Out of print? This book should never be out of print. But then again, Jean Renoir's Rules of the Game was almost destroyed during the Second World War. Greatness is sometimes fragile.

Barry is something of a personal hero of mine so I do have a bias of sorts regarding this book and its follow-up, The Great U-Turn. Reviewing this book is like reviewing a classic music album: everything written in the last 20 years about Economic Policy and investment has been influenced by what Barry and Bennett wrote here and there is no more hated book by Reaganauts who would like you to believe THIS NEVER HAPPENED.

This book was the first book to talk about how industry in the United States was dismantled, in particular the Auto and Steel Industries of the midwest. The book traces decisions made by corporations in the 1970's and why these decisions were made, in light of perceived opportunities in Central America and the Far East. Could have the decision been made to do the reinvestment in the US (particularly in light of the modern day relative success of Saturn)? The answer is clearly not without the calculated weakening of powerful unions in auto and steel. If the unions were weakened, however, communities such as Flint, Michigan and Youngstown, Ohio were almost wiped out by disinvestment. There was considerable denial at the time about what was happening but Barry and Bennett's book makes clear that industry was dismantling and disinvesting and not coming back.

The awareness raised by this book probably saved a bad situation from becoming much worse. If the dinosaurs left the continent, though, maybe in retrospect we are better off for their having left. Car makers from Japan and Korea have been willing to make the autos that US carmakers have only made with the greatest of reluctance, and creating assembly plants here in the US as well. But it has taken a generation to recover from the wholesale deindustrialization and the cost was much greater than people should have been asked to bear.

Never again should American industry be allowed to tear out its roots and toss them aside. If you want to know why, this is the book to read. Please read the great final chapter on Reindustrialization with A Human Face for helpful guidance and insight on where to go from where we are at, insight that 20 years later still makes a great deal of sense.

From the backdrop of World War II, American business emerged as the World's undisputed industrial economic leader and lender. The expansion of American investment in Europe, Asia, the Americas, and further assured its prominence by the establishment of the U.S. currency as the capitalist world's principle reserves, while labor strenuously acquired the motifs of a welfare state. Such unprecedented success created an ambivalent relationship between capital and labor where each party had acquired a win-win situation. This brief cease-fire came to an abrupt halt with the threat of foreign competition and sluggish growth development spurred what Bluestone and Harrison termed as the 'deindustrialization' of America. In a panic to maintain the capitalist status quo, business owners closely emulated Japanese zaibatsu's in purchasing many non-related businesses to expand their economic clout versus improving their current facilities. The failure of industries meeting excessive profit percentage justified many corporate executives of closing down factories to minimize labor costs and outsource to less constraining economic contingencies and forever disrupting people's and the communities livelihood. Drastic improvements in network technology, communication and transportation permitted micro and macro control of factories despite distance. Thus companies are no longer confined by regional or national boundaries can effectively utilize segmentation tactics against unions, local, state, and national officials in gaining unequal terms. Corporate outsourcing has manifested itself into dual the phenomenon of boom-town and bust-town causing unforeseen problems. American urban areas such as Houston and Silicon Valley have grown in attracting Northern city businesses, foreign investment, and becoming known as tax heavens.

i read this book for an economic development class and it was a surprisingly good complement to many books i've read recently: regional advantage (saxenian), technopoles of the world (castells/hall) and the capitalist imperative (storper). surprising, because i hadn't heard of harrison before. he rejects the idea that creativity and economic growth in a network economy come from small firms and does so with numerous examples, from silicon valley to italy. he argues that only large firms have the wherewithal to invest in the r&d necessary in the new economy, and that these large entities also set the standards for the numerous small firms to follow. to wit, jeff bezos found a way to leverage the browser that marc andreessen created, but both these individuals needed the idea that the u.s. defense industry and darpa created. harrison takes a macro view, and if i have a criticism of his thesis, it is just that - by looking at creativity from such a high level he seems to dismiss the fact that teams like tom west's eagle group are the exception at bureaucratic big firms. harrison probably takes the view he does because his ultimate goal is to chasten big firms, whose new economy style gave rise to the book's title. a former professor at new york's liberal new school (harrison died recently of throat cancer), harrison is a voice for social and labor justice, advocating for workers who are being exploited (still) even as capitalism changes form.

