Industry policy in Asia’s demographic giants: China, India and Indonesia compared

Abstract

The experience of industry policy in the wider Asian region contrasts significantly with many of the neoliberal policy prescriptions prevalent in Australia today. Using the automotive industry as a comparative case study, this article compares industry policy in three demographic and geographic giants of the region: China, India and Indonesia. China’s dominant position has benefited from a highly ‘interventionist’ industry policy which places strict conditions on foreign carmakers in joint ventures. This policy has also influenced the emergence of a thriving domestic industry, with state-owned enterprises leading the way. While India has also emerged as a major auto producer, its industry policy has moved away from the joint venture model since the 1990s, with fully foreign-owned operations now playing a much bigger role. In contrast, Indonesia retains a version of the joint venture model while local industry is dominated by Japanese capital. The record of industry policy in these countries challenges the idea that more ‘liberal’ economic systems lead to stronger domestic industries or firms.

Australian manufacturing industry: a 20-year scoping study on barriers, opportunities and trends for its strategic development

“…We examined the references of the remaining 84 articles to check for relevant works frequently cited but not yet added in our review. The quantitative analysis of references did not result in the inclusion of any study, and the literature portfolio used in the study comprised these 84 studies (Abbott, 2019;Athukorala et al, 2017;Baird et al, 2011;Barnes, 2017;Beaumont, 2005;Beer, 2018;Black et al, 2015;Boaden & Sims, 2000;Boer et al, 2005;Caldera et al, 2018;Cantù et al, 2015;Clibborn, 2012;Cooney;Correia et al, 2020;Craik, 2015;Cripps et al, 2009;Dargusch & Ward, 2010;Feng et al, 2008;Fraser et al, 2013;Given, 2017;Grodach & Martin, 2020;Hasan et al, 2011;Hu et al, 2019;Jackson et al, 2018;Jayaram et al, 2014;Joiner et al, 2009;Jones, 2005;Karim et al, 2008;Kiridena et al, 2009;Le & Valadkhani, 2014;Leahy et al, 2010;Lo & Power, 2010;Lobo et al, 2009Lobo et al, , 2012Lobo et al, , 2018Logue et al, 2015;Low et al, 2007;Marks, 2009;Mo, 2009;MoosaviRad et al, 2014;Nelson et al, 2007;…”

Rethinking job loss in an age of assetisation: Lessons from the study of precarious older workers

“…However, major socio-economic changes have occurred since the heyday of deindustrialisation studies in the 1980s to transform the context for job loss. These include the feminisation of paid employment and concurrent changes to the provisioning of paid and unpaid work within households (Damaske, 2021; Morris, 1995), as well as rapid industrial development across the Global South led by China (Barnes, 2017), the crisis of climate change (Weller, 2019), and the emergence of Industry 4.0 technologies (De Propris and Bailey, 2020). This article focuses on another major qualitative transformation – the rise of the asset economy.…”

Industrial Policy’s Effect on Cross-Border Mergers’ Decisions—Theoretical and Empirical Analysis

“…The industrial policy's role in the economy's development will be enhanced when the economy is developed [27,28]. In other words, the effect of the government interventions on economic development will be enhanced [29,30].…”