The optimal degree of competition and dynamic efficiency in Japan and Korea
Identifieur interne : 003860 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 003859; suivant : 003861The optimal degree of competition and dynamic efficiency in Japan and Korea
Auteurs : Alice H. Amsden ; Ajit SinghSource :
- European Economic Review [ 0014-2921 ] ; 1994.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Administrative guidance, Aggregate concentration, Amsden, Antitrust, Antitrust bulletin, Antitrust enforcement, Antitrust laws, Apparent paradox, Business groups, Cambridge university press, Cartel, Competition policy, Competitive advantage, Concentration ratios, Conventional paradigm, Domestic competition, Dynamic efficiency, East asian development, Economic analysis, Economic development, Economic growth, Economic openness, Fair trade commission, Foreign competition, Game theoretic models, General trading company, High growth period, High rates, Industrial concentration, Industrial organisation, Industrial organization, Industrial policies, Industrial policy, International competitiveness, International trade, Japanese companies, Japanese economy, Japanese experience, Japanese firms, Japanese government, Korean automobile industry, Korean case, Korean government, Large firms, Largest manufacturing firms, Machine tools, Market competition, Maximum competition, Michael porter, Miracle years, Mit1, Oligopolistic rivalry, Optimal degree, Oxford university press, Performance standards, Plausible capitalism, Rapid growth, Singh, Small firms, Static allocative efficiency, Successful combination, Takashi hikino, Technical change, Technological progress, Trade policy, Uekusa, Unfettered competition, World bank, World development report.
- Teeft :
- Administrative guidance, Aggregate concentration, Amsden, Antitrust, Antitrust bulletin, Antitrust enforcement, Antitrust laws, Apparent paradox, Business groups, Cambridge university press, Cartel, Competition policy, Competitive advantage, Concentration ratios, Conventional paradigm, Domestic competition, Dynamic efficiency, East asian development, Economic analysis, Economic development, Economic growth, Economic openness, Fair trade commission, Foreign competition, Game theoretic models, General trading company, High growth period, High rates, Industrial concentration, Industrial organisation, Industrial organization, Industrial policies, Industrial policy, International competitiveness, International trade, Japanese companies, Japanese economy, Japanese experience, Japanese firms, Japanese government, Korean automobile industry, Korean case, Korean government, Large firms, Largest manufacturing firms, Machine tools, Market competition, Maximum competition, Michael porter, Miracle years, Mit1, Oligopolistic rivalry, Optimal degree, Oxford university press, Performance standards, Plausible capitalism, Rapid growth, Singh, Small firms, Static allocative efficiency, Successful combination, Takashi hikino, Technical change, Technological progress, Trade policy, Uekusa, Unfettered competition, World bank, World development report.
Abstract
Abstract: This paper is concerned with the neglected role of competition policy in East Asian development. Michael Porter considers Japan's development to have benefitted from intense competition among firms. By contrast. Caves and Uekusa criticize MITI's role in creating recession cartels and entry barriers, which are thought to have resulted in allocative inefficiency. This paper argues that competition policy in both Japan and Korea was oriented towards creating dynamic efficiency (the highest long term productivity growth rate). It did so by measures, operating at both the industry and firm level, which sometimes restricted competition and sometimes encouraged it.
