Jim O'Connor invites us to think about the extent to which quality improvement
are built into capitalist competition. In longer historical context it appears
that competition has favoured those producing inferior goods. The Dutch out
smarted the Italians by producting cheaper garments. The British did the
same to the Dutch. This is an interesting question therefore. Some thoughts:
First, I am not entirely sure that quality is indeed, improving.
British companies, for instance, seemed to have achieved a certain `competitiv
advantage' vis-a-vis their European counterparts. The Economist say that 17
out of the 20 largest European food processing companies are British. (Or
was it the European? I am not sure). In any case, is it because British food
is superior to French or Italian? I doubt it. It is probably because the
British are content to consume processes food in great quantities believing
them to be `great value'.
Second, and possibly in direct contradiction to my first point.
During the 1980s, German, French, Japanese and North Italian companies
concentrated on quality products not because they wanted to, but because
strong labor movements resulting in relatively progressive social laws forced
them to compete on something other than price. It now seems to me that they
were simply lucky: Anglo-American style of growth generated growing income
polarization and hence hefty demand for `luxury' goods.
The point is that when peasants and the working classes were brought
into the market, competition was on price. Now, with growing polarization
and as market size is diminishing in relative terms, i.e., smaller percentage
of the population count as effective consumers, competition is driven to
`quality'. So I suppose the object of competition is an exogenous factor.
Ronen Palan
Newcastle Upon-Tyne, UK
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
