Essay on the Economics of Standards and Bespoke
On quality and scale
Since the Industrial Revolution, mass production of standardised products through the most cost-efficient means has become the norm for almost the totality of the economy. From clothes to cars, all manner of things has become mass produced. The famous historian, Eric Hobsbawm, shows a certain historical perplexity with this outcome in his exploration of why the Industrial Revolution happened and why in England. He affirms that Henry Ford, for instance, would be deemed a madman if he tried out his business before the dawn of this event — and he is right to think so. However, a keen eye will note that the cars did not magically become readily available until more than a century had passed. Industry did not mean huge factories from the very beginning, it meant innovation on the producing, initially, only of cloth — and this standard textile economy was lacking in quality. It was only through continuous advances and the overflowing of technique to other sectors of the economy that the world of mass production was born. After all, the English did not go to sleep on a certain day and awoke in a new state of industry and consumption.
What happened in that isle permeated the world, and continues to do so, making the English Industrial Revolution especially unique, as authors like Hobsbawm and Joel Mokyr would agree. The change in the efficiency noted by scale economics stands in stark contrast to the subsisting and the bespoke productions which existed before. The first has, fortunately for living conditions, mostly deteriorated. But the latter has had its ups and downs according to the economic condition of the upper class. This situation is to be absolutely expected, for maximised quality and customisation cannot be offered by the mass industry — although some, like Gaziano & Girling, are trying to breach that rule. However, a middle ground has formed or, more precisely, two fields have presented themselves. The best expression of them can be found in the fashion industry: the haute couture brands and made to measure. On one side we have brands which sell their names and their image; they partake in the universe of certain publications and events, like the Paris Fashion Week. On the other, we have a universe which seeks to mimic bespoke, by cutting away some time-intensive tasks. The downside of this is that people have to have personal expertise in their measures, fabric quality and usability — and if they are ignorant, they may find themselves angry and never returning. What Hugo Jacomet once said is the reality for most people who go into made to measure, bespoke (less) and even haute couture: “If you buy something and you don’t know what is behind it. All the tradition, the expertise, the know-how, the suffering, the hours. This is called vulgarity”. As he puts it, it is not only about the bad results the client may get if they make the wrong choices, but about failing to fulfill a spiritual experience.
In the financial information services, there is a similar situation. Many offer word about bonds, stocks, mutual funds and other such assets. Sometimes they are interesting, educating and productive to clients, but they might prey on ignorance and misinformation. Services which do not charge for this material may also be problematic, as they have a huge conflict of interest with the public — that being their own gains. As in most cases, the “bespoke”, the personal advisor is expected to provide a differentiated harvest. But what about Henry Ford? That is, where lies the similarity of this mass-bespoke dichotomy in industries that have grown only as a consequence of the Industrial Revolution? There are cars selling within a massive price spectrum, but there is not really a bespoke car. Well, these vehicles, among other things, do not have a perfect plug with this dualist model. It would be more accurate to compare luxury car brands with haute couture and popular ones with off the rack. And it seems this sector is working just fine without complete customisation. What we can empirically admit from this fact is that not all markets need a full spectrum of offer, from the massive factories to the tailor shop.
We can also tell, from the fact that living conditions have never been better (on average), that humanity had an urgent need to make products more accessible — before worrying about quality. If coal never became a source of energy, governments repressed serfs back to feudal estates, philosophers never reviewed classical thought and many other things, the world would be a grim place. As prof. McCloskey words it, what has happened is indeed a Great Enrichment — not only on average, but throughout social stratums. This occurrence took the more than 90% of the world population that lived in extreme misery before 1820 down to less than 10% today. Such is the economic capacity of standardised productions, which bespoke could never accomplish. Nonetheless, there is a place for both, while the first certainly continues to work to close the quality gap with the latter — if it ever closes, none are standing still waiting for the other to catch up.
