Bulletin of Comparative Labour Relations - 64

Globalization and Employment Relations in the Auto Assembly Industry

Table of Contents

Notes on Contributors

Chapter 1. – Introduction

Globalization, Varieties of Capitalism and Employment Relations in the Automotive Assembly Industry

Nick Wailes, Russell D. Lansbury, Jim Kitay and Anja Kirsch

Chapter 2. – Australia

Globalization and Employment Relations in the Australian Automotive Industry

Russell D. Lansbury, Jacob Saulwick and Chris F. Wright

Chapter 3. – China

The Changing Nature of Employment Relations in the Chinese Automotive Industry

Shuming Zhao, Jie Zhang, Wei Zhao, Wei Huang, Chris F. Wright and Russell D. Lansbury

Chapter 4. – Germany

Globalization and Employment Relations in the German Auto Industry

Ulrich Jürgens

Chapter 5. – Japan

The Automotive Industry in Japan

Mitsuo Ishida, Akiko Ono, Naoki Mitani, Yoshinori Tomita and Anja Kirsch

Chapter 6. – Korea

Globalization and Employment Relations in the Korean Automotive Industry

Byoung-Hoon Lee and Young-bum Park

Chapter 7. – Sweden

Lean Production and Employment Relations in the Swedish Auto Assembly Industry

Göran Brulin, Olle Hammarström and Tommy Nilsson

Chapter 8. – USA

Recent Developments in U.S. Auto Labor Relations: The Decline of the Big Three and the United Automotive Workers

Harry C. Katz

Chapter 9. Conclusion

Globalization, Continuity and Change: The Automotive Assembly Industry

Russell D. Lansbury, Nick Wailes and Anja Kirsch

Notes on Contributors

Göran Brulin is Professor at The National Institute for Working Life and at The Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. Goran.brulin@nutek.se

Olle Hammarström is Senior Researcher at The National Institute for Working Life, Stockholm, Sweden. Olle.hammarstrom@telia.com

Wei Huang is a PhD Candidate at the Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom. wh231@cam.ac.uk

Mitsuo Ishida is Professor at the Faculty of Social Studies, Doshisha University, Kyoto, Japan. mishida@mail.doshisha.ac.jp

Ulrich Jürgens is Head of the “Knowledge, Production Systems, and Work” Research Group at the Social Science Research Center WZB, Berlin, Germany. juergens@wz-berlin.de

Harry C. Katz is Dean and The Jack Sheinkman Professor of Collective Bargaining-NYSSILR, Cornell University, Ithaca, USA. hck2@cornell.edu

Anja Kirsch is a PhD Candidate and Research Assistant in Work and Organisational Studies at the Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Sydney, Australia. a.kirsch@econ.usyd.edu.au

Jim Kitay is Associate Professor and Chair of Work and Organisational Studies at the Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Sydney, Australia. j.kitay@econ.usyd.edu.au

Russell D. Lansbury is Professor of Work and Organisational Studies and Associate Dean (Research) at the Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Sydney, Australia. r.lansbury@econ.usyd.edu.au

Byoung-Hoon Lee is Associate Professor at the Department of Sociology, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, South Korea. bhlee@cau.ac.kr

Naoki Mitani is Professor at the Faculty of Economics, Kobe University, Japan. mitani@kobe-u.ac.jp

Tommy Nilsson is Associate Professor at The National Institute for Working Life, Stockholm, Sweden. Tommy.nilsson@riksrevissionen.se

Akiko Ono is Researcher at the Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training, Tokyo, Japan. aono@jil.go.jp

Young-bum Park is Professor at the Department of Economics and Knowledge, Hansung University, Seoul, South Korea. ybpark@hansung.ac.kr

Jacob Saulwick completed Honours in Political Economy and was a Research Assistant in Work and Organisational Studies at the Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Sydney, Australia. He now writes about economics for the Sydney Morning Herald. jsaulwick@smh.com.au

Yoshinori Tomita is Professor at the Faculty of Economics, Saga University, Japan. tomitay@cc.saga-u.ac.jp

Nick Wailes is Senior Lecturer in Work and Organisational Studies at the Faculty of Economics and Businesss, University of Sydney, Australia. n.wailes@econ.usyd.edu.au

