産 業 關 係 硏 究

第16卷 第1號, 2006. 6, pp. 117～134

ⓒ 韓 國 勞 使 關 係 學 會

産業關係硏究 제16권 제1호

PDR Systems for Mutual Gains in the globalizing Digital Economy(Hyo-Soo Lee)

PDR Systems for Mutual Gains
in the globalizing Digital Economy

Hyo-Soo Lee*

논문접수일 : 2006년 3월 30일, 심사의뢰일 : 2006년 4월 4일, 심사완료일 : 2006년 6월 5일

* Yeungnam University, 016-9812-2719 hyoslee@ynu.ac.kr

In this paper the focus will be placed on the PDR systems for mutual gains in the globalizing digital economy. To make sustainable competitive advantage in the global information era, actors must restructure PDR systems to acquire mutual gains and flexibility. They should develop creative humanware system, team based network organization and high performance workplace practices in the software system, and flexible machines in the hardware system. The humanware system converts human resources into creative resources by cultivating workers’ mindset and abilities that are intangible assets. The software and hardware systems can be continuously improved and used efficiently by workers who have learning, creative and cooperative minds. The PDR systems should be balanced because the production system is heavily influenced by the distribution and rule-making systems through the mindset of the humanware system. Well-developed and balanced PDR systems will generate mutual gains, knowledge-based workers, real flexibility and competence in response to the rapidly changing environment.

▶ Keywords: Employment Relations, Humanware, Knowledge Worker, Mutual Gains, PDR Systems Theory

Ⅰ. Introduction

We have been experiencing a rapid globalization of the world economy, revolution in information and communication technology (hereafter, abbreviated as the “ICT revolution”), and the knowledge-based digital economy. They must be the most influential forces in determining the future course of the planet. With these three powerful real aspects of the new world economic system, enterprises and nations are faced with a new environment of competition. Consequently, the environments of the employment relations are likely to undergo significant changes.

According to the PDR systems theory, changes in environment have a strong effect on the actors' values and power positions, which in turn influence the actors' strategic choices involving the PDR (Production, Distribution and Rule-making) systems that are interconnected via humanware system. The contents of the PDR systems and their interactions determine the level of performance including productivity and overall quality of workers’ life. Therefore, actors must restructure the PDR systems to generate sustainable competitive advantage in the changing environment.

The central purpose of this paper is to provide generic principles to create mutual gains enterprise in the globalizing digital economy based on the PDR systems theory. The logic of the mutual gains is that employees must commit their energies to meeting the economic objectives of the enterprise, and in return, owners (shareholders) must share the economic returns with employees and invest those returns in ways that will promote the long-run economic security of the work force (Kochan and Osterman, 1994; Cohen-Rosenthal and Burton, 1987). The PDR systems theory may address the logic of mutual gains very successfully because the dependent variables in the theory are ingredients of mutual gains, and the interaction mechanism of the PDR systems provides the logic of mutual gains.

The focus of this paper will be placed on the PDR systems for mutual gains in the global information age. After reviewing the PDR systems theory as the analytical framework, this paper will clarify the notion of globalization, ICT revolution and knowledge-based digital economy as applied to the changes in the environments of the employment relations. Second, it will consider the effects of the changing environment on the actors’ values and power positions. Third, it will discuss actors’ strategic choices of the PDR systems for mutual gains in the new environments.

II. Analytical Framework: The PDR Systems Theory

Lee (1996a, 1996b, 2001) examined employment relations from the perspective of the synthesis and interaction of the production, distribution and rule-making systems (hereafter, identified as the “PDR systems”). The PDR systems theory is deeply rooted in Commons (1909, 1924, 1934, 1950), Dunlop (1958), and Kochan, Katz and Mckersie (1986). The PDR systems model consists of four parts characterizing employment relations, i.e. 1) the environment, 2) the actors (their values and their power positions), 3) the contents and the interactions of the PDR systems, and 4) the resulting performances (Lee, 1996a, 1996b). As illustrated in Figure 1, the four parts are inter-connected in a logical, real-world framework. Environmental factors have a strong effect on the actors’ values and their power positions, which, in turn, influence the actors’ strategic choices towards the PDR systems. The contents and interaction of the PDR systems determine the performance level of the workers’ productivity and their overall well-being.

