persuasiveessay怎么写-'ChineseCapitalism'Analternativea.doc

这篇persuasive essay是一篇essay范文，只要是针对“persuasive essay 怎么”等相关学习写作问题提供范文参考，学习他人标准essay就可以很好地写好persuasive essay，本persuasive essay讨论的是中国资本主义：

persuasive essay 怎么-'Chinese Capitalism': An alternative account
导读：这篇persuasive essay是一篇essay范文，只要是针对“persuasive essay 怎么”等相关学习写作问题提供范文参考，学习他人标准essay就可以很好地写好persuasive essay，本persuasive essay讨论的是中国资本主义：另一种账户。本persuasive essay是由留学作业网、essay范文频道整理推荐。

The collective strength of ethnic Chinese enterprises in East and Southeast Asia, and their increasinglyhttp://www.ukassignment.org/essayfw/19649.html transnational reach, has made it fashionable to presume that ethnic Chinese have become a global economic force. This has been fed by a flood of literature since the mid-1980s arguing that Chinese capital accumulation strategy depends on dense, business networks that facilitate domestic and transnational