| La lettre du GERPISA | no 105 (juillet 1996) |
Programme News - Michel Freyssenet
1. The internationalization of the automobile industry is not a new phenomenon; globalization is neither acquired, irreversible, nor unavoidable... however the present-day acceleration is different from the preceding ones since it involves a major issue which is essential in order to understand what is happening and what will happen.
Before embarking upon the Second Program, we must verify if the proposed question : "Present-day possibilities for the globalization of the automobile industry : between globalization and regionalization ?" is indeed an original, major, and essential one deserving the full attention of GERPISA's Second Program and all the efforts that accompany this choice.
Several presentations reminded us that the globalization of exchanges, especially in the automobile industry, is not a new phenomenon, and even that at different periods in the past, these exchanges made up a part of sales superior to what we know of today (E.Charron, S.Tolliday, G.Volpato). If one examines the criteria of international commerce, financial transactions and investments, one may note before World War I globalization was proportionately more advanced than it is now (R. Boyer, Ch.Oman, R. Van Tulder). History thus demonstrated that such a movement can stop and recede if only because of social, political, and economic tensions that brought it on. Incapable of auto-generating its own rules that could guarantee development and longevity, first of all and as a reaction, it provoked protectionist policies in the 1930s, and then following World War II, national growth policies centered within the framework of the Pax Americana during the three decades of prosperity following World War II (R. Boyer/M.Freyssenet).
The present-day acceleration of globalization is different from the preceding ones because of the worldwide context of de-regulation and the emergence of new poles of growth, but above all because of its origin. The confrontation of firms' industrial models with national growth models that we witnessed during the 1970s-1980s destabilized worker relations. Consequently, numerous member countries' markets were also destabilized, including those countries who had benefited from this confrontation. (M. Freyssenet/Y. Lung). Firms can no longer rely on relatively predictable quantitative and qualitative markets.
Consequently, they are faced with the following choice : either they organize in such a manner as to remain profitable in an unstable, international, economic environment while awaiting an eventual homogenization of conditions for product capital, and work competition; or firms search for local or regional economic environments wherein regulated growth conditions exist. Which method will prevail ? At present, an analysis of international exchanges does not allow one to distinguish a clear trend (F. Sachwald). It is therefore necessary to precede with a detailed description of present-day globalization paths chosen by firms (constructors, suppliers, distributors) in order to identify their actual strategic choices and understand their results. If what is to follow is exact, the question of what possible alternatives for globalization obviously becomes an essential one for automobile firms.
It also becomes essential from a scientific standpoint in order to understand what happened and what will happen in the automobile industry. Either firms will adapt or transform their socio-productive models in function of the new world context or regional environments will establish themselves, or else firms will privilege environments that are able to rapidly unite conditions necessary for the possibility of the present model. Last possibility, firms would misconstrue or underestimate choices to be made and their performances would then most probably be seriously affected. The understanding of automobile industry actors (in all fields : productive organization and worker relations), their actions and results require one to have knowledge of the conception and globalization paths taken by each one.
2. Could another major issue could come to the fore over the next four years?
One may imagine radical changes in the realm of population mobility or ruptures in product conception-fabrication which would minimize globalization choices in the realm of profit strategies. Each one knows, at least in certain countries, that a situation has been reached where transportation policies must be reformulated and where major innovations must be carried out in order to maintain the principle of an individual, autonomously propulsed engine with mass distribution. Though we seem to be leaning towards this, it does not mean that viable solutions won't shortly appear. It is true that they can come to the fore outside of the automobile sector, and even before it becomes absolutely necessary to change. Thus, it has become important to be vigilant. One way to do so could be to analyze the evolution of markets (offer, demand, regulation, mobility...) and what determines them in different countries (worker relations, social movements, urbanization...) provided for in the work program. A satisfying result would be to succeed in identifying a major issue for the first decade of the next century by examining how it establishes itself through the evolution of mobility brought on by the recomposition of the world social and economic environment in process, as we did with the present issue by starting with a study of the emergence of new industrial models and their confrontation
3. In order to respond to the question "what possible globalization paths" we must know the following :
First of all, what are the actual globalization paths chose by firms (constructors, suppliers, distributors). Between the officially announced strategy, between the defense of one form or the other of world organization and reality, we all know that the gap can be large. As with the First Program, we have a descriptive demand before rationalizing from discourses or certain facts which are erroneously considered as significant. For this, we have experimented with a method that could be re-enacted, that is to say identifying problems that firms have to face, studying solutions adopted, analyzing the place and form of globalization among these solutions, understanding reactions and establishing results obtained. Comparisons are useful to make with other periods of globalization in order to better grasp the specificities of the one we are going through. Certain competences will have to be found in order to deal with the carmakers we did not study in the First Program, especially suppliers and distributors. Globalization paths could make up an initial important theme and an initial work group, eventually splitting up into sub-groups.
