Global-local networks of

Japanese automobile production

in North America
Dr. Kenkichi Nagao
Associate Professor
Institute for Economic Research
Osaka City University
UBC Year of Japan: 2002-2003

Japan, Canada, and the Pacific Rim:

Trade, Investment, and Security Issues
Centre for Japanese Research
University of British Columbia
March 27-28, 2002

Global-local networks of Japanese automobile production in North America

Kenkichi Nagao
Associate Professor
Institute for Economic Research, Osaka City University
E-mail: nagao@eri.osaka-cu.ac.jp
Paper prepared for the symposium on Canada, Japan, and the Pacific Rim, held at the University
of British Columbia, Vancouver, March 27th-28th, 2002
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to examine production networks among Japanese automobile
manufacturers and transferability of Japanese production systems in North America. Since the
mid-1980s, foreign direct investment by Japanese companies has accelerated rapidly due to
appreciated Yen. Major Japanese automobile assemblers such as Toyota have increased overseas
production, further developing international division of labor. In the arena of automobile
industry, not only global networks but also local production networks are crucial for sustaining
competitive advantage. As suggested in the literature on the just-in-time system, the relationship
between assemblers and suppliers is a critical element in production. Collaborative forms of
manufacturing with relation-specific skills are sources of product development and technology
transfer. The intensified globalization of assembly activities has changed assembler-supplier
relation and its spatial configuration. Existing literatures have argued that Japanese transplants
are not screwdriver factories and Japanese manufacturing firms are localizing production in
host countries or regions. The transferability of Japanese production systems may depend on the
scale of assembly factories and the existing manufacturing cultures in host localities. Based on
plant visits and interviews in the transplant corridor in North America, I am going to discuss
global-local networks in a rapidly globalizing production and the competence of industrial
clusters.

Key words: global production, international division of labor, production network, localized
production complex, automobile industry, Japanese transplant

1. Introduction
The automobile industry is one of the most global manufacturing industries. The world
automobile industry is predominantly an industry of transnational corporations. Transactional
corporations are based on several industrialized countries such as the US, Germany and Japan.
As the recent literature on transnational corporations suggested, transnational corporations are
not placeless and their competitive advantages are embedded in home country (Dicken, 1998;
Dunning, 2000).
Japanese automotive production is one of the strongest national models of production. Just-intime delivery logistics and workplace organization are regarded as sources of competitive
advantage in the manufacturing sector of Japan. Practices of lean production (Womack et al.,
1990) or Toyotaism (Fujita and Hill, 1995) are either learned by North American and European
manufacturers or transferred by the foreign direct investment of Japanese firms. Therefore,
convergence between different national models such as an Anglo-American model and a
Japanese model can be observed. However, distinctive characteristics that are formed in the
home country of multi-national enterprises still remains (Mair, 1997; Gertler, 2001).
Japanese corporations, especially Toyota and Honda, have still kept the worlds most
competitive auto production system, even in the 1990s: the lost decade of Japanese economy.
Automobile production of Japanese corporations should not be regarded as former dominant
system. Auto-production in Japan is characterized by a multi-layered subcontracting structure
(Sheard, 1983). As Hill (1989: 465) mentioned, a key to the competitive international success of
Japanese companies is the way they organize and tightly control their many layered production
systems.
The intensified globalization of assembly activities has changed assembler-supplier relation and
its spatial configuration. Existing literature argues that Japanese transplants are not screwdriver
factories and Japanese manufacturing firms are localizing production in host countries or regions
(Fujita and Hill, 1995). The transferability of Japanese production systems may depend on the
scale of assembly factories and the existing manufacturing cultures in host localities. Based on
plant visits and interviews in the auto transplant corridor in North America, I am going to
discuss global-local networks in the context of rapidly globalizing production, and also the
characteristics of local industrial clusters comprising Japanese auto transplants.
2. Japanese automotive production and manufacturer- supplier relations
Japanese automotive production is one of the strongest national models of production. The
division of labor between firms is a source of competitive advantage. Major Japanese automakers such as Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Mitsubishi and Mazda, specialize in engine and final
vehicle assembly. Most automotive components are supplied by their suppliers/subcontractors.
This production system in Japan can be divided into several layers as shown in Figure 1. The
production system of any auto-makers comprise several assembly plants and other operating
units of the auto-maker and its subsidiaries. In addition, they also include those of its suppliers of
basic material inputs, together with the facilities of subcontractors that directly supply the sub-

