Is China Following the East Asian Model? A ‘Comparative Institutional Analysis’ Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We discuss the main features of the emerging business and economic system in post-reform China. We argue that China does not seem to follow the so-called East Asian model (or its Japan-Korea variant) and is more likely to evolve directly toward a more open and market-oriented business system that is closer to the Anglo-American model. This argument is based on the analysis of several aspects of the Chinese economy. First, in terms of corporate governance of the listed companies in China, the share of the insiders is very small and outsiders' voices are heard, and the stock markets are developing very fast. Second, in terms of bank-firm relations, Chinese banks are not allowed to own shares in firms, thus maintaining an arms-length relationship as in the Anglo-American system. Third, flexibility in the labor market has also been increasing with dismissal of workers becoming much easier than in earlier times. Fourth, domestic markets are competitive owing to strong presence of the foreign-invested companies. Finally, it is not easy for the central government to implement selective industrial policies, given the conditions set for the WTO membership and those more generally to do with globalization, the huge size of the economy tempered by active inter-provincial politics, and the heavy presence of foreign companies. These features of the Chinese economy differ from the features of the Japan-Korea model, which include close bank-firm relations, influence of high insiders, slow development of the stock market and bank-based financing, rigid labor markets, monopolistic domestic markets with little presence of foreign firms, and selective industrial policy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".