Books in Brief: The Second Industrial Divide

The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity, by Michael J. Piore and Charles F. Sabel (Basic, 355 pp., $19.95)

While the 1981 recession spelled unemployment for auto and steel workers, it certainly increased job opportunities for intellectuals and wouldbe visionaries. Bookstores were suddenly bulging with radical prescriptions for our woes, from “industrial policy” to economic and Atari democracy. The Second Industrial Divide, written by two MacArthur Foundation award winners, is the latest entrant in the utopia stakes. Most of our economic difficulties, the authors contend, stem from a shift from “mass production” industries to ones characterized by “flexible specialization,” i.e., small producers whose employees are craftsmen. As this shift occurs, emphasis will be put on innovation, involvement, and the development of stronger workforce skills; we will see the Second Industrial Divide. This is fine, so far as it goes. The fact that small businesses have certain advantages over larger ones has been much noted. But is this all that earthshaking a revelation? While some “flexible” producers are doing well, certain “mass” ones, like IBM, haven’t faltered —and producers such as the auto companies are using high technology and worker-involvement programs to ape the strengths of their smaller competitors. Is this a revolution, or just capitalism as usual? Piore and Sabel run into further problems when they try to hitch their leftist ideology to these trends. They claim that “flexible specialization” could promote a “yeoman democracy,” in which craftsmen in regional industries would share training responsibilities and property rights for the good of the “community.” Predictably, Piore and Sabel are vague on how this Hobbit socialism would work. Would people in our highly mobile society tie themselves to lifetime employment in regional industries? Would they shed their property rights for the welfare of “all”? Would businesses stand for this, or would they move to places like Hong Kong, where resources could be utilized freely? To grasp our economic future, Piore and Sabel tell us, we must be willing to “move backward and forward.” But, as anyone who’s watched football can attest, that’s a strategy for standing still.

DD

About the Author

Dan Dickinson

Featured Tags

The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity, by Michael J. Piore and Charles F. Sabel (Basic, 355 pp., $19.95)

While the 1981 recession spelled unemployment for auto and steel workers, it certainly increased job opportunities for intellectuals and wouldbe visionaries. Bookstores were suddenly bulging with radical prescriptions for our woes, from “industrial policy” to economic and Atari democracy. The Second Industrial Divide, written by two MacArthur Foundation award winners, is the latest entrant in the utopia stakes. Most of our economic difficulties, the authors contend, stem from a shift from “mass production” industries to ones characterized by “flexible specialization,” i.e., small producers whose employees are craftsmen. As this shift occurs, emphasis will be put on innovation, involvement, and the development of stronger workforce skills; we will see the Second Industrial Divide. This is fine, so far as it goes. The fact that small businesses have certain advantages over larger ones has been much noted. But is this all that earthshaking a revelation? While some “flexible” producers are doing well, certain “mass” ones, like IBM, haven’t faltered —and producers such as the auto companies are using high technology and worker-involvement programs to ape the strengths of their smaller competitors. Is this a revolution, or just capitalism as usual? Piore and Sabel run into further problems when they try to hitch their leftist ideology to these trends. They claim that “flexible specialization” could promote a “yeoman democracy,” in which craftsmen in regional industries would share training responsibilities and property rights for the good of the “community.” Predictably, Piore and Sabel are vague on how this Hobbit socialism would work. Would people in our highly mobile society tie themselves to lifetime employment in regional industries? Would they shed their property rights for the welfare of “all”? Would businesses stand for this, or would they move to places like Hong Kong, where resources could be utilized freely? To grasp our economic future, Piore and Sabel tell us, we must be willing to “move backward and forward.” But, as anyone who’s watched football can attest, that’s a strategy for standing still.