{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018261504747991233, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.782178217821782, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Patterns of Work in the Post-Fordist Era: Fordism and Post-Fordism

politics and political agency in the determination of European integration, failing to anchor this analysis in a broader appreciation of economic and political structures and the dynamics of international capital accumulation as well as in more deeprooted political processes. Consequently, there is a tendency to over-identify core structural processes such as globalisation and European integration itself, with specific political agents (especially the USA) and projects. For example, contemporary EU integration is simply identified with a US and global elitesponsored project of transnational neoliberalism. Hence no attempt is made to critically interrogate the relationship between integration as such, as form, and neoliberal integration as a particular contentisation of integrational structures. In short, Mullen’s study, in common with many other neoGramscian analyses of the efficacy of European integration for the left, essentialises neoliberalism into core aspects of integration as such, thereby foreclosing positive left engagement with the contemporary EU project. These are clearly issues for fundamental theoretical debate with implications for an understanding of the left and Europe. It is a failing of Mullen’s otherwise commendable study that such debate is studiously avoided.