Search results

This paper aims to examine the distinctiveness of South Korean social enterprises from a historical institutionalism perspective. From this perspective, the author focuses on the proactive roles played by the government in the process of emergence and formulation of social enterprises in South Korea. The author roots this paper in the concept of the developmental state and examines how this concept applies to newly emerging social enterprises in South Korea.

This paper first introduces the process of South Korean social enterprises’ emergence as an independent phenomenon. The author explains the process with a link to governmental actions, such as the introduction of public programs and government acts. Second, this paper introduces the concept of developmental state which captures the proactive role of the state in social, economic and political development in South Korea. Third, this paper applies the institutional framework proposed by Kerlin (2013) to see how the South Korean social enterprise model can be located from a comparative perspective and how the South Korean model can contribute to the expansion of the existing framework.

This paper finds that the state involvement in South Korea is a reflection of the historical path of the developmental state. The cross-comparison of South Korean social enterprises from a historical institutionalist approach finds that the South Korean case may contribute to the ongoing scholarly debate by suggesting taking a Weberian ideal type of an interventionist state into account for an extension of the proposed framework. This paper also uncovered the strategic approach of the South Korean Government in utilizing this public policy tool by adopting and combining existing social enterprise models.

This paper demonstrates the state’s intents to mobilize economic and societal resources as public policy intervention tools, which can be understood from a developmental state context. This role would be distinct when compared to those in Europe and the USA. This paper has a limitation to restrict its analytical scope to formally recognized social enterprises because it focuses on the role of the state in utilizing social enterprises for public policy agenda: social development and social welfare provision.

As a practical implication, this study might provide an insightful framework for South Korean public policy makers, outlining the contributions and limitations of state-led public policies associated with social enterprises. As seen in the historical path of governmental interventions, governmental public policies do not necessarily guarantee their sustainable community impacts without the consideration of private or nonprofit actors’ spontaneous involvements. The flip side of state-led interventions requires policy makers to become more cautious, as they address social problems with public policy intents.

The majority of current studies on social enterprises in South Korea mainly focus on reporting the quantitative increase in the number of registered social enterprises. Beyond this quantitative description of its achievement, this paper also provides a historical narration and philosophical background of this phenomenon. Additionally, it shows how this artificial government intervention in social enterprises could be accepted from a historical perspective and brought remarkable responses from the private and civil society sectors in South Korea.

This paper aims to distill from both the Asian “miracle” and the “meltdown” since the Asian crisis, a generic East Asian business model which is changing in the context of globalisation, information communication technology, knowledge‐based economy, deregulation and emerging new competition.

The generic business model considers the creative and innovative nature of intellectual capital in a qualitative macroeconomic development model rather than a quantitative or econometric micro‐level business modeling for the firm or industry. Diverse and heterogeneous both within the whole of East Asia and distinguished as Northeast and Southeast Asia, the putative generic business model is further differentiated in terms of customised idiosyncratic models in more mature Northeast developmental states in Japan, Korea and Taiwan contrasted with Southeast “captured” developmental states as in Indonesia and Malaysia entrapped by ethnic politics.

City‐states Hong Kong and Singapore are exceptional because of their size and resultant globalised states. To each its own may be the conclusion in terms of customised national systems and models, but East Asian ethical and moral dimensions of integrity may generally offer a version moral capitalism of which is suited to global capitalism not of the brute Darwinist kind. In the final analysis, East Asia is increasingly exposed to the global marketplace, competition and globalisation backlash, such that some common denominator comes from DFI and MNCs from multicultural political economy dimensions.

The paper presents a putative East Asian business models.

This paper aims to apply the developmental state theory to examine the institutional arrangements that support the widespread adoption of the property‐led urban economic growth model and generate risks on property investment in Chinese cities.

This paper conducts institutional analysis on the behaviour of the Chinese state and examines results from major interview programmes and field investigations on six cities in China.

The Chinese state deviates from other developmental states and is polymorphous, i.e. lacking an effective central state to maintain the standard of governance and regulate the behaviour of local states. The weak central state is responsible for failures to implement national policies on land supply and housing price inflation, to nurture the development of professions like valuation, and to formulate policy on commercial property. The local states, on the other hand, intensify risks in property investment by poor plan making and implementation that create chaos in urban development and intensive competition among projects, and by poor data services and legal support for market operations. Such risks, however, seem to be played down by Chinese property professionals.

This paper uses the summarised opinions of interviewees who have varied expertise on different issues in China. Further research could be conducted on a number of fronts, say risk perception by different professions such as valuers or investors.

This is the first paper to apply developmental state theory to examine the roles the Chinese central and local governments play in using the property‐led growth model on the generation and intensification of property investment risks.

