Transnational capital, the state and foreign economic policy: Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan

Abstract

Various discourses and debates on the state -transnational capital relationship have emerged within the international political economy literature. The particular contribution offered here focuses on this relationship in three East Asian developmental states (Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan -the NIE-3) through the lens of foreign economic policy (FEP) analysis. In different ways their respective state governments have all worked closely alongside various forms of transnational capital in sustained yet evolving 'adaptive partnerships', and in accordance to largely state-determined FEP objectives. Moreover, these objectives broadly relate to the pursuit of economic security in the international system. While each of the NIE-3's own path of economic development has differed significantly, there nevertheless exist important similarities. This not just relates to being constituent to the East Asian regional economic dynamic but also their shared developmental state tradition. The relationship between the state and transnational capital is also key to understanding the NIE-3's foreign economic policy formation, although this has differed significantly across the group. In sum, this study analyses just one of many contemporary examples where both the state and transnational capital are working to congruent ends in their respective adaptations to the challenges posed by globalization.

Green Growth, Neoliberalism and Conflicting Hegemonic Interests: The Case of Korea

“…Following democratization in 1987, the new liberals wanted to control the Chaebols by, in effect, deregulating the domestic economy and opening up the economy to greater foreign competition and foreign direct investment (FDI). This mirrored the neoliberal accumulation practices of the Washington Consensus (Dent 2003;Kim 1999;Kyoung 2006). Paradoxically however, the liberals had made Chaebols more powerful by allowing the Chaebols a greater access to the global markets (Sook and Hae 2006;Stubbs 2009).…”

México and the TPP: a critical view on diversification and intellectual property

“…These encouraged technology transfer and the direct participation of local personnel in technological development processes (Dent 2003;He 2015;Lee 2005). Such a vision was coupled with an economic strategy integrating industrial, education and S&T policies in a fairly efficient way, in spite of pressures from global market forces and international regimes (He 2015;Liu and Cheng 2011;Park 2012).…”

Governing Global Production

“…State and firm priorities can be harmonious and mutually reinforcing in globalised industries -with states seeking to support firm competitiveness for national developmental purposes, and firms looking to states for assistance in adjusting to and succeeding under the rigours of global competition (D'Costa 2009;Lall 1991). The potential scope for mutual state-firm interests in globalised industries therefore suggests their relationship may not be one of conflictual bargaining resolved in favour of the more asset-endowed party, but can instead lead to the formation of 'adaptive partnerships' between the two aimed at promoting the international competitiveness of national industries (Dent 2003).…”