Notes on Critical Appraisal of GERPISA First Programme

The GERPISA First programme's greatest success has been in creating and articulating a genuine network of researchers involved in analysis of all aspects of the automobile industry. This is a remarkable achievement and has been a great stimulus to research and ideas. It has provided a forum for interdisciplinary work, the rapid circulation of current research and a powerful information network. The inforrnation services such as the bibliography (an invaluable service), the~iches de lecfure, the circulated articles and the Lettre du GERPISA have provided an institutional framework to underpin and give identity to the whole group. These institutional aspects are very basic but they have taken an enormous amount of work to establish and must be preserved as the underpinning of the future network.

In terms of intellectual achievements, I believe there are pluses and minuses:

1- It has generated and stimulated a great deal of work and discussion.

2- It has drawn together a lot of thought dissatisfied with the simplicities of Machine that Changed the World.

3- It has helped to reinject social scientific practice into a field often dominated by glib managerial formulations. ln particular it has emphasised the importance of historical analysis, the wider socio-economic determinants of production systems etc.

4- On the other hand it has been rather narrowly 'productionist' in its outlook - surely there should be more on the distribution, motorization, ecological and social aspects of the car in the next programme.

5- The framework of 'new industrial models' has also been somewhat problematic. On the one hand it has happily been loose enough for almost evryone to be able to work within its parameters; on the other hand, in order for this to happen, it has had to be softened into something very amorphous. Secondly, I do not feel that it has driven forward the collective formulation of new ideas or a 'collective critique' of orthodoxies about the industry. Almost anything can be fitted into it and intellectual decisions can be put to one side. I feel therefore that the GERPISA network has probably not 'punched its weight' in terms of its potential for intellectual innovation.

6- The real active thinking has gone on in the subgroups - though even here they are based on extensive intellectual compromise and live and let live. For the second programme we should clearly utilize and build on the institutional framework. This network is tremendously valuable and must be preserved. I would look to a broad overall framework signalling key priority areas of interest for research and then decentralise more radically to the subgroups to develop their own frameworks (not necessarily passed to them by the leadership of GERPISA). The international conferences should then draw together and ponder the wider implications of the work in the sub- groups. The outcomes would be less predictable but probably also less bland.

Index of number 104 ;
All the Programme News in La Lettre du GERPISA ;
Available numbers ;
Information on this server.