European Urban and Regional Studies - SAGE - the natural home

http://eur.sagepub.com/

European Urban and Regional Studies

http://eur.sagepub.com/content/10/4/343The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/09697764030104004

2003 10: 343European Urban and Regional StudiesChristopher Raven and Steven Pinch

The British Kit Car Industry : Understanding a `World of Production'

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:European Urban and Regional StudiesAdditional services and information for

http://eur.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://eur.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://eur.sagepub.com/content/10/4/343.refs.htmlCitations:

at SAGE Publications on October 27, 2010eur.sagepub.comDownloaded from


http://eur.sagepub.com/content/10/4/343

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://eur.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://eur.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://eur.sagepub.com/content/10/4/343.refs.html


THE BRITISH KIT CAR INDUSTRYUNDERSTANDING A ‘WORLD OF PRODUCTION’

Christopher Raven and Steven PinchUniversity of Southampton, UK

It is frequently argued that, since the 1970s, firms inadvanced capitalist economies have seen ‘anenhanced capacity for geographical dispersal, smallscale production and the pursuit of custom-markets’(Harvey, 1990: 157). Thus, Scott (1988) has arguedthat key elements within an emerging post-Fordistregime of accumulation are ‘revivified artisanal anddesign intensive industries producing articles forfinal consumption’. In a similar vein, Harvey hasargued that, in a post-Fordist era, ‘small businesses,patriarchal and artisanal organisational structureshave flourished’ (Harvey, 1990: 158). In recentyears, following the ‘cultural turn’ in economicgeography, there has been an attempt to explain thegrowth and survival of such revivified industries byexploring the links between culture and economy(Lee and Wills, 1997). This has led to research intothe socially embedded character of economicsystems. In particular, there have been attempts tounderstand ‘worlds of production’ (Storper andSalais, 1997) – the many logics compatible withcapitalist accumulation and, indeed, the ways inwhich capitalism is articulated with other economicpractices outside the commodity exchange relation.

This paper attempts to explore the merits of

such perspectives in relation to a revivified artisanalindustry in which Britain is a world leader – theBritish kit car industry (BKCI). This industryconsists of over 150 small independentmanufacturers producing very low volumes of carcomponents for self-assembly by consumers. Thisindustry grew between 1949 and 1974 but thenexperienced rapid decline, only to revivedramatically in the last 15 years. Only two othernations – the US and Australia – can boast anythingapproaching such an array of small kit car firms. Aswill be shown below, this industry has a number ofremarkable features that provide insights into thesocially embedded character of economic life.

The industry is also of interest in the context ofoverall manufacturing decline in the UK. Not onlywas the UK the first nation to experience the fulleffects of the Industrial Revolution, but it was alsothe first nation to experience deindustrialization ona massive scale. This has led to much discussionabout whether the British can manufacturesuccessfully. Yet despite the well-known problemsassociated with mass production in the UK (seeBazen and Thirwall, 1997; Middleton, 2000; Pope,1999), a factor often overlooked in this debate is that

Abstract

★

European Urban and Regional Studies 10(4): 343–354 Copyright © 2003 SAGE Publications0969-7764[200310]10:4; 343–354;036250 London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi, www.sagepublications.com

This paper explores how some of the ideasemerging from the ‘cultural turn’ in economicgeography can help us understand the ‘world ofproduction’ constituted by a revivified artisanalsector – the British kit car industry. It is argued thatthe sector can be interpreted as a ‘community ofpractice’ underpinned by an ‘economy of regard’.Not only are the ‘consumers’ of kit cars a crucialpart of the production chain for this unusualcommodity but they are tightly bound together withproducers in their common interest in the leisure

activity of building and often racing kit cars. Thisrequires considerable two-way exchange ofknowledge and information and a mutuallyrecognized reciprocity in the sector. While notsubverting capitalist norms of economic exchange,the kit car sector serves to further emphasize thediversity of arrangements that can surroundeconomic activity.

KEY WORDS ★ British kit car industry ★ ‘economies of regard’ ★ ‘worlds of production’


www.sagepublications.com


the nation does have a strong tradition ofmanufacturing sectors characterized by small firms.Frequently, these firms resemble the legendary‘cottage industries’ of Silicon Valley. Developed on avery small scale in converted farm buildings, shedsand garages, they reflect the hobbies or leisureinterests of their founders. Examples include: thespecialist brewery industry (Mason and McNally,1997); the British motor sport industry (Henry andPinch, 2000); the British specialist high fidelityindustry (May et al., 2001); and the Scottishsoftware industry.

The recent proliferation of small kit carcompanies in the UK in a context of manufacturingdecline therefore raises some interesting practicalquestions as well as theoretical issues: What lessonsdoes this industry have for the future ofmanufacturing in Britain? Are they a peculiarlyBritish ‘relic feature’ of industrialism, exemplifyingthe idiosyncrasies of their eccentric foundermanagers? Or are they instead dynamic innovativeconcerns, exploiting new markets and, as such, aharbinger of manufacturing revival?

