[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-326077-105":59,"doc-detail-326077-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":124,"head_meta":126,"extra_data":128,"updated_unix":130},105,"en","realignment-in-the-us-motor-vehicle-industry-economic-commentary-review","Realignment in the U.S. Motor Vehicle Industry - Economic Commentary Review","","Realignment in the U.S. motor vehicle industry examines how GM’s 1987 plant closures in Norwood, Ohio, and parallel moves by Japanese firms in Kentucky and Ohio reshaped competitive pressure amid flat overall sales. It analyzes the rise of idle capacity from about 13% in the late 1970s to roughly 19% by 1986, accelerating to 28% by 1990. The review links chronic excess capacity to Japanese “transplants,” demographic and durability-driven demand softness, and forecasts continued belt-tightening and plant closures.",{"@graph":69,"@context":123},[70,84,106],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/realignment-in-the-us-motor-vehicle-industry-economic-commentary-review/326077/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/realignment-in-the-us-motor-vehicle-industry-economic-commentary-review/326077.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Theodora","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-03","2026-09-21",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":105},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",11,{"@type":107,"mainEntity":108},"FAQPage",[109,115,119],{"name":110,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What triggered the notable GM closure in Norwood, Ohio in 1987?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"GM closed five auto assembly plants in December 1987, including the Norwood, Ohio plant. Its significance came not from plant size but from its location as Toyota and Honda were expanding U.S. production nearby.","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"How did idle capacity change from the late 1970s to the early 1990s?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"Idle capacity rose from about 13% at the production peak in the late 1970s to around 19% by the 1986 model year. Despite plant openings and closings, idle capacity increased further to about 28% by the 1990 model year.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"Why did domestic motor vehicle demand soften during the period discussed?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"Demand weakened due to demographic trends, including slower growth in the driving-age population and decelerating household growth. Replacement demand also declined as cars and trucks became more durable, with average vehicle age rising.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":125,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":127,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":129,"site_id":62},326077,1790470724,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":132},{"doc_id":129,"user_id":133,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":105,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":24,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},687197207919,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/a000253d6f5f7c60be?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1779446848396160552","by Michael F.Bryan and John B.Martin  \nIn December 1987,GM closed fiveauto assembly plants in the UnitedStates,including one in Norwood,Ohio.What made the Norwood closure nota-ble from an economic perspective wasnot the plant's size—which at roughly140,000 cars per year was moderate byautomotive standards—but its location.Approximately 100 miles to the south,Toyota wasabout to open an auto pro-duction facility in Georgetown,Ken-tucky.And at the same time,100 milesto the northeast,Honda announced plansto expand its U.S.operations with aplant in East Liberty,Ohio  \nAgainst the backdrop of flat motorvehicle sales,the U.S.expansion ofJapanese-owned production facilities(\"transplants\"”)has intensified the al-ready fierce competition among manu-facturers.The increasing number ofdomestic auto plant closings,coupledwith only moderately reduced car im-ports,suggests that the native domesticproducers have yielded the most so far.And unless the U.S.demand for motorvehicles grows substantially(a doubtfulprospect),additional plant closings are avirtual certainty in the coming years.  \nThe economic health of the motorvehicle industry isof particular impor-tance to the Fourth District economy.Motor vehicle and vehicle-related pro-duction accounts for at least 20 percentof Ohio's manufacturing output androughly 15 percent of the state's manu-acturing jobs.Moreover,the District isin the heart of the so-called \"transplant  \nRealignment in theU.S.Motor Vehicle Industry  \ncorridor,\"where a preponderance ofthe Japanese facilities are located.TheDistrict is also home to many nativeU.S.auto plants,which may be subjectto sharp cutbacks and closings over thenext few years.  \nThis Economic Commentary reviewsthe developments that have led tochronic excess capacity in U.S.motorvehicle manufacturing and considersthe prospects facing this industry in thedecade ahead.  \n\"Is there going to be enough businessto go around?The short-term answeris no.\"  \nE.Michael Mutchler,  \nVice President,GM,1988  \nDuring the past 12 years,and particu-larly since 1986,the growth rate of U.S.auto(and light truck)capacity has out-paced the nation's demand for these ve-hicles (table 1).At the production peakin the late 1970s,total new car/lighttruck capacity was roughly 14.5 millionunits per year,against actual productionof 12.6million—an idle capacity ofabout 13 percent.By the 1986 modelyear,idle capacity in the industry hadrisen to about 19 percent.Althoughseven major auto and light truck plantswere closed between 1980 and 1985,predominantly by Chrysler and Ford,10plants were also opened over this period(six by GM and three by the Japanese).And despite nine more plant closingsbetween 1987 and 1989,idle capacity inautolight truck manufacturing reached28 percent in the 1990 model year.  \nJune 1,1991  \nThe expansion of Japanese motorvehicle manufacturing in the UnitedStates,combined with flat sales,hasdoubled the amount of idle capacityin this industry since the late 1970s.As a result,continued belt-tighteningand plant closings can be expectedover the next several years.  \nOne important reason for the imbalancebetween our ability to produce autosand light trucks and our demand forthese vehiclas has been the prolifera-tion of Japanese transplants.In 1982,Honda opened the first such facility inthis country,in Marysville,Ohio.Ini-tially capable of manufacturing onlyabout 150,000 cars per year (less than  \n2.5 percent of the U.S.total),the plantflourished and today can tum out morethan 500,000 cars annually.²  \nOver the next eight years,seven moreJapanese-owned assembly plants wereestablished in the United States.Byearly 1990,the transplants were capa-ble of producing about 1.6 million ve-hicles annually,approximately 12 per-cent of the U.S.new car/light truckpotentialThe production capacity atthese plants is expected to expand evenfurther over the next few years.³In-deed,potential Japanese transplant pro-duction is likely to exceed total Japa-nese imports to this country by 1994  \n\"C","cbCaikA1ghOLnKFJ","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaikA1ghOLnKFJ","pdf",1216834,"English","# Realignment in the U.S. Motor Vehicle Industry\n## Industry competition and excess capacity\n## Japanese transplants and capacity expansion\n## Domestic demand softness and durability effects\n## Outlook for the decade ahead","[{\"question\":\"What triggered the notable GM closure in Norwood, Ohio in 1987?\",\"answer\":\"GM closed five auto assembly plants in December 1987, including the Norwood, Ohio plant. Its significance came not from plant size but from its location as Toyota and Honda were expanding U.S. production nearby.\"},{\"question\":\"How did idle capacity change from the late 1970s to the early 1990s?\",\"answer\":\"Idle capacity rose from about 13% at the production peak in the late 1970s to around 19% by the 1986 model year. Despite plant openings and closings, idle capacity increased further to about 28% by the 1990 model year.\"},{\"question\":\"Why did domestic motor vehicle demand soften during the period discussed?\",\"answer\":\"Demand weakened due to demographic trends, including slower growth in the driving-age population and decelerating household growth. Replacement demand also declined as cars and trucks became more durable, with average vehicle age rising.\"}]","Realignment in the U.S. Motor Vehicle Industry - Economic Commentary Review | PDF",1789972153,13]