Chris F. Wright is a PhD Candidate at the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom. cflw2@cam.ac.uk

Jie Zhang is a PhD Candidate and Lecturer at the College of Economics and Business, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, P.R. China. jiezhang@nuaa.edu.cn

Shuming Zhao is Professor and Dean at the School of Business, Nanjing University, P.R. China. zhaosm@nju.edu.cn

Wei Zhao is Associate Professor in the School of Business, Nanjing University, P.R. China. w.zhao@jlonline.com

Introductory Chapter

Globalization, Varieties of Capitalism and Employment Relations in the Automotive Assembly Industry

Nick Wailes, Russell D. Lansbury, Jim Kitay and Anja Kirsch

1. Introduction

            This issue of the Bulletin of Comparative Labour Relations reports findings from the research project Globalization, Varieties of Capitalism and Employment Relations: A Study of the Automobile Assembly and Retail Banking Industries in Seven Countries (GERAB). The project sought to examine whether the impact of globalization on employment relations differed from country to country, and whether differences varied systematically across varieties of capitalism. It was undertaken over a period of three years and involved researchers from Australia, China, Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Sweden and the United States. This symposium focuses on the auto industry, while an earlier issue of the Bulletin was dedicated to the retail banking industry. The seven national case studies presented here contain rich empirical findings on employment relations practices in the auto industry, in a range of countries, and explores how these practices have been influenced by the process of globalization.

            Changes in the international economy that are commonly referred to as globalization have consequences for national patterns of employment relations. There are, however, competing views about globalization’s significance and the types of changes it is likely to produce. Some have argued that globalization produces convergence in labour standards across countries and regions, while others have suggested that the pressures associated with globalization are refracted through national level institutional arrangements, resulting in continued diversity. However, empirical studies of comparative changes in employment relations provide little support for either of these views revealing a complex pattern of both continuity and change across countries (see Lansbury et al. 2006).

            Recent institutionalist scholarship has gone beyond the focus on single institutions and begun to examine the relationship between institutions. The relationship between corporate governance arrangements and labour management practices figures prominently in theories of capitalist diversity. The most influential of these theories of capitalist diversity, known as the Varieties of Capitalism (VoC) approach by Hall and Soskice (2001), has overcome some of the limitations of the earlier institutionalist approaches and offered a promising basis for the study of globalization and national patterns of employment relations. There are, however, a number of criticisms of the VoC approach which suggest the need to take into account a broader range of factors when examining the relationship between globalization and employment relations.

            This introductory chapter locates the research within the varieties of capitalism approach, outlines developments in the global auto industry and introduces the key issues in employment relations that are examined in the country chapters. The concluding chapter reviews the developments in employment relations portrayed in the country chapters and re-examines how globalization influences employment relations practices in light of the results of the national case studies. It also discusses how the varieties of capitalism approach may be revised to adequately capture the changing nature of employment relations in the international auto industry, particularly within the Asian economies examined in this project.

2. The Varieties of Capitalism Approach and Employment Relations

            The VoC approach rejects the notion that there is one best way to organize capitalism and points to the role that institutional arrangements play in shaping how market societies function. It is this emphasis on the interrelations between institutional arrangements which differentiates the VoC approach from earlier institutionalist analyses. The early proponents of the VoC approach, Hall and Soskice, drew on what they described as ‘the new economics of organization’ to develop a firm-centric theory of comparative institutional advantage. They argued that in market economies firms were faced with a series of coordination problems, both internally and externally. They focused on five spheres of coordination that firms must address: industrial relations; vocational training and education; corporate governance; inter-firm relations and relations with their own employees (Hall and Soskice 2001: 6–9).

            Hall and Soskice argued that it was possible to identify two institutional equilibria associated with these coordination problems. First, Liberal Market Economies (LMEs), in which firms rely on markets and hierarchies to resolve coordination problems. LMEs are likely to be characterized by:

– well developed capital markets and outsider forms of corporate governance;

– market based forms of industrial relations with few long term commitments by employers to workers and

– the use of market mechanisms and contracts to coordinate their relations with supplier and buyer firms.

The United States is the prime exemplar of an LME but the literature also often includes the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Ireland in this category.

