CAN A EUROPEAN MODEL BE IDENTIFIED BETWEEN THE VARIETY OF PRODUCTIVE MODELS AND THE HETEROGENEITY OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL CONFIGURATIONS ?

The first GERPISA international research programme Emergence of new industrial models focused on the varied nature of firmsí productive models. This was part of our "common knowledge", an understanding that was intuitive at first, and which was later consolidated in the work that the network carried out and in the theoretical constructs that Robert Boyer and Michel Freyssenet developed. By translating their book Productive Models into Spanish and English, we will ensure a wider diffusion of this approach, which opposes any analytical avenue that is based on the concept of a one best way.

Above and beyond the firms themselves, this approach also has a number of implications at a macroeconomic level. 10 years ago, it was necessary to contest certain ways in which the Japanese model (and its variant, "lean production") was being represented. Similarly, today it is just as essential that discourses on the "new economy" be deconstructed. This requires that the United States performance over the past decade be relativised. Just as more than one profit strategy is capable of being efficient, there are also a number of institutional configurations that have been able to ensure strong economic growth in recent years. Clearly the US economic performances have been real, but  other  countries (Portugal, Ireland, Finland, Sweden, etc.) have succeeded in finding a place for themselves in this new growth regime, even though they present characteristics that are very different in terms of labour relationships, financial markets, etc.

The last GERPISA's  Jounée de travail provided a forum for debating these issues on the basis of Robert Boyer's work. This was carried out within the framework of our thinking on the possible existence of a "European productive model".  Given the European Unionís current institutional context, it appears premature to talk about such a European model, not because of the varied nature of firmsí productive models (a variety that is irreducible and which gives birth to the dynamics that drive a given sector) but due to the heterogeneity of the institutional environments inside of which firms actually operate. Of course, the single currency does exist, as do the institutions associated with it.  All of this represents elements of the joint policies that the European Commission has implemented (competition policy and research policy, in particular). However, extremely different configurations subsist between countries with respect to their innovation systems, labour relationships and even financial systems (Anglo-Saxon corporate governance is far from being a rule!)

With the automobile industry's implementation of a wide variety of profit strategies (and therefore reliance on just as wide a variety of productive models), and given the fact that it operates in institutional environments that can diverge just as widely (compare for example Germany and Great Britain), there is a question as to whether the sector presents enough coherency for us to be able to define a European automobile system that can be differentiated from the worldís other regional markets (notably North America and Japan). The answer to this question is not only interesting from an intellectual or metaphysical point of view (does such an entity as an automobile system actually exist?). It depends on whether it is possible to define benchmarks and/or an inventory of possible actions that could be taken by firms managers, employees, or policy makers.

The upcoming CoCKEAS workshop in Berlin will be an attempt to supply elements of response. It will adopt a comparative approach that delves into the singular nature of this system, when compared with the world's other regions. Analysis will achieve this whilst integrating the internal diversity that lies at the heart of the system. This will be a stimulating intellectual challenge.