Next, we should learn how new firm environments in the globalization movement are evolving : in other words, developing countries and regional environments attempting to establish themselves, in order to evaluate the chances of success of different globalization strategies. For each type of environment, we must examine how the market evolves, the work and institutional framework, problems encountered by implanted firms, depending on their international structure and industrial model, solutions adopted and performances achieved locally. The study of paths chosen by firms will partially involve that of territories. However, one may easily understand that perspectives are not the same and their complementarity is necessary. As for the first large group, it is necessary to find competences in order to study new environments : especially Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, but also new regional groups such as NAFTA, Mercosur, APEC, the European Union, etc...
However, the work of the preceding two groups will not suffice as a response to the question as to possible globalization paths, more particularly to the question of, on the one hand, market and worker relations homogenization or heterogenization, and on the other hand, productive organization and worker relations in firms. We will have to make comparisons on specific points which are indispensable for demonstrations, a difficult thing to do by studying paths chosen by firms or territories since one tends to privilege what appears to be essential in each territory or firm's path. This was indeed confirmed during the First Program.
The question of, on the one hand, homogenization/heterogenization of markets/worker relations, and on the other hand productive organizations/worker relations is not a mixed one. There can exist homogenization on the one hand and heterogenity on the other hand. Both themes can be disassociated. However, and this was realized during the First Program, we should simultaneously study market evolutions and worker relations, since the latter necessarily conditions the former. Likewise, a form of productive organization only lasts if it is associated with a worker relationship which is coherent or at the least compatible. Hence, we may overcome the dichotomy which had been a penalizing one during the First Program. Consequently, two other work groups should be formed.
A "convergence-divergence group of the automobile market and worker relations". Looking at discriminant aspects, this group would compare automobile use, market structures, what firms offer, and their determinants such as social structure, the labor market, revenue distribution, transportation policy, the type of urbanization, etc. of countries taken into consideration. Each of these themes could be the object of a specific research project for which contracts could be found and sub-groups formed.
A "convergence-divergence group of productive organizations and worker relations" according to globalization paths chosen by firms (carmakers, suppliers, distributors), here again, comparing, relative to discriminant points and in a systematic manner, product-service policies, purchase policies, relations with partners, product conception/manner of producing, the organization of fabrication and work, and finally distribution. In the case of this group, the possibility and utility of subgroups and research contracts in order to fully carry out projects becomes clear.
Each one of us is invited to reflect upon the program's structure, to make propositions, to take stock of the place it could take, by contacting more particularly members of the International Committee he/she knows. This Committee will hold a meeting in November and determine the program's organization. From now until then, its members and those responsible for the Program will enter into various discussions in order to evaluate the responsibilities involved.
4. How to construct one or several theoretical and practical responses to the question raised by synthesizing the work of the four groups?
In other words, how far can work and collective debate go in order to produce one or several responses ? During the First Program, we proceeded as follows: Program initiators-animators proposed a series of conceptual clarifications, as work permitted it, in order to further the debate and relaunch investigations. They then presented initial theoretical elaborations which were only really discussed within the International Program Pilot Committee when it was constituted towards the middle of the Program, once a certain work rhythm had reached. This resulted in a few shared conclusions on the one hand, and a theoretical attempt, on the other.
Otherwise, each person (apart from work he/she submitted or partial syntheses he/she contributed to) was able to benefit from the numerous results obtained, proposed theoretical propositions, and debates for his/her own reflection and personal research. This experience certainly gives us indications as to the required conditions to enlarge and enrich the collective process.
One of the first conditions is probably a very precocious and active participation in the conceptual clarification of work stemming from obtained results, in order to eliminate false debates and go beyond initial divergences. We must decide where this work should be carried out.
5. Financing the Program
In light of the fact that the network should be opening up to more and more non-European researchers, it would be preferable that financing coming from other areas of the world serve as a complement to European credits obtained, thus allowing these researchers to participate in international workshop meetings and at our annual Encounters. During the last session of our Encounter, a few possibilities were mentioned. If they are confirmed, the establishment of regional groups can be envisioned, allowing for an important development of GERPISA. We must reflect upon who would participate and what would their activities be. We could imagine that they would assemble researchers living or not in these areas but working on these regions and their firms. They could take on the responsibility for this or the other systematic international comparison.
More specifically, and concerning research operations, it is up to each group to determine its number and nature, and if necessary to find the required financing in order to carry out projects in the best conditions.
6. Publications
One aspect was unanimously agreed upon. It is a shame and rather demobilizing to postpone to the end of the Program the publication of work carried out by groups. We must find a means to publish one book per year. This requirement affects the structure of the Program, and the solution has not yet been found. It has become very important to find one.