Introduction

World economics, like the ecology of natural ecosystems, is a dynamic system that evolves as technological advances change modes of production and consumption. New industries and the way they operate in a global context have a cause/effect relationship on the economic and societal frameworks, which are constructed as a result. Upon reflection of modern society, we can break human development into three phases of development. First and foremost was the agricultural society in which agriculture was the main commodity produced. As the scientific revolution of the 18th Century developed new ways of understanding the natural world, it gave rise to new inventions in the 19th Century, such as the steam engine, steel, and the development of new raw materials. This era, up through the mid-20th Century became known as the industrial society. During the era of the industrial society, agriculture dropped from constituting 60% to 6.9% of the economy as manufacturing replaced agricultural production (Block, p. 60). As technology improved and created new products, modes of production once again changed. This era, which focuses more on services and information flow rather than production, continues into the present, and has been termed the "post-industrial society". (Post-industrial is a term that will frequently be used throughout this essay. A small section, after the historical context section, has been devoted to provide a clear definition of "post-industrial"). In Bennett Harrison's book, Lean and Mean: The Changing Landscape of Corporate Power in the Age of Flexibility, Harrison takes a progressive approach to analyzing the way in which big and small businesses operate in a new global market economy within this new post-industrial construct. Harrison argues that contrary to popular belief, big businesses are not on their way out. They are still alive and well, becoming more flexible and efficient, and still remain, as the economic drivers of our economy. Throug! h case studies and empirical research from the U.S., Japan, and Europe, he shows how powerful multi-national corporations (MNC's) have reorganized themselves externally and internally, becoming "lean and mean". To help defend his argument about big business, Harrison also defines the role of small business in today's society. Throughout this essay, the term large and small firm is frequently used. A large firm is defined as an institution employing 100 or more employees. A small firm is defined as an institution employing less than 100 employees. Fred Block, like Harrison, takes a progressive approach to critiquing post-industrialism in his book Postindustrial Possibilities: A Critique of Economic Discourse. Unlike Harrison, Block focuses more on restructuring neoclassical economic thought to make it more democratic in this new era of information. Block's three goals to understanding post-industrialism are to critique postindustrial theory, use economic sociology as a method for understanding contemporary economies, and offer a progressive approach for thinking about economic policy and social choice in capital societies. The purpose of this essay is to compare and contrast the progressive economic discourse offered by Bennett Harrison and Fred Block. It is important that we first put post-industrialism into a historical context, and then define it to understand Harrison's and Block's critique.

Historical Context: The transition from an industrial society to a post-industrial society. The industrial society is the societal framework which characterized the era from the mid-19th Century to the mid-20th Century. It was an era in which production thrived due to the innovative technologies, such as the mechanization of labor and the discovery of new sources of power and raw materials. An attempt to understand how this societal framework was driving market forces, poverty, affluence, and development, gave rise to various discourses on the economics of the time. Adam Smith had previous! ly written The Wealth of Nations (1776) which dealt with the emancipation of free market pricing from the interfering hand of state regulation and introduced the concept of public good. Karl Marx in 1867 arrived with his massive critique on capitalism. John Maynard Keynes in 1936 wrote The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, which explained prosperity and depression centers based on the aggregate demand for goods and services by consumers. The economic trend moved toward less and less direct control of economic activity, which gave way to the notion of laissez faire - complete governmental non-interference with business. Capitalism was viewed as a free-enterprise system that had orderliness. Technology rapidly enhanced production. The fordist model of linear production took root, which allowed for specialization and division of labor. Labor unions sprung forth in an attempt to represent the vested interests of laborers. After World War II, the U.S. rose as a hegemonic power creating the notion of the "American Dream". Corporations concentrated in the core of cities to pool from an emerging labor force. In the 1960's, other countries such as Germany, France, Italy, and Japan restructured their economies and became peripheral hegemonic powers that begin to compete in a new global market. With the automation of manufacturing and competition from these hegemonic powers, the U.S. was now forced to become more competitive. Manufacturing increased while jobs in the industrial sector decreased due to automation. A transition to an information-based society began in which small corporations start to rise and compete with large multi-national corporations (MNC) in a global market. This global market was based on the flow of information. Large companies were forced to become flexible in their modes of production which allowed them to hire fewer employees and establish command control centers. These command and control centers were, and still are, decentralized, relying on netw! orks for efficient modes of production. Income polarization becomes a "by-product" of this new post-industrial society.