assemblers with parts, dies and engineering services required by the auto-maker. These include a
myriad of small and medium-sized firms that are indirectly involved in the production process
through the supply of parts and services to the auto-makers direct subcontractors (Sheard,
1983:54).
[Insert Figure 1 about here]
A layer is defined by its transactional distance from the auto assemblers. The first layer of the
production system comprises the subcontractors with which the auto-maker has direct
transactions. First-layer/tier suppliers are relatively large companies and make major parts. These
suppliers are key actors of multi-layered production system as parents firms to smaller firms to
which they farm out the production of a number of components or stages in the production
process, such firms being termed second tier suppliers. The third and lower tier firms are
removed still further in the production chain from direct dealings with the auto-maker.
As suggested in the literature on Keiretsu relation, auto-makers have succeeded in establishing
and maintaining a high degree of control over their first layer subcontractors. According to Sako
(1992), manufacture-supplier relations in Japan are obligational contact relations, in which longrun, trust-based relations place a premium on innovation. Those relations in Anglo-American
world are arms length contractual relations, in which short-term, price-oriented relations are
fundamental.
Relations between auto-makers and suppliers, however, are diversified based on product-based
collaborative qualities. The concept of relation-specific skill has been developed by Asanuma
(1989) for the better understanding of manufacturer-supplier relationships in Japan. This is the
skill required for suppliers to respond efficiently to the specific needs of the core firms.
Suppliers need to develop this skill through repeated interactions with manufacturers. Product
based technological learning is crucially important for firms to initiate inter-firm relationships.
Mutual dependence between manufacturers and suppliers is high in the Japanese system. The
collaborative qualities are important for both product development and mass production.
Bargaining and cooperation between manufacturer and supplier are not simple. Asanuma (1989)
differentiated systematically several types of relations and suppliers the more routine `designsupplied parts makers; the relatively customized `design approved parts makers; and also
various `run-of-the-mill marketed supplies. As a consequence, it is shown that longstanding
relations are to be found more densely where customized parts are transacted. Since the three
categories of parts suppliers have different transaction processes, the relation-specific skills also
differ depending on the category of parts suppliers. As a result, the importance of proximity and
the spatial procurement vary in the transaction process as well as distribution process.
Sharing and learning the information concerning the specific needs for customized parts are so
important that firms, which produce design-supplied and design-approved parts, tend to form
localized production network around such core manufacturer as Toyota. On the other hand, the
physical distance among firms is not considered important in the process of purchasing marketed
parts.

[Insert Figure 2 about here]

Based on a case study in Japan (Mizuno, 1997), the physical distance of inter-firm locations is
different according to a specific parts characteristics. First, the manufacturer tends to procure
the more routine `design-supplied parts on a regional scale. In this transaction processes, the
physical proximity between the manufacturer and its design-supplied parts suppliers makes it
effective for the former to transfer manufacturing skills to the latter. Additionally, there is a need
for a continued relationship and mutual trust between them. In the distribution processes,
reductions in lead-time and transportation costs are needed.
Secondly, design-approved parts suppliers tend to be limited on a national scale. Thus while the
head office of this type of sub-contractor may be remote from the assembly factories, the designapproved suppliers have to participate in the development processes of manufacturers:
specifically, R&D staff of the design-approved parts suppliers stay at the site of the manufacturer
and work together with the manufacturers staff on value engineering. In this situation, mutual
trust and cultural distance are important. Therefore, spatial distribution of design-approved parts
suppliers limited to the national level. Physical proximity in distribution system, however, is
needed less than for design-supplied parts suppliers. Hence, manufactures do not have to procure
design-approved parts within nearer regions.
Thirdly, the spatial scale of `run-of-the-mill marketed parts suppliers can be extended to a
global scale. Regarding this category, the manufacturer does not need to exchange technological
information and mutual trust with suppliers. In the procurement of parts, the reduction of leadtime and cost of distribution are not as important in relative terms. The balance between price
and quality is more important than physical and cultural distances.
Thus the supplier-customer relationship is distant not just in functional terms, but also in
geographical terms. We also should pay attention to the fact that often an evolution from the
status of a design-supplied parts supplier to that of a more sophisticated design-approved
supplier can be observed. Among Japanese car manufacturers, Toyotas localized complex is
prominent. Relational ties in Toyotas supplier association are strong, and some members of the
association have developed R&D faculties to design-approved parts suppliers. Face-to-face
contracts and networks of trust are particularly significant when it comes to exchanging nonroutinized information and expertise. Based on local relation ties in the Mikawa region of Aichi
prefeceture, physical and organizational proximity make it easier to create a particular form of
conventions.
3. Global production and transplants in North America
During the last two decades, automobile production abroad and globalized strategies of
procurement have transformed the economic-geographical dynamics of Japanese production
systems. Japanese manufacturing firms were regarded as reluctant multinationals. Production
systems were heavily embedded in the social-economic context of Japan.