            The second variety of capitalism identified by Hall and Soskice, Coordinated Market Economies (CMEs), includes countries in which firms make greater use of non-market mechanisms to resolve coordination problems internally and externally. In comparison with LMEs, CMEs are more likely to be characterized by:

– insider forms of corporate governance and ‘patient’ forms of capital;

– industrial relations systems based on bargaining and which reflect a longer term commitment to employees and

– the use of non market mechanisms, such as industry associations, to coordinate relations between firms within and across industries and sectors.

Germany is the prime exemplar of a CME but the literature also often includes other northern European countries, as well as Japan, within this category.

            Central to Hall and Soskice’s argument, and the identification of distinct varieties of capitalism, is the concept of institutional complementarities. In the VoC model institutional complementarity refers to two related but separate effects. First, institutions are said to be complementary to the extent that the existence of one enhances the effectiveness of another. Thus, for example, the existence of a cohesive industry association may enhance the economic efficiency of industry-wide collective bargaining. In this sense institutional complementarity helps explain why two contrasting institutional configurations, LMEs and CMEs, are able to produce superior economic outcomes. However the VoC model also suggests that, over time, institutional arrangements are likely to converge towards one or the other institutional equilibrium. Hall and Soskice (2001: 18) argue that ‘nations with a particular type of coordination in one sphere in the economy should tend to develop complementary practices in other spheres as well’ (see also Amable 2003: 54–66). For example, the VoC model suggests that in countries which are characterized by well-developed capital markets and outsider forms of corporate governance it is difficult to sustain industrial relations practices which imply long-term commitment to employees. Over time, there are likely to be pressures for the adoption of more market-based forms of industrial relations. In this sense, the VoC model predicts what has been described as ‘dual convergence’ (Hay 2004).

            As this brief review suggests, the VoC approach appears to offer a number of potential benefits for scholars interested in assessing the impact of globalization and employment relations. First, in relation to the study of globalization, the VoC approach overcomes some of the limitations of the new institutionalism identified in earlier work (Lansbury et al. 2003). By focusing on the interconnections between institutional arrangements, it is possible to overcome the tendency of the new institutionalism to treat industrial relations institutions in isolation. Second, the firm-centric nature of the VoC approach avoids dealing with institutions as separate from the social actors who engage with them. In particular, the firm-centric nature of the VoC approach makes it possible to bring employers back into the analysis of change in industrial relations (Swenson 1991). Third, by providing mechanisms for identifying varieties of capitalism, the VoC approach may explain the empirical pattern of continuity and change in employment relations that has been observed in recent years. For example, the VoC framework may help explain why globalization appears to be associated by significant falls in union density and collective bargaining coverage in some countries (mainly the LMEs) but has not produced the same outcomes in other countries (such as the CMEs) (see also Godard 2005).

3. The GERAB Project: Towards a More Dynamic View of Varieties of Capitalism

            Despite these potential benefits, there are a number of limitations to the VoC approach that suggest that this framework needs to modified if it is to used to help explain the impact of globalization on employment relations. In particular, it has been argued that the VoC approach, with its focus on two varieties of capitalism, is excessively parsimonious (identifying only two varieties); it downplays differences within varieties of capitalism and has trouble accounting for change. A number of these problems can be directly related to the deterministic view of institutions that underpins the VoC model. In doing so the VoC approach fails to adequately account for the roles that agency and interests play in shaping social action (see Wailes 2007).

            The GERAB project, from which the contributions to this volume are drawn, is designed to address weaknesses of the VoC approach in a number of respects. First, it attempts to go beyond the excessive parsimony of the VoC model by examining the extent to which some of the distinctive institutional characteristics of Asian market economies (AMEs) shape the impact of globalization on national patterns of employment relations. Second, by focusing on at least two countries (one large and one small) within each of three varieties of capitalism, the project aims to explore evidence of diversity within as well as between varieties of capitalism. Third, the project focuses on changes in employment relations in two industries, retail banking and auto assembly. The two industries are profoundly affected by globalization but in different ways. While the impact of globalization on retail banking has been largely indirect, as the next section suggests, the auto-assembly sector is much more directly implicated through the internationalization of production. Not only does the project attempt to examine the interplay between institutions and industry effects, but also by focusing on more than one firm in each industry in each country it aims to examine the role that corporate strategy and relations of power between employers and employees play in shaping employment relations outcomes (see Wailes 2007).