To answer these questions the paper isstructured as follows. First, there is a discussion ofrecent work on the socially embedded character ofeconomic systems and in particular the notion of an‘economy of regard’. This is followed by an outlineof the research design and methodology used tocollect information relating to the BKCI. Next,there is a discussion of the history of the industry inthe UK since the Second World War. The core ofthe paper considers the extent to which the BKCIprovides insights into the socially embeddedcharacter of economic life. The final sectionconsiders the implications of the analysis for ourunderstanding of economic competitiveness andsmall-firm manufacturing in the UK.

Understanding a ‘world of production’

Recently in economic geography we have seen whathas been variously termed a ‘cultural’ (Lee andWills, 1997), ‘institutional’ or ‘relational’ (Boggs and Rantisi, 2003) turn. Whatever label is used, thebasic thrust of these developments has been aconcerted effort to explore the links between culture and economy. Underpinning this work is a

rejection of the conventional neo-classical approach which sees economic behaviour as theproduct of individual, atomistic, rational, utilitymaximizers. Instead, economic life is seen asconstituted by agents whose attitudes and behaviour are formed by their relations with others.Economic life is therefore seen as the product ofshared rules, norms and procedures. In other wordsit is socially and institutionally situated, or asGranovetter (1985) famously termed it, socially‘embedded’.

While many would acknowledge the importanceof these statements, in reality, the underlyingnotions are underdeveloped and have provedslippery to pin down. Consequently, these ideashave led to some complex debates about therelations between economy and culture; and,indeed, whether it is even useful to make such adistinction between these two elements (see Lee andWills, 1997). One perspective is to assert thatcultural issues affect, or influence, basic underlyingeconomic processes in some way but the economicprocesses are paramount. Reflecting such anapproach, Sayer (1997: 22) argues that: ‘Whenresearchers explain the changing fortunes ofindustries without bothering to assess cost or cash,something is seriously wrong.’ However, a morecommon position is to assert that economic activityis not an autonomous realm that is merely impactedby social life, but that cultural processes are anintrinsic part of economic activity. The crucialquestion is then to analyse how cultural norms andsocial conventions underpin or constitute economiclife.

This issue has prompted research into thesocially embedded character of economic systems.In particular, there have been attempts tounderstand ‘worlds of production’ – the many logicscompatible with capitalist accumulation and, indeed,the ways in which capitalism is articulated withother economic practices outside the commodityexchange relation. This follows Storper and Salais’sinfluential assertion that:

[T]here is a great diversity of possible conventions fororganising productive activity, and also a great diversityof possible, conventionally agreed-upon economic testsof whether an economic activity is economically viable or‘efficient’ . . . in modern economies the concrete formsof ‘laws’ [of economics] vary enormously from product

European Urban and Regional Studies 2003 10(4)

344 EUROPEAN URBAN AND REGIONAL STUDIES 10(4)



to product and place to place, according to the ways inwhich actors interpret the uncertainty they face and co-ordinate with others to resolve it. (Storper and Salais,1997: 19)

Thus researchers have attempted to identify theways in which financial transactions are mediated bynumerous factors other than the ‘pure’ logics ofrational economic calculation.

For example, drawing upon the work of Offer(1997), Lee (2000) examines the ways in whichfinancial transactions among very small nurseries inthe UK horticultural industry are mediated by the‘economics of regard’. Offer suggests that aneconomy of regard operates ‘when trade involves apersonal interaction and when goods and servicesare unique, expensive or have many dimensions ofquality’ (Offer, 1997: 471). There is often a mutualexchange in such economies of not only income, butalso knowledge, prestige and pleasure. But whereasOffer is attempting to conceptualize how apparentlynon-economic relations can be economized, Leeeffectively attempts the reverse – he aims to showhow the social and economic are inextricably linked.His basic argument is that because of a mutuallyrecognized reciprocity between transacting partners,narrow economic relations may be displaced,thereby leading to ‘suboptimal’ exchange:

For the seller what is involved in such transactions is notmerely the realisation of value but the materialisationand extension of regard based on specialised knowledge:for the buyer, status, identity, knowledge and expandeduse value … What is being traded across such markets isan enjoyment and fulfilment in the extension ofknowledge as well as in the products to which knowledgeis attached. (Lee, 2000: 139–40)

This means that a buyer may discount theidiosyncrasies, uncertainties and possible high pricesassociated with dealing with small undercapitalizedfirms (Lee, 2000). In return, as well as the valueembodied in the commodities, the seller may offertime, labour and expertise in support of activities ofmutual interest. This does not mean that the sharingof knowledge or regard in such economies is devoidof rational economic calculation. Instead, echoingStorper and Salais (1997), Lee (2000) argues thatthe central dynamics of capitalist economies can bemanifest in a wide variety of social and institutionalforms. However, to date this is the only application

of the concept of an ‘economy of regard’ ingeography. The question therefore arises as towhether it can be made to work on other contextssuch as the BKCI.

Methodology

Data relating to the firms in the BKCI weregathered using a variety of methods. Initially, adatabase of kit car companies was identified fromvarious sources including kit car magazines and theInternet. A series of postal questionnaires wasmailed to a sample of firms who agreed over thetelephone to participate in the survey (73) and thisresulted in 42 detailed responses, a response rate of58 percent. Given that the total populationcharacteristics are unknown, we cannot be certainhow representative these responses were. However,they included firms with a wide range of differentsizes, geographical characteristics and organizationalstructures. On the basis of this information, fivesemi-structured interviews were conducted with anillustrative mix of different manufacturers, to gainmore in-depth qualitative information. In addition,two days were spent with a leading manufacturer;one as a guest at a ‘track day’ event and the other inthe manufacturing environment. Other sources ofinformation included: visits to two kit car showswhere informal interviews were conducted withmanufacturers and well over 100 kit car owners;telephone interviews with component suppliers; aninterview with the editor of Kit-Car Magazine; andsecondary sources, such as the Internet andspecialist magazines. Finally, and by no means least,crucial insights were provided by Steve Hole of Kit-Car Magazine.

