Interpreting the Impact of Context on Global Competitiveness through the National Business System Approach

Abstract

The social context gains context plays an important role in determining firm dynamics and competition, as well as affecting structures and strategies. This study aims to compare the economic outputs of countries with different business systems through the basic institutions that shape their business systems within the framework of Whitkey’s national business system approach. Based on the World Economic Forum’s 2017-2018 Global Cpompetitivity Report, six countries (Hong Kong, Italy, the United Kingdom, South Korea, Germany, and Japan) are selected to exemplify each business system. Whitley identified these countries based on their definitions, which form the theoretical framework of the study. The intensity of government regulation of markets, financializations through capital markets, flexibility in wage setting, and willingness to delegate authority are analyzed, taking into account the political economy context of the countries. The research reveals that historical context and political economic structures, which impact different business systems in different countries, have led to differentiation in terms of competitiveness levels. Furthermore, what makes this report more important is the possibility that even the most competitive countries in the rankings may fall behind other countries in terms of sub-indicators.

Keywords

• National Business Systems
• Global Competition
• Varieties of Capitalism
• Compartive İnstitutional Analysis

Küresel Rekabetçilik Üzerinde Bağlamın Etkisini Ulusal İş Sistemleri Yaklaşımıyla Okumak

Öz

Firmaların ve rekabetin dinamiğini belirlemede, yapıları ve stratejileri etkilemede içerisinde bulunulan toplumsal bağlam önem kazanmaktadır. Bu çalışmada da Whitley’in ulusal iş sistemi yaklaşımı çerçevesinde birbirinden farklı iş sistemine sahip olan ülkelerin, iş sistemlerini biçimlendiren temel kurumlar üzerinden, ekonomik çıktılarını karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Dünya Ekonomi Forumu’nun 2017-2018 Küresel Rekabetçilik Raporu’nun esas alındığı çalışmada, her bir iş sistemine örnek teşkil edecek 6 ülke (Hong-Kong, İtalya, Birleşik Krallık, Güney Kore, Almanya ve Japonya) seçilmiştir. Bu ülkelerin seçilmesinin sebebi çalışmanın kuramsal çerçevesini oluşturan Whitley’in belirlediği ülke tanımlamaları olmalarıdır. Devletin piyasaları düzenleme yoğunluğu, sermaye piyasaları yoluyla finansallaşma, ücretlerin belirlenme esnekliği ve yetki devri isteği göstergelerine bakılarak, ülkelerin ekonomi-politik bağlamları da göz önünde bulundurularak, incelenmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda tarihsel bağlamın ve ekonomi-politik yapıların etkisiyle ülkelerin farklı iş sistemlerine sahip olması ülkelerin rekabetçilik düzeyleri açısından da farklılaşmalarına yol açmıştır. Ayrıca, bu raporu daha da önemli kılan nokta, ülke sıralamasında en rekabetçi olarak gösterilen ülkelerin bile alt göstergeler açısından diğer ülkelerin gerisine düşebilme ihtimalidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ulusal İş Sistemi
• Küresel Rekabet
• Kapitalizmin Çeşitliliği
• Karşılaştırmalı Kurumsal Analiz

Kaynakça

1. AOKI, Masahiko, MURDOCK, Kevin ve MASAHIRO, Okuno‐Fujiwara (1996), “Beyond the East Asian Miracle: Introducing the Market-Enhancing View”, The Role of Government in East Asian Economic Development (Ed. Masahiko Aoki, Hyung-Ki Kim, Masahiro Okuno-Fujiwara), Oxford Universty Press, Oxford (UK), ss.1-37.
2. ÁCS, Zoltan, AUTIO, Erkko ve SZERB, László (2014), “National Systems of Entrepreneurship: Measurement Issues and Policy Implications”, Research Policy, S.43(3), ss.476-494.
3. BACCARO, Lucio ve PULIGNANO, Valeria (2009), “Employment Relations in Italy”, International and Comparative Employment Relations: Globalization and Change (Ed. Greg J. Bamber, Russell D. Lansbury, Chris F. Wright, Nick Wailes), Sage Publications, Los Angeles (US), ss.(1-27).
4. CAMMACK, Paul (2022), The Politics of Global Competitiveness, Oxford University Press, Oxford (UK).
5. CHANDLER, Alfred D. (1990), Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism, Harvard Universtiy Press, London (UK).
6. COEN, David (1998), “The European Business Interest and the Nation State: Large-Firm Lobbying in the European Union and Member States”, Journal of Public Policy, S.18(1), ss.75-100.
7. DE JONG, Abe, RÖELL, Ailsa ve WESTERHUIS, Gerarda (2010), “Changing National Business Systems: Corporate Governance and Financing in the Netherlands, 1945–2005”, Business History Review, S.84(4), ss.773-798.
8. DEEG, Richard (2005), “Change from Within: German and Italian Finance in the 1990s”, Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies (Ed. Wolfgang Streeck, Kathleen Thelen), Oxford University Press, Oxford (UK), ss.169-202.