The PDR systems theory categorizes the environment into both competitive and general environments. The competitive environment includes technology, capital and product markets, the labor market, corporate governance, and the firm’s size. The general environment is composed of the socio-cultural climate, the economic status, and the political status. As compared to the general environment, the competitive environment can be the objectives of various business strategies, and it can be altered rapidly. However, it is very similar to the general environment, in that it indirectly affects the PDR systems by influencing the actors’ values and their power positions.

Figure 1. Theoretical Framework for Analyzing Employment Relations

(    )

The actors’ values determine the sphere of strategic choices that they may consider, and their relative power positions determine the effective strategic choices. The actors’ values and strategic choices are analytical tools that are similar to Commons’ volitional psychology, which is a creative agency looking towards the future and manipulating the external world and other people in view of expected consequences (Commons, 1950). Actors use two kinds of strategies that affect employment relations. One is to strengthen their power positions through such means as union organization strategies or competitive environment strategies, and the other isto construct or renovate the PDR systems.

In the context of the PDR systems theory, based on social Darwinism or institutionalism, the employment relations system must be evolutionary or gradually changing because the actors, i.e. the workers and the trade unions, the employers, and the government continue to develop and create strategies for the PDR systems in light of the ever-changing employment relations environment (Commons, 1934, 1950; Bush, 1987; Lower, 1987; Mayhew, 1987; Mirowski, 1987; Neale, 1987; Stevenson, 1987; Woodbury, 1987; Kinnear, 1999 on institutionalism and institutionalist methods). These institutionalism perspectives are similar to Commons (1909, 1950), Wilkinson’s productive system (1983), and Birecree and Konzelmann (1997). However, the production system in the PDR systems theory is different from Wilkinson’s “productive system”, in that it consists of three subsystems: 1) the humanware system, 2) the software system(organization and workplace practices), and 3) the hardware system. The production system, with particular emphasis on the humanware system, is synthesized with the distribution(compensation system and working conditions) and the rule-making systems through the mindset of the humanware system (see Figure 1).

The humanware system is a system that converts human resources into creative resources. The human resources have intangible assets such as mindset and latent abilities to be creative resources, which is distinguished from the other factors of production such as capital and land. The humanware system has three subsystems to develop the intangible assets, i.e. the personnel management (hiring, staffing and discharge), the mindset, and the ability developing system. The mindset consists of learning, creative and cooperative minds, which is a generator of the humanware. The mindset is essential to convert human resources into creative resources. The effectiveness of education and training depends on the level of the mindset. Everybody has different level of the mindset, and its level is always changeable. The level of the mindset is determined by the contents and the fairness of the distribution and rule-making systems, as well as the personnel management and ability developing systems which are subsystems of the humanware system.

In the production system, the humanware system interacts with the software system and the hardware system. The most important point in the PDR systems theory is that only creative human resources can create themselves, as well as the software and hardware systems, whereas the other production subsystems are not creative. The hardware system does just what it is made to do and nothing more. The software system has neither flash ideas nor can it find a better way to improve itself, even though it is very diverse for a given production system. However, the software and hardware systems can be continuously improved and are used efficiently by workers who have learning, creative and cooperative minds. Therefore, the engine of the production system is the humanware system that converts human resources into creative resources.

The other important thing in the PDR systems theory is to understand the operating mechanism that synthesizes and balances the PDR systems and their subsystems. Imbalance in the PDR systems generates actors’ conflict and low performances, because the production system is heavily influenced by the distribution and rule-making systems through the humanware system (see Figure 1).

The PDR systems theory is, philosophically, based on Commons’ stabilized and humanized capitalism because it rejects the “commodity” approach and accepts the possibility of reconciliation of the conflicts of interest. This is a quite different approach from neoclassical economics that treats labor as a “commodity” or simply as another factor of production. The PDR systems theory starts from the human perspective that labor, with minds and latent abilities, does not behave like the inanimate factors of production such as capital and land.

Both neoclassical economics and most organizational theories either deny or minimize the legitimacy and enduring nature of conflicting interests in employment or they assume that market forces or appropriate managerial behavior will obviate them (Kochan, 1992). In contrast, the PDR systems theory accepts the legitimacy and enduring nature of conflicting interests within PDR systems, and the theory suggests the need and possibility for the actors’ reconciliation of conflicts by stressing the importance of synthesis and balance within the PDR systems.

The PDR systems theory has been found very useful in both analysis (science-building) and diagnosis (problem-solving) of employment relations (see Lee, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 2001). Thus we will use this model to develop the PDR systems for mutual gains in the globalizing knowledge-based digital economy.

