What happens to firms during periods of deep economic crisis? Depending on the nature of the crisis, the general effects are well known. However, owing to data availability, there are relatively few detailed firm‐level studies. With the aid of an unusually rich database, the present paper investigates the effects of Indonesia's 1997–1998 crisis on manufacturing establishments. Consistent with studies of other crisis episodes, foreign ownership and prior export orientation are found to be highly significant determinants of survival and recovery. The effects of firm size are ambiguous. The industry in which firms are located, in particular its factor proportions, is also found to be significant.

In this paper, we explore the possible policy responses to the COVID‐19 pandemic shock as well as the related economic (financial crisis) shocks on trade and global value chains (GVC) in East Asia. We find that regional policy coordination is critical to mitigate and isolate the pandemic shock. It is important to identify the pandemic events early to flatten the pandemic curve at the national and regional level. This supports a recent study by the World Bank (2020), which highlights the importance of early mitigation policies during the pandemic shock. The cost of the pandemic and economic shocks will increase significantly when several countries in the region experience the pandemic shock concurrently. In this case, flattening the regional pandemic curve becomes important. The results also indicate the need for greater coordination in East Asia to mitigate the pending economic shock in terms of unemployment, corporate bankruptcy and financial market fragility. The paper also highlights that the stability of the GVC network is critical during the pandemic in terms of hedging the risk of disruptions to the procurement of critical medical and health products as well as maintaining service linkages to manufacturing, such as the logistics sector. Regional policy coordination and the stability of GVC will be valuable in the post‐pandemic recovery of the region.

No abstract

Indonesia experienced a deep economic contraction as a result of the 1997-1998 Asian crisis. This paper develops an analytical framework that facilitates an examination of trends and patterns in the country's industrial sector in the wake of the crisis, and explains why it appears to be on a lower growth trajectory. We particularly focus on why industrialisation has become less employment elastic; why industrial exports have performed indifferently; and why the process of small firms 'graduating' to larger units has slowed, and most of the output growth is now coming from existing firms rather than new entrants.

Microdata studies on innovation, productivity, and globalization are relatively new to the Southeast Asian region. Evidence from microdata studies in middle-income countries provide valuable evidence for policymaking aimed at graduating these countries to high-income status. Globalization via trade and foreign direct investment should continue to be important development strategies. A more nuanced approach focusing on exporters and potential exporters, especially SMEs, are likely to be needed. The extent of foreign participation is also likely to have important implications for technological spillovers.