Rethinking Global Production

Ian. M. Taplin, Jonathan Winterton

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• eBook ISBN: 9780429815393
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Social Sciences

First published in 1997, this volume explores production, organisation and technological change for the clothing industry worldwide. It compares production approaches in various countries as well as highlighting commonalities between all clothing industries, drawing a particular comparison between clothing industries in high-wage and low-wage areas. The contributors discuss issues such as clothing in high wage economies alongside case studies in Japan, Italy, Germany, Finland, the US and the UK.

1 Restructuring clothing

Jonathan Winterton and Ian M Taplin

Background

Clothing manufacture is an important industry throughout the world in terms of the wealth created by garment production and the number of individuals who depend upon the industry for their livelihoods. Its products are very diverse, ranging from basic essential goods like industrial workwear to luxury fashion products which are worn more to create an image or to demonstrate the wearer’s status than for their capacity to protect the wearer from their environment. While there are significant differences between the clothing industries of different countries, which it is partly the purpose of this collection to compare, many of the characteristics can be said to be in common to all clothing industries. In general, clothing enterprises, even in the most developed industrialized countries, are small in comparison with other branches of manufacturing and are very labour intensive. There is a low level of technical innovation potential and those technological advances which have been made are only adopted by the most progressive enterprises. New entrants which are attracted to the industry by the high degree of product market competition, therefore face low barriers to entry. The workforce has been predominantly female since garment making became organized industrially, trade union organization is weak and managerial practices tend to be very traditional.

These characteristics are shared by all clothing industries, but a distinction can also be made between the clothing industries of the high-wage economies and those of the low-wage economies, a distinction which forms the central focus of this collection. In the increasingly global economy, clothing manufacturers in the high-wage countries have been facing intensified competition from enterprises in the low-wage economies. The low barriers to entry which are characteristic of the industry also operate at the level of nations, so entrepreneurs in newly-industrialized countries are attracted to garment production. As a consequence, clothing manufacture in the high-wage economies is often regarded as a ‘sunset industry’, undergoing rapid restructuring in an effort to adjust, with clothing enterprises closing down or at least downsizing and leaving garment production to the newly industrialized low-wage countries as part of an international division of labour.

To a considerable extent, this ‘sunset industry’ image is accurate, but it fails to capture the complexity of either the changes which are occurring in the global clothing marketplace, or of the restructuring processes taking place within the clothing industries in high-wage economies. This collection seeks to analyses and explain these complex restructuring processes by investigating the impact of the global changes on the clothing industries in six high-wage economies: the UK, US, Finland, Italy, Germany and Japan. These countries were selected in order to capture the diversity to be expected between the major industrialized countries, the US, Japan and Germany; the Nordic, northern and southern European variants, Finland, Germany and Italy; and the Anglo-American axis, the UK and US. The analysis might have been strengthened by including other OECD countries, but resource constraints precluded this; we hope that others may be persuaded by this collection to take up the challenge and investigate the extent to which the conclusions reached here are also relevant to the clothing industries of other high-wage economies. This collection is, of course, only part of the picture of global restructuring in clothing and the volume will be followed by another exploring the changes occurring in garment manufacture in the low-wage economies.

This chapter is primarily concerned to contextualise the studies which follow in relation to competing theories of change. Firstly, those aspects of meta theories which are relevant to a study of industrial restructuring are abstracted and discussed, thereby grounding the analysis in current debates. Secondly, arising from this discussion, a framework of analysis is developed which is to be applied in studying the restructuring of clothing industries. Finally, the focus, logic and structure of the book is outlined.

Meta-theories and restructuring

Despite extensive contemporary debate in developed economies concerning the restructuring of industries and of labour relations, few definitions have been offered and there is little consensus as to what restructuring entails. The term is often loosely used to describe any changes in state policies, the structure of capital, managerial strategies or operations, especially in so far as these affect industrial relations. In developing a framework through which the processes of restructuring can be analyzed, it is necessary to consider various meta-theories, which attempt to offer all-embracing explanations for many of the changes which can be subsumed under the notion of restructuring.