Any conclusions about the BKCI must betempered by recognition of the diversity within thesector. For example, while 9 of the 42 firmssurveyed stated that they manufactured virtuallynothing themselves, 3 manufacturers claimed toproduce the vast majority of components in-house.In addition, while some firms continue to produceessentially the same model year after year, others aredeveloping a profusion of different models. Again,while some firms were open in their attitudes towardsrivals, others were more secretive. Nevertheless, thebroad patterns displayed by the industry are clear.


RAVEN & PINCH: THE BRITISH KIT CAR INDUSTRY 345



The BKCI: some background

Derek Buckler made the first UK kit cars in 1949,inspired by the desire to bring motor sport withinthe range of a wide market by selling high-quality,affordable kits (Lawrence, 1998). Between 1949 and1973 there was a proliferation of British kit carcompanies making cars in a huge range of designs,specifications and production volumes (Lawrence,1998). It is impossible to know precisely how manyfirms existed at this time but there were at least 50companies (Steve Hole, personal communication).The early vehicles produced by these firms wereoften called ‘specials’ and were mainly used tocompete in various types of amateur motor sportincluding trials, races, rallies and sprints.

A number of factors gave birth to and nurturedthis industry. According to those interviewed in oursurvey, the most important factor was the strongamateur following for motor sport in the UK(encouraged by a surplus of disused airfieldssuitable for amateur motor racing after the SecondWorld War). Another – somewhat fortuitous –element leading to growth of the sector was theabsence of VAT (value added tax) on kit cars in theearly years of the industry. More recently, thedecline of mass-produced automobiles in the UKwould seem to have had a positive impact. Thisdecline has displaced many skilled workers whosetalents were absorbed by the kit car industry (albeitin small numbers). Thus, no less than 71 percent ofthe BKCI owner-founders in our survey had workedwith cars or in engineering, with the majorityemployed in car dealerships, design and mechanicalengineering. However, in contrast to the highfidelity or motor sport industries (Henry and Pinch,2000: May et al., 2001), there was little evidence ofkit car firms setting up as ‘spin-offs’ directly fromexisting kit car companies. One other factorcommonly believed by members of the industry tohave contributed to the growth of the BKCI is anenvironment that is conducive to new firmformation with fewer regulations or constraints thanin continental Europe. It was also frequentlyasserted that the regulations surrounding theconstruction of kit cars in the UK are less restrictivethan in continental Europe.

Despite this initial rapid growth, by the end ofthe 1960s the concept of the kit car had developed apoor image. This was a period when the quality of

cars produced in the UK – both specialist and mass-produced – was often very poor and some kit carswere even dangerous. However, at the quality end ofthe market, some vehicles, such as those producedby Marcos, TVR and Lotus, were supplied incomponent form (i.e. partly assembled kitsrequiring the owner to undertake only as much workas would escape purchase tax). This type of kit carcame to an end in 1974, when VAT was applied toall cars whether in kit form or not. These taxchanges led to a dramatic decline in the BKCI andafter 1974 the majority of kit cars were aimed at theintermediate class of affordable sports cars, withlow-cost kits and basic specifications. In the 1990s,however, for reasons discussed in greater detailbelow, there has been rapid regrowth of theindustry.

It is difficult to determine precisely how manyfirms currently exist in this sector in the UK. Aswith most specialist small-firm sectors, there is ahigh rate of firm’ births’ and ‘deaths’ such that thepopulation of the sector is constantly changing. Therights, moulds and jigs for a model can often switchwith bewildering rapidity from one company toanother. All kit car manufacturers rely uponcomponents from elsewhere and it is thereforedifficult to draw a dividing line between those kit carfirms which design a complete vehicle and thosewhich provide highly customized parts for ‘donor’vehicles. In addition, there are many very smallbusinesses run from garages that are ancillary toother activities and might be regarded as on the‘fringes’ of the industry. Such firms might supply afew specialist parts, assemble vehicles from othermanufacturers, or even construct a few highlydistinctive bespoke vehicles for a very small numberof specialist clients. These firms are often unknownoutside a few specialist circles and are thereforesometimes difficult to locate. As will be described ingreater detail below, some of these firms are not somuch businesses interested in producing vehiclesthat they can sell, as leisure interests through whichpeople can give vent to their automotive creativityby producing ever-more outlandish vehicles! Forexample, a new vehicle might emerge afterspeculation about the consequences of fitting apowerful engine from one vehicle into a lightweightchassis of a completely different product – adevelopment that might be suspect from theviewpoint of safety! This sort of development can





lead to attitudes of hostility towards regulation.Indeed, a small proportion of the sector seems toshy away from publicity, proving difficult to contactand hostile to being surveyed. Fortunately, the vastmajority were enthusiastic and more than willing todiscuss their activities. Our best estimate is thatthere are currently between 150 and 200 kit carmanufacturers in the UK. Most of these firms arelikely to be extremely small. In terms of employees,91 percent of the firms in this survey could actuallybe classed as ‘microfirms’, since they employ 0–9employees (the average being about 5). Theremainder, except one, could be classed as ‘small’(less than 49 employees), according to theDepartment of Trade and Industry definition(Carter and Jones-Evans, 2000: 25).

