Maximizing Profits: Best Business Opportunities in Brazil

The creation of new typologies shows how hard it is to flex VoC theory to new markets, ya know? Jackson and Deeg totally flex that typological creation is all about finding that perfect balance between being lowkey simple and hella complex (2006). In the context of the thesis, like, to keep things simple and make it more lit, I'm saying that a basic VoC framework can be used in EMs as long as we think about the different levels of development, you know? Differences in stages of development become hella obvious when you do EM comparative analysis across regions instead of within regions. If you're looking at how mature and flexible a country's institutions are (like their governance structures and how many people can veto decisions), then a classic LME/MME/CME VoC framework can give you some cool info about how their domestic capitalism works.

Like, Amable is all like, "Yo, East Asian capitalism should totally have its own typology, you know?" (2003). 

While he's like, spotting the cooperative vibes that are similar to CMEs in the work grind, corporate governance, and job training scenes, he's saying that the big thing that sets the Asian model apart is how much the government is all up in the welfare game and how much finance is protected by laws and stuff (ibid). What I think Amable doesn't get is that the state's role in the Asian model was all about those development vibes, ya know? The state's big role in today's emerging economies isn't really special, it just shows how developed a country is.  As Rodrik notes, no cap Subsequent research totally expanded the vibe of economies that could be included in a VoC framework through the development of new capitalist typologies (check out Armijo 2013, Carney 2009, Schneider 2009a, Schneider and Soskice 2009, Hancké et al. 2007, Amable 2003). A bunch of new capitalist typologies were created to explain EMs that don't fit the usual CME-LME framework. Amable defs five models in an effort to further flex European and Asian diversity (2003). Carney, like, totally suggests seven vibes that define capitalisms (2007). And like, in another example, Nolke is all like suggesting the creation of Dependent Market Economies to, like, encapsulate the diversity of

Eastern Europe (Nolke and Vliegenthart 2009) is straight up lit fam. Nolke extends the argument to other countries stuck lower in the value chain by arguing for a 'BRIC' vibe of capitalism (Nolke 2012). 

Section 2.3 is gonna spill the tea on all the existing ways people have been dealing with VoC in an EM context. Get ready for some lit insights!

Voc theory was developed in the context of OECD economies, fam. Hall & Soskice were like, "Yo, there are two types of capitalist vibes: liberal market economies (LME) and coordinated market economies (CME)." Derived from the vibes of American markets and Rhineland capitalism, the typologies are like descriptive categorizations of ideal types (Goodin 2003). LMEs use market vibes to coordinate activities while CMEs rely on non-market, corporatist vibes – “competitive” vibes describe the former and “collaborative” vibes describe the latter (Hall & Soskice 2001). The typologies are like vibes that show how connected and united the important economic players are. As institutions were like, evolving and stuff in advanced economies, economic complements got all solid and stuff based on the ongoing interaction between interests in the domestic economy, you know? In EMs, complementarities are like, totally crucial to get how the market works, but the thing is, the underlying institutions are like, super new and often forced by developmental states, and they're still like, figuring things out.

The process of complement organisation is like, always happening cuz the relative power and influence of interests can like, change over time (Morgan 2005b; Thelen 2004). OMG, as interests change, the whole vibe of what's valuable needs to be re-negotiated. It's like a constant game of finding the perfect balance, you know? Firms are like super flex market players that gotta adapt to stay alive (Morgan 2005), but firms also have the mad power to switch up market structures once they vibe with a specific way of coordinating. Ideally economic stakeholders will flex their interests to hype up one variation of capitalism because when macroeconomic policies match the organization of the microeconomy, complement frameworks gain mad efficiency and drive both productivity and innovation.

When stakeholders don't agree or align in a VoC, it's like major yikes for productivity and innovation, you know? 

To flex on those coordination barriers, the state can totally slay in directing complements. Hancké et al. use Mixed Market Economies (MME) to define the mid-spectrum, non-conforming markets, where state intervention often provides a final source of arbitration in the event of conflict (2007). Like, sometimes the state can totally set up the market vibes to make things more chill and organized, you know? It's like they're trying to bring some order to a system that seems all over the place (like, a developmental state, ya feel?).31 MMEs, like, include all these states and stuff, even the ones that are still growing, and they use state-compensating controls to, like, keep things going even when things aren't, like, perfectly balanced over time, you know? (Hancké et al. 2007, 14). MMEs are like, all about filling those complementary voids, you know? In advanced economies these voids are usually like, totally embedded in the system, while in emerging markets these voids are usually the result of like, institutional deficiencies (though this is not to say that they don't eventually become like, totally embedded).32