Url:
DOI: 10.1016/0014-2921(94)90130-9
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:725D104876F643D83E46AB3AFD99D81A94E3CB57Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title>The optimal degree of competition and dynamic efficiency in Japan and Korea</title><author><name sortKey="Amsden, Alice H" sort="Amsden, Alice H" uniqKey="Amsden A" first="Alice H." last="Amsden">Alice H. Amsden</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>New School for Social Research, 66 West 12th St., New York, NY 10011, USA</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Singh, Ajit" sort="Singh, Ajit" uniqKey="Singh A" first="Ajit" last="Singh">Ajit Singh</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge, Austin Robinson Building, Sidgwick Ave., Cambridge CB3 9DD, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>∗ Corresponding author. We are greatly indebted to Mr. Takashi Hikino for many helpful suggestions, and for drawing our attention to important sources of data on industrial concentration in Japan. The usual disclaimer applies.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:725D104876F643D83E46AB3AFD99D81A94E3CB57</idno><date when="1994" year="1994">1994</date><idno type="doi">10.1016/0014-2921(94)90130-9</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/725D104876F643D83E46AB3AFD99D81A94E3CB57/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">003860</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">003860</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a">The optimal degree of competition and dynamic efficiency in Japan and Korea</title><author><name sortKey="Amsden, Alice H" sort="Amsden, Alice H" uniqKey="Amsden A" first="Alice H." last="Amsden">Alice H. Amsden</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>New School for Social Research, 66 West 12th St., New York, NY 10011, USA</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Singh, Ajit" sort="Singh, Ajit" uniqKey="Singh A" first="Ajit" last="Singh">Ajit Singh</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge, Austin Robinson Building, Sidgwick Ave., Cambridge CB3 9DD, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>∗ Corresponding author. We are greatly indebted to Mr. Takashi Hikino for many helpful suggestions, and for drawing our attention to important sources of data on industrial concentration in Japan. The usual disclaimer applies.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">European Economic Review</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">EER</title><idno type="ISSN">0014-2921</idno><imprint><publisher>ELSEVIER</publisher><date type="published" when="1994">1994</date><biblScope unit="volume">38</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3–4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="941">941</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="951">951</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0014-2921</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0014-2921</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Administrative guidance</term><term>Aggregate concentration</term><term>Amsden</term><term>Antitrust</term><term>Antitrust bulletin</term><term>Antitrust enforcement</term><term>Antitrust laws</term><term>Apparent paradox</term><term>Business groups</term><term>Cambridge university press</term><term>Cartel</term><term>Competition policy</term><term>Competitive advantage</term><term>Concentration ratios</term><term>Conventional paradigm</term><term>Domestic competition</term><term>Dynamic efficiency</term><term>East asian development</term><term>Economic analysis</term><term>Economic development</term><term>Economic growth</term><term>Economic openness</term><term>Fair trade commission</term><term>Foreign competition</term><term>Game theoretic models</term><term>General trading company</term><term>High growth period</term><term>High rates</term><term>Industrial concentration</term><term>Industrial organisation</term><term>Industrial organization</term><term>Industrial policies</term><term>Industrial policy</term><term>International competitiveness</term><term>International trade</term><term>Japanese companies</term><term>Japanese economy</term><term>Japanese experience</term><term>Japanese firms</term><term>Japanese government</term><term>Korean automobile industry</term><term>Korean case</term><term>Korean government</term><term>Large firms</term><term>Largest manufacturing firms</term><term>Machine tools</term><term>Market competition</term><term>Maximum competition</term><term>Michael porter</term><term>Miracle years</term><term>Mit1</term><term>Oligopolistic rivalry</term><term>Optimal degree</term><term>Oxford university press</term><term>Performance standards</term><term>Plausible capitalism</term><term>Rapid growth</term><term>Singh</term><term>Small firms</term><term>Static allocative efficiency</term><term>Successful combination</term><term>Takashi hikino</term><term>Technical change</term><term>Technological progress</term><term>Trade policy</term><term>Uekusa</term><term>Unfettered competition</term><term>World bank</term><term>World development report</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Administrative guidance</term><term>Aggregate concentration</term><term>Amsden</term><term>Antitrust</term><term>Antitrust bulletin</term><term>Antitrust enforcement</term><term>Antitrust laws</term><term>Apparent paradox</term><term>Business groups</term><term>Cambridge university press</term><term>Cartel</term><term>Competition policy</term><term>Competitive advantage</term><term>Concentration ratios</term><term>Conventional paradigm</term><term>Domestic competition</term><term>Dynamic efficiency</term><term>East asian