In this blog post, we take a critical look at whether the advancement of information technology actually means a transition to a post-industrial society.
One of the key arguments put forward by proponents of post-industrial society is that the main source of productivity and economic growth in modern society is no longer traditional capital or labor, but rather the “creation of knowledge.” They argue that knowledge is becoming an increasingly important asset across the economy, and that its influence is spreading to all industrial sectors based on information processing technology. In particular, knowledge is not a mere auxiliary factor, but functions as a key driver of production, and its utilization is spreading throughout society through information technology. Based on this argument, proponents of the post-industrial society theory diagnose that a new society, fundamentally different from the industrial society we have experienced so far, is coming. However, there are points in this argument that deserve critical examination. First of all, it is problematic that much of the theoretical basis and statistical data they present is, paradoxically, based on data from before the post-industrial society began to develop in earnest.
Much of the empirical data they use actually corresponds to the results of analyses of the economic structure of the first half of the 20th century, mainly in the United States, when industrial society was at its peak. In other words, they are arguing for the advent of a post-industrial society based on data from the period when industrial society was functioning most vigorously. This contradiction is one of the main factors weakening the persuasiveness of post-industrial society theory.
In other words, knowledge-based productivity and economic growth cannot be considered solely as characteristics of a post-industrial society, but were clearly important even during the industrial era. In fact, knowledge has been a major source of high value creation and technological innovation in industrial societies, and this trend has only been reinforced in today’s information technology era, so it cannot be considered a completely new phenomenon. Therefore, dividing economic structures into two categories based on the dichotomy of industrialization and deindustrialization is an analytical method that does not fully reflect reality. In an era where all economic activities require a certain level of knowledge and information processing capabilities, it is inherently limited to classify economic systems based on knowledge alone. For a more convincing classification, it is necessary to comprehensively consider how knowledge is organized and utilized, and how technology induces social change.
In this context, a clearer criterion for distinguishing between the economic structures of the first and second halves of the 20th century is the “information technology revolution.” Information technology has gone beyond the emergence of new technological tools to bring about changes that have restructured the overall structure and functioning of society. In particular, information technology has penetrated deep into the infrastructure of society, forming the foundation of the global economy and dramatically increasing the efficiency and scalability of economic activities by overcoming the constraints of time and space. Information technology has brought about structural changes in almost all fields, including communications, finance, education, production, and distribution, which is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon that cannot be simply defined as “deindustrialization.”
Considering these trends, rather than theories of post-industrial society that emphasize the role of knowledge but lack explanations of its formation and technological foundations, it is more appropriate to adopt an “informationalism” perspective that focuses on the development of technological foundations and the resulting changes in social structures. Informationalism reveals the causes of change more clearly by comprehensively analyzing how the development of information technology affects social relations, economic structures, and cultural patterns. This perspective is an important analytical tool, as it is not a simple listing of social structural changes, but an approach that seeks to explore the internal principles of those changes.
In addition, proponents of post-industrial society theory emphasize that the center of economic activity is shifting from the production of traditional goods to the production of services. In fact, it is clear that the service sector accounts for the majority of total employment in most developed countries and that the service industry accounts for a significant portion of gross national product (GNP). However, it would be overly simplistic to conclude that the decline or disappearance of manufacturing is based solely on these statistical facts. The growth of the service industry and the changes in manufacturing are not independent of each other, but are closely linked.
According to one study, approximately 24% of the US GNP is generated by manufacturing, and services directly related to manufacturing account for approximately 25%. This shows that the economic contribution of manufacturing remains very high, as nearly half of the total GNP comes from manufacturing and related services. A significant portion of the service industry is directly or indirectly linked to manufacturing production, operations, logistics, and maintenance, and the growth of the service industry itself is closely related to the efficiency of manufacturing, technological advancement, and the spread of global division of labor. As such, the boundaries between manufacturing and service industries are becoming increasingly blurred, and it is more accurate to view them as part of an interconnected system rather than as independent entities.
Another limitation of the deindustrialization theory is that it did not sufficiently consider the differences and interactions between industrial structures of different countries in a globalized economic system. Many analyses focused on developed countries such as the US and Europe, often overlooking the progress of industrialization and changes in employment structures in developing countries. According to statistics from the International Labor Organization (ILO), between 1970 and 1997, manufacturing employment declined slightly in developed countries, but at the same time, manufacturing employment increased rapidly in major industrialized countries, i.e., many developing countries. This trend is not simply a decline in manufacturing, but rather shows that manufacturing-centered production activities are being geographically relocated in the process of globalization.
Overall, the decline in manufacturing employment in developed countries has been offset or even exceeded by growth in developing countries. This means that manufacturing continues to play an important role globally, but that the geographical center of employment and production is shifting. Therefore, it is necessary to critically examine the regional bias of the concept of a post-industrial society and the gap between it and global reality.
The predictions of those who argue for a post-industrial society regarding the occupational structure also have certain limitations. They argue that the proportion of information-related occupations, such as management, professional, and technical occupations, will increase rapidly and become the core of the new occupational structure. These changes are becoming apparent to some extent in the transition to an information society, and statistics confirm that the proportion of white-collar occupations has increased, especially in developed countries.
However, a closer look at the specific occupational structures of each country reveals that these changes are by no means converging in a single direction. For example, a comparison of the occupational structures of the G7 countries (the US, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, the UK, and Canada) from 1920 to 1990 shows significant differences in the proportion of managerial occupations alone. As of 1990, approximately 12.8% of the total workforce in the US was engaged in management, while in Japan, the figure was only 3.8%. As such, the occupational structure varies greatly between countries and exhibits complex characteristics that cannot be explained by the same framework of “post-industrial society.” This shows that various factors, such as the stage of industrial development, cultural background, education system, and corporate organization, influence the occupational structure.
From this perspective, attempts to generalize the US experience and apply it to all countries are not convincing. Given that the theory of post-industrial society is based on the US experience, it is inevitable that there will be discrepancies with the realities of other countries. In particular, considering the growth of information-related occupations and the continued strength of manufacturing-centered employment in countries such as South Korea, China, and India, the US model of post-industrial society cannot be regarded as a universal theory.
One of the most fundamental criticisms of the theory of post-industrial society is that it assumes that changes in occupational and employment structures will go through certain historical stages and converge into a single universal model. This assumption is based on developmentalist thinking that social and economic changes follow a single path, and it fails to sufficiently reflect differences between countries and historical particularities. This analytical framework, which presupposes a certain directionality and convergence, is similar to the mistake made by classical political economy in the past when it generalized the British experience of industrialization. Classical economics presented the logic that wealth is accumulated through the division of labor, but this was merely an interpretation based on the historical conditions of a specific country.
Similarly, the theory of post-industrial society fails to fully encompass various social paths and regional contexts by generalizing the experience of the United States. The occupational and employment structures of each country vary not only depending on domestic factors but also on the position and role of that country within the global economic system. Therefore, the assumption that all societies will follow the same path toward deindustrialization is limited in explaining the complexity and heterogeneity of the real world. Historical reality shows that various forms of occupational and employment structures coexist and are constantly being reconfigured through interaction between them. From this perspective, the theory of post-industrial society needs to reconsider the scope and depth of its analysis, and an approach that more delicately grasps the conditions and context of change rather than the direction of change is required.
