Abstract
The emergence of new models of development and the reversal of territorial trajectories have shown the incapacity of oldtheoretical models in fitting the changing reality. The emergence of localized networks among firms and external economies hasled to a new paradigm for economic development based on territory.The paper stresses the existence of different patterns of local development and deals with the key variables for the singling outtheir typology.
Résumé
L'émergence de nouveaux modèles de développement et le renversement des trajectoires territoriales ont démontré l'incapacitédes anciens modèles théoriques à comprendre la réalité économique en voie de transformation. L'émergence de réseauxd'entreprises territorialisés et les économies externes ont conduit à un nouveau paradigme du développement économique quiest fortement fondé sur le territoire.Cet article souligne l'existence de plusieurs modèles de développement local et discute les variables clefs pour la constructiond'une typologie de ces modèles.
Citer ce document Cite this document :
Garofoli Gioacchino. Economic development, organization of production and territory. In: Revue d’économie industrielle, vol.64, 2e trimestre 1993. pp. 22-37
;
Fichier pdf généré le 09/04/2018
 
Gioacchino
G ROFOLI
Université
de
Pavie
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION
OF
PRODUCTION
ND
TERRITORY
I.
INTRODUCTION
Iwill
deal,
in
this
paper,
with
territory
and
economic
development,
underlying
the
active
role
of
the
territory
in
the
process
of
development.
With
respect
to
these
issues,
particularly
to
the
relationship between
economic
development and
territorial
organization
of production,
my
departure
point
is
that
we
need
a
bridge
between
theory
and
reality, in fact
we are
in
a phase
of transformation
not
only
with
reference
to
economic
organization
(and
world
economic
scenarios)
but
also
to
economic
theory.
It
seems
to
me
quite
important,
in
this
phase,
to
work
in
a
more
systematic
way
on
inductive
analysis, exploring
deeply
the
different
cases
of
development
to
reconstruct
some
typologies
of
local
development. In
my
introduction I
will
deal
with
two
main issues,
and
precisely
:
a)
the crisis
of
paradigms
in
regional
development
;
b)
the
interaction
between
local
and
global.
What
seems
to
be
particularly important,
in the
economic
transformation
of the
last
two
decades,
is
the
progressive
emergence
-
at
all
the
observable
scales
:
from
local
to
national and
international
level
-
of
new
models
of
development,
of
reversal
of territorial
trajectories,
of
the
incapacity of
the
old
theoretical
models
to
interpret the
changing
reality
(cf., mainly,
the
fall
of
the
core-periphery
paradigm).
With
the
new
models
of
development
there
are emerging
new
actors
(local
institutions,
local
State, collective
private
subjects/actors,...)
that
are
able
to
influence
the
process
of
economic
and
social
transformations.
These
actors
have been
forgotten
from
previous
theoretical
schemes.
Moreover
there
is
the
breakdown
of the
idea
of
deterministic
laws
of
development and
new
opportunities
are
emerging.
Local
communities
have
some
chances
(and
responsibilities)
to
promote
deve-
22
REVUE
D'ÉCONOMIE
INDUSTRIELLE
64,
2e
trimestre
1993
 
lopment
;
there
are
opportunities
(higher
or
lower)
everywhere
;
different,
of
course,
will
be
the
paths
to
follow
and
the
policies
to
introduce and
to
implement
according
to
the different
models
and
the different
goals
to
fulfil.
But
another
point
is
important
to
underline
:
the
overall mechanism
of
development
is
not
a
zero
sum
game,
that
means
the
relationships between
regions
cannot
be
based
only
on
a
competitive
struggle.
To
conclude
this
first
point
it
is
necessary
to
underline
the
role
of
endogenous
variables
and
external
economies
(external
to
the firms
but
internal
to
specific
areas)
that
have
given
new
centrality
to
the
territory
(interpreted
as
the
sedimentation
of
specific
knowledges
and
cultures)
and
forms
of
social
regulation
managed
locally.
The
second
point
of
this
introduction
concerns
the
relationship
between
local
and global/international.
It
could
seem
a
quite
strange
position
to
investigate
the
role
of
local economies
in
a
world
more
and
more
globalized.
But we
must
take
into
account
the
following
two
phenomena
:
1)
The
crisis
of
the
fordist
model and
the
decreasing
role
of
the
forms
of
social
regulation
at
the
national
level
;
2)
the
emerging
of
overnational governance
(cf.,
for
instance,
the
EEC
governance),
in
one
side,
and
of
local
and regional governance
(cf.
the
decentralisation laws
in
several
countries,
like
Italy,
France,
Spain),
in the
second
one,
on
a
large
set
of
economic
and
social
issues
that
let
decrease
the
role
of
national governance.
So,
the
increasing
role
of
external
economies and
agglomeration
advantages
and
the
internalization
of
production lead
to
a
contemporary
puzzle
posed
by
the
marked
reagglomeration
of
production,
in
one
hand, and
the
globalization
of
economic
flows
on
the
other
(Scott and
Storper,
1990).
Local
and
international
become,
then,
the
two
poles
of
a
new
dialectics
of
development
:
the
firm is
then
oriented
to
the
local
dimension (to
turn
into
account
the
stock
of
techno-scientific
and
cultural
and professional
knowledges)
and
to
the
external
dimension (looking
for
stimuli
and
provocations
for the
innovation,
the
productive
differentiation,
to
organize
new networks
of
exchanges and
collaborations).
According
to
the
networks
among
firms
then,
it
is
possible
to
note
that
information,
goods
and components exchange
networks
are
realised
both
at
the
local
level
and
at
the
international one,
but
it
is
at
the
local
level
that the
culture
of
collaboration
among
firms
is
acquired.
II.
THE EMERGENCE
OF
TERRITORY
Polarized
development,
concentrated
territorially,
and
the
diffusion
of
development
from
above
have
for
some
time
been
the
dominant
theoretical
paradigm
on
which
development
strategies
and
regional
policies
have
been
based.
Development
was made
possible
by
the
continuous expansion
of
large
scale
industry,
prevalently
localized
in
large
urban
centres
since
the
typology
of
technological
inno-
REVUE
D'ÉCONOMIE
INDUSTRIELLE
64,
2e
trimestre
1993
23
 
