Prato: An Extreme Case of Diffuse Industrialization

The debate on the economic dualism of industrial societies occupies economists more and more, and should increasingly preoccupy sociologists and political scientists. The former have demonstrated that in modern economies one can increasingly find side by side a mass-production sector, in which reduction of costs is achieved through rigidity and stability of the organization, and a socalled peripheral sector, in which different production phases are decentralized into small production units, in order to keep the highest possible flexibility. This second sector is characterized by the absence of the large organization, and by the use of either low-cost, intensive work (this is the case in traditional economic sectors, revived in this waytextile, clothing, furniture, mechanical industry, etc.), or new technologies that can easily be decentralized (machine tools, microelectronics, computer services, word processing, etc.). It is adapted to the new demand conditions of very dynamic markets, where demand tends to be discontinuous and non-standardized. It shows a high capacity to adapt to demand cycles (easy variation of production), the transformation of demand (rapid reprogramming of production); and technical and esthetic innovations (professional know-how, high degree of autonomy in decision-making of company owners, and small capital investments). It achieves production cost reduction by getting rid of the cost of reproduction of the big organization, by diminishing social security costs, and by weakening the bargaining power of salaried workers.1 The role of sociologists and political scientists would probably consist of explaining the controversy stemming from this debate. Some only see the peripheral sector as an innovation pool, allowing both the newly industrialized countries to initiate their growing process, and the industrialized countries to face competition from the former. Others only see in it a regression toward a savage