Varieties of capitalism and East Asia: Long-term evolution, structural change, and the end of East Asian capitalism

Organizational and comparative institutionalism in internationalHRM: Toward an integrative research agenda

“…In the 1990s and early 2000s, scholars started to view national-level However, these conclusions proved premature, leading to a further wave of comparative and other institutionally focused work (Lee & Shin, 2018). These include studies of the German export model's revival and the Scandinavian social democracies' continued strong performance (Thelen, 2019), the Japanese model's persistence (Gotoh, 2020), populism's recent rise, and new policy departures in the US and the UK (Cumming, Wood, & Zahra, 2020), and large emerging markets' (most notably China's) ability to pursue distinct national developmental paths (Zhang & Peck, 2016).…”

Selective industrial policy and ‘sustainable’ structural change. Discussing the political economy of sectoral priorities in the US

“…It can be argued that the social component of structural change can occupy a decisive role in conditioning the development trajectory of economic systems. In particular, while structural change can occur within a range of changes that are made possible by given economic structures, to understand the specific path of change out of those that are possible, it is necessary to consider the social context, which determines the actual actions carried out within those economic structures (Cardinale and Scazzieri, 2018;Cardinale, 2018a;Lee and Shin, 2018). From a political economy perspective, within a range of transformations that could be economically feasible, not all of them could be socially viable because they could be ‗disrespectful' of the composition of the social interests and powers at stake.…”

From Catching Up to Convergence of the Latecomer Firms: Comparing Behavior and Innovation Systems of Firms in Korea and the US

“…The country now faces serious challenges of growth slowdown, rapid aging, and rising income inequality between the rich and poor, which appear quite similar to the typical situations in advanced or mature economies. If these challenges become permanent features of Korea, then it signals the end of East Asian capitalism or 'East Asian miracle' [8], which is characterized by high growth and low inequality; instead, a convergence toward the Anglo-Saxon capitalism characterized by low growth and high inequality is anticipated [9]. Accordingly, the time has come to switch our focus from the past catch-up and post-catch-up frameworks to the new and futuristic focus on the convergence and divergence framework [5].…”

“…It identifies several representative types of capitalism, such as liberal market economies (LMEs), coordinated market economies (CMEs), and mixed market economies (MMEs). If Korea can now be classified in the same group as the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), or LMEs in terms of performance measures of economic growth and income inequality as Lee and Shin [9] verified by a cluster analysis, then this shocking result raises an important puzzle of how Korea can thus be classified despite the possible existing differences in its underlying institutions, such as national innovation systems, corporate governance, financial system, and the role and power of the government. Indeed, whereas several authors [11][12][13][14] have argued for some tendency of convergence, and observed that the changing external and internal circumstances have diminished the developmental states' capacities to devise and execute coherent technoindustrial strategies, others argued that a continuity of East Asian capitalism remains in several aspects [15][16][17].…”