Contemporary kit car companies sell packages ofcomponents that can take between 200 and 500hours to assemble. To complete the vehicle, thebuyer must typically also supply key donor carcomponents – engine, gearbox, wheels, etc. Themajority of manufacturers also produce ‘turnkey’cars, which are fully assembled, and mostmanufacturers are currently increasing this aspect oftheir sales. It is estimated that about 3,500 kits areproduced in the UK each year of whichapproximately 2,500 are assembled and registered inthe UK (Steve Hole, personal communication). Themost recent hurdle for kit car manufacturers was theintroduction of SVA (Single Vehicle Approval) inJuly 1998. This test ensures that all kit cars have anofficial seal of approval and it increases the qualityof and customer confidence in kit cars (Stent, 1999).However, kit car manufacturers currently facethreats from mainstream car manufacturers whohave introduced specialist sports cars; for example,Vauxhall (the General Motors brand name in theUK) has introduced the high-performance sportingVR 220 Model. There are also threats to the UKmarket from relatively cheap imported sports carsand from foreign ‘grey-imports’ (i.e. diverse – andoften stolen – ex-Japanese models imported via theMiddle East).

As shown in Figure 1, kit car companies aredispersed throughout the UK and, significantly,include the ‘peripheral’ regions of Wales, the NorthWest and the South West. There is, however, anobvious nucleation in the West Midlands. Thisregion was the traditional base for much of themass-produced end of the British automotive

industry, so the concentration here is not altogethersurprising. It can be surmised that the large numberof automotive component suppliers and engineeringfirms in this region have provided a stimulatingmilieu for the kit car industry. However, what mightinitially seem surprising, given the links between kitcar manufacture and motor racing, is the distinctabsence of companies in so-called ‘Motor SportValley’ centred around Oxfordshire (Henry andPinch, 2000). A few respondents did acknowledgethat some racing car technology had filtered throughto the industry, especially in regard to specialistracing formulae. We should note in this context thatthe British racing car sector is currently a multi-billion-pound industry centred around professionalracing and the Silverstone race circuit. Kit carmanufacture, in contrast, has strong links withamateur racing which is more widely dispersedthroughout the UK.

The BKCI and the ‘economy of regard’

The British kit car industry displays many of theclassic features of revivified, flexibly specialized,artisanal industry. Hence the firms are extremelysmall, exploiting market niches with low volumes ofproducts using a highly flexible workforce. However,further insights into the ‘world of production’constituted by this remarkable industry can begleaned by developing the notion of an ‘economy ofregard’.

Given the poor quality and unhelpful instructionmanuals characteristic of many of the kits producedby the BKCI in earlier times, the assertion that theindustry might be labelled as an ‘economy of regard’would no doubt be somewhat questioned by manyprevious consumers! Furthermore, the high rate ofbankruptcy in the industry suggests that they arenot suboptimal enterprises surviving for longperiods in the same manner as small UKhorticultural nurseries. Yet the fact that consumers persist with these products despite thenumerous problems involved in their assembly, andthe fact that producers persist in manufacturedespite low or almost non-existent profits, are bothinstructive. Without doubt, both consumers andproducers in the BKCI constitute a ‘community ofinterest’ in which there is an enormous mutual







Figure 1 Location of British kit car companies



exchange of know-how and respect. Like an‘economy of regard’, this is a world of productionsustained by highly knowledgeable participants onboth sides of the market. While not totallysubversive of capitalist norms, these are actorsinvolved in social practices far from rationaleconomic exchange.

We can elaborate upon these assertions by firstconsidering in more detail the complex relationsbetween the consumers and producers of kit cars.To assemble a car from a kit requires thatconsumers have knowledge, skill, spare time andworkshop space. In theory, a kit car enables thepurchaser to acquire an exotic looking ‘supercar’ at afraction of the cost of a ready-assembled model.Indeed, one respondent claimed that kit carcustomers were often ‘penny-pinching’ and thattime spent building a car meant that one was notconsuming petrol on the road! Certainly low costwas an important consideration when the industrywas developing in the 1950s since this was a periodof postwar austerity. However, while knowledge andassembly facilities are still crucial, in recent timescost has arguably been a less important factor. Thusthe construction of a kit car often requiresconsiderable income and is often taken up by therelatively affluent with considerable leisure time ontheir hands. Furthermore, the products typicallylack the sophistication of mass-produced vehicles interms of comfort, refinement, and isolation fromnoise and vibration. Instead the emphasis is uponlightness of weight, sporting performance, and‘driver involvement’ with the road. (In this respectthere is perhaps a parallel with the purists’ desire forunadulterated sound in the field of high fidelityaudio reproduction; see May et al., 2001). Incontrast to many contemporary automobiles inwhich the occupants may be somewhat dangerouslydeceived about the high speeds they are reaching bya highly insulated interior, similar speeds in a kit carprovide a much greater sensation of locomotion.

