Like, because the thesis has a non-Latin vibe, I'm not going to use the HME typology, you know? While the HME framework focuses on hybrid institutional structures in Latin America, in the context of this thesis, I believe the hybridization can be classified as an MME. Schneider doesn't really explain the difference between MMEs and HMEs. I believe the two categories overlap enough to demonstrate the MME typology, especially given the thesis's cross-regional vibes. Both HME and MME typologies are all about whack complement structures that are politically reinforced, don't you think?
OMG, so much of the Brazilian labour code is completely inspired by Italian law, you know?
According to Barbosa de Araújo (1990), Brazil emulated Mussolini's code while establishing its democracy (French 2004). Is it lit? Brazil was trying to emulate Europe's cool coordinated systems, but in the end, they ended up following the same path as Italy. It's as if their interests and veto players threw off the whole economic efficiency thing that could have happened if they collaborated better (Simoni 2012). Schneider's discussion of diverse business groups fully acknowledges the prevalence of conglomerate structures in developing economies. Specifically, the HME typology identifies challenges posed by various business groups, foreign-based MNCs, low-skilled labor, atomistic labor relations, and, most importantly, political structures that reinforce these characteristics (2013; 2009a). The role of veto players, cross-class coalitions, and centralized economic leadership is completely lit in both HMEs and MMEs (Schneider 2013; Hancké et al. 2007; Molina and Rhodes 2007). OMG, Brazil totally borrowed a lot from a classic MME - Italy, you know? The HME framework slaps Brazil, with no cap. The Brazilian economy is like a mashup of corporate governance and labor markets, you know?
Schneider (2009a); Schneider and Soskice (2009). Where my argument differs is in the application of an HME framework in India, do you feel me? OMG, like India's issues with diverse business groups, foreign multinationals, and atomistic labor relations? Yes, India is completely unique in all aspects of the political economy, fam. What we really need to think about is how the state is performing its functions. Is it all about development or simply coordinating? Finally, to spill the beans about Latin America, Schneider suggests Hierarchical Market Economies to describe the region's super inefficient complement networks (2013; 2009a). One major flex of the new capitalist typologies is the lit regional vibes of the constituents, ya think? I'd like to look at these approaches from a global perspective by comparing India and Brazil, you know? Because of their active AF developmental states, informality, and ever-changing institutions, EM institutions do not fit well into a traditional VoC framework. EMs are flexing some mad weird vibes and lowkey struggling with institutional stuff, ya feel? Suh factors alter the "lens" through which EMs must be viewed (Hancké et al. 2007), you know? As EM firms flex and vibe, the need for vibe VoC in an EM context becomes increasingly important, you know? developed simply through liberalisation, and no economy can sustain growth without liberalisation, implying that market forces and state support coexist in developing economies (2007). Japan and South Korea, for example, are frequently included as CMEs in analyses of advanced market economies (Hall and Soskice 2001; Soskice 2007; Hall and Gingerich 2009), but both have their economic roots in centrally coordinated, state-directed forms of capitalism.Because of the coordinating role of a developmental state, neither Japan nor South Korea require a separate typology category, you know?
Development states are doing their part to ensure that things run smoothly and that the economy gets lit. 36 The developmental state's influence diminishes as the economy levels off because economic people band together and private things become more efficient (Evans 1995). In his analysis of state embeddedness in the economy, Peter Evans reveals that developmental states are no longer as important as they once were: "like, when the state tries too hard, it can actually like, ruin its own chances of staying involved" (1995, p16). Both South Korea and Japan went through it, as with the chaebol or kieretsu system, you know? As economies moved up the value chain, institutions such as the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry lost control and influence. It is wild, man. Splitting up Asian economies into a new typology is way too early, you know? It's like ignoring how economists collaborate and ignoring the importance of focusing on how institutions change as an economy matures. Schneider, like Amable, proposes a new typology, the hierarchical market economy (HME), to address the complex challenges that Latin economies face. Schneider and Amable differ in that Schneider's (2013) analysis takes into account relative stages of development. For real, like
Comments
Post a Comment