of “classic” Ford-
ism is the principle of a continually running yet relatively fi xed system of
mass production.^13 Both the Taylorist and Fordist models of production
rely on mass distribution and a high level of standardization in workfl ow
and fi nished products. At a conceptual level, factory Fordism is intrinsi-
cally dynamic because it (ideally!) functions through evermore perfect
synchronization within an ever more complex machine “environment,”
accompanied by the tendency to replace an initially large number of un-
skilled workers engaged in a minimal number of monotone steps with
“automated machines.” The end of the road for Fordism, at least as a
Table 5.2. Labor Productivity in the Federal Republic of Germany per Employed
Person and Hour of Work from 1970 to 2010 (Index 1970=100.0—the fi gures
cited only apply for the former West Germany up to and including 1990)
Year
Labor productivity per
Employee Hour of work1970 100.00 100.00
1975 114.19 124.32
1980 128.98 144.87
1985 137.09 161.38
1990 146.40 182.51
1995 160.88 206.42
2000 168.15 227.03
2005 175.59 243.91
2010 178.96 252.41
Source: Statistisches Bundesamt, Volkswirtschaftliche Gesamtrechnungen (results calcu-
lated by the author).