These specialized attributes of kit cars meanthat, inevitably, the demand for kits is low, and mostmanufacturers’ output is correspondingly extremelysmall. To illustrate, the average production per firmin our survey was only 53 kits per year, but while theupper limit was 400, the majority of firms sold farless, the median being only 30. The restrictednature of these batches means that, inevitably,consumers are acquiring highly distinctive products

that stand apart from mass-produced models (evenif the latter are produced in ever-increasing variety).This accords with what has been termed theaestheticization of consumption – the increasingemphasis upon image and style (Lash and Urry,1994). As one respondent claimed: ‘We express ourparticular tastes through the cars that we drive’.This discourse of individualism was expressed byone owner-manager thus: ‘The UK population aremad nutters! We have individuality and lots ofpeople like to be different, so there’s a large marketfor kit cars. Us Brits ain’t sheep!’ Many kit carmanufacturers are able to produce bespoke items toindividual specifications, thus enabling kit cardevotees to make their cars even more distinctive.

Most automobiles, whether mass-produced orotherwise, have semiotic qualities and embodydiverse cultural signifiers (Gartman, 1994; Miller,2001; Perry, 1998). Nevertheless, in the case of kitcars, the functional transport capacities are muchless important than in the case of conventionalvehicles; instead, kit cars represent key elements in aremarkable ‘leisure industry’ centred aroundamateur racing, shows, street cruising, orienteering,rallying and motor clubs. Above all, kit carcompanies trade on their exclusivity and sportingappeal. With output levels so low, and the possibilityfor customization so high, the chances of comingacross the same model on the road are extremelysmall, even if they do proliferate on amateur racetracks. In this respect the kit car industry wouldseem to be a departure from the widespreadphenomenon of ‘branding’, i.e. developing a widelyknown product where consumers can be confidentin the characteristics and qualities they will beobtaining, whether these be attributes of reliabilityor lifestyle associations. There are certainly widelyknown and prestigious brands in the kit car industry(at least among devotees). However, arguably, it isthe relative obscurity of the products’ origins thatgives some of these vehicles their somewhatmysterious appeal. It was acknowledged by export-oriented firms in our survey that the desire forindividual-looking cars was especially high in theUS, aided in this economy by extraordinarily highincomes in some quarters of that nation. These arethen pre-eminently ‘positional goods’ whose statusis in large part derived from the fact that few otherspossess them. Since vehicles often embodyperceptions of national characteristics (e.g. BMW





equals German elitist technological prowess; Perry,1998), arguably, exported kit cars embody adiscourse of ‘Britishness’ centred around‘inventiveness’ but also ‘quirkiness’ and‘eccentricity’.

Kit cars are therefore produced with a highlyspecific but constantly changing market in mind.Most kit cars have a sporting appearance and rapidperformance, but manufacturers are able to adjustquite rapidly to these variations in consumerpreferences within this market sector; for example,there has recently been a growth in the market formotorcycle-powered vehicles. The range of vehiclesproduced in the sector in recent years is trulyastonishing, including: open two-seater sports cars(the most common type); replicas of ‘classic’ cars;replicas of vintage cars; go-carts; three-wheeledvehicles; motorcycle-powered cars; off-roadbuggies; ‘supercars’ (i.e. expensive, high-performance road-going vehicles); amphibiousvehicles; low-performing but outlandish-appearingcars; and finally, various hybrids of all the above.Indeed, given the recent proliferation of motorcycletrikes and cars based on motorcycle engines, theterm ‘kit car’ industry is in some ways a misnomer.

The range of vehicles produced by any givenmanufacturer is typically quite small; for example,57 percent of firms surveyed produced only one ortwo models. Significantly, however, 57 percent hadbrought out a new model in the last 12 months and76 percent planned to bring out a new model in thenext 12 months. As in the majority of industrialsectors, most of the innovations in the industry aresmall and incremental. Nevertheless, it was clearthat most manufacturers are continually striving toupgrade and improve their products, albeit in smallways. Low capitalization rates mean that kit carcompanies do not have expensive CAD/CAMsystems to assist them in making innovations;instead, they typically rely on handmade jigs andmoulds produced by skilled craftsmen that can beadjusted incrementally to meet new market trends.This avoids the need for expensive new tools orcostly and lengthy readjustment of existing tools.Output levels are driven by consumer demand,appropriate parts being purchased as required.

Kit car companies are therefore especiallyinteresting from the conceptual viewpoint becausethey represent a radical change from mostmanufacturing configurations. Not only is the

manufacture of many components subcontracted tonumerous specialist suppliers, but most of the labourinvolved in the final assembly of these componentsis offloaded onto the consumer (despite the growthof ready-assembled ‘turnkey’ models). Theapproach is therefore analogous to ‘flat pack’ self-assembly furniture, albeit on a much moresophisticated scale (and no doubt with similar butmore intense frustrations!; see Webster, 1998). Thekit car manufacturers are therefore primarilyresponsible for overall product conception, design,partial component manufacture; componentcollation; marketing and distribution. In terms ofUrry’s (1987) classic typology of restructuringprocesses, kit car firms represent a combination of‘sub-contracting’, ‘self-provisioning’ and‘replacement of the labour process’ (often through‘domestication’, i.e. the use of household labour).This means that the conventional division between‘producers’ and ‘consumers’ is totally underminedby the kit car sector.

