Flexibility Revisited: Districts, Nation-States, and the Forces of Production

Abstract

A vibrant debate has raged in geography and other social sciences over the past several years, concerning the nature and extent of changes to contemporary capitalism that might be identified as more flexible. This paper critically surveys the recent work on this theme, identifying areas of consensus, continuing disagreement, and important but still neglected questions. Some consensus appears to have emerged over the types of new practices that firms are pursuing in their production systems, about the nature of contemporary competition, and about the continuing importance of politics and social relations in production. Disagreement remains evident on empirical questions concerning the pervasiveness and significance of flexible practices, on the characteristics of a 'true' industrial district, and on the role and importance of large versus small firms. Theoretical debates continue over how to interpret local cases of success or failure, as well as the motive forces underlying contemporary economic change. As for neglected issues, there is a pressing need for more systematic and comparative analysis cutting across a wider range of local experiences. There is also a need to redress the relative lack of attention directed toward declining regions, service industries, and gender relations in the economy. Nor have the continuing importance of nation-states, nor the geographical determinants of forces of production, yet received their due. The paper concludes by highlighting new dilemmas facing geographers as the theory of flexible industrialization is translated increasingly into practice.