Wan-Ping Tai

Bio: Wan-Ping Tai is an academic researcher from Cheng Shiu University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Industrialisation & Developing country. The author has an hindex of 2, co-authored 2 publications receiving 22 citations.

State and Industrial Policy: Comparative Political Economic Analysis of Automotive Industrial Policies in Malaysia and Thailand

Abstract: Numerous differences exist between the neoclassical and national development schools of economics on how an economy should develop. For example, should the state interfere in the market using state resources, and cultivate certain industries to achieve specific developmental goals? Although the automotive industries in both Thailand and Malaysia developed in the 1970s with considerable government involvement, they have evolved along very different lines. Can these differences be traced to different interactions between the state and industry in these two countries? This paper examines this issue and finds that although industries in developing countries need government assistance, the specific political and economic contexts of each country affect the policies adopted and their effectiveness. The choice between “autonomous development” (Malaysia) and “dependent development” (Thailand) is the first issue. The second issue is that politics in Malaysia has deterred the automotive industry from adopting a “market following” position. This paper finds that the choice of strategy and political interference are the two main reasons the automotive industry in Malaysia is less competitive than that in Thailand.

The Political Economy of the Automobile Industry in ASEAN: A Cross-Country Comparison

Abstract: The automobile industry plays a leading role in a country’s industrialization. Various countries have used different methods to identify a model of industrial development. For developing countries, establishing the automobile industry is crucial for promoting industrialization. After Southeast Asian countries achieved independent, their automobile industries underwent establishment and development stages. The domestic and overseas competiveness of the automobile industries in ASEAN have received global attention. How can the industrial development of Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines, which are ASEAN countries, be understood? Researchers have proposed various views regarding the industrial development of these four ASEAN countries. We researched the political economy of these countries to understand the development of their automobile industries. Thailand’s automobile industry was successfully developed because of the government’s crucial role in implementing a coordinated market economy and national system of innovation. In Indonesia, government–business relations hampered the government’s efforts to meet society and market needs, thereby limiting the country’s industrialization. Malaysia must learn how to coordinate its industries with a market economy through liberalization and coordination. The Philippines has positioned its automobile industry on manufacturing automotive parts because of the country’s limited industrialization. Theoretically, following the 1997 Asian financial crisis, these ASEAN countries have adopted market economy-oriented policies; however, because of the historical context of political economy, the development of their automobile industries has varied. Under the context of globalization, the economic systems of various countries have exhibited low convergence. In this study, we show that embedded liberalism is the preferred interpretation in ASEAN automobile industry development. In other words, researchers should look beyond convergence theory and consider the political economy characteristics of various countries. Accordingly, further comparative research must be conducted to clarify the differences in the economic systems and policies in ASEAN studies.

The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields (Chinese Translation)

Abstract: What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.