Both the producers and consumers in the kit carindustry are therefore tightly bound together bytheir mutual interest in all aspects of kit carconstruction. For example, while the marketingapproach of kit car companies is much lessexpensive than that of many global ‘virtual’companies, it is in many respects highlysophisticated. Sales of kit car companies aretypically derived through informal word-of-mouthcommunication with enthusiasts. As noted above,these are highly knowledgeable consumers withspecific tastes and aspirations. Consumers of kit carsmay therefore be regarded as somewhat differentfrom the average consumers of ready-assembledvehicles who must entrust their lives to variousexpert systems of which they are comparativelyignorant (Miller, 2001). Indeed, no less than 75percent of kit car companies in our survey claimedto have obtained innovations from customers.Customer liaison is therefore an important andgrowing aspect of the industry, with continuousimprovement in response to customer feedback.Although it was not possible to evaluate the issuedirectly, interviews with customers indicated thatmuch of this close interaction was a consequence ofthe tacit nature of the knowledge needed toassemble a vehicle from components. Althoughmuch knowledge can be codified in manuals, thereare limits to how much can be conveyed in this





manner (see Webster, 1998). Thus, some companieshave introduced assembly manuals on CD-ROMs,and more easily assembled kits designed for less-skilled consumers. Many companies welcomepotential buyers turning up at the factory andhaving a look around the premises. Anotherrespondent boasted of the way in which they coulddeliver spare parts to a customer following anaccident. All these practices point to a community ofregard in which there is considerable mutualexchange of knowledge.

Characteristics of founders

The features of the industry noted above mean thatthe owners of kit car companies are a far cry fromprofit-maximizing entrepreneurs. This point can befleshed out by examining in detail the founders ofthese companies, their origins and motivations.Most of these firms have developed out of leisureinterests and they constitute what are sometimestermed ‘lifestyle industries’. Thus, personalsatisfaction rather than financial reward was thereason most commonly cited for setting up inbusiness. As one respondent commented: ‘We knowwe don’t and won’t earn a great deal. It’s not a veryprofitable industry. But we enjoy kit cars.’

Although the founders of the companies hadgrown up in ‘entrepreneurial’ environments, with 63percent having parents who could be described as‘independent’ (i.e. company owners, freeprofessionals, self-employed, independent artisans,etc.), their current aspiration levels were relativelylow. Thus only a small minority were aiming formaximum growth in a niche market. The majorityargued that they did not want the ‘hassle’ or risk ofrapid expansion and were concerned to preservetheir existing lifestyles. For this reason some firmsdeliberately avoided publicizing their products.Although 62 percent claimed they wanted toexpand, these were mostly firms producing at belowaverage levels and their aspiration levels were stillrelatively low. Consequently, there was very littlereliance upon venture capital, most respondentsclaiming that they wanted to retain theirindependence (and that a venture capitalist woulddemand too high a price for the risks involved).

After studying the small-brewery industry in the

UK, Mason and McNally (1997) concluded thatthis ‘craft industry’ was more of a hobby than abusiness, stimulated by satisfaction in producing theproduct rather than financial return, and similarcomments apply in the case of the BKCI. There is,however, a major contrast between the kit carindustry and the small specialist brewing industry.Mason and McNally argue that although theaspirations of the specialist brewers are limited, thefundamental constraint on their expansion is thestranglehold on distribution held by the majorbreweries. The implication of their argument is thatif this stranglehold were released, there would be abig potential market for specialist beers. Kit carcompanies do not have elaborate distributionchannels but arguably they are not needed;inevitably the market for this product will be limitedto enthusiasts. Above all, kit car founders should notbe confused with opportunistic rapid-growthentrepreneurs as manifest in some high-technologysectors. However, in this respect kit carmanufacturers are similar to most types of smallbusiness, irrespective of sector, in that they areseeking either the status quo or steady, satisfactorygrowth rather than a more risky maximum-expansion strategy.

These characteristics mean that most of thefounders developed their businesses close to theirhomes (manifest in 78 percent of the samplereplies). Since most UK kit car companies haveevolved from leisure interests in garages orconverted farm buildings close to the founders’homes, most founders were therefore unwilling touproot their families and move elsewhere. ‘Qualityof life’ considerations were also prominent in thereasons given for remaining in their existinglocations. This widely observed inertia effect hasbeen explained by a number of factors (Cooper,2000; Hayter, 1997). First, it avoids the disruptionassociated with moving home and, in any case, theexisting property is often needed as collateral for abank loan. Second, new firms often begin on a part-time basis while the founder is still working for anemployer (as in bedroom and garage start-ups). Thelinks developed with customers, suppliers andworkers during this phase further serve to localizethe business when it develops into a full-timeoperation. Third, by staying put the founder cancapitalize upon existing knowledge of premises,workers, suppliers and markets, thereby reducing





uncertainty and minimizing risk. Fourth, the needsof most new firms are relatively unspecialized andcan be met anywhere, thus further inhibitingchange.