Some of Japanese firms have not been reluctant multinationals. General trading companies (Sogo
Shosha) have established their offices almost over the world and their business scope is
extremely wide. In the manufacturing industry, direct investment overseas to seek low wages in
the labor intensive sector has been observed, but doing business in Japan is also essential in
sectors that require long-term collaborative networks with suppliers.
Until the 1980s, Japanese automotive firms had established local assembly operations in number
of countries, such as Australia and a number of developing countries, to put together finished
vehicles from imported kits. To serve the North American and European market, Japanese
manufacturers had exported vehicles from Japan. In the 1980s, the Yen appreciation and trade
restrictions abroad triggered large-scale Japanese direct investment to the advanced countries.
Major automobile manufactures in Japan have established production facilities in North
America. As table 1 shows, by 2000 there were eleven Japanese automobile assembly plants in
place in the United States and Canada.
[Insert Table 1 about here]
Since the establishment of an assembly plant in Ohio by Honda, each of the major Japanese
firms has continued to increase its planned capacity and to make major investments in engine,
transmission and components plants. Japanese automobile manufacturers are moving towards the
greater globalization of their production. Toyota has exceeded thirty per cent of its production
outside Japan by the end of 1990s. The share of North American production is almost half of
overseas production.
Automobile production is strongly market oriented. We should not overlook the scale of market
in North America to examine global division of labor in the automobile sector. Large, affluent
markets in which there are high levels of demand have permitted the achievement of economies
of scale (Dicken, 1998: 318). Figure 3 gives us some insights regarding features of production in
North America. This table shows local production of Toyotas plants in 1997. The production of
Toyotas assembly plants in Japan (Takaoka, Tahara, Tsutsumi, Motomachi, and Kyushu)
amounted to more than two hundred thousand vehicles in each plant per year. Among assembly
plants abroad, only those plants in the USA (TMMK in Kentucky and NUMMI in California)
have achieved a similar scale of production as in Japan.
[Insert Figure 3 about here]
The global division of labor organized by Toyota can not be fully examined without
understanding differences in the scale of production. To capture this dimension, we examine
findings from a comparison of two extreme cases: the largest plant and the smallest plant of
Toyota Motor Corporation in foreign countries: TMMK located in Geogetown, Kentucky, USA
and TMV located in suburban Hanoi, Vietnam (Ito, et. al., 2000; Nagao, et. al., 1999).
Production facilities at assembly plants, local production linkages and just-in-time delivery
logistics are summarized in Table 2. The manufacturing activities of these plants are totally
different. As suggested by a case of Vietnam, introduction of Japanese production system is not
always required to automobile production abroad.

[Insert Table 2 about here]

