As the situation for Detroit's big three automakers worsens on a near-weekly basis, many politicians and observers have been blaming the companies for their plight.

The image of incompetence in Detroit was hammered home hardest during congressional hearings in Washington last fall over a bailout package for the North American car industry. Senators grilled the heads of the car companies -- accusing them of mismanagement and lavish spending while their companies teetered on the brink of failure.

But an expert in the auto industry says the blame for the automakers' problems may rest no further than the nearest garage.

"The overriding issue is that (the current situation) is not entirely their fault," Trent University history professor Dimitry Anastakis says about the Detroit Three.

"Consumers in the marketplace do have a say; the American consumer in the 1990s returned back to an era where there was a demand for big vehicles."

Anastakis, the author of "Auto Pact," says that while European and Japanese automakers focused their efforts on creating smaller and more energy efficient cars for their markets in the 1980s and 1990s, American consumers demanded SUVs and pickup trucks. That can be partly blamed on differences in government policies and cultural outlooks between the U.S. and Europe and Japan, says Anastakis.

He says American consumers were able to continue purchasing larger vehicles such as the Chevy Suburban or Ford Explorer because they were paying significantly less for gas than, for example, Europeans, who are taxed heavily on fuel.

"Detroit has never figured out how to develop small, fuel-efficient vehicles because, in part, they've never really wanted to," Anastakis says, adding, "it comes back to the consumer."

Bigger vehicles also have bigger profit margins, he says, noting the added incentive for Detroit to keep building SUVs and pickup trucks over smaller vehicles.

But Anastakis is quick to point out that: "I am not here to defend the Big Three. Don't get me wrong ... Their main mistake is that they never hedged their bets."

Anastakis says they did not reinvest their profits and focus on creating smaller, more fuel-efficient cars in case the market turned, which he says was an inevitability.

Competition and denial

"The fact of the matter is that Americans bought three million gas guzzling pickups and SUVs last year. If GM, Ford and Chrysler didn't sell them, who would have?" asks auto industry analyst Dennis DesRosiers.

The founder of DesRosiers Automotive Consultants says that fundamental marketplace changes that began at the end of the 1970s have led to the current situation for the North American automakers. Up until then, he says, the Detroit Three had 90 per cent of the North American market share - before the Japanese and Europeans entered the market.

After getting their products into the market they were able to cross other barriers and create effective sales arms, financing arms, and distribution centres in Canada and the U.S.

"That's at the core of (the Detroit Three) losing market share," DesRosiers says, referring to the new competition.

"There was a quicker loss of market share due to an inferior business model."

DesRosiers says the Japanese, in particular, concentrated on building four or five key products for the marketplace, and that ultimately hurt the North American carmakers who offered much more choice.

DesRosiers says Ford, GM, and Chrysler didn't respond quickly and effectively enough.

"These companies, they denied they had problems. Any problems you confronted them with -- they denied, denied, denied," he says.

"We've known for 15 years, GM has had too many products ... Why did it deny it (for so long)?"

Both DesRosiers and Anastakis say that other issues - such as the high cost of maintaining their pension funds and health care costs in the U.S. - are taking a significant toll on the North American auto companies.

They also say that despite the fact the auto industry is a key component of Canada's economy, Canadians are largely spectators when it comes to saving the Big Three.

"We are bystanders to a large degree ... They -- the Canadian politicians and labour leaders -- have to wait and see what happens (in the U.S.), and then they can react."

Ultimately, the answer to saving the North American car companies lies with consumer, say both experts. But images of the heads of the automakers with their hands out may hurt sales, they say.

"Consumers look for comfort ... and what the market is talking comfortably about," says DesRosier.

"When (auto makers) are asking for $100 billion, how do you get comfort from these companies?"