In addition to strong links with consumers, kitcar manufacturers also have strong links with eachother, again forming a ‘community of interest’. Oneof the reasons for this is that there does not appearto be a high degree of competition among firms.Innovation is certainly becoming increasinglyimportant in the BKCI, and there is a renewedemphasis upon research and design within theindustry, especially with the intrusion of massmanufacturers into the specialist market. However,the pace of change is relatively slow compared toother sectors and there is less need to keep pace withpotential rivals. Consequently, most kit carcompanies undertake the bulk of their own researchand design in-house and there is little if any of therapid exchange of staff between competingcompanies that is so central to knowledge transfer inother sectors. In addition, there is not the samedegree of secrecy and competition as manifest inother industries. The reason for this would onceagain seem to be related to the very low outputlevels of the companies. This means that kit carcompanies are typically supplying very small nichemarkets and are less likely to be in directcompetition with each other. Many firms welcomemembers of staff from other companies (as well asconsumers) turning up and looking around theirfactories. As one founder-owner commented:

We’ve done lots of road shows with other manufacturers,with any makes being welcome. We’re very open andfriendly to all other companies. We’re not overlyprotective and secretive, I’m not in the business to tryand steal somebody else’s piece of the pie. On thecontrary, I want to see the whole pie get bigger.

Thus 60 percent of the respondents claimed thatthey were ‘totally individual’ and did not feel theneed to monitor the activities of their competitors.

The interviews also indicated that there aredense informal contact networks throughout theindustry. Indeed, there is a high degree ofcamaraderie and mutual support among the firms,component suppliers and consumers. No less than73 percent of the respondents claimed to regularlyacquire information about rival companies at kit car

shows and three respondents acknowledged thatthey had directly copied ideas seen at such venues.Indeed, no less than 54 percent of firms cooperateddirectly with rivals. This high degree of horizontalcollaboration contrasts with many high-technologyagglomerations in which secrecy is much moreevident. As Stent notes:

It wasn’t so many years ago when [kit car] manufacturersreally didn’t talk to each other … the recession soon puta stop to that … [and] forced manufacturers to talk [and]enforced a level of camaraderie within the industry[there is a] new air of co-operation within the industry.(Stent, 1999: 72)

There is also evidence of increasing collaborationbetween manufacturers and suppliers. One-third ofthe kit car respondents claimed that componentsuppliers had led to innovations (one suppliercommented that race car technology had beenpassed on to kit car manufacturers regarding offsetwheel alignment) and 81 percent of them reliedupon suppliers to undertake design anddevelopment tasks. Increasingly, kit carmanufacturers are developing vertically integratedsubcontractors, thus passing on responsibilities,reducing risks and increasing externalizationbenefits. Thus 74 percent of the componentsuppliers interviewed claimed they had given kit carcompanies ideas, and 30 percent of the suppliersquestioned said they had invested in specialequipment to produce components for kit cars.When the kit car manufacturers were asked whythey cooperated, the most commonly expressedmotive was ‘to gain product improvements’ and‘new designs’. The second most commonly citedreason was ‘sharing ideas’, while ‘sharingcomponent suppliers’ also ranked highly in thereplies. External economies of scale are constantlybeing sought with 51 percent of kit carmanufacturers increasing their numbers ofsuppliers. This increased number of contractorsreduces costs, externalizes uncertainty, increasesflexibility and raises quality and productivity (Pike,1998). Perhaps unsurprisingly, in the light of theabove, 65 percent of the respondents claimed thatcooperation in the industry was more importantthan competition. Furthermore, no less than 62percent said they would merge with othermanufacturers if the opportunity arose (mimicking





the spate of mergers and cooperation in the volumesector of automobile manufacture; see Savary, 1995).

Conclusions

This paper has explored how some of the ideasemerging from what has been variously dubbed the‘cultural’, ‘institutional’ or ‘relational’ turn ineconomic geography can help us understand the‘world of production’ constituted by a revivifiedartisanal sector – the British kit car industry. Wehave argued that the sector can be interpreted as a‘community of practice’ underpinned by an‘economy of regard’. The reason for this is that bothproducers and consumers are tightly bound togetherin their common interest in the leisure activity ofbuilding, and often racing, kit cars. The founder-owners of kit car companies are not expansionist,profit-maximizing entrepreneurs but typically kitcar enthusiasts extending their leisure interests. The‘consumers’ of kit cars are of course also a crucialpart of the production chain for this unusualcommodity. This requires considerable two-wayexchange of knowledge and information and amutually recognized reciprocity in the sector. Wecannot go so far as Lee who concludes that hisnurseries are ‘spaces of non-capitalist productionoperating within an apparently hegemonic capitalism’(Lee, 2000: 138), for kit car companies are stillcapitalist organizations. But while not subvertingcapitalist norms of economic exchange, the kit carsector serves to further emphasize the diversity ofarrangements that can surround economic activity.It is therefore possible to identify spaces ofproduction within market systems that lie outsidethe conventional norms of profit maximization.