            The GERAB project is thus well positioned to respond to recent calls in the comparative capitalism literature for a more dynamic approach. Deeg and Jackson (2007), for example, have argued for a reformulation of the VoC approach which sees institutions not as constraints on action, that determine social outcomes, but rather as resources on which actors can draw (see also Crouch 2005). Hancké et al. (2007) have also argued that there is a need for VoC models to take into account more fully the role that both labour and the state play in creating and reproducing particular varieties of capitalism.

            The GERAB project also provides the opportunity to explore links between debates about the impact of globalization on national patterns of employment relations and the growing body of literature that draws on comparative institutionalism to examine the diffusion of human resources (HR) practices in multinational corporations (MNCs). It is often argued that one of the greatest forces for convergence in employment relations is the increasing size and significance of MNCs. There is, however, research which questions this overly simplistic view and argues instead that the diffusion of HR practices in MNCs is affected by national level institutional arrangements in both the country of origin and the host country (see for example Ferner and Quintanilla 1998). More recently, this comparative institutionalist view has been supplemented by arguments that stress the significance that power relations within MNCs, particularly between headquarters and subsidiaries, play in shaping the diffusion process (Almond and Tempel 2006).

            The auto assembly industry, in particular, is dominated by a small number of very large MNCs and the country level studies in this volume provide information about the employment relations practices adopted by a number of these MNCs in their subsidiaries across a range of countries. Not only does the literature on HR in MNCs have important potential implications for understanding the relationship between globalization and employment relations, but also, the GERAB project may provide a further testing ground for these theories particularly due to its focus on Asia.

4. The Global Auto Industry

            The auto industry is a prime example of globalization in which multinational enterprises have developed networks, alliances and cross-shareholdings across regions and nations. From the end of the Second World War until the mid-1960s, US producers, especially the ‘Big Three’, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, dominated the auto industry, with their vast domestic market and expansion into Europe and elsewhere. By the 1970s as trade barriers fell European and especially Japanese auto companies, led by the Toyota Motor Company, were capturing new markets around the world and beginning to penetrate the US. The 1980s marked the ascendancy of the Japanese automakers and a period of crisis for the ‘Big Three’. By the mid 1990s, the Japanese auto firms accounted for one-third of all sales in the US. European auto manufacturers, particularly from Germany, extended their manufacturing facilities to Asia and US dominance began to decline. During the 1997–1998 Asian economic crisis Japanese and Korean auto companies experienced difficulties while American and European companies embarked upon recovery. A new phase of global expansion since the late 1990s has seen a number of mergers and acquisitions and the development of strategic alliances and joint ventures. Demand in the existing ‘triad’ markets of Europe, North America and Japan is stagnant due to saturation, while expansion is expected in emerging markets, especially in Asia and South America. This leads to high competitive pressures among automakers to capture emerging markets (Lansbury et al. 2007).

            Over time, sales have not only become global but so has production. Both auto assemblers and their suppliers have penetrated new markets by setting up plants there, ranging from simply assembling complete knocked down vehicles to producing parts and assembling entire vehicles. In stark contrast to the integrated manufacturing plants in the early 20^th century that produced all components and assembled vehicles under one roof, production in the auto industry is a now multi-tiered process. Simple parts are produced in developing countries, while entry-level cars and complex components are produced in newly industrialized countries such as Mexico and South Korea. In advanced countries, high value-added cars are produced with low manufacturing depth (many components are imported) and consumer-related service activities are provided. As shown in Table 1, production volume has been expanding since 2001 and future growth is forecast mainly in emerging markets.

Table 1: Production Trends by Original Equipment Manufacturers in the Auto Industry by Region, 2001–2007

Source: Lansbury et al. (2007).