III. Changes in Environment, Actors’ Values
and Power Positions

1. Globalization by the WTO and the ICT Revolution

Globalization is difficult to define since it is a complex phenomenon. Various disciplines offer different definitions. Globalization will be understood here to mean major increases in worldwide trade and exchanges, and remarkable growth in international flows of capital, labor, technology, information, knowledge and ideas in an increasingly open, integrated, and borderless international economy.

If we interpret globalization to mean an open international economy with large and growing flows of trade and capital investment between countries, it may not be a new phenomenon. Some scholars comment that globalization is little more than a return to the world economy of the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. Hirst and Thompson (1999) argued that the economy of the Belle Époque from 1870 to 1914 was remarkably internationalized since a truly integrated world trading system was created in the second half of the nineteenth century by submarine telegraph cables, and the economies of the major developed countries are not markedly more open in trade to GDP ratio terms than they were before 1914. Bairoch and Kozul-Wright (1996) point out that the stock of foreign direct investment (FDI) in 1913 reached 9 per cent of world output and note that this figure was still not surpassed in the early 1990s.

For present purposes we discuss the effects of globalization on actors’ valuational process and their power positions in the employment relations rather than to discuss its definitions in detail. On this point, globalization by the WTO and the ICT revolution since the end of twentieth century is different from the openness of the economy by imperialism and colonialism in the Belle Époque.

The WTO pursues an integration of markets on a worldwide basis and a movement toward a borderless world by removing institutional barriers to trade in goods and services and to the movement of factors of production such as capital and labor. The ICT revolution has provided technical basis for making a borderless global economy including a global market and a global production process on a worldwide basis.

2. Impacts of Globalization on Changes in Environments of Employment Relations

Globalization has had a significant impact on the competitive environments such as capital and product markets, labor market, technology and corporate governance as well as the general environments such as socio-cultural climate, political and economic status.

The advances in international communication, increased access to knowledge and information, and the increased integration of markets have led to internationalization of consumer’s demands and preferences. The fads and fashion not only spread rapidly across the globe but also shift and change very quickly. The product variety is thus increasing but the product life cycle is decreasing. The major determinants of the ability to sell products and services are no longer mainly relative costs advantage alone but competitiveness is based on quality, speed, technical superiority, and service and product differentiation (Tolentino, 2002). Globalization thus generates a very dynamic and customer oriented market.

In the labor market also, there are emerging lots of new issues and trends such as knowledge workers, atypical work, workforce flexibility, frequent job changes (job destruction and job creation), digital divide, and globalization of labor.

The ICT revolution is also contributive to the knowledge-based economy by making it easy to accumulate, manage, create and diffuse knowledge and information. There are fast developments in the fields of technology such as information technology (IT), biotechnology (BT), nano-technology (NT), environment technology (ET) and cultural technology (CT). These technologies contribute to making the traditional industries more efficient and more productive in terms of value-added as well as generating new products and industries.

The corporate governance in the global market will be frequently changed and diversified by the continuous outsourcing and M&A, integrated capital and stock market, multinational company (MNC) or transnational company (TNC) because enterprises should allocate resources and make business strategies on the world-wide basis.

In the general environments, the similarity of the socio-cultural climate is deepening by the frequent cultural interchange, international travel and international flows of information and ideas through the internet. In the political economic status, there are notable changes such as the weakened economic sovereignty, the reinforced financial capitalism, an alignment phenomenon of the world economy, the increasing deregulation and liberalization to meet market principles and global standards, and a movement toward more democratization. Globalization also creates greater inequalities through global competition and digital divide, which will lead to potential conflicts nationally and internationally.

3. Changes in Actors’ Values and Their Power Positions

Changes in environment generate a new valuational process and change the locus of actors’ power positions (Lee, 2001). The actors’ values andpower positions are crucially important in the analysis of employment relations based on the PDR systems theory. In this chapter, the focus will be placed on the valuational process (Bush, 1982; Hickerson, 1987) and the locus of power positions (Klein, 1987).

Actors’ values are their perspectives on employment relations, which are influenced by their recognition of the characteristics of the environments. They may recognize the importance of global competition, flexibility, information and knowledge in the global knowledge-based digital economy. The recognition may lead to a transformation from an antagonistic or conservative value in employment relations to a cooperative value. On the contrary, an antagonistic or conservative value in employment relations will be reinforced if an employer perceives that he can achieve flexibility via the freedom of firing employees or the increase of contingent workers. The former valuational process will result in win-win strategies, the latter may lead to a win-lose game in the short-run but a lose-lose game in the long-run.