development</term><term>Economic analysis</term><term>Economic development</term><term>Economic growth</term><term>Economic openness</term><term>Fair trade commission</term><term>Foreign competition</term><term>Game theoretic models</term><term>General trading company</term><term>High growth period</term><term>High rates</term><term>Industrial concentration</term><term>Industrial organisation</term><term>Industrial organization</term><term>Industrial policies</term><term>Industrial policy</term><term>International competitiveness</term><term>International trade</term><term>Japanese companies</term><term>Japanese economy</term><term>Japanese experience</term><term>Japanese firms</term><term>Japanese government</term><term>Korean automobile industry</term><term>Korean case</term><term>Korean government</term><term>Large firms</term><term>Largest manufacturing firms</term><term>Machine tools</term><term>Market competition</term><term>Maximum competition</term><term>Michael porter</term><term>Miracle years</term><term>Mit1</term><term>Oligopolistic rivalry</term><term>Optimal degree</term><term>Oxford university press</term><term>Performance standards</term><term>Plausible capitalism</term><term>Rapid growth</term><term>Singh</term><term>Small firms</term><term>Static allocative efficiency</term><term>Successful combination</term><term>Takashi hikino</term><term>Technical change</term><term>Technological progress</term><term>Trade policy</term><term>Uekusa</term><term>Unfettered competition</term><term>World bank</term><term>World development report</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Abstract: This paper is concerned with the neglected role of competition policy in East Asian development. Michael Porter considers Japan's development to have benefitted from intense competition among firms. By contrast. Caves and Uekusa criticize MITI's role in creating recession cartels and entry barriers, which are thought to have resulted in allocative inefficiency. This paper argues that competition policy in both Japan and Korea was oriented towards creating dynamic efficiency (the highest long term productivity growth rate). It did so by measures, operating at both the industry and firm level, which sometimes restricted competition and sometimes encouraged it.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>elsevier</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>singh</json:string><json:string>amsden</json:string><json:string>mit1</json:string><json:string>uekusa</json:string><json:string>cartel</json:string><json:string>industrial policy</json:string><json:string>competition policy</json:string><json:string>antitrust</json:string><json:string>rapid growth</json:string><json:string>world bank</json:string><json:string>industrial concentration</json:string><json:string>economic development</json:string><json:string>business groups</json:string><json:string>dynamic efficiency</json:string><json:string>japanese economy</json:string><json:string>competitive advantage</json:string><json:string>plausible capitalism</json:string><json:string>economic growth</json:string><json:string>large firms</json:string><json:string>maximum competition</json:string><json:string>international trade</json:string><json:string>high growth period</json:string><json:string>market competition</json:string><json:string>domestic competition</json:string><json:string>oligopolistic rivalry</json:string><json:string>takashi hikino</json:string><json:string>optimal degree</json:string><json:string>antitrust laws</json:string><json:string>japanese government</json:string><json:string>industrial organisation</json:string><json:string>aggregate concentration</json:string><json:string>economic openness</json:string><json:string>technical change</json:string><json:string>fair trade commission</json:string><json:string>antitrust enforcement</json:string><json:string>japanese experience</json:string><json:string>japanese firms</json:string><json:string>administrative guidance</json:string><json:string>foreign competition</json:string><json:string>miracle years</json:string><json:string>trade policy</json:string><json:string>performance standards</json:string><json:string>machine tools</json:string><json:string>high rates</json:string><json:string>industrial policies</json:string><json:string>apparent paradox</json:string><json:string>unfettered competition</json:string><json:string>technological progress</json:string><json:string>concentration ratios</json:string><json:string>international competitiveness</json:string><json:string>largest manufacturing firms</json:string><json:string>conventional paradigm</json:string><json:string>japanese companies</json:string><json:string>static allocative efficiency</json:string><json:string>successful combination</json:string><json:string>game theoretic models</json:string><json:string>small firms</json:string><json:string>korean case</json:string><json:string>economic analysis</json:string><json:string>korean government</json:string><json:string>general trading company</json:string><json:string>korean automobile industry</json:string><json:string>michael porter</json:string><json:string>east asian development</json:string><json:string>oxford university press</json:string><json:string>cambridge university press</json:string><json:string>industrial organization</json:string><json:string>antitrust bulletin</json:string><json:string>world development report</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Alice H. Amsden</name><affiliations><json:string>New School for Social Research, 66 West 12th St., New York, NY 10011, USA</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Ajit Singh</name><affiliations><json:string>Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge, Austin Robinson Building, Sidgwick Ave., Cambridge CB3 9DD, UK</json:string><json:string>∗ Corresponding author. We are greatly indebted to Mr. Takashi Hikino for many helpful suggestions, and for drawing our attention to important sources of data on industrial concentration in Japan. The usual disclaimer applies.