The Worldwide Diffusion of Market-Oriented Infrastructure Reform, 1977–1999

Abstract

Why do countries differ so much in the extent to which they adopt neo-liberal, marketoriented reform in their infrastructure industries? Building on world-society and neo-institutional theories in sociology, we argue that international pressures of coercion, normative emulation, and competitive mimicry strongly influence the domestic adoption of market-oriented reform.We consider the effect of such pressures on the adoption of four reform elements: the privatization of state-owned firms, the formal separation of the regulatory authority from the executive branch, the de facto elimination of executive political influence on the regulatory authority, and the opening of the retail market to multiple service providers. We find generally robust support for our arguments using a multivariate probit analysis of reform adoption in the telecommunications and electricity industries of as many as 71 countries and territories between 1977 and 1999. Our results also suggest that the coercive effect of lending by the IMF and World Bank differs for each reform element. We discuss the possibility that, by leading countries to adopt some reform elements but not others, international coercion may not produce ideal outcomes.

Policy as Myth and Ceremony? The Global Spread of Stock Exchanges, 1980–2005

“…Concessional aid involves loans that are disbursed at discounted interest rates but are tied to the implementation of specific development programs and policies stipulated by the IMF or World Bank, such as structural adjustment programs aimed at changing a country's financial and fiscal systems. The dependency on international agencies for aid has been shown to have a significant impact on the adoption of organizations and policies in line with the institutional paradigms of the global core (Henisz et al, 2005;Polillo & Guillén, 2005).…”

“…The adoption of stock exchanges by geographically proximate states can therefore be expected to increase a focal country's likelihood of adoption. Trade ties similarly are a conduit for the spread of information and practices (Henisz et al, 2005;Waters, 1995). 1 1 We note here that proximity is intended as an observable proxy for the degree of communication among policy makers in a country and its alters.…”

“…Observing this process of global diffusion (and often abandonment) of policies and practices, Meyer, Boli, Thomas, and Raminrez (1997) extended analyses of myth and ceremony at the organization level to the nation-state in their "world society" approach. A core idea in this work is that coercion and mimicry of peers or competitors, typically based in a substrate of network ties, often prompt adoption (Henisz, Zelner, & Guillén, 2005;Polillo & Guillén, 2005). Yet the study of adoption has been largely decoupled from the study of effectiveness.…”

O Que Gestão Estratégica Tem a Ver com Capitalismo(s)?

“…Por sua vez, na área de estudos internacionais, instituições locais são analisadas como cruciais para a ascensão dos países dos BRICs. As instituições que são classificadas como ameaçadoras ao Ocidente impediram que o poder de intervenção e de articulação do Estado não tivesse sido completamente desmobilizado pelas reformas estruturais neoliberais implementadas dos anos 1980 e 1990 nas economias emergentes (Arbix, Comin, Zilbovicius, & Abramovay, 2002;Arrighi, 2007;Henisz, Zelner, & Guillén, 2005).…”

“…A privatização de empresas públicas, a realização de reformas de Estado e a desregulamentação dos mercados passaram a ser defendidas por diversos setores da sociedade e legitimadas pela literatura de gestão (Diniz, 2000;Henisz et al, 2005). Em consonância com uma política de maior inserção do país em regimes internacionais estabelecida pela administração de FHC, esse contexto marca o período mais intenso de deslegitimação de outros tipos de organização e de estrategista na literatura de GE, e também a entrada no país de grande volume de corporações estrangeiras, investimentos diretos estrangeiros (IDE), especialmente por meio de privatizações e conhecimentos/instituições de gestão (ver Alcadipani & Caldas, 2012).…”