Knowledge workers will be gaining power, but non-knowledge workers will be losing their power by the weakened power of the trade union. All changes in the labor market are against the power position of the trade union, as represented by atypical work, workforce flexibility, frequent job changes (job destruction and job creation), digital divide, and globalization of labor.

IV. Generic Principles of Mutual Gains Enterprise

There is no single best way to build mutual gains enterprise. The strategic choices for mutual gains may be very diverse by countries, industries and enterprises because actors in different enterprises face different environment and have different values and power positions. However, we can draw generic principles of mutual gains enterprise considering the common characteristics of environments in the global information age.

Table 1 presents generic principles that guide mutual gains of employment relations in the global information age according to the PDR systems theory. These are broad principles applied differently in different settings, which are only generic requirements that can be met in ways that conform to particular cultural or organizational realities. For example, all actors in different settings should share cooperative values but an effective way to make the shared values will vary.

By the theory, actors’ values and power positions are changed in the changing environment. Actors use two kinds of strategies that affect employment relations considering their values, power position and the changing environments. One is to strengthen their power positions through such means as union organization strategies or competitive environment strategies, and the other is to construct or renovate the PDR systems (see Figure 1). In this logical framework, our first concern is what kinds of actors’ values are needed in the global information age. The next step is to develop the generic principles for the competitive environment strategies for a sustainable comparative advantage. Finally, we will discuss the principles to construct the PDR systems for a mutual gains enterprise.

Table 1. Generic Principles Guiding the Mutual Gains Enterprise

Actors’Values

* Share cooperative values of employment relations by mutual trust, mutual respect, and understanding of the philosophy and logic of mutual gains

Competitive Environment

* Customization and flexible response in the global market

* Production and use of knowledge and information technology

* Transparent management, networking and alliances in corporate governance

PDR Systems

* Humanware system oriented production system and humanware system cultivating knowledge workers

* Flat networking organization and knowledge-based workplace practices in software system

* Flexible machines embodied IT in hardware system

* Contingent distribution and rule-making systems that generate learning, creative and cooperative minds

* Employee involvement in rule-making system

* Balancing PDR systems

Performances

* Mutual gains

The central argument is that actors’ values and competitive environment strategies significantly affect actors’ strategic choices for the PDR systems and the PDR systems must interact with and reinforce one another via the mindset of the hmanware system.

1. Actors’ Values

We start with actors’ values because they determine the sphere of actors’ strategic choices involving competitive environment and PDR systems. Actors should share cooperative values of employment relations that require them to build and maintain trust, cooperation, and mutual respect to be able to secure sustainable comparative advantage in the global knowledge-based digital economy.

To establish cooperative values of employment relations, actors should recognize that labor is not just a factor of production but an intangible asset as an essential source of competitive advantage, and they should understand the philosophy and logic of mutual gains to reach consensus about the necessity of mutual gains. The logic of the mutual gains is that employees must commit their energies to meeting the economic objectives of the enterprise, and in return, owners (shareholders) must share the economic returns with employees and invest those returns in ways that promote the long-run economic security of the work force (Kochan and Osterman, 1994; Cohen-Rosenthal and Burton, 1987).

There is an incentive for an employer to seek an exclusive right of management because the power position moves more to the employer in the global information age, which led to antagonistic values of industrial relations. If actors have antagonistic values of industrial relations, it becomes impossible to achieve sustainable competitive advantage as well as to make a mutual gains enterprise in this new environment.

Actors should be educated and instilled about the philosophy and logic of mutual gains, which will lead to cooperative values of industrial relations. The PDR systems theory provides the logic of mutual gains as it focuses on the role of humanware system and the interaction mechanism of the PDR systems (see Figure 1). It is extremely important for all actors to understand that the humanware system generating information and knowledge is becoming the core element deriving a sustainable competitive advantage in the global information age, and it is intensively affected by distribution and rule-making systems.

Another important requirement for establishing cooperative values of industrial relations is that all actors understand the concept of global competition and the importance of flexibility, the importance of open mind and networking, the transformation process of data-information-knowledge, and the asset value of information and knowledge as an input (competence) and output (innovation) in the production process.