East Asian industrializations and the crisis of Latin American developmentalism in the 1970s and 1980s have been at the center of disputes over the conditions leading to a socially optimal extension and intensification of capitalist production relations in the periphery. The contrast in regional styles and outcomes of development is deemed to be the key to a final adjudication between the competing analytical claims of neoclassical economists and statist currents within political economy. Neoclassical critiques of excessive Latin American tampering with markets find confirmation for neoliberal prescriptions in the open, export‐oriented East Asian regimes. That East Asian development is not a paragon of neoliberal virtue, and that relatively freer markets might not be the most important part of the story, is the crux of the enduring statist critique. Over a decade of contestation has given way to significant refinements, among them, a recognition of the importance of sequencing import‐and export‐substitution. The modicum of foresight and discipline that seems to be implied in proper sequencing has weighed in favor of the statist emphasis on the role of ‘developmental states.’ Even researchers disposed to enshrine the virtues of markets in the process of modernization, find it difficult not to concede that the East Asian record rests on more than macroeconomic stability; although they remain skeptical about the cruder claims of states successfully ‘picking winners and losers’ (Dollar and Sokoloff 1994). Perhaps the most enduring legacy of this controversy—only extreme zealots could deny this—is the mounting empirical evidence supporting the argument that economic development is an inherently discontinuous process, and reliance on the market institution leaves societies woefully unprepared to ‘negotiate’ through an unstable and asymmetrical international political economy.

Research on the political connections of multinational enterprises’ (MNEs’) subsidiaries in emerging host countries has been growing. The purpose of this paper is to integrate institutional and resource dependence theories to argue that MNEs-subsidiaries are likely to develop fewer formal (i.e. board-level) political connections when operating in welfare-state monarchies as compared to in host countries with developmental-state democratic systems. Furthermore, this paper argues that MNE-subsidiaries develop formal political connections to a greater extent in industries where religion influences the development of products and services considerably. Finally, the extent of developing formal political connections varies by the scale of the MNEs’ investment (or subsidiary density) in the host market.

The paper tests its hypotheses on a sample of foreign-owned subsidiaries operating in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The data was collected by combining information from Bureau Van Dijk’s Orbis database with company websites and other secondary sources. The final sample consisted of 156 observations – 70 MNEs-subsidiaries operating in Saudi Arabia, and 86 in Egypt.

The findings confirm that foreign subsidiaries are likely to develop fewer formal political connections in a welfare-state monarchy as compared to in a developmental-state democratic system. Furthermore, formal political connections are more significant in industries that are impacted by the influence of religion – such as the financial industry in Arab countries. Finally, the extent of using political connections varies by the scale of the MNEs’ investment in the host market – that is, with a greater scale of investment (or higher subsidiary density), formal political connections are greater.

The paper contributes theoretically by explaining that a combination of institutional heterogeneity and its associated resource dependence conditions between MNEs and host governments influence MNE-subsidiaries' political connections. The paper tests its hypotheses in an emerging Arab context, which is characterized by both autocratic and semi-democratic political settings, and which makes the integration of institutional and resource dependence theories useful in explaining how MNE-subsidiaries navigate local complexities in this region.

Purpose – This chapter focuses on notions of community as related to the discourse around “community living” for people with labels of developmental disabilities, especially as they emerged during and after deinstitutionalization. Following Foucault, this chapter asks whether institutionalization and community living should be conceived of as two separate epochs or as governed by similar logic. The second focus of the chapter is in the ways notions of “community” were evoked by various stakeholders such as parents of children with labels of mental retardation, professionals in the field of developmental disability, and those of formerly institutionalized peoples themselves.

Methodology/approach – This chapter employs the methodological aspects of the work of Michel Foucault and constructs a genealogy of notions of community in relation to deinstitutionalization and the field of developmental disabilities.

Findings – “Community” has been discursively produced in several forms: as a binary opposite of “institution,” as a set of human relationships, and as a paradigm shift in relation to the way developmental disabilities should be conceptualized. It remains unclear whether we have truly moved from an institutional model to a “community-based” model for those with developmental disabilities.

Originality/value of the chapter – Reconceptualizing deinstitutionalization and community living as discursive formations aids in the understanding of the difference between abolition of institutionalization as a mindset and other formulations of the concept of “community” in the field of developmental disabilities.

Takes issue with the way in which economics deals with the state and assumes homogeneous capacity. Instead it argues that differences in growth rates between countries can be traced back to the capacity of the state and political system. A state that is relatively capable is able to provide a political environment conducive to growth. It highlights the role of the élite in the development process, the necessity for a competent and insulated economic bureaucracy, and the significance of “embedded autonomy” for the state. These elements shape the nature and capacity of the state.