This paper examines the globalization process of German core export metalworking industries, to show how the globalization of national corporations has different effects on domestic economies. Contrary to the prevalent views on the globalization of production, this paper holds that the outcomes and patterns of globalization vary, due mainly to the politics of the main actors inside and outside corporations. This paper compares Germany’s negotiated globalization with U.S. employer unilateralism. In most U.S. corporations, employers decide how to globalize based on (...) the short-term perspective of shareholder value. By contrast, in Germany, main industrial actors—including employers, works councils, and trade unions—collectively negotiate how to globalize. In this conflict-laden process of collective negotiation, German actors have created a political compromise that combines the upgrading of domestic production with globalizing overseas, whereas Americans have failed to do so. Furthermore, this paper emphasizes that divergent patterns of globalization are not predetermined by national institutions. To the contrary, the successful outcomes in German globalization come mainly from actors’ proactive readjustments in their traditional model of industrial relations, creating new practices, such as active union involvement in company-level bargaining, and the democratic bottom-up process instead of the traditional top-down process of negotiation. (shrink)

This article investigates, based on in-depth interviews and mail surveys, the different ways liberal market regimes are constituted by looking at two small market societies, the U.S. and German automotive parts markets. In a situation in which neoliberal paradigm is being challenged and prior norms about contracts and contractual relations do not work either, this article explores how different conceptions of fairness and divergent market regimes are constituted. This article claims that divergent market regimes result from different kinds of problem-solving (...) practices in a novel context among reflexive agents—public deliberation versus isolated dyadic deliberation of conflicts. (shrink)

This paper investigates how and why the Japanese model has undergone changes in the context of its internationalization, during which foreign countries, particularly the U.S. and Germany, adopted Japanese methods, departing from their own traditional models at the turn of the twentieth century. By examining the dynamicprocesses of these transformations in national models, this paper critically reviews prevalent paradigms of neoliberalism and institutionalism, proposing an alternative of “mutual learning by reflexive agents.” By exploring the dynamic processes of the Japanese model’s (...) internationalization and transformation, in which the Japanese model fell into crisis and underwent transformation in the changed context of international competition caused by the internationalization of the Japanese model, this paper proposes a new conception of “mutual learning by reflexive agents” in the context of international competition, in which agents, inspired by foreign competitors, critically reconsider their own institutions and, in turn, generate a new divergence in the process of creative learning. (shrink)

By analyzing how Korea has upgraded its industrial capabilities in the course of corporate globalization, this article holds that some versions of developmental state work better in the globalization process. Globalizing national corporations, neoliberal optimism notwithstanding, does not necessarily result in upgrading domestic innovation capabilities. In the United States, free-market firms may benefit through offshoring, but they create holes in the industrial linkages or industrial commons at home, enfeebling US capability for innovation. By contrast, the Korean government successfully upgraded domestic (...) firms’ innovation capabilities and reduced the possibility of deindustrialization in the course of globalization by moving from classical developmentalism to a new form of development based on inclusive and collaborative networks. Korea’s earlier classical developmentalism focused on mobilization of physical capital, funneling it exclusively to a few firms. (shrink)