When actors share these kinds of values or understandings, they can develop strategies on competitive environments and PDR systems to realize mutual gains in the global knowledge-based digital economy.

2. Competitive Environment Strategies (Business Strategies)

The second principle for a mutual gains enterprise is related to business strategies for the competitive environments such as capital and product markets, labor market, technology and corporate governance. The competitive environment strategies generally were recognized outside the domain of the employment relations. On discussing employment relations, we should consider the competitive environment strategies because they have a profound effect on employment relations, especially PDR systems.

The enterprise should respond quickly to the varied and rapidly changing need, desires and expectation of their customers. This may call for rapid product development, frequent changes in product models and types, a broader range of products, and even production according to the specifications of a particular buyer. With the fast and broad communication and information by the IT revolution, the requirements of customers including producers and consumers are very dynamic and volatile. An enterprise must have the flexibility and competence to cater to this very dynamic market (Tolentino, 2002).

An enterprise should develop knowledge and IT-based management system to utilize the environment of information technology. The information technologies are becoming increasingly more important in enhancing PDR systems as well as marketing competence. The ICT has significantly lowered the costs of transformation and communication and dramatically lowered the costs of data processing and information storage and retrieval (Intriligator, 2002).

The networking strategies of cooperation and collaboration with other enterprise are extremely important in accessing new market in an integrated world market. The corporate governance should be designed to achieve the transparent management because cooperative values of industrial relations are not realized without transparency of management.

3. PDR Systems

The humanware system is the engine of the production system and it functions as an entity that synthesizes PDR systems according to the PDR systems theory (see Figure 1). Enterprise competitiveness is based more and more on the humanware system because it comes from creativity, flexibility and dynamics in the global knowledge-based digital economy. Software as well as hardware system in the production system is neither creative nor dynamic. Only creative human resources cultivated by a good humanware system can create themselves and innovate software system continuously and utilize hardware system fully. The history of the production system has moved from hardware-oriented competition to humanware-oriented competition following software-oriented competition.

Humanware system consists of three subsystems which are the personnel management, mindset and ability-development system. The well-developed three subsystems must reinforce one anther to develop high quality and high productivity human resources. The functions of the personnel management system are recruitment, staffing and allocation of human resources. A mutual gains enterprise should recruit potential employees with both high quality and good attitudes, stimulate their mindset with learning, creative and cooperative minds, and develop their latent ability continuously by the ability development system.

Humanware system for mutual gains starts with recruitment strategies that select knowledge workers with good attitude, because knowledge and learning will become key drivers of sustainable competitive advantage in the global knowledge-based digital economy. An enterprise should recruit a high potential worker for developing knowledge and skill because knowledge and skill are developed and accumulated by education, training and experiences and the speed and the cost of the accumulation process depend largely on the basic knowledge. An enterprise should develop adequate screening devices and test methods to select a high potential worker although it could be a difficult task because the basic concepts of knowledge and learning are defined differently such that the measurement of knowledge can be correspondingly weak.

Knowledge can be classified as know-what, know-why, know-how, know-who (Lundvall and Johnson, 1994). Know-what refers to knowledge about “facts”, which is close to what is normally called information. Know-why refers to knowledge about principles and laws of motion in nature, in the human mind and in society, which has been extremely important for technological development. Know-how refers to skill, i.e. the ability to do something. It may be related to the skills of production workers, but it plays a key role in all important economic activities. Know-who involves information about who knows what and who knows what to do. But it also involves the social ability to cooperate and communicate with different kinds of people and experts (OECD, 2000). An enterprise should develop measurements of these four kinds of knowledge, because different categories of jobs need different kinds of knowledge.

The screening device should also be equipped with a good attitudes test system because workers’ mind-set or job attitude is just as important as their basic knowledge and skill to be a high quality worker.

The second essential point for a good humanware system is in cultivation of the mind-set that consists of creative, cooperative and learning minds. The development of the learning mind is very important because the learning is done by not only education and training but also on-the-job training, and the level of the transformation of education and training into workers’ abilities depends on the level of their learning minds. The creative mind generates knowledge production, knowledge application and incremental innovation in addition to maximizing the effect of learning. The cooperative mind is also extremely important since it stimulate workers’ commitment to the company and cooperation. Shared knowledge and team skills should be emphasized rather than individual knowledge and individual skills as the key to competitiveness in the organization. If there is a lack of the cooperative minds of the employees, it is very difficult to cultivate knowledge-sharing and team skill formation because most knowledge is tacit and the tacit knowledge is not easily shared without the cooperative mind.