</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Competition</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Antitrust</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Dynamic</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Efficiency</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Development</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>L0</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>L4</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>O1</value></json:item></subject><arkIstex>ark:/67375/6H6-B6DQHG44-D</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>Full-length article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Abstract: This paper is concerned with the neglected role of competition policy in East Asian development. Michael Porter considers Japan's development to have benefitted from intense competition among firms. By contrast. Caves and Uekusa criticize MITI's role in creating recession cartels and entry barriers, which are thought to have resulted in allocative inefficiency. This paper argues that competition policy in both Japan and Korea was oriented towards creating dynamic efficiency (the highest long term productivity growth rate). It did so by measures, operating at both the industry and firm level, which sometimes restricted competition and sometimes encouraged it.</abstract><qualityIndicators><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>98</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>676</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>8</keywordCount><score>6.857</score><pdfWordCount>3681</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>28188</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.2</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>11</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>432 x 648 pts</pdfPageSize></qualityIndicators><title>The optimal degree of competition and dynamic efficiency in Japan and Korea</title><pii><json:string>0014-2921(94)90130-9</json:string></pii><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><host><title>European Economic Review</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><publicationDate>1994</publicationDate><issn><json:string>0014-2921</json:string></issn><pii><json:string>S0014-2921(00)X0168-7</json:string></pii><volume>38</volume><issue>3–4</issue><pages><first>941</first><last>951</last></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>1950s</json:string><json:string>1975</json:string><json:string>1960s</json:string><json:string>1994</json:string><json:string>1970s</json:string><json:string>1950</json:string><json:string>1937</json:string><json:string>1962</json:string><json:string>1980s</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>World Bank</json:string><json:string>South Korea Whereas</json:string><json:string>Japan and South Korea</json:string><json:string>Japan and Korea</json:string><json:string>UK Abstract This</json:string><json:string>Japan The Japanese</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>A.H. Amsdew</json:string><json:string>Takashi Hikino</json:string><json:string>Iguchi</json:string><json:string>Caves</json:string><json:string>Yamamura</json:string><json:string>Bank</json:string><json:string>Park Chung</json:string><json:string>Michael Porter</json:string><json:string>A. Sing</json:string><json:string>For</json:string><json:string>A. Singh</json:string><json:string>Uekusa</json:string><json:string>Kim Mahn-Je</json:string><json:string>A.H. Amsden</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>United States</json:string><json:string>NY</json:string><json:string>Korea</json:string><json:string>US</json:string><json:string>Europe</json:string><json:string>Japan</json:string><json:string>Britain</json:string><json:string>Cambridge</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>Amsden, 1989</json:string><json:string>Telser (1987)</json:string><json:string>Okimoto (1989)</json:string><json:string>Singh, 1993a</json:string><json:string>Cho, 1987</json:string><json:string>Hughes and Singh (1980)</json:string><json:string>Iguchi (1987)</json:string><json:string>Baumol and Ordover (1992)</json:string><json:string>Lee et al., 1986</json:string><json:string>Porter, 1990b, p. 82</json:string><json:string>Schmalensee and Willig (1989)</json:string><json:string>Caves and Uekusa (1976)</json:string><json:string>Schumpeter (1942)</json:string><json:string>Jones and Sakong, 1980, p. 176</json:string><json:string>Scherer (1992)</json:string><json:string>Kim, 1987</json:string><json:string>Helpman and Krugman (1989)</json:string><json:string>Amsden (1994)</json:string><json:string>Singh, 1993b</json:string><json:string>World Bank, 1991</json:string><json:string>Jorde and Teece (1992)</json:string><json:string>Kim, 1992</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/6H6-B6DQHG44-D</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - social science</json:string><json:string>2 - economics</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - economic & social sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - economics & business </json:string><json:string>3 - economics</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Social Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Economics, Econometrics and Finance</json:string><json:string>3 - Economics