It is now widely recognized that, given thewidespread growth of low-cost manufacturing sitesthroughout the world, nations such as the UK mustincreasingly compete on the basis of design, quality,innovation and specialization. To what extent doesthe BKCI satisfy these objectives? Certainly inrecent years the industry has developed from anenthusiast-led, predominantly amateur sector,characterized by idiosyncratic ‘garden shedengineering’ and poor-quality products, into a muchmore professional business. Furthermore, the desireof consumers for ever-more distinctive products

shows no signs of diminishing. This suggests thatthere is undoubtedly room for expansion of theindustry, especially with the development of lessspartan ‘turnkey’ models. In addition, although theUK Specialist Transport Advisory and TechnicalService provides a coordinating role, this is far shortof the collective institutional support provided toother specialist sectors throughout the world.Greater support might therefore lead to existingproducers lifting their sights, especially in exportmarkets. The industry might also be able to exploitits links with the British racing car industry,increasingly recognized throughout the world for itstechnological brilliance. Echoing Rosenfeld’s (1997)typology (albeit used in the context of clusters), theBKCI might therefore be seen as ‘underachieving’.However, taken as a whole, the BKCI providesfurther evidence for those who would cautionagainst the potential for such small, specializedbusinesses to lead to manufacturing revival. Therelatively low aspirations of these founder-ownersreflect their status as ‘lifestyle’ businesses and theyshould not be confused with other rapid-growthhigh-technology sectors. Specialist cars are, and willalways remain, a minute proportion of volume-produced automobiles. Furthermore, too muchexpansion would undermine the very exclusivityupon which this sector is based.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Adrian Smith for hisvaluable comments on an earlier version of this paper.

References

Bazen, S. and Thirwall, A.P. (1997) UK Industrialisationand Deindustrialisation. London.

Boggs, J.S. and Rantisi, N.M. (2003) ‘The “RelationalTurn” in Economic Geography’, Journal of EconomicGeography 3: 109–16.

Carter, S. and Jones-Evans, D. (2000) Enterprise and SmallBusiness: Principles, Practice and Policy. Harlow: PrenticeHall.

Cooper, S. (2000) ‘Technical Entrepreneurship’, in S.Carter and D. Jones-Evans (eds) Enterprise and SmallBusiness. Harlow: Prentice Hall.





Gartman, D. (1994) Auto Opium: a Social History of theAmerican Automobile Industry. London: Routledge.

Granovetter, M., (1985) ‘Economic Action as SocialConstructions: the Problem of Embeddedness’,American Journal of Sociology 91: 481–510.

Harvey, D. (1990) The Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford:Blackwell.

Hayter, R. (1997) The Dynamics of Industrial Location.Chichester: Wiley.

Henry, N. and Pinch, S. (2000) ‘Spatialising Knowledge;Placing the Knowledge Community of Motor SportValley’, Geoforum 31: 191–208.

Lash, S. and Urry, J. (1994) Economies of Signs and Space.London: Sage.

Lawrence, M. (1998) A to Z of Sports Cars: 1945–1990.Devon: Bay View Books.

Lee, R. (2000) ‘Sheltering From the Storm? Geographiesof Regard in the Worlds of Horticultural Consumptionand Production’, Geoforum 31: 137–57.

Lee, R. and Wills, J. (eds) Geographies of Economies.London: Arnold.

Mason, C. and McNally, K.N. (1997) ‘Market Change,Distribution and New Firm Formation and Growth: theCase of Real-ale Breweries in the United Kingdom’,Environment and Planning A 29: 405–17.

May, W., Mason, C. and Pinch, S. (2001) ‘ExplainingIndustrial Agglomeration: the Case of the British HighFidelity Industry’, Geoforum 32: 363–76.

Middleton, R. (2000) The British Economy Since 1945.London.

Miller, D. (ed.) (2001) Car Cultures. Oxford: Berg.Offer, A. (1997) ‘Between the Gift and the Market: the

Economy of Regard.’ Economic History Review L2:450–76.

Perry, N. (1998) Hyperreality and Global Culture. London:Routledge.

Pike, A. (1998) ‘Making Performance Plants From BranchPlants?; In Situ Restructuring in the Automobile

Industry in the UK’, Environment and Planning A 31:665–82.

Pope, R. (1999) The British Economy Since 1914; a Study inDecline? Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Rosenfeld, S.A. (1997) ‘Bringing Business Clusters intothe Mainstream of Economic Development’, EuropeanPlanning Studies 5: 3–23.

Savary, J. (1995) ‘The Rise of International Co-operationin the European Automobile Industry: the RenaultCase’, European Urban and Regional Studies 2: 3–20.

Sayer, A. (1997) ‘The Dialectic of Culture and Economy’,in R. Lee and J. Wills (eds) Geographies of Economies.London: Arnold.

Scott, A. (1988) ‘Flexible Production Systems andRegional Development: the Rise of New IndustrialSpaces in North America and Western Europe’,International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 12:171–86.

Stent, I. (1999) ‘Editiorial’, Which Kit Magazine? (Jan.):71–2.

Storper, M. and Salais, R. (1997) Worlds of Production: theAction Framework of the Economy. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Urry, J. (1987) ‘Some Social and Spatial Aspects ofServices’, Society and Space 5: 5–26.

Webster, L. (1998) ‘We Build a Kit Car’, Car and Driver43: 108–9.

Correspondence to:

Steven Pinch, Department of Geography,University of Southampton, Southampton SO171BJ, UK.[email: [email protected]]





European Urban and Regional Studies - SAGE - the natural home

Documents

Transcript of European Urban and Regional Studies - SAGE - the natural home