The last ingredient of a good humanware system is development of a well-designed ability development system that fully utilizes the knowledge and skills of employees on the job and enhances their knowledge and skills continuously.

The second essential principle for the mutual gains PDR systems in the global information age is to construct a flat networking organization and knowledge-based workplace practices in the software system. For flexibility, an enterprise should restructure into a more flat networking organization from Taylorist work organization that was characterizedby the hierarchical pyramid-styled management structures and the separation between conception and execution. The internal and external networking is a key facilitator to make a flexible production system, which is supported by the ICT, empowerment to the executors and the integration of conception and execution.

The third principle for the mutual gains PDR systems is to install flexible machines in the hardware system. The machine should be designed for multipurpose. The production line must also be designed so as to increase the flexibility and efficiency. Many electronics company since the mid 1990s reengineered the straight conveyor line into U-shape or cell-shape lines to achieve flexibility.

The fourth essential principle for the mutual gains PDR systems is a contingent distribution and rule-making system that generate learning, creative and cooperative minds. The distribution system such as a wage system and fringe benefits should be designed to stimulate learning mind as well as creative and cooperative minds.

The fifth principle for the mutual gains PDR systems is to enlarge employee involvement in rule-making system. The meaningful employee participation in rule-making system is extremely important because it gives rise to employees’ commitment or royalty to the company by stimulating a cooperative mind.

The sixth principle for the mutual gains PDR systems is to balance PDR systems. The humanware system can convert human resources into creative resources if the traditional distribution and rule-making system are well developed so as to stimulate the learning mind as well as creative and cooperative minds. The creative human resources enhance the function of software and hardware systems at continuous and dynamic level.

4. Performances

Mutual gains are achieved in the well-developed and balanced PDR systems as a result of successful performance of the employment relations. The well-developed and balanced PDR systems mean systems that meet the above 10 principles guiding the mutual gains enterprise (see table 1). The production system will be well functioning via the humanware system when the distribution and rule-making systems are developed so as to stimulate employees’ learning mind as well as creative and cooperative minds, in which productivity including efficiency and flexibility is maximized. Employees’ mindsets are stimulated sufficiently when they are satisfied with the distribution and rule-making systems. Therefore, the mutual gains are realized when the PDR systems are well developed reflecting the environments and actors’ values, and when they are balanced.

V. Conclusion

Global information age is understood here to mean a period where markets are integrated on a worldwide basis by the ICT revolution as well as WTO. The WTO will result in greater flows of goods, services, capital, labor, technology, information, and ideas across borders, which will be spurred by revolutionary developments in information and communication technology. This new environment will call for rapid product development, frequent changes in product models and types, and a broader range of products accommodating customers’ needs and expectations. That is, enterprises must have flexibility and competence to cater to this richly dynamic market.

With the rapid globalization and the ICT revolution, actors may have common values that the flexibility and competence do matter, and actors’ power position shifts toward employers in the new environment. Employers will have incentives to acquire numerical flexibility of employment including freedom of layoffs and expansion of contingent workers. These strategic choices may be beneficial to employers in the short-run but they will generate low skill equilibrium, or low-level production system due to malfunctioning of the humanware system caused by dampened workers’ mindset.

To generate sustainable competitive advantage in the global information era, actors must restructure PDR systems to acquire mutual gains and flexibility. They should develop a creative humanware system, team based network organization and high performance workplace practices in the software system, and flexible machines in the hardware system. The humanware system converts human resources into creative resources by cultivating workers’ mindset and abilities that are intangible assets. The software and hardware systems can be continuously improved and used efficiently by workers who are equipped with learning as well as creative and cooperative minds. The PDR systems should achieve a good balance as the production system is heavily influenced by the distribution and rule-making systems through the mindset of the humanware system. Well-developed and balanced PDR systems will generate mutual gains, knowledge workers, real flexibility and competence in response to the rapidly changing environment.

References

1. Bairoch, P. and R. Kozul-Wright(1996), “Globalization Mythe: Some Historical Reflections on Integration, Industrialisation and Growth in the World Economy”, UNCTAD Discussion Paper No.113, March 1996.