Historically, manufacturing volumes and output per model in Japan were too low to compete
against the economics of scale and productivity accruing to the US mass production system.
Instead, the Japanese became masters at manufacturing a variety of high quality models in
relatively low models (Fujita and Hill, 1995: 10). However, contemporary Japanese production
systems, are now partly based on the benefits of economies of scale. Existing literature (Abo,
1996; Kenney and Florida, 1993; Kumon, 1994) tends to overlook this importance to evaluate
the activities of Japanese multinationals in foreign countries.
Traditionally, Japanese automobile production was globally concentrated in Japan itself, with
minor production based on completely knocked-down (CKD) vehicles. In other words, almost all
vehicles were produced in Japan and exported to world markets. However, the new generation of
transplants in North America have changed the global production of Japanese automobile
makers. Manufacturing activity here is a combination of host-market production and product
specialization for the regional market.
4. Localized production complexes in North America
In the arena of automobile industry, not only global networks but also local production networks
are crucial for sustaining competitive advantage. As suggested in the literature on the just-in-time
system, the relationship between assemblers and suppliers is a critical element in production.
Collaborative forms of manufacturing with relation-specific skills are sources of product
development and technology transfer. The diffusion of Japanese production methods as best
practice throughout North America has attracted much attention (Gertler, 2001). This chapter
examines local networks in just-in-time complexes in North America.
Strong ties between manufacturers and suppliers were distinctive features of Japanese autoproduction. Proximity to car assemblers is crucial for parts suppliers and location of firms is
geographically concentrated as a just-in-time complex. Agglomeration of auto-related firms
around Toyota city provides an example (Nishimura and Okamoto, 2001). It has been established
that this complex is a new kind of industrial spaces.
Logistics is regarded as a key element of the just-in-time system. Timing and coordination of
delivery plays an integral role in the functioning of auto-production systems in Japan (Sheard,
1983: 60). The effect of just-in-time delivery system is for the production lines of the
subcontractors to be integrated with that of the parent firm and spatially the tendency for
subcontractors to locate near the assembly plant is strengthened. However, the just-in-time
system is not only a production system but also a learning system (Patchell, 1993). Daily ties
based on proximity generate spillovers and feedback among organizations.
Transplant-generated just-in-time complexes in North America are, in many respects, `stretched
out versions of Japans spatially concentrated just-in-time system (Kenny and Florida, 1993:
140). The transplant complex that is emerging is an adaptation of Japans dense complexes to US
conditions. Assembly plants of Japanese firms are located in the region stretching from southern

Ontario south through Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky to Tennessee. This
transplant corridor is organized principally along several highways such as Inter-state Highway
65 and 75. The single exception to the pattern of regional concentration is the NUMMI joint
venture between Toyota and GM, which reopened a previously closed GM plant in Fremont,
California. In Canada, there are three relatively smaller scale assembly plants within southern
Ontario. This proximity among assembly plants has affected locality of production, especially
more complicated inter-firm linkages of Japanese firms.
As we can learn from the locational concentration of automotive assemblers and suppliers in the
auto transplant corridor, any transfer of Japanese system to North America cannot be fully
understood without a spatial perspective. Indeed, a `transplant geography has emerged as
localized production complexes of assembly plants and automobile component factories.
Japanese manufacturers have chosen locations in the Midwest in proximity to the indigenous
automobile industrys supplier infrastructure (Mair et al., 1988). It was hoped that local
American companies could supply automotive components to Japanese assembly factories in the
Midwest. In the late 1980s, it was very difficult to find local companies that could adjust to
Japanese methods including just-in-time delivery and qualities. Then manufacturers have
brought some Japanese own domestic suppliers to the Midwest.
As the Japanese plants in North America progressively increased their North American content
(see Table 3), they were followed by a continuing wave of Japanese component manufacturers.
Suppliers have generally followed the assemblers because of the use of just-in-time system.
Compared with first-tier suppliers in North America and Europe, those suppliers in Japan are
relatively small size. There is an absence of any large independent and diversified parts makers.
Most parts-makers are affiliated with a certain auto-maker and manufacture a narrow range of
related products. Therefore, parts makers have established new plants in North America to
follow market.
[Insert Table 3 about here]
Although assembly plants have continued to rely on Japan for dies, high-value parts and capital
equipment (Fujita and Hill, 1995: 13), the local content has steadily increased. Historical changes
from screwdriver factories to sticky factories within local production complexes can be
observed. Quantitative analysis clarified economies of agglomeration of the Japanese automobile
industry in the US and its impact on the local economy (Head, et. al., 1995; Reid, 1995)
At the finer geographical scale the strong preference of Japanese automobile firms has been for
`green field sites near to small towns in rural areas. The old-established automobile industry
centers are not favored. Choice of `green field, rural locations has been determined mainly by
the desire of the Japanese producers to minimize the influence of the labor unions.
To reiterate a point made earlier, geographical configurations of just-in-time complex in Japan
and North America look similar. Agglomeration in the auto transplant corridor in North
America can be seen as stretched-out version of Japanese complex (Kenney and Florida, 1993).
There is a close and dense subcontracting pattern. However, we should not overlook some
different aspects of production complexes. Regarding the multi-layered suppliers, only first-tier

