Success Factors of Small and Medium-Sized International Enterprises in the Chinese Market from the Perspective of Polish Direct Investment (Cultural Approach)

Globalization has resulted in increasing transfer of firms operations, regardless of their size, to other countries. The recent dynamic emergence of China in the global economy, connecting with the vast inflows of foreign direct investment in their territory and common adjustments problems of many Western companies, has resulted in growing interest for best suitable business practices to this culturally and socially different environment. In this article, the key factors critical to the success of international companies in this region are introduced, with particular consideration to indigenous cultural elements and specific operation requirements of small and medium-sized enterprises in Business-to-Business sectors. The presented information are based on the broad literature review, five years of direct observation and thirty eight interviews conducted with Polish managers directly residing in China. In addition, some practical recommendations for managers and further research are given.Globalizacja wymusza na firmach, niezależnie od ich wielkości, coraz częstsze przenoszenie operacji do innych krajów. Dynamiczne pojawienie się Chin w światowej gospodarce i szeroki napł;yw zagranicznych inwestycji bezpośrednich na ich teren oraz problemy adaptacyjne wielu zachodnich przedsiębiorstw, spowodował;y zainteresowanie najlepszymi praktykami biznesowymi dostosowanymi do tego odmiennego kulturowo i społ;ecznie otocznia. W artykule zaprezentowane został;y najważniejsze czynnik mające wpł;yw na osiągnięcie sukcesu przez firmy międzynarodowe na tym obszarze, ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem aspektów kulturowych i specyfiki dział;ania mał;ych i średnich podmiotów na rynkach B2B. Prezentowane informacje są oparte na przeglądzie literatury, pięcioletnich obserwacjach bezpośrednich oraz trzydziestu ośmiu wywiadach przeprowadzonych z menadżerami polskich przedsiębiorstw odpowiedzialnymi za operacje w Chinach. Dodatkowo wskazano kilka praktycznych rekomendacji menadżerskich oraz możliwości dalszych badań

The effect of the state sector on wage inequality in urban China: 1988–2007

This paper examines the effect of the public sector and state-owned enterprises (SOEs) on wage inequality in urban China using China Household Income Project data. It applies quantile regression analysis, the Machado and Mata decomposition to investigate how urban wage inequality was affected by the changes in wage structure and employment shares of the public sector and SOEs. We find that since the radical state sector reforms designed to reduce overstaffing and improve efficiency in the late 1990s, urban wage gaps were narrowed due to the reduction in the employment share of the state sector; the wage premium of the state sector in comparison with the non-state sector increased significantly; and changes in the wage structure of the labour market caused the rise in urban wage inequality

Post-capitalist property

When writing about property and property rights in his imagined post-capitalist society of the future, Marx seemed to envisage ‘individual property’ co-existing with ‘socialized property’ in the means of production. As the social and political consequences of faltering growth and increasing inequality, debt and insecurity gradually manifest themselves, and with automation and artificial intelligence lurking in the wings, the future of capitalism, at least in its current form, looks increasingly uncertain. With this, the question of what property and property rights might look like in the future, in a potentially post-capitalist society, is becoming ever more pertinent. Is the choice simply between private property and markets, and public (state-owned) property and planning? Or can individual and social property in the (same) means of production co-exist, as Marx suggested? This paper explores ways in which they might, through an examination of the Chinese household responsibility system (HRS) and the ‘fuzzy’ and seemingly confusing regime of land ownership that it instituted. It examines the HRS against the backdrop of Marx’s ideas about property and subsequent (post-Marx) theorizing about the legal nature of property in which property has come widely to be conceptualized not as a single, unitary ‘ownership’ right to a thing (or, indeed, as the thing itself) but as a ‘bundle of rights’. The bundle-of-rights idea of property, it suggests, enables us to see not only that ‘individual’ and ‘socialized’ property’ in the (same) means of production might indeed co-exist, but that the range of institutional possibility is far greater than that between capitalism and socialism/communism as traditionally conceived