9. DEEG, Richard (2010), “Institutional Change in Financial Systems”, The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Institutional Analysis (Ed. Glenn Morgan, John Campbell, Colin Crouch, Ove Kaj Pedersen, Richard Whitley), Oxford Universtity Press, Oxford (UK), ss.309-334.
10. FELICE, Emanuele (2010), “State Ownership and International Competitiveness: The Italian Finmeccanica from Alfa Romeo to Aerospace and Defense (1947-2007)”, Enterprise & Society, S.11(3), ss.594-635.
11. FIORETOS, Orfeo (2001), “The Domestic Source of Multilateral Preferences: Varieties of Capitalism in the European Community”, Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage (Ed. Peter A. Hall, David Soskice), Oxford University Press, Oxford (UK), ss.213-244.
12. FOSS, Nicolai J. (1999), “Preface: Perspectives on Business Systems”, International Studies of Management & Organization, S.29(2), ss.3-8.
13. HAAKE, Sven (2002), “National Business Systems and Industry-Specific Competitiveness”, Organization Studies, S.23(5), ss.711-736.
14. HALL, Peter A. ve SOSKICE, David (2001), “An Introduction to Varieties of Capitalism”, Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage (Ed. Peter A. Hall, David Soskice), Oxford University Press, Oxford (UK), ss.1-70.
15. HOTHO, Jasper J. (2014), “From Typology to Taxonomy: A Configurational Analysis of National Business Systems and Their Explanatory Power”, Organization Studies, S.35(5), ss.671-702.
16. INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND (2016), Financial System Stability Assessment on Germany, International Monetary Fund Publisher, Washington D.C. (US), https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2016/cr16189.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 26.12.2021).
17. IOANNOU, Ioannis ve SERAFEIM, George (2012), “What Drives Corporate Social Performance? The Role of Nation-Level Institutions”, Journal of International Business Studies, S.43, ss.834-864.
18. JACKSON, Gregory ve DEEG, Richard (2008), “From Comparing Capitalisms to the Politics of Institutional Change”, Review of International Political Economy, S.15(4), ss.680-709.
19. KNIGHTS, David, MORGAN, Glenn ve MURRAY, Fergus (1992), “Business Systems, Consumption and Change: Personal Financial Services in Italy”, European Business Systems: Firms and Markets in Their National Contexts (Ed. Richard Whitley), Sage Publication, Los Angeles (US).
20. LAU, Lawrence J. (1996), “The Role of Government in Economic Development: Some Observations from the Experience of China, Hong Kong and Taiwan”, The Role of Government in East Asian Economic Development (Ed. Masahiko Aoki, Hyung-Ki Kim, Masahiro Okuna-Fujiwara), Oxford Universty Press, Oxford (UK), ss.41-73.
21. LOCKE, Richard M. (1995), Remaking the Italian Economy, Cornell University Press, New York (US).
22. LUNDWALL, Bengt-Åke (1999), “National Business Systems and National Systems of Innovation”, International Studies of Management & Organization, S.29(2), ss.60-77.
23. MENSIK, Stan, GRAINGER, Richard J. ve CHATTERJEE, Samir Ranjan (2011), “Trends and Transitions in Japanese and Korean Management Approaches”, Citeseerx (E-Article), ss.900-913, https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=4cc1db820a1ab429f6de9393963fb3ced8bc7ccf (Erişim Tarihi: 08.03.2024).
24. MORGAN, Glenn (2001), “Transnational Communities and Business Systems”, Global Networks, S.1(2), ss.113-130.
25. MORGAN, Glenn (2007), “National Business Systems Research: Progress and Prospects”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, S.23(2), ss.127-145.
26. NOCOS, Clement (2015), “The Political Economy of Social Capital in Japan: How Welfare Institutions and Industrial Relations Shape Social Trust”, Master Thesis, The University of Tokyo – Hertie School of Governance, Tokyo.
27. OLCZYK, Magdalena, KUC-CZARNECKA, Marta ve SALTELLI, Andrea (2022), “Changes in the Global Competitiveness Index 4.0 Methodology: The Improved Approach of Competitiveness Benchmarking”, Journal of Competitiveness, S.14(1), ss.118–13.
28. ÖZKAN, Erhan Umit (2011), “The Transformation of the Ownership Structure of Japanese Financial and Commercial Institutions and Its Impact on the Level of Cooperation between the State and the Private Sector in Japan”, Ritsumeikan Journal of Asia Pacific Studies, S.30, ss.13-37.
29. PÉREZ-MORENO, Salvador, RODRIGUEZ, Beatriz ve LUQUE, Mariano (2016), “Assessing Global Competitiveness Under Multi-Criteria Perspective”, Economic Modelling, S.53, ss.398-408.