and Econometrics</json:string><json:string>1 - Social Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Economics, Econometrics and Finance</json:string><json:string>3 - Finance</json:string></scopus><inist><json:string>1 - sciences humaines et sociales</json:string></inist></categories><publicationDate>1994</publicationDate><copyrightDate>1994</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1016/0014-2921(94)90130-9</json:string></doi><id>725D104876F643D83E46AB3AFD99D81A94E3CB57</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/725D104876F643D83E46AB3AFD99D81A94E3CB57/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/725D104876F643D83E46AB3AFD99D81A94E3CB57/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/725D104876F643D83E46AB3AFD99D81A94E3CB57/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a">The optimal degree of competition and dynamic efficiency in Japan and Korea</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>ELSEVIER</publisher><availability><p>ELSEVIER</p></availability><date>1994</date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content">Section title: Growth in developing countries: Lessons from East Asian countries</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a">The optimal degree of competition and dynamic efficiency in Japan and Korea</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Alice H.</forename><surname>Amsden</surname></persName><affiliation>New School for Social Research, 66 West 12th St., New York, NY 10011, USA</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Ajit</forename><surname>Singh</surname></persName><affiliation>Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge, Austin Robinson Building, Sidgwick Ave., Cambridge CB3 9DD, UK</affiliation><affiliation>∗ Corresponding author. We are greatly indebted to Mr. Takashi Hikino for many helpful suggestions, and for drawing our attention to important sources of data on industrial concentration in Japan. The usual disclaimer applies.</affiliation></author><idno type="istex">725D104876F643D83E46AB3AFD99D81A94E3CB57</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1016/0014-2921(94)90130-9</idno><idno type="PII">0014-2921(94)90130-9</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j">European Economic Review</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">EER</title><idno type="pISSN">0014-2921</idno><idno type="PII">S0014-2921(00)X0168-7</idno><imprint><publisher>ELSEVIER</publisher><date type="published" when="1994"></date><biblScope unit="volume">38</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3–4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="941">941</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="951">951</biblScope></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>1994</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>This paper is concerned with the neglected role of competition policy in East Asian development. Michael Porter considers Japan's development to have benefitted from intense competition among firms. By contrast. Caves and Uekusa criticize MITI's role in creating recession cartels and entry barriers, which are thought to have resulted in allocative inefficiency. This paper argues that competition policy in both Japan and Korea was oriented towards creating dynamic efficiency (the highest long term productivity growth rate). It did so by measures, operating at both the industry and firm level, which sometimes restricted competition and sometimes encouraged it.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>Keywords</head><item><term>Competition</term></item><item><term>Antitrust</term></item><item><term>Dynamic</term></item><item><term>Efficiency</term></item><item><term>Development</term></item></list></keywords></textClass><textClass><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>JEL classification</head><item><term>L0</term></item><item><term>L4</term></item><item><term>O1</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="1994">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/725D104876F643D83E46AB3AFD99D81A94E3CB57/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Elsevier, elements deleted: tail"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:docType PUBLIC="-//ES//DTD journal article DTD version 4.5.2//EN//XML" URI="art452.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType><istex:document><converted-article version="4.5.2" docsubtype="fla"><item-info><jid>EER</jid><aid>94901309</aid><ce:pii>0014-2921(94)90130-9</ce:pii><ce:doi>10.1016/0014-2921(94)90130-9</ce:doi><ce:copyright type="unknown" year="1994"></ce:copyright></item-info><head><ce:dochead><ce:textfn>Growth in developing countries: Lessons from East Asian countries</ce:textfn></ce:dochead><ce:title>The optimal degree of competition and dynamic efficiency in Japan and Korea</ce:title><ce:author-group><ce:author><ce:given-name>Alice H.</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Amsden</ce:surname><ce:cross-ref refid="AFF1"><ce:sup>a</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref></ce:author><ce:author><ce:given-name>Ajit</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Singh</ce:surname><ce:cross-ref refid="AFF2"><ce:sup>b</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref><ce:cross-ref refid="FN1"><ce:sup>∗</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref></ce:author><ce:affiliation id="AFF1"><ce:label>a</ce:label><ce:textfn>New School for Social Research, 66 West 12th St., New York, NY 10011, USA</ce:textfn></ce:affiliation><ce:affiliation id="AFF2"><ce:label>b</ce:label><ce:textfn>Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge, Austin Robinson Building, Sidgwick Ave., Cambridge CB3 9DD, UK</ce:textfn></ce:affiliation><ce:footnote id="FN1"><ce:label>∗</ce:label><ce:note-para>Corresponding author. We are greatly indebted to Mr. Takashi Hikino for many helpful suggestions, and for drawing our attention to important sources of data on industrial concentration in Japan. The usual disclaimer applies.