The role of the state as an inter-scalar mediator in globalizing liquid crystal display industry development in South Korea

Lee, Yong‐Sook; Heo, Inhye; Kim, Hyungjoo

doi:10.1080/09692290.2013.809781

Cited by 35 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Evidence adduced by Christopher Dent (), Lee, Heo and Kim (), and Linda Weiss (), among others, supports Thurbon's conclusions that the ‘developmental mindset’ remains a powerful shaper of development strategy in the industrial economy of Korea, and that there is ‘little evidence … [of ] rising anti‐statist opposition’. ‘[I]ndustry support has evolved in tandem with changing objectives, there is little evidence to suggest that the Korean state has abandoned such practices in science‐based industries ….…”

Section: Explaining the East Asian Catch‐up Storiesmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…What distinguishes developmental states from others is not the existence of intervention per se but rather the developmental ambition and elite consensus that frames that intervention and the existence of institutional capacities that help translate ambition into more or less effective policy outcomes. (Thurbon, 2014: 11, emphasis added) Evidence adduced by Christopher Dent (2007), Lee, Heo and Kim (2014), and Linda Weiss (2003), among others, supports Thurbon's conclusions that the 'developmental mindset' remains a powerful shaper of development strategy in the industrial economy of Korea, and that there is 'little evidence . .…”

Section: Reports Of the Death Of The Developmental State Are Exaggeratedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Developmental State: Dead or Alive?

Wade¹

2018

Development and Change

173

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Before the 1980s, the mainstream Western prescription for developing countries to catch up with the West assigned the state a leading role in governing the market. In the 1980s, this shifted to a framework‐providing role in a largely deregulated and maximally open economy. Also in the 1980s, it became apparent that some East Asian capitalist economies were growing so fast that they would become ‘developed’ in the foreseeable future, marking them out as completely exceptional. Mainstream economists explained their success as the result of following the Western prescription, while other scholars attributed this rapid growth to ‘the developmental state’. This essay compares these two explanations of successful economic development, concluding in favour of the latter — with respect to the catch‐up decades. But what happened subsequently? Several scholars who accept the key role of the developmental state in the early period of fast industrialization in East Asia now argue that South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore have transformed from developmental to close‐to‐neoliberal states. This contribution argues that the erstwhile East Asian developmental states have indeed changed, but they have not transformed into neoliberal states. Rather they have adapted and evolved, but still undertake market‐steering, ‘societal mission’ roles well beyond neoliberal limits. The essay also suggests how other developing countries can learn lessons from their experience.

show abstract

Section: Explaining the East Asian Catch‐up Storiesmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Reports Of the Death Of The Developmental State Are Exaggeratedmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Developmental State: Dead or Alive?

Wade¹

2018

Development and Change

173

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In some contrast, Dicken () identifies a set of nation‐state roles—as container of laws and practices, regulator, competitor, and collaborator—within the context of globalisation. More recently, the role of the Korean state as both a container of laws and practices (following Dicken, ) and also as a constructor of regional innovation systems has been highlighted (Lee et al, ). Although some of the emphasis has been on the motivation behind, mechanism, and effect of state actions, such as to collaborate or compete, it is proposed here that these and other contributions together can help inform a typology of mechanisms of state influence within GPNs.…”

Section: State Roles Within Gpnsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond facilitator? State roles in global value chains and global production networks

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Designed to break with state‐centric approaches to understanding economic development, global commodity chain, global value chain (GVC), and global production network (GPN) analyses have deepened our understanding of the corporate governance of global lead firms and associated development outcomes in an era of globalisation. Although this research field is recognised to have provided considerable insight into private governance, a rapidly emerging body of research has given greater attention to the role of the state in GVCs and GPN. Although the state playing a role as facilitator towards firms participating in GPNs has often been an emphasis, this article argues that a variety of other roles are of increasing prominence, including as regulator, producer (state‐owned enterprises), and buyer (public procurement). A major challenge for both policymakers and researchers is to understand how a range of state initiatives not just shape but also are shaped by their positioning in GVCs and GPNs.

show abstract

“…In globalized industries such as automobiles (e.g., Park , ) and electronics (Lee ; Park and Koo ; Lee et al. ), the highly spatially selective anchoring of the GPNs by these leading chaebol in the Seoul Metropolitan Area (e.g., Seoul, Incheon and Gyeonggi) and southeast region (e.g., Busan, Ulsan and Gyeongnam) has been shown to exacerbate seriously pre‐existing regional differences and socio‐economic inequalities. As these South Korean chaebols continue to reorganize and restructure their home region‐embedded production networks, the degree of regional asset specificity – measured by the growing share and dependency of local suppliers on each chaebol – is likely to increase over time.…”

Section: Strategic Coupling: How Can It Work For Regional Development?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Regional development in the global economy: A dynamic perspective of strategic coupling in global production networks

Yeung

2015

Regional Science Policy & Practice

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper rethinks the trajectories of regional development in an era of economic globalization. It argues for a more dynamic perspective on regional development that must incorporate both endogenous regional assets and strategic imperatives in global industries. Premised on theoretical advances in research into global production networks (GPNs) and global value chains (GVCs), a dynamic perspective of strategic coupling is further developed and reconstructed in this paper to demonstrate how regional development can result from the interaction effects of these regional assets and GPN logics. This perspective also points to different modes of strategic coupling for understanding the changing pathways of regional development. Several key issues for regional policy and practice are outlined to substantiate this call for a shift towards a dynamic and multi‐scalar view of regional development in today's global economy.

show abstract

The role of the state as an inter-scalar mediator in globalizing liquid crystal display industry development in South Korea

Cited by 35 publications

References 16 publications

The Developmental State: Dead or Alive?

The Developmental State: Dead or Alive?

Beyond facilitator? State roles in global value chains and global production networks

Regional development in the global economy: A dynamic perspective of strategic coupling in global production networks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About