vation,
economic
policies and
the
development
of
infrastructures
allowed
the
formation
of
large
scale economies and
growing
external
economies
(Garofoli,
1983b,
1984a,
1991b).
The development
policy
based
on
the
transfer
of
the
model
based
on
big
business
(by
implicitly
accepting
the
theory
of
automatic
mechanisms
of
income
multiplier
and
new
economic
linkages)
has
characterized
the
greater
part
of
government
interventions
for
a
number
of
decades
both
in
developed
and developing
countries.
In
the
past
10
to
15
years
the
growing
inability
of
the
functionalist
model
to
explain
the
ever
more
complex
redistribution
of
productive
activities over
territory
and
the
emergence
of
autonomous
patterns
of
development
in
many
relatively
peripheral
regions
(1)
have
progressively attracted
scholars'
attention
to
the
territorial
dimension
of
development and
to
the
categories
of
environment
(or
milieu )
and
territory
seen as
the
sedimentation
of
specific
and
interrelated
historical,
social
and
cultural
factors
in
local
areas
which
generate
significantly
different
processes
of
development
directly
due
to
local
specifications
(2).
These
considerations
lead
us
to
a
new
paradigm
for the
research
of
economic
development
mainly
based
on
territory,
while
at
the
same
time
consideration
regarding
the
local
characteristics
of
models
of
endogenous
development,
including
its
internal
control,
gives
rise
to
the
paradigm
of
development
from
below
(Stöhr,
1978,
1981
and
1984). During
the
late
1970s
and
the
early
1980s
the
literature,
at
an
international
level,
on
endogenous
and
self-centred
development,
on
territorial
and
agropolitan
development
(Friedmann
and
Douglass,
1975
;
Fried-
mann
and
Weawer,
1979),
on
the
mobilization
of
indigenous potential
(CCE,
1981),
etc.,
began
to
increase
notably.
The
end
result
of these
varied reformulations
of
the
problem
of
development has been
above
all
a
different
concept
of
space
held
by
economists.
Space
is
not
only
the
distance
between
different
places,
something
which
conditions
the
exchange
of
goods
and
a
source
of cost
for
economic
agents,
as
in
the
traditional
theories
of
industrial
location.
In
these
new
interpretations
space assumes
the
distinguishing
feature
of
territory
;
it
becomes
a
strategic
factor
of
development
opportunities
and
of
its
specific
characteristics.
Territory
represents
a
clustering
of
social
relations,
it
is
also
the
place
where
local
culture
and
other
non-transferable
local
features
have been sedimented.
It
is
the
place
where
men
and
business establish
relationships,
where
public and
local
institutions
intervene
to
regulate
society.
Territory
represents
the
meeting
place
of
market
relationships
and
social
regulation
forms,
which determine
different forms of
production organization and
different
innovative
capacities
(regarding
both
products and
processes)
leading
to
a
diversification
of
products
presented
to
the
market not simply
on
the
basis
of
relative
cost of
factors
(Garofoli, 1991a).
The
relationship
between
business
systems
and
environment
is
then
highlighted
and
constitutes
the
basis
for
the
frequent
existence
of
external
economies
to
the
firms,
but
internal
to
the
area. These
external
economies
make
the
adoption
of
(1)
Cf.,
for
instance,
the
collection
of
papers
in
Garofoli,
1992
a.
(2)
Cf.,
for
instance,
Vasquez
Barquero,
1988
;
Pecqueur,
1989
;
Garofoli,
1991
a.
24
REVUE
D'ÉCONOMIE
INDUSTRIELLE
64,
2e
trimestre
1993
of 17