ジャスト イン タイムと経済地理学

欧米の新産業地理学とレギュラシオン理論との関係を通して

抄録

Since the mid 1980's, many Western economic geographers, especially in new industrial geography, have shown great interest in the Just-in-Time system (JIT). The core of their interests is not in the problem of logistics, but rather in the definition of the JIT in the Regulation Approach and its spatial implications from the viewpoints of labour control and subcontracting.
Regulationists, Lipietz and Leborgne have considered the JIT is a part of the process leading to Post-Fordism, because the JIT is different from Fordism and Taylorism, workers on shop- floors can participate in quality control, partially improve their working conditions, and engage in multiple working process. Accordingly, they say the JIT raises functional flexibility in the firm and effectively orders subcontractors to enhance numerical flexibility. So, they have boldly set forth the hypothesis that the introduction of the JIT will make the region surrounding the assembler an ideal democratic society of Post-Fordism. In that place, regional society consists of consensus and collaboration of workers, managers, various scale corporations, labour unions, and other social institutions for the purpose of administration, education, investigation, and welfare.
However, many new industrial geographers have criticized this hypothesis from theoretical perspectives and results based on examplary studies, especially about the case of Japanese automobile factories transplanted in the West. In conclusion, they say the JIT is not Post-Fordism, but has rather strengthened the regime of Fordism and the mass production system. In other words, it can be defined as Neo-Fordism, Neo-Taylorism, ‘structured flexibility’, or quasi-vertical integration which aims to effectively utilize both the merits of in-house production and contracting out to subcontractors.
Therefore, many new industrial geographers have debated about the spatial implications of the JIT, namely whether the JIT causes agglomeration of suppliers around the assembler or not.
First, the overarching spatial tendency is towards some form of agglomeration through the introduction of the JIT, because of the need for suppliers to be proximate to assemblers to deliver frequently, smoothly exchange information about quality control and development of new products, and reduce their transaction costs.
Second, the JIT is not necessarily accompanied by agglomeration because of rapid development of transportation and communication between assemblers and suppliers. The restriction according to the laws of local contents makes the assembler order existing suppliers. In the case of standard parts, the supplier can concentrate production in one factory to pursue scale economics and deliver to each assembler. The suppliers also prefer to locate in rural areas, a little away from large assemblers to avoid the rise of labour costs and reinforcement of the labour movement.
In the latter half of the 90's, Boyer, a Regulationist, has insisted that the accumulation regime has not unilinearly evolved from Fordism to Toyotism (JIT) or Volvoism in Sweden. He has allegedly criticized the doctrine of the convergence of a single social system of production. These models are not exclusive alternatives but rather coexisting multiple hybrid models. Therefore, it will be necessary to elucidate how the path-dependency or historical contingency of individual firms, especially Japanese transplants and major first-layer suppliers in the West, and conventions, institutions, and cultural backgrounds in Japan or the West affects the embeddedness of the JIT in the region and the spatial structure of industrial organization.
In the results, some economic geographers, for example, Lung or Sadler, have insisted that there are no necessary conditions on spatial form of production owing to the introduction of JIT. It causes the decline of geograpohical studies about the JIT since the latter half of 90's.