Implications of the Japan model for corporate governance and management for China and other emerging economies in Asia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The Chinese economy, among other developing economies in Asia, has experienced extraordinary growth in the last decade. Yet, for China and other newly emerging economies in Asia to grow in a sustainable manner, good corporate governance and management mechanisms must be in place. The authors aim to explore this issue in this paper. The authors also aim to particularly point out that Japan's experience both before after the Second World War will be relevant as a model for China's public and business development policy decision‐making. Design/methodology/approach The authors apply well‐established theories of economic development and organizational structures of business organizations to Japan's experience before and after the Second World War and then to contemporary China's experience. The analysis of Japan uses the substantial research findings on the development of that country available in the business history literature. Findings The paper's analysis shows multiple ways in which China and other emerging East Asian economies can take advantage of Japan's experience (which is called the Japan model here) for their own development policies and achieve sustainable growth in the long run. For example, it is expected that Japan's experiences may be relevant in areas such as: firm formation and the utility of business groups of various types; development of industrial relations and employment practices; interactions between business and government in the promotion of economic development; and how these factors relate to technology advances on a worldwide basis. Originality/value The findings reported in this paper also contribute marginally to the literature by considering the recent experience of Chinese private and state‐owned corporations, including international joint ventures, in the context of Japan's experience in its economic and business development history.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".