</ce:note-para></ce:footnote></ce:author-group><ce:abstract><ce:section-title>Abstract</ce:section-title><ce:abstract-sec><ce:simple-para>This paper is concerned with the neglected role of competition policy in East Asian development. Michael Porter considers Japan's development to have benefitted from intense competition among firms. By contrast. Caves and Uekusa criticize MITI's role in creating recession cartels and entry barriers, which are thought to have resulted in allocative inefficiency. This paper argues that competition policy in both Japan and Korea was oriented towards creating dynamic efficiency (the highest long term productivity growth rate). It did so by measures, operating at both the industry and firm level, which sometimes restricted competition and sometimes encouraged it.</ce:simple-para></ce:abstract-sec></ce:abstract><ce:keywords><ce:section-title>Keywords</ce:section-title><ce:keyword><ce:text>Competition</ce:text></ce:keyword><ce:keyword><ce:text>Antitrust</ce:text></ce:keyword><ce:keyword><ce:text>Dynamic</ce:text></ce:keyword><ce:keyword><ce:text>Efficiency</ce:text></ce:keyword><ce:keyword><ce:text>Development</ce:text></ce:keyword></ce:keywords><ce:keywords class="jel"><ce:section-title>JEL classification</ce:section-title><ce:keyword><ce:text>L0</ce:text></ce:keyword><ce:keyword><ce:text>L4</ce:text></ce:keyword><ce:keyword><ce:text>O1</ce:text></ce:keyword></ce:keywords></head></converted-article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo><title>The optimal degree of competition and dynamic efficiency in Japan and Korea</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA"><title>The optimal degree of competition and dynamic efficiency in Japan and Korea</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Alice H.</namePart><namePart type="family">Amsden</namePart><affiliation>New School for Social Research, 66 West 12th St., New York, NY 10011, USA</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Ajit</namePart><namePart type="family">Singh</namePart><affiliation>Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge, Austin Robinson Building, Sidgwick Ave., Cambridge CB3 9DD, UK</affiliation><affiliation>∗ Corresponding author. We are greatly indebted to Mr. Takashi Hikino for many helpful suggestions, and for drawing our attention to important sources of data on industrial concentration in Japan. The usual disclaimer applies.</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="Full-length article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-1JC4F85T-7">research-article</genre><originInfo><publisher>ELSEVIER</publisher><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1994</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">1994</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><abstract lang="en">Abstract: This paper is concerned with the neglected role of competition policy in East Asian development. Michael Porter considers Japan's development to have benefitted from intense competition among firms. By contrast. Caves and Uekusa criticize MITI's role in creating recession cartels and entry barriers, which are thought to have resulted in allocative inefficiency. This paper argues that competition policy in both Japan and Korea was oriented towards creating dynamic efficiency (the highest long term productivity growth rate). It did so by measures, operating at both the industry and firm level, which sometimes restricted competition and sometimes encouraged it.</abstract><note type="content">Section title: Growth in developing countries: Lessons from East Asian countries</note><subject><genre>Keywords</genre><topic>Competition</topic><topic>Antitrust</topic><topic>Dynamic</topic><topic>Efficiency</topic><topic>Development</topic></subject><subject><genre>JEL classification</genre><topic>L0</topic><topic>L4</topic><topic>O1</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>European Economic Review</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>EER</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><originInfo><publisher>ELSEVIER</publisher><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">199404</dateIssued></originInfo><identifier type="ISSN">0014-2921</identifier><identifier type="PII">S0014-2921(00)X0168-7</identifier><part><date>199404</date><detail type="volume"><number>38</number><caption>vol.</caption></detail><detail type="issue"><number>3–4</number><caption>no.</caption></detail><extent unit="issue-pages"><start>417</start><end>1020</end></extent><extent unit="pages"><start>941</start><end>951</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">725D104876F643D83E46AB3AFD99D81A94E3CB57</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/6H6-B6DQHG44-D</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1016/0014-2921(94)90130-9</identifier><identifier type="PII">0014-2921(94)90130-9</identifier><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-HKKZVM7B-M">elsevier</recordContentSource></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/725D104876F643D83E46AB3AFD99D81A94E3CB57/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 003860 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 003860 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:725D104876F643D83E46AB3AFD99D81A94E3CB57
|texte= The optimal degree of competition and dynamic efficiency in Japan and Korea
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |