How Can I Sign Georgia Banking Form

How can i industry sign banking georgia form secure

okay I'm Michael Carney John Monson School of Business in Montreal inquiry University my co-authors here listed below the title of the paper is vided long title why do Southeast Asian and Latin American business groups different an international political economies perspective on business groups they're the internationalisation so what's the paper about we're about the regional context for internationally competitive firms and what we do in the paper is compare business group affiliates and independent firms across regions and we're interested in why some firms country is over or underperforming international competition we adopt an international political economy approach IPE to identify factors associated with the emergence of a developmental friendly or unfriendly context we argue that geographically contiguous countries with a broadly shared IPE history can evolve similar institutional features that influenced the nature of firm structure and capabilities so we do is test business groups competitiveness using the measure of export intensity in each region we find very strong differences between Southeast Asian and Latin American business groups so confused about why firms underperform one is that a resources countries with abundance a of oil or other natural resources may find it difficult to attain economic development for various reasons another theory is a state captiol where elite groups oligarchs tycoons land owning restaurants can exploit political economic power to entrench their interests and in contexts like these the elite groups can extract rents and enables the formation of extractive institutions which can limit firm capability development so we challenged this particular country specific view and look at the region as a whole and we suggest that IPA can a strut can constrain or constrain limit or enable how states develop industrial policy so IPAs about the structure of international economic relations and the primary structure is a security structure the system of defense policing Intelligence Sharing and so forth but this system of security can affect production systems financial structure and knowledge structures and generally the argument is that IKEA structures tend to be very long lasting and create path dependent effects and firm strategy in structure so an example of that would be the European Marshall Plan installed implemented after 1945 as a means of containing Soviet expansion in Eastern Europe so the Americans underwrote the rebuilding of the German French and the Italian economy to strengthen them in so doing they you know you provide a security umbrella which is what we see in the next example in East Asia also to contain Russian expansion in the region Soviet expansion in the region the u.s. provided security to Japan South Korea starting in 1949 and it also brought along a number of economic benefits the other example were using here is Southeast Asia where Eisenhower's Dino theory suggested that if Vietnam were to fall to Chinese exported capital Soviet expansion then the rest of Southeast Asia would also fall to the Communists the relevant idat for Latin America is the Monroe Doctrine which was originated in nineteen in 1823 the policy to protect Latin American states from the threat of Rico organization by European powers the way the doctor involved was proved to be an instrument of us protection of its political and economic interests and providing a precedent for it since eventually regional affairs when things weren't going according to plan so two examples here of the US influence in the region the 1963 coup in Brazil which brought a military government lasting some 21 years as the local government was seeking it to introduce economic reforms that would harm multinational companies interests the example of the overthrow of AMD's regime in Chile lacquering regime involved the u.s. mining and copper interests working with various government agencies to help the right overthrow end in Chile and and this is not something that's just historical as that as the bottom crow shows John Bolton recently said that the Monroe Doctrine is alive and well it's our hemisphere he was Trump's former national security adviser so it's very much in the minds of certain kinds of Americans that Latin America is their backyard so this is quite a busy slide but basically Amazon is saying the US interests often constrained local states capacity to exercise autonomy over its industrial policy and the rest of the code goes on to point out that countries like Argentina Mexico and Brazil were dependent upon foreign know-how it's lots of foreign investment in the region but no transfers of knowledge as she puts it in Chile the developmental machinery is being retired as early as 1973 so the government's in free market oriented going to Chile didn't attempt to practice any kind of industrial economic policy so this is the production structure of US interest dominate local form to tend to be confined to natural resources a finance structure which makes the stage heavily reliant on foreign debt and with periodic crises where's the memories and business groups have their own finance so the capital markets are well developed and the knowledge system this given where this fuse pillow was a little incentive for multinationals to build up skills the education system is relatively weak states are heavily constrained and can't invest in education what we're going to see is all of these things are exactly the opposite way around in Southeast Asia so the basic idea is that business groups are state preferred vehicle to develop competitive firms there's lots of literature in the business group area to support this idea of business groups as as Paragons of development the idea is that they came to adopt a shape or become an emblematic corporate form that fits and is adapted to take advantage of opportunities provided by the local institutional environment so this Paragons and parasites debate suggest that if the environment is parasitic if it's an extractive institution then business groups will be less likely to develop capabilities in a focused look and that that's the final point so business groups as Peregrine's can become internationally competitive or if they are if they don't have those skills and they come to know from me cooperate with actors in the political system they can become domestically focused portfolio groups who exist to manage country and macroeconomic risks so being down the latin american side of the story in terms of the IQ structure this is just really repeating in Southeast Asia the threat of communism you the US strongly support in the States autonomy helping beginning with Singapore and then later with Thailand and supported the reconstruction of infrastructure harbors ports Airlines they offered a preferential trade policy which countries could export to the US or without the u.s. necessarily exporting back and it gave countries that developed an ability to develop a manufacturing sector to complement the resource sector resulting in a lot of export oriented firms who were producing third global commodity chains so there the junior partners of Japanese controlling these chains or American countries to cutroni these things but local business group firms and independent firms were supporting or supplying these global commodity chains states such as Malaysia Thailand Indonesia maintain control over their own capital system they weren't dependent on US debt quite so much so in terms of knowledge structure their firms did invest in education systems they did invest in skills building and were able to catch up at least with Western manufacturing and in terms of managerial know-how so the two IP structures are very different the the way the u.s. played its security hand in in Southeast Asia is very different than the way it was practiced in in Latin America which other a much longer history so this is the basic story this is basically summed up in Ben Rusch naida's book on hierarchical capitalism in Latin America he portrays these organizations as domestically focused competing or cooperating sometimes with the US multinationals but most business groups are family owned and controlled when they were formed and they remain that way they don't really professional eyes in the way we've seen them in in Southeast Asia where many of them have influence and less less family-controlled a second-generation so stocky station business groups ad they're seen as a tool for state development under the city security umbrella and they focused on selecting particular industries to to competing and any needs were not excluded but they they didn't take up the same amount of space they didn't control the natural manufacturing firms and they were able to see mobile phones are much more able to to flourish so yeah we've been through this part here is Carly's book on Asian business groups so this is the data we were using its World Bank enterprise surveys which information is a number of firms last two slides coming up now so what do we find here is that do they differ the answer is an emphatic yes what we find the statistics and the econometrics the models are all in the paper of so despite similar resource endowments we find that in terms of export intensity South East Asian business groups outperform Southeast Asian independent firms that's a common finding the Southeast Asian independent firms outperform Latin America's independent firms and export intensity which in terms surprisingly this is not a common finding is that independent firms actually outperform Latin American business groups so there's really a great deal marked economic difference between the two in fact we find a Latin American business groups have the worst export intensity lowest level a whole group affiliates either from Southeast Asia East Europe or Africa so despite their relative subordinate position as suppliers to global commodity chains Southeast Asian business it's kind of fit the calendar and Paulo Paulo boo Paragon view because business groups appear to help develop their affiliates whereas Elway last American business groups appear to fit the schneider view of a domestically focused portfolio kind of organization so this is a final slide the contribution is to identify political sources and business group heterogeneity very the parable in their parasites distinction and to build the link between international politics and the business group literature we look at the security structure as a determining factor in influencing production finance and live structures and usually these things are studying pet separately separate bodies of literature and looking at financial systems knowledge systems and production systems but we kind of see them as old Co hearing under our IPE comprehensive framework so that's the presentation it is paper thanks very much