Restructuring is an inherent part of capitalist development and the process of capital accumulation, permitting the continual expansion of profit accumulation through the regeneration of the prevailing regime of accumulation, through modernization to raise efficiency and through developing new capacity in growth sectors (Tailby and Whitston, 1989: 1). As Bradbury (1985: 39) notes:

…restructuring is in fact a continuous process which responds to the fluctuating behaviour of the capitalist business cycle involving reorganization, rationalization and investment procedures designed to overcome the contradictory nature of production relations and to permit the continual self expansion of capital accumulation … Restructuring is essentially a formal mechanism whereby the process of concentration and centralization of capital proceeds apace, paralleling changes in the human conditions and social divisions of labour associated with it.

It is easy to concur with Bradbury’s definition, but it offers little insight into the specific nature of the restructuring process, as a distinct aspect of the dynamic of capitalism. In this respect, the definition of restructuring offered by Hilowitz (1987: 2) tells us more about the process, or processes, involved:

…the conscious and planned response of firms, industries, or whole industrial sectors to changes in the climate in which the industries must operate, both domestically and internationally and also to changes in the technology available with which to operate.

In both definitions, restructuring is portrayed as a continual feature of economic development, but of particular interest is the episodic nature of rapid phases of restructuring within the economy. The acceleration of restructuring during the 1980s was global and has been the focus of metatheories seeking to identify the nature of and reasons for, the fragmentation of markets, paradigm shifts in production relations and quantum leaps in technological infrastructure. As Green (1989: 5) noted in relation to the UK, the restructuring involved ‘not merely the changing composition of industries or of the labour force (although these too are relevant) but more generally an alteration in the terms and relations under which the process of capital accumulation for profit takes place’. This acceleration of restructuring may be traced to the crises of the 1970s, manifest in economic terms as a crisis of profitability (Lipietz, 1982), in production terms as a crisis of Fordism (Piore and Sabel, 1984) and in institutional terms as a crisis of corporatism (Monks and Minow, 1995).

The oil shocks of 1973 and to a lesser extent that of 1979, had a determining role in triggering the acceleration of restructuring (Thrift, 1988: 8). In the UK, for example, the impact of the 1973 oil shocks on share prices was greater than that of the Wall Street crash, the second world war and the stock market crash of 1987 combined. The changes begun in the 1980s in response to these crises of the 1970s can collectively be described as restructuring. While these responses were a manifestation of the regular adjustment to periodic crises associated with capitalist development (Aglietta, 1976; Mandel, 1978), they may also be distinguished by the rapidity and magnitude of events: restructuring in the 1980s has been particularly dramatic.

Another important feature of the restructuring of the 1980s has been the determining role of neo-liberal economic ideas derived from Hayek, which became increasingly hegemonic. In the USA, the UK and then Europe, the crisis was held to have been exacerbated by macroeconomic mismanagement. Conventional wisdom emphasized over-regulation by the state, which insulated enterprises from the effect of free market forces and acted as a deterrent to entrepreneurial activity. In some countries, trade unions were regarded as too powerful, introducing distortions into labour markets and impeding technological progress. Such factors, exacerbated by a crisis of investment, were responsible for the stagnation of productivity in manufacturing industries, deteriorating global competitiveness and such phenomena as ‘Eurosclerosis’. Keynesian policies were widely regarded as inadequate to the task of responding to the emerging crisis, presenting an opportunity for the radical right.

This ideological transformation was far more radical than is suggested by the use of such abbreviations as ‘Reaganomics’ or ‘Thatcherism’, although the labels do convey something of the state policies which served to promote a particular set of restructuring strategies above alternatives. Since 1979, labour market restructuring to increase flexibility has been a key policy objective of UK governments, both as a route to competitive advantage and as a mechanism for reducing unemployment, especially among young people (Ashton, Maguire and Spilsbury, 1990). Although particularly associated with the USA and UK, the influence of labour market deregulation has been global, as evidenced by structural reform in New Zealand (Harris and Daldy, 1994). The attempt to build social protection within member states of the European Union under the social protocol, so often contrasted with the UK approach, is a response to the deregulation and restructuring promoted by the ‘1992’ European single market initiative.