2. Birecree, Adrienne M. and Suzanne Konzelmann(1997), “A Comparative Analysis of Cases of Conflictual Labor Relations in the Corn Processing, Steel, Paper, and Coal Industries”, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol.31, No.1, pp.129-144.

3. Bush, Paul D.(1982), “The Normative Implications of Institutional Analysis”, Economic Forum, Vol.12 (Winter, 1981-1982).

4. 　　　　(1987), “Theory of Institutional Change”, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol.21 (September 1987), pp.1075-1116.

5. Cohen-Rosenthal, Edward and Cynthia Burton(1987), Mutual Gains- A Guide to Union-Management Cooperation, New York: Preger.

6. Commons, John R.(1909), “American Shoemakers, 1848-1895: A Sketch of Industrial Evolution”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.24 (November 1909), pp.39-84.

7. 　　　　 (1924), Legal Foundations of Capitalism, New York: Macmillan.

8. 　　　　(1934), Institutional Economics: Its Place in the Political Economy, New York: Macmillan.

9.  　　　　 (1950), The Economics of Collective Action, New York: Macmillan.

10. Dunlop, John T.(1958), Industrial Relations Systems, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

11. Hickerson, Steven R.(1987), “Instrumental Valuation: The Normative Compass of Institutional Economics”, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol.21 (September 1987), pp.1117-1143.

12. Hirst, Paul and Grahame Thompson(1999), “Globalization-Frequently Asked Questions and Some Surprising Answers”, in Globalization and Labour Relations, edited by Peter Leisink, Edward Elgar, pp.36-56.

13. Intriligator, Michael D.(2002), “Globalization of the World Economy: Potential Benefits and Costs and a Net Assessment”, http://www.toda.org/grad/intriligator.html.

14. Kinnear, Douglas(1999), “The ‘Compulsive Shift’ to Institutional Concerns in Recent Labor Economics”, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol.33 (March 1999), pp.169-181.

15. Klein, Philip A.(1987), “Power and Economic Performance: The Institutionalist View”, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol.21 (September 1987), pp.1341-1377.

16. Kochan, Thomas A.(1992), “Teaching and Building Middle Range Industrial Relations Theory”, MIT, mimeo.

17. Kochan, Thomas A, Harry Katz, and Robert B. Mckersie (1996), The Transformation of American Industrial Relations, (New York: Basic Books, 1986), Ithaca: ILR Press.

18. Kochan, Thomas A. and Paul Osterman(1994), The Mutual Gains Enterprise, Harvard Business School Press.

19. Lee, Hyo-Soo(1996a), “Theory Construction in Industrial Relations: A Synthesis of PDR Systems”, The Korean Economic Review, New Series 12, No. 2, pp.199-218.

20. 　　　　(1996b), “The Interaction of Production, Distribution, and Rule-Making Systems in Industrial Relations”, Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations,Vol.51, No.2, pp.302-332.

21. 　　　　 (1997), The Economics of Mutual Gains (in Korean), The Korean Labor Education Institute.

22. 　　　　(2001), “Paternalistic Human Resource Practices: Their Emergence and Characteristics”, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp.841-869.

23. Lower, Milton D.(1987), “The Concept of Technology within the Institutional Perspective”, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol.21 (September 1987), pp.1147-1176.

24. Lundvall, B.Å and B. Johnson (1994), “The Learning Economy”, Journal of Industry Studies, Vol. 1, No.2 (December 1994), pp.23-42.

25. Mayhew, Anne(1987), “The Beginnings of Institutionalism”, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol.21 (September 1987), pp.971-998.

26. Mirowski, Philip(1987), “The Philosophical Bases of Institutional Economics”, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol.21 (September 1987), pp.1001-1038.

27. OECD (2000), Knowledge Management in the Learning Society.

28. Neale, Walter C. (1987), “Institutions”, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol.21 (September 1987), pp.1177-1206.

29. Stevenson, Rodney E.(1987), “Institutional Economics and the Theory of Production,” Journal of Economic Issues, Vol.21 (December 1987), pp.1471-1493.

30. Tolentino, Arturo L.(2002), “Productivity and Competitiveness Strategies”, http://www.ilo.org/

public/english/employment/ent/mandev/publ.

31. Wilkinson, Frank(1983), “Productive Systems”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 7, pp.413-429.

32. Woodbury, Stephen A.(1987), “Power in the Labor Market: Institutionalist Approaches to Labor Problems”, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol.21 (December 1987), pp.1781-1807.