suppliers have made an investment in new factories in North America (Ito et al., 2000; Nagao,
2000). In this regard, these first-tier suppliers face more difficulties in localizing their domestic
content than the assembly factories. The growing divisions of labor between first-tier suppliers in
North America are worth further attention (Nagao, 2001).
The Japanese systems had not duplicated the same level of localization as that found in Japan. In
general, Japanese suppliers in the US retain the high-value components and inputs from local
suppliers in the US are typically bulky, low-value products. Due to distribution processes,
automotive component parts which are delivered to just-in-time principles are limited to sequent
delivery goods such as seats, interior trims and bumper. Japanese first-tier suppliers have been
supplied inputs from both local firms and Japanese suppliers, which has come to act as
first/second suppliers.
The experience of Japanese firms in the US is exceptional in the formation of strong localized
complexes. American scholars have tended to generalize the transfer of Japanese systems to
foreign countries based on observations in the USA. Regarding the automobile industry, this
viewpoint is dangerous. Japanese automobile manufacturers have invested in factories in many
host countries, but only those assembly plants in the US have the same production scale as that in
Japan (Nagao, 2000). Economies of scale cannot be ignored in a globalized economy. The
transferability of Japanese systems to the USA cannot be evaluated without considering the
production scale issue.
Moreover, despite the geographical similarity, manufacturer-supplier relations in the US are
different from those in Japan. Firstly, the importance of relation-specific skills is relatively low.
Processes of product development and trial manufacturing are still largely based in Japan.
Japanese methods use factories as laboratories, but frequency of contacts is low in current
situation. Therefore, not only market-based suppliers but also design-approved/supplied parts
suppliers need not have the same proximity to manufacturers as in Japan.
Secondly, regarding distribution processes, the frequency of parts delivery is relatively low, but
the most favorable location is within 100 miles from an assembly plant. In North America, where
space is available for greater inventory, Japanese firms need not to introduce such a busy justin-time system. Thirdly, local labor market matters in another dimension. Japanese auto-related
companies have chosen location at `green field locations in rural Midwest. For suppliers, it is
difficult to compete with manufacturers within a local labor market where commuting range is
about 30 miles. Morever, wage competition is very severe and labor turnover is problematic in
promoting skill formation. To minimize labor market overlaps, first-tier suppliers locations are
usually not `too close to or either `too far from an assembly plant.
5. Concluding remarks
Conventional views of Japanese manufacturing firms were reluctant multinationals. These views
had dramatically changed since the mid-1980s when foreign direct investment by Japanese firms
accelerated rapidly due to appreciated Yen. The intensified globalization of assembly activities
has changed assembler-supplier relation and its spatial configuration. Existing literatures have

argued that Japanese transplants are not screwdriver factories and Japanese manufacturing
firms are localizing production in host countries or regions (Fujita and Hill, 1995).
Most studies on Japanese transplants have so far demonstrated an unproblematic transfer of
Japanese production system (Kenney and Florida, 1993), or have noted a degree of
application/adaptation of national production methods (Abo, 1996; Kumon, 1994). But is it
really unproblematic to transfer Japanese production systems to foreign countries? It does not
simply represents a direct transfer of the Japanese production system (Nagao, 2000). From a
critical, comparative case study, one may say that the success of the Japanese production system
depends on the scale of production, and so transplants in the US have a certain uniqueness in the
formation of supplier complexes.
An understanding of territoriality of production networks gives us fruitful insights to examining
overseas production systems. Regarding the automobile industry, the successful production
activity in a local setting is crucial for competitive advantage. Compared with consumer
electronics industry (i.e. concentration of TV production in Tijuana, Mexico), the quality of local
production complexes plays an important role to sustain the `stickiness of any locality. Global
and continental re-organization of the manufacturing industry cannot be captured without
examining local production complexes. Indeed, grasping the dialectics of global-local relations
gives us rewarding information into to the broader study of globalization.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported in part by Nomura Foundation for Social Science and Segawa Fund
of Osaka City University.
References
Abo, T. (1996) The Japanese Production System: The Process of Adaptation to National
Settings. In R. Boyer and D. Drache (eds) States Against Markets: The Limits of Globalization.
London: Routeledge, 136-154.
Asanuma, B. (1989) Manufacturer-Supplier Relationships in Japan and the Concept of RelationSpecific Skill. Journal of the Japanese and International Economy, 19:235-251.
Dicken, P. (1998) Global Shift. Third edition. New York: Guiford Press.
Fujita, K., Hill, R.C. (1995) Global Toyotaism and Local Development. International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research, 19, 7-22.
Gertler, M.S. (1997) Globality and Locality: The Future of Geography and the Nation State. In
P.J. Rimmer (ed) Pacific Rim Development: Integration and Globalization in the Asia-Pacific
Economy. Allen & Unwin, 12-33.