30. RANA, Mohammad B. ve MORGAN, Glenn (2019), “Twenty-five Years of Business Systems Research and Lessons for International Business Studies”, International Business Review, S.28, ss.513-532.
31. REDDING, Gordon (2005), “The Thick Description and Comparison of Societal Systems of Capitalism”, Journal of International Business Studies, S.26, ss.123-155.
32. SORGE, Arndt (2005), “Systemic Perspectives on Business Practices and Institutions: A Plea Beyond Comparative Statics”, Changing Capitalisms? Internationalization, Institutional Change, and Systems of Economic Organization (Ed. Glenn Morgan, Richard Whitley, Eli Moen), Oxford University Press, Oxford (UK).
33. QUACK, Sigrid ve MORGAN, Glenn (2000), “National Capitalisms, Global Competition, and Economic Performance”, National Capitalisms, Global Competition, and Economic Performance (Ed. Sigrid Quack, Glenn Morgan, Richard Whitley), John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
34. TEMPEL, Anne ve WALGENBACH, Peter (2007), “Global Standardization of Organizational Forms and Management Practices? What New Institutionalism and the Business‐Systems Approach Can Learn from Each Other”, Journal of Management Studies, S.44(1), ss.1-24.
35. THELEN, Kathleen (2001), “Varieties of Labor Politics in the Developed Democracies”, Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage (Ed. Peter A. Hall, David Soskice), Oxford University Press, Oxford (UK).
36. TIMBALARI, Carolina (2021), “The Determinants of International Competitiveness”, Studies in Business and Economics, S.16(3), ss.247-265.
37. VITOLS, Sigurt (2005), “Changes in Germany’s Bank-Based Fınancial System: Implications for Corporate Governance”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, S.13(3), ss.386-396.
38. WESTNEY, D. Eleanor (1996), The Japanese Business System: Key Features and Prospects for Change, Columbia Business School - Columbia University Publisher, Columbia.
39. WHITLEY, Richard (1991), “The Social Construction of Business Systems in East Asia”, Organization Studies, S.12(1), ss.1-28.
40. WHITLEY, Richard (1994), “Dominant Forms of Economic Organization in Market Economies”, Organization Studies, S.15(2), ss.153-182.
41. WHITLEY, Richard (1999), Divergent Capitalisms: The Social Structuring and Change of Business Systems, Oxford University Press, Oxford (UK).
42. WHITLEY, Richard (2005), “How National are Business Systems? The Role of Different State Types and Complementary Institutions in Constructing Hmogeneous Systems of Economic Coordination and Control”, Changing Capitalisms? Internationalization, Institutional Change and Systems of Economic Organization (Ed. Glenn Morgan, Richard Whitley, Eli Moen), Oxford University Press, Oxford (UK), ss.190-232.
43. WHITLEY, Richard (2007), Business Systems and Organizational Capabilities: The Institutional Structuring of Competitive Competences, Oxford University Press, Oxford (UK).
44. WHITLEY, Richard ve ZHANG, Xiaoke (2016), “Introduction: The Comparative Analysis of Changing Business Systems in Asia”, Changing Asian Business Systems: Globalization, Sosci-Political Change, and Economic Organization (Ed. Richard Whitley, Xiaoke Zhang), Oxford University Press, Oxford.
45. WHITT, Michael A. ve REDDING, Gordon (2013), “Asian Business Systems: Institutional Comparison, Clusters and Implications for Varieties of Capitalism and Business System Theory”, Socio-Economic Review, S.11(2), ss.265-300.
46. WHITT, Michael A. ve GUNTER, Stahl K. (2016), “Foundations of Responsible Leadership: Asian Versus Western Executive Responsibility Orientations Toward Key Stakeholders”, Journal of Business Ethics, S.136, ss.623-638.
47. WORLD BANK GROUP (2017), “Prosperity Data360”, World Bank Group Kurumsal Web Sayfası (E-İstatistik), https://prosperitydata360.worldbank.org/en/home (Erişim Tarihi: 27.03.2022).
48. WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM (2017), “The Global Competitiveness Report (2017-2018)”, World Economic Forum Kurumsal Web Sayfası (E-Rapor), 26 Eylül 2017, https://www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2017-2018/05FullReport/TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2017%E2%80%932018.pdf (Erişim Tarihi 15.12.2021).
49. ZHANG, Xiaoke ve WHITLEY, Richard (2013), “Changing Macro-Structural Varieties of East Asian Capitalism”, Socio-Economic Review, S.11(2), ss.301–336.