Abstract
For Keynes, in his A General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936), the obstacles that confronted new concepts derived not from their intrinsic difficulty but from the power of the old interpretive systems. This adage is particularly applicable to the production system: Fordist principles had been so efficient that it was necessary for failures to be repeated, and for differences between companies, regions and nations to widen, if an overall vision of the principles that would govern future production systems was to be created (Figure 4.1).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
The United Kingdom is a good example; see Bernard Elbaum and William Lazonick, The Decline of the British Economy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986).
For an analysis of the influence of the new production paradigm on management tools, accounting in particular, see P. Lorino, L’économie et le manager (Paris: La Découverte, 1989).
Masahiko Aoki and Ronald Dore, The Japanese Firm (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994).
Michael Piore and Charles Sabel, The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity (New York: Basic Books, 1984).
As well as the book by J. P. Womack et al., op. cit., there is also B. Coriat, Penser à l’envers (Paris: Bourgois, 1991) and
J.-H. Jacot (ed.), Du Fordisme au Toyotisme ? Les voies de la modernisation du système automobile en France et au Japon (Paris: La Documentation française, 1990). See also the many articles that have appeared in the economic and financial press, in particular ‘Factory of the Future’, The Economist, May 1990.
This is the conclusion reached by many studies of Japanese transplants in North America, even if the tension is not always perceived in entirely negative terms by the employees involved. See Daniel Drache, ‘Three Japanese transplants in Ontario’, in Robert Boyer, Elsie Charron, Ulrich Jürgens, Stephen Tolliday, Transplants and Hybrydization. Manuscript, 1996.
See especially C. Du Tertre, Technologie, flexibilité, emploi. Une approche sectorielle du post-taylorisme (Paris: L’Harmattan, 1989);
F. Vatin, La fluidité industrielle (Paris: Méridiens-Klincksieck, 1987); or an earlier study by Benjamin Coriat, ‘Différenciation et segmentation de la force de travail dans les industries de process’, in the Dourdan colloquium La division du travail (Paris: Éditions Galilée).
Myriam Campinos-Dubernet, ‘Productivité du travail et hétérogénéité sectorielle dans le BTP’, in Le travail en chantiers: emploi, qualification, technologie (Paris: Plan Construction, 1983).
These are examples used by some key theoreticians on growth and services; see Jean Fourastié Le grand espoir du XXième siècle (Paris: PUF, 1949) and
W. Baumol, S. A. Blackman and E. Wolff, ‘Unbalanced growth revisited: assymptotic stagnancy and new evidence’, American Economic Review, September 1985.
Pascal Petit, Croissance Tertiaire (Paris: Economica, 1988).
Office of Technology Assessment, International Competition in Services (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1987), p. 41.
Copyright information
© 1993 Robert Boyer and Jean-Pierre Durand
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Boyer, R., Durand, JP. (1993). The 1990s: The New Production Paradigm. In: After Fordism. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-14027-5_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-14027-5_4
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-14029-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-14027-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave Business & Management CollectionBusiness and Management (R0)