Post-industrialism Defined Fred Block offers a generic, but tangible definition of post-industrialism. Harrison in comparison assumes his reader to be well informed, only referencing to concepts of post-industrialism to prove points. Block defines post-industrialism as the "historical period that begins when the concept of industrial society ceases to provide an adequate account of actual social development" (Block, p. 11). What is this "concept of industrial society" that Block speaks of? As mentioned previously, it was the era when society was characterized by an emphasis on manufacturing in the economy. Males were expected to work at one place of employment until retirement, while the female tended to domestic responsibilities. To better understand Block's generic definition of post-industrialism, the reader can easily refer to the three social trends, which Block identifies, that emerged in the 1960's as a result of innovative technologies. The first was the growing importance of services in the economy (Block, p. 10). This led to a decline in employment in the manufacturing services of the economy. The second trend was the arrival of computer-based automation (Block, p. 10). Work organization began to change as an effect, causing workers to concentrate on computer operation rather than physical labor. The third trend was an increasing female workforce and breakdown of the "one-career" pattern of life (Block, p. 10). Society no longer restricted females to domestic work. Men no longer worked without interruption to retirement. Divorce rates became more common as women now entered the workforce and pursued careers before marriage (Block, p.10). In contrast, although Harrison does not define "post-industrial", he does provide three characteristics of a post-industrial world. He states that, "a postindustrial ! world is characterized by continually fluctuating consumer demands, heightened international competition, and the need for more flexible forms of work and interfirm interaction" (Harrison, p.12). The combination of Block's definition of post-industrialism, and Harrison's characteristics of a post-industrial world, provide a contextual foundation for the layperson to grasp Harrison's argument of big business being the economic driver of our economy.

The notion of small firms as economic drivers Harrison defends his argument for big business by deconstructing the notion of small firms as economic drivers and job generators. He provides the reader with an historical overview of the perceived stigma of the rigid structure and organization of big firms that arose from the industrial era. Big firms were viewed as somewhat of a dinosaur, not able to compete in a global market characterized by fluctuating consumer demands...

We've all heard about the great economic miracle of the past twenty years. What we haven't heard, though, is that the rate of growth has significantly slowed from pre-1973 levels. This book explains why, and shows that we may be able to achieve high growth rates again. The authors criticize the "Wall Street Model" of growth, which stresses low inflation and enhanced savings. This model, they say, leads to increased inequality and slower growth. The authors present an alternative "Main Street Model" which instead stresses technological innovation as the main driver of growth. The keys to increasing technological innovation are public investments in R&D and infrastructure, as well as increasing demand through higher minimum wages and a stronger role for unions. This book coherently presents this new model of growth and explains why the Wall Street model is flawed. This book has an unashamedly left-wing bias and some people may be put off by the more opinionated parts of this book. I found myself wishing the authors would stick to facts instead of shoving ideas in your face that can't be backed up. In one part of the book the authors discuss the "neoclassical growth syllogism" and try to show how flawed it is. To do this, they examine each premise of the syllogism and assign a seemingly arbitrary percentage describing how true the premise is. You just can't do that. If you give me a number, you better be able to support it with facts or else you're wasting my time. These authors are probably well educated and they should know better than to whimsically pull numbers out of their [fundaments.]

Using historical data on the rate of increase of productivity, these authors build a convincing case that the United States is near the beginning of an economic boom based on information technlogy. They go well beyond most economists in explaining the nature of economic long waves (also called Kondratieff waves). They then explain in depth how current government economic policies are misdirected in terms of maximizing this pattern of economic growth.