THE “HIDDEN“ ROLE OF THE STATE IN DIFFERENT APPROACHES ON COMPETITIVENESS (THEORETICAL COMPARISON)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53477/2668-2001-21-07Keywords:
competitiveness theories; state; role of the government; globalizationAbstract
From the perspective of political science the paper is a comparative overview of some of the main approaches on competitiveness. The focus is on their strengths and weaknesses in the explanation of the role of the government. Yet the paper compares some of the more recent authors as Porter, Reich, Thurow, Ohmae and Strange. The implication is that government intervention is still needed to provide both sustainable competitiveness (Strange) (modesty as opposed to resource depletion) and social adjustment (jobs) to innovation in the long-term dynamic picture (Porter) because government is still at the basis of the welfare pyramid (Thurow). I start with the authors’ assumptions and proceed with their view on the role of the government to conclude that this role is underestimated in the social and overestimated in the business sphere.
References
Cohn, Theodore. 2005. Global Political Economy: Theory and Practice, Addison Wesley Longman.
Cox, Robert. 1997. “Reconsiderations“ in The New Realism, Perspectives on Multilateralism and World Order, Robert Cox, edt., United Nations University Press, UK.
Cox, Robert.1999. “Civil society at the turn of the millennium: prospects for an alternative world order“, Review of International Studies, Vol. 25, 3-28.
Granovetter, Mark 1985. “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness“, American Journal of Sociology, Vol.91, No 3, 481-510.
Harris, Richard and William Watson. 1993. “Three Visions of Competitiveness: Porter, Reich and Thurrow on Economic Growth and Policy“, in Productivity, Growth and Canada’s International Competitiveness, Thomas Courchene and Douglas Purvis, eds., Kingston: John Deutsch Institute for the Study of Economic Policy.
Krugman, Paul. 1994. “Competitiveness: A dangerous Obsession“, Foreign Affairs, March-April, 28-44.
Odell, John. 2000. Negotiating the World Economy, Ch.3 Market Conditions, Cornell Univ. Press.
Ohmae, Kenichi. 1991. The Borderless World, Power and Strategy in the Interlinked Economy, HarperBusiness.
Ohmae, Kenichi. 1995. Triad Power, The Coming Shape of Global Competition, The Free Press.
Ohmae, Kenichi. 2000. The Invisible Continent, Four Strategic Imperatives of the New Economy, Harper Business, New York.
Pauly, Louis and Simon Reich. 1997. “National Structures and Multinational Corporate Behaviour: Enduring Differences in the Age of Globalization“, International Organization, Vol.51, No.1, 1-30.
Porter, Michael. 1990a. The Competitive Advantage of Nations, The Free Press, New York.
Porter, Michael. 1990b. “The Competitive Advantage of Nations”, Harvard Business Review, March-April, 73-93.
Perlmutter, Howard. 1969. “The Tortuous Evolution of the Multinational Corporation“, Columbia Journal of World Business.
Reich, Robert. 1990. “Who Is Us? “, Harvard Business Review, Jan.- Feb.
Reich, Robert. 1991. The Work of Nations, Preparing Ourselves for the 21st Century Capitalism, Alfred Knopf, New York.
Stopford, John, Susan Strange, John Henley. 1991. Rival States, Rival Firms, Competition for World Market Shares, Cambridge Univ. Press.
Strange, Susan. 1998. “Who are EU?, Ambiguities in the Concept of Competitiveness,“ Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol.36, No.1, 101-114.
Thurow, Lester. 1993. Head to Head, The Coming Economic Battle Among Japan, Europe, and America, Warner Books.
Thurow, Lester. 1999. Building Wealth, The New Rules for Individuals, Companies, and Nations in a Knowledge-Based Economy, HarperCollinsPublishers.
Vernon, Raymond. 1971. Sovereignty at Bay, The Multinational Spread of U.S Enterprises, Basic Books.
Vernon, Raymond. 1981. “Sovereignty at Bay Ten Years after“, International Organization, Vol.35, No.3, 517-529.