            The standardized mass production of cars based on narrowly defined tasks and centralized control was achieved in its most exemplary form in the Ford production plants in the early 20^th century (‘Fordism’). It was seen as the most efficient and advantageous production system until the Japanese and in particular Toyota captured the American market in the 1970s and 1980s using a production system that produced high quality vehicles at lower costs. Toyota’s ‘post-Fordist’ production system was termed ‘lean production’ in the influential book, The Machine that Changed the World, by James Womack and others (1990) from the International Motor Vehicle Project based at MIT in Boston. Toyota demonstrated that it was possible to continuously improve production processes while building relatively cheap, standardized vehicles of high quality. In contrast to mass production, which was inflexible and based on standardized products on production lines, the key characteristics of Toyota’s lean production system were continuous process improvement (kaizen) of quality and production, zero defects, just-in-time production, the elimination of waste, close integration of all parts of the production process from suppliers to customers, rapid product and process development, and efficient small-lot production. It was described as more flexible, with products ‘pulled’ by customer demands rather than ‘pushed’ by the production process. Womack et al. (1990) described lean production as ‘an interrelated set of technological, organizational and human resource policies that, when implemented together, constitute a new flexible system of work’. While there are critics who argue that lean production is simply an old-fashioned ‘speed up’ production device portrayed as a new idea in order to more subtly control the workforce, elements of lean production have been widely adopted by auto manufacturers around the world. However, it has been observed that there are many variations of ‘hybrid systems’ which combine elements of both lean and mass production (Kochan et al. 1997).

Table 2: Characteristics of Mass Production versus Flexible or Lean Production

Source: Adapted from MacDuffie and Pil (1997).

            While there has been a diffusion of lean production principles around the world it appears that today, there is no ‘one best way’ of organizing automobile production. Elements of lean production have been implemented in a piecemeal and incremental fashion in different countries, enterprises and plants with a regional, national, local or company ‘flavour’. This shows that variations in production systems reflect multiple external and internal factors, including globalization and technological innovation as well as the strategic choices of firms, unions and governments (Kochan et al. 1997).

            There are great differences in consumer demands across regions: consumers in mature markets require vehicles that reflect their lifestyle and values (e.g. recreational, sports utility or fuel-efficient vehicles) while consumers in emerging markets require basic transport and buy no frills vehicles that provide value for money. This divergence makes the global homogenization of production very difficult. Ford’s concept of a ‘world car’ built from standardized component parts with common production systems across countries does not appear to be a feasible strategy today. Rather, auto companies tailor products to specific regions and attempt to reduce costs by developing several vehicles on the same platform.

            The choice of production system is influenced not only by the type of vehicles produced and the policies of the plants’ owners but also by factors pertaining to local employment relations including:

– The skill level of the local workforce and the process of skill development

– Labour costs and associated systems of pay and remuneration

– The power of organized labour and the cooperative or conflictual nature of industrial relations, especially where changes to work organization (e.g. teamwork), pay (e.g. performance-related pay) and staffing (e.g. employment security) are concerned.

            Thus, as noted by John Paul MacDuffie (1995: 106), ‘it may make sense to first examine company-level factors affecting the adoption and diffusion of new approaches to work organization and then turn to national level explanation for residual variations’. The importance of employment relations for the choice of production systems shows that the influence of globalization (international trade, foreign direct investment, international financial transactions) in the auto industry will be tempered by employment relations at the local level.

5. The Case Studies from Seven Countries

            In subsequent chapters, the changing nature of employment relations in the auto industry will be examined in a range of countries which reflect different varieties of capitalism, as well as representing smaller and larger examples of different types of capitalist and non-capitalist economies. The liberal market economies are represented by the United States and Australia, the coordinated market economies by Germany and Sweden and the Asian economies by China, Japan and South Korea. Each of these countries face different aspects of globalization and the authors examine how the local employment relations systems are influenced by changes in both the production systems as well as the political economy in which they operate.