As these shocks occurred, various meta theories have suggested that the dominant mode of production, characterized as the Fordist paradigm, is being replaced either by ‘post-Fordism’, denoting a fundamental transformation of production, or by ‘neo-Fordism’, where work is being transformed within the Taylorist or Fordist paradigm. Whereas neo-Fordism entails an enlarged range of mass-produced goods with minor modification to existing organizational forms, post-Fordism implies a move towards manufacture of specialized goods employing flexible technologies and innovative organizational forms.

Advocates of the flexible specialization thesis, one of the most influential post-Fordist theories, argue that the change is driven by two internal structural problems of mass production: the saturation of mass markets due to overproduction; and the fragmentation of markets for standardized products (Sabel, 1982; Piore and Sabel, 1984). Capitalism is therefore presented with the ‘second industrial divide’: production can either continue along a mass production trajectory (which would require an unprecedented degree of international economic regulation), or manufacturers can choose the more adaptive alternative of flexible specialization.

This simple dichotomy of forms of production into flexible specialization and mass production is open to question (Hyman, 1988), since a range of forms of production can be defined in terms of volume and variety. Different forms of production can coexist within a single factory (Meegan, 1988: 157) and capitalism has always employed a complementary mix of forms of production (Sayer, 1989). In defense of the thesis, Hirst and Zeitlin argue (1991: 6) that mass production and flexible specialization are ‘ideal-typical models rather than empirical generalizations’.

Under mass production, Taylorist or Fordist forms of production are characterized by intensive managerial supervision which delimits worker autonomy and by an extreme division of labour which narrows the base of workers’ skills and further restricts the exercise of discretion. Braverman (1974) showed the key to such production was the separation of conception and execution, with tasks becoming ever more fragmented, dedicated machine tools more specialized, workers less skilled and more controlled. The globalization of economic activity (Taylor and Thrift, 1986) revealed the vulnerability of labour-intensive mass production industries to imports from low-wage economies, since Taylorist production is easily replicated in newly-industrialized countries (Dicken, 1992).

Mass markets are assumed to be saturated and the stable replacement demand of consumer goods, which sustains much mass production, is ignored and no evidence is offered as to why this should lead to flexible specialization rather than ‘create a ‘regulation crisis’ of the kind which mass production has solved through reconstructing the institutions which secure a workable match between supply and demand’ (Williams et al, 1987: 426). Market fragmentation is quintessential to the flexible specialization thesis, since such a development challenges mass production. However, no criteria are offered for distinguishing genuine market fragmentation from product differentiation, which can be achieved with unreconstructed mass production.

The new segmented markets are held to have demanded ‘flexible forms of organization which permitted rapid shifts in output’ (Sabel, 1989: 18). Firms producing high-quality, low-volume products for niche markets have evolved new organizational forms, centred on much smaller specialized production units than their mass production forerunners. In contrast with the mass production paradigm, under flexible specialization the skills and energies of all workers contribute to the efficient and flexible use of resources. The need for adaptability requires more skilled workers who enjoy more discretion over re-integrated tasks and autonomy in using general-purpose machine tools. Rather than a cost to be contained, labour now represents a resource to be developed and in the process regains the skill and autonomy of some earlier craft era.

The development of flexible microelectronics-based innovations, is seen as the driving force of change in several meta theories (Womack, Jones and Roos, 1990, for example). The increased responsiveness to market changes made possible with microelectronics is seen to facilitate the pursuit of flexible specialization, although the production paradigm is independent of any particular technology. Nevertheless, flexible specialization is clearly associated with new technology, even though there have been few attempts to address the technological aspects (Jones, 1988: 452). The application of microelectronics can be entirely Taylorist but the thesis offers no methodology for identifying when new technology is used in a way conducive to flexible specialization and when it is supporting Fordist work organization. Moreover, upskilling or reskilling is central to flexible specialization, since ‘the computer restores human control over the production process, machinery is again subordinated to the operator’ (ibid: 261).

The claims that workers are emancipated under flexible specialization ignores the historical evidence that under a range of technologies, skill and autonomy have been part of the contested terrain of the labour process (see Marx, 1887: 327, 330 on Babbage and Ure, for example). The advocates of flexible specialization offer no clear definition of what constitutes skill or autonomy, nor do they specify methodologies appropriate to test the hypothesis. The claims made of the beneficial effects of flexible specialization are reminiscent of claims made in 1911 for Scientific Management by F.W.Taylor and during the 1930s for its Soviet variant, Stakhanovism.