10

Gertler, M.S. (2001) Best Practice? Geography, Learning and the Institutional Limits to Strong
Convergence. Journal of Economic Geography, 1: 5-26.
Hayter, R. (1997) The Dynamics of Industrial Location. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
Head K., Ries J., Swenson D. (1995) Agglomeration Benefits and Location Choice: Evidence
from Japanese Manufacturing Investments in the United States. Journal of International
Economics, 38: 223-247.
Hill, R.C. (1989) Comparing the Transnational Production Systems: The Automobile Industry in
the USA and Japan. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 13: 464-480.
Ito, T., Nishimura, Y., Okamoto, K., Nagao, K. (2000) Location of Japanese Automobile Firms
in the US. The Journal of the Faculty of Letters, Nagoya University, History, 46: 67-82. (in
Japanese)
Kenney, M. Florida, R. (1993) Beyond Mass Production: The Japanese System and Its Transfer
to the U.S. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kumon, H. (1994) International Transferability of the Japanese Production System: Japaneseaffiliated Auto Plants in the U.S.A., the U.K., and Taiwan. Journal of International Economic
Studies, 8: 59-78.
Mair, A. (1997) Strategic Localization: The Myth of the Postnational Enterprise. In K.R. Cox
(ed) Spaces of Globalization. Guiford Press, 64-88.
Mair, A., Florida, R., Kenney, M. (1988) The New Geography of Automobile Production:
Japanese Transplants in North America. Economic Geography, 64:352-373.
Nagao, K. (2000) Japanese Automobile Firms in Canada: Location and Inter-firm Linkages. In
K. Morisawa and H. Ueda (eds) Global Competition and Localization. University of Tokyo
Press, (in Japanese)
Nagao, K. (2001) Japanese Automobile Suppliers in Southern Ontario: Location, Linkage and
Manufacturing Culture, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Association of
Geographers, McGill University, 29 May-2 June.
Nagao, K., Ueda, Y., Mizuno, M., Tsutsui, K. (1999) Notes on Japanese Automobile Firms in
Hanoi Region, Vietnam, Working Paper 9903, Institute for Economic Research, Osaka City
University. (in Japanese)
Nishimura Y., Okamoto, K. (2001) Yesterday and Today: Changes in Workers Lives in Toyota
City, Japan In P.P. Karan (ed) Japan in the Bluegrass. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky,
98-122..

11

Patchell, J. (1993) From Production Systems to Learning Systems: Lessons from Japan.
Environment and Planning A, 25: 797-815.
Reid, N. (1995) Just-in-time Delivery Control and the Economic Integration of Japanese-owned
Manufacturing Plants with the County, State, and National Economies of the United States.
Regional Studies, 29: 345-355.
Sadler, D. (1994) The Geographies of Just-in-time: Japanese Investment and the Automotive
Component Industry in Western Europe. Economic Geography, 70: 41-59.
Sako, M. (1992) Prices, Quality and Trust: Inter-firm Relations in Britain and Japan.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schoenberger, E. (1999) The Firm in the Region and the Region in the Firm. In T.J. Barnes and
M.S. Gertler (eds) The New Industrial Geography: Regions, Regulation and Institutions.
London: Routeledge, 205-224.
Suganuma, U. (2001) The Geography of Toyota Motor Manufacturing Corporation. In P.P.
Karan (ed) Japan in the Bluegrass. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 61-97.
Sheard, P. (1983) Auto-production Systems in Japan: Organizational and Locational Features.
Australian Geographical Studies, 21: 49-68.
Storper, M. (1997) The Regional World. New York: Guiford Press.
Womack, J., Jones, D., Roos, D. (1990) The Machine that Changed the World. New York:
Macmillan.