Market Power and Marketisation: Japan and China's Impact on the Iron Ore Market, 50 Years Apart
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How can we explain the marketisation of the iron ore market following the emergence of China, whereas the same market had seen change in the opposite direction following the emergence of Japan, 50 years earlier? I argue that relative coordination capacity – or relative market power – between domestic and international stakeholders explains market change at the global level. Via the study of Japan and China's impact on the iron ore pricing and shipping regimes, I show that China's rise led to the marketisation (liberalisation and financialisation) of the iron ore market pricing regime, and the demarketisation of the shipping regime, whereas Japan's rise led to demarketisation in both cases. This article's argument illustrates that China's impact is not equal across markets, contrary to characterisations of China as either a revisionist or status quo power. Second, it argues that China has caused the marketisation of the iron ore pricing regime, which is contrary to expectations on both sides of the debate on China's rise: China was unable to dictate outcomes via a strong state, nor did it seamlessly integrate the global economy. Third, it illustrates the importance of resonance dynamics at the interface of domestic and global market institutions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 it