Policies for Industrial Learning in China and Mexico: Neo-developmental vs. Neo-liberal approaches

Abstract Previous work has shown that the results of both China and Mexico’s export-led market reforms over the past quarter century have been strikingly different. In contrast to China, Mexico has not managed to increase the value added of its exports of manufactured goods and has subsequently had a difficult time competing with China in world markets. Building on this previous work, in this paper we conduct a comparative analysis of the role of government policies in industrial learning and the development of capabilities of indigenous firms in Mexico and China in order to shed light on why China is so outperforming Mexico. We find that Mexico and China have had starkly different approaches to economic reform in this area. Mexico’s approach to reform has been a “neo-liberal” one, whereas China’s could be described as “neo-developmental.” Mexico’s hands-off approach to learning has resulted in a lack of development of endogenous capacity of domestic firms, little transfer of technology, negligible progress in the upgrading of industrial production, and little increase in value added of exports. By contrast, China has deployed a hands-on approach of targeting and nurturing domestic firms through a gradual and trial and error led set of government policies.International trade, development, competitiveness, value added, government policy, assembly operations

Oceanus.

v. 26, no. 4 (1983

A Half-Century of Scholarship on the Chinese Intellectual Property System

The first modern Chinese intellectual property law was established in August 1982, offering protection to trademarks. Since then, China adopted the Patent Law in 1984, the Copyright Law in 1990 and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law in 1993. In December 2001, China became a member of the World Trade Organization, assuming obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. In the past decade, the country has also actively participated in the negotiation of bilateral, regional and plurilateral trade agreements, including most notably the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. Today, the Chinese intellectual property system has garnered considerable global policy and scholarly attention. To help develop a more sophisticated, complex and nuanced understanding, this article reviews the past five decades of English-language scholarship on the system. It begins by creating a taxonomy of this body of literature based on the most common method — chronology. It then turns to an alternative method of organizing and categorizing scholarly literature — disciplinary focus (philosophy and culture; economics, innovation and cultural industries; and politics and international relations). The remainder of this article identifies the continuing challenges to researchers studying the Chinese intellectual property system. It further explores why it is important for intellectual property scholars to study China and for China scholars to study intellectual property developments. The article concludes with some observations on the future directions in scholarship on the Chinese intellectual property system

The Chinese Diaspora and Philanthropy

This paper explores philanthropic links between the Chinese diaspora and the People's Republic of China. It draws on a wide range of sources and aims to sketch the range and nature of those links

From iron rice bowl to the world's biggest sweatshop: globalization, institutional constraints, and the rights of Chinese workers

This article discusses how China's institutional constraints combine with its integration into the global economy to suppress its workers' rights. The rapid expansion of China's market economy is the consequence of the government's active embrace of global capitalism and global capitalists' ongoing search for new markets and lower production costs. China's traditional socialist labor relationships collapsed as a result of state-owned enterprise (SOE) reform and the emergence of private enterprises. In the wake of these events, China's leaders promulgated new labor legislation and social insurance schemes, but these initiatives fail to safeguard workers' rights effectively. This is because the SOEs fail to compensate their workers properly, local authorities do not actively monitor labor abuses, the judicial system cannot effectively defend workers' rights, and the Chinese government suppresses efforts to organize independent labor unions. In short, global capitalism together with China's authoritarian polity have limited workers' rights and undermined their well-being