The Japanese auto makers brought to these sites many of the organiza­tional practices of automobile production in Japan. These practices spread still further as U.S. and Western European automobile firms responded to the Japanese competitive threat by selectively emulating Japanese orga­nizational practices. Thus, in the 1980s, flexible work rules, just-in-time delivery systems, teamwork, quality circles, and a move away from vertical integration toward the extensive use of subcontracted inputs (outsourcing) were widely adopted. There was, however, a crucial difference between the original Japanese model and that adopted by the U.S. and Western European multinationals. That is, the latter did not promise job security to their core labor force. In other words, the cost-cutting measures of ]apanese lean production were adopted without the related employment policies. This model might thus be labeled "lean and mean" (cf. Harrison 1997). In contrast, the original "Toyotist" model - which offers employment security to a core labor force in exchange for cooperation, but at the same time creates a large buffer of less privileged workers without the same rights and benefits - might be labeled "lean and dual." The difference between these two models, we will argue, is crucial to understanding the dynamics of contemporary labor unrest in the world automobile industry.

Through the 1990s, the lean-and-mean version predominated. Whereas Japanese multinationals operating in core countries tended to implement the homegrown model (Florida and Kenney 1991: 390- 1), U.S . corporations have generally taken the lean-and-mean road, as have Japanese producers operating in Southeast Asia and Latin America. Deyo (1996a: 9) argued that "authoritarian politics and repressive labor regimes" are char­acteristic of the main sites of industry expansion in low-wage countries. In Thailand, Mitsubishi has not extended employment guarantees to its core workforce (Deyo 1996b: 145-6). In Korea, the domestic auto producers (except Kia) continue to pursue a low-wage, high-turnover strategy of mass production and an anti-union and autocratic managerial style (Rodgers 1 2 On the U.S. automobile industry's emulation of Japanese production methods, see among others Abo (1994). And in China, "layoffs are becoming a painful reality" as the central government promotes a "leaning-out of the industry" in an effort to bring labor productivity in Chinese automobile factories in line with the standards set by international "market rule" (Treece 1997c). Like­wise, Japanese transnationals in Mexico are employing traditional Fordist techniques; they have found it "economically rational to place a heavier em­phasis on low wages, even if the consequent high turnover disrupts quality circles and other lean production techniques" (Shaiken 1995: 248-9, 254).