Hybrid governance and extraterritoriality: Understanding Singapore's state capitalism in the context of oil global production networks

Abstract

This paper explores the intersections and overlaps between state capitalism and global production networks. A key feature of the so-called new state capitalism is the combination of state ownership and corporatisation, which creates a system that can be characterised as a hybrid of public–private governance in both corporate and network terms. Moreover, the internationalisation of state hybrids adds an extraterritorial dimension to the state, which can influence the configuration and governance of global production networks. This paper develops a conceptual framework (H–E–N) that foregrounds the relationships between hybrid governance (H), extraterritoriality (E) and global production network configurations (N), thereby promoting an integrated analysis of the implications of the new state capitalism for global production networks. This framework is mobilised to explain how state capitalism in Singapore has influenced the development of the city-state's position in upstream, midstream and downstream oil global production networks over the 1959–2019 period. The study demonstrates that hybrid governance, as part of a wider strategy of state capitalism, has been critical in the development of Singapore's position in oil global production networks. The hybrid nature of the institutional forms associated with state ownership – for instance state-owned enterprises and sovereign wealth funds – goes beyond market facilitation to encompass active state participation in markets. Hybrid governance not only allows the state to influence domestic outcomes but – through the extraterritorial strategies of hybrid entities – can also influence global production network configurations beyond its borders.

Deal-making, elite networks and public–private hybridisation: More-than-neoliberal urban governance

“…Logics of corporatisation and commercialisation have ushered in varieties of state-capitalism that hybridise public and private operations and motivations. Agencies fully or partially owned by the state operate not just as service providers but as profit- and rent-seeking players in national and international markets (McGregor and Coe, 2021). Governance capacity rests not simply with elected officials but also via institutional networks of career executives and experts with public and private sector experience, appointed to boards and key advisory and strategic positions (Bok and Coe, 2017; Kuus, 2020).…”

“…Transurban, Lend Lease) active and expanding in the US and UK (Hatch, 2021b). Insights from diverse fields will be necessary to trace this: from critical accounting and criminology to economic geography and investigative journalism (Bok and Coe, 2017; Inverardi-Ferri, 2021; Lim, 2018; McGregor and Coe, 2021). A shifting landscape of urban deal-making requires scholars to move beyond conceptual and empirical comfort zones.…”

“…Stiglich, 2021) but which emanated from a distinctive Asia-Pacific context (cf. Lim, 2018; McGregor and Coe, 2021). Neither ‘pure’ neoliberalism nor resistance to it, we identify deal-making as a mode of hybrid state-capitalist governance that not only blurs but melds together elite private and public sector actors in the production of the city, dissolving distinctions between the formal and informal, and between government and corporate spheres (Kuus, 2020).…”

Making space for the new state capitalism, part I: Working with a troublesome category

“…The papers of the theme issue equally highlight the temporal attributes of the new state capitalism by offering distinctive case-study periodizations, each with their own time frames (Palcic et al, 2023; Silverwood and Berry, 2023), by emphasizing extraterritorial dimensions (Jensen, 2023; McGregor and Coe, 2023) and by making connections with neoliberalization (Paul and Cumbers, 2023) and financialization (Petry et al, 2023; Ward et al, 2023). Rather than taking the ‘new’ state capitalism moniker for granted, the concept of novelty itself is also critically assessed (e.g., Alami and Dixon, 2023 on global capitalism; Eagleton-Pierce, 2023 on temporal fluidity; Su and Lim, 2023 on China).…”

“…The drivers of concentration and centralization, probed by state capitalism studies, ought to be taken up through state-theoretical debates, informed by changes in state ownership and public property rather than underestimated for their broader, perhaps systemic, importance. Similarly, the ongoing reconfiguration of territorial arrangements under the impulse of state capitalism might signal the need to refine (or rethink) our understanding of the nexus between state sovereignty, territory and accumulation (Su and Lim, 2023; McGregor and Coe, 2023).…”