            Each of the chapters include case studies of auto assembly plants in one of the seven countries covered by the research project and examines five key issues related to employment relations as follows:

i. Work organization: how jobs are defined and work is allocated; the impact of technological change; organizational and occupational structures; changes to hours of operation; whether, and why, jobs are becoming broader or narrower, whether tasks are being redistributed; whether authority relations are changing; whether hours of work are lengthening or declining; and changes to the intensity of work.

ii. Skill formation: how skills are acquired; what training and development is provided; changing skill requirements; impacts of public policy; how skill requirements are changing and how enterprises seek to match jobs and skills; tensions between company specific and general skills; and the extent to which upskilling or deskilling is occurring in core occupations.

iii. Remuneration systems: how the pay system is constructed; how pay differentials have been changing; to what degree pay has become more flexible and contingent on performance; measurement of performance; the criteria and practices used in rewards; the extent to which compensation is based on performance; and how performance is measured.

iv. Staffing arrangements and employment security: how the workforce is structured (full-time, part-time, casual, temporary and contract workers); job security and labour market adjustment practices; career structures; recruitment, selection and separation practices; how and why enterprises meet their labour requirements in particular ways; and the nature of the employment relationship.

v. Enterprise governance and employee/management relations (in the sense of labour management, specifically industrial relations and other mechanisms of employee voice): the level of unionization and union influence; the nature of bargaining between management and the workforce; the degree of employee involvement in decision-making; the role and influence of the human resources function in the enterprise; and the role of industry associations.

6. References

Almond, P. and A. Tempel (2006) “Multinationals and National Business Systems: A ‘Power and Institutions’ Perspective” in P. Almond and A. Ferner (eds) American Multinationals in Europe: Managing Employment Relations Across National Borders, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Amable, B. (2003) The Diversity of Modern Capitalism, New York: Oxford University Press.

Crouch, C. (2005) Capitalist Diversity and Change: Recombinant Governance and Institutional Entrepreneurs, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Deeg, R. and G. Jackson (2007) “Towards a more dynamic theory of capitalist variety” Socio-Economic Review 5(1): 149–179.

Ferner, A. and J. Quintanilla (1998) “Multi-nationals, national business systems and HRM: the enduring influence of national identity or a process of ‘Anglo-Saxonization’” International Journal of Human Resource Management 9(4): 710–731.

Godard, J. (2005) “The new institutionalism, capitalist diversity and industrial relations” in B.E. Kaufman (ed.) Theoretical Perspectives on Work and the Employment Relationship, Champaign, IL: Industrial Relations Research Association.

Hall, P. and D. Soskice (2001) “An introduction to varieties of capitalism” in P. Hall and D. Soskice (eds) Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage, New York: Oxford University Press.

Hancké, B., M. Rhodes and M. Thatcher (2007) “Introduction: Beyond Varieties of Capitalism” in B. Hancké, M. Rhodes and M. Thatcher (eds) Beyond Varieties of Capitalism: Conflict, Contradictions and Complementarities in the European Economy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hay, C. (2004) “Common trajectories, variable paces, divergent outcomes? Models of European capitalism under conditions of complex economic interdependence”, Review of International Political Economy 11(2): 231–262.

Kochan, T.A., R.D. Lansbury and J.P. MacDuffie (eds) (1997) After Lean Production: Evolving Employment Practices in the World Auto Industry, New York: Cornell University Press.

Lansbury, R.D., J. Kitay and N. Wailes (2003) “The impact of globalisation on employment relations: Some research propositions”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Human Resources 41(1): 62–74.

Lansbury, R.D., C.-S. Suh and S.-H. Kwon (2007) The Global Korean Motor Industry: The Hyundai Motor Company’s Global Strategy, London, New York: Routledge.

MacDuffie, J.P. (1995) “International trends in work organisation in the international auto industry: National-level versus company-level perspectives” in K. Wever and L. Turner (eds) The Comparative Political Economy of Industrial Relations, Madison WI: IRRA.

MacDuffie, J.P. and F. Pil (1997) “Changes in auto industry employment practices: An international overview” in T.A. Kochan, R.D. Lansbury and J.P. MacDuffie (eds) After Lean Production: Evolving Employment Practices in the World Auto Industry, New York: Cornell University Press.

Swenson, P. (1991) “Bringing capital back in, or social democracy reconsidered: employer power, cross-class alliances, and centralization of industrial relations in Denmark and Sweden”, World Politics 43(4): 513–545.

Wailes, N. (2007) “Globalization, Varieties of Capitalism and Employment Relations in Retail Banking” Bulletin of Comparative Labour Relations 64: 1–14.

Womack, J.P., D.T. Jones and D. Ross (1990) The Machine that Changed the World, New York: Rawson Associates.