Piore and Sabel (1984: 19) argue that the two paradigms of production were ‘in collision’ throughout the nineteenth century until the ‘first industrial divide’, when British manufacturers adopted strategies centred on mass production, which then dominated US industry and became the dominant international production paradigm in the post-war period. When West Germany and Japan adopted mass production, however, they also retained elements of a ‘craft system of shop floor control’ (ibid: 116) and as a result, flexible specialization has been associated with Germany and Japan as well as with industrial districts in Northern Italy.

In the stereotypical Japanese manufacturing company, workers identify with the enterprise, their commitment to total quality is rewarded by lifetime employment and work organization is characterized by team working and multi-skilling. The team concept, central to quality circles, is epitomized by ringisei, a form of consensual leadership where the foreman is the representative of the work group rather than of management. Multi-skilling is reflected in the scope for team members to substitute for one another and in the principle of kaizen, or continuous improvement. Less attention is given in the literature to karoshi, the excessive working hours of 10 million Japanese workers which are responsible for an epidemic of stress-related illness (National Defense Council for the Victims of Karoshi, 1990).

In the German version of the thesis, Kern and Schuman (1987: 163) claim that flexible specialization could mark ‘the end of the division of labour’. The German motor vehicle industry has adopted team working and semi-autonomous work groups as the main means through which more holistic work tasks are created. Production workers are given additional responsibility for maintenance and quality assurance to promote job enrichment through upskilling and autonomy. Lane (1988: 167) claims ‘German management have adopted a consistent strategy of flexible specialization.’

The most widely cited example of flexible specialization is in the so-called Third Italy, where Brusco and Sabel (1981) described the resurgence of ‘artisanal production’. Brusco (1982: 182–3) analyzed the role of a ‘secondary’ industrial sector in Emilia, consisting of small firms, which:

shares with the ‘primary’ sector its advanced technology, its innovative capacity and its ability to compete on the world market and at least when business is good pays similar wages to most of its workforce. The true role of this sector, therefore, at least in periods of expansion, is to return flexibility in the use of labour to the entire productive structure, rather than to exploit cheap labour and so make possible the use of backward machinery.

Subsequent flexible specialization analyses (Sabel, 1982: 220–6; Piore and Sabel, 1984; Brusco, 1986) concentrated on the Emilia-Romagna regions where the industrial structure is based on small firms cooperatively engaged in craft production and where local authorities are almost universally under the control of the Communist Party or an alliance of Communists and Socialists.

The flexible specialization thesis has been criticized on methodological grounds for its inferential approach, whereby ‘a whole set of associations are assumed and not explored, as increasing fragmentation and complexity in the product market are assumed to ‘demand’ flexible technology which in turn ‘demands’ the ‘flexible’ worker’ (Wood, 1989: 15). Similarly, the demonstrative approach focuses discussion on selected locations which are associated with prototypical flexible specialization, rather than attempting to evaluate the extent to which it has been adopted or seeking to identify factors influencing its emergence.

Towards a theory of restructuring

Before exploring the features of restructuring in the clothing industries of high-wage economies, it is necessary to outline the framework of analysis to be employed. It would be ambitious to claim that the framework represents a coherent, comprehensive theory of restructuring, although it can be seen as an attempt to progress in that direction. The framework is, rather, an attempt to elabourate and to systematize the dimensions of restructuring within a framework which will serve ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Figures and tables
• List of contributors
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Restructuring clothing
• 2 De-regulation, division and decline: the UK clothing industry in transition
• 3 Backwards into the future: new technologies and old work organization in the US clothing industry
• 4 A difficult path to recovery: new strategies for the Finnish clothing industry
• 5 Dwarfs and giants maintaining competitive edge: the Italian textile clothing industry in the 1990s
• 6 Production, organization and technological change: the German clothing industry in international competition
• 7 In search of competitive advantage: contemporary change in the Japanese apparel industry
• 8 Making sense of strategies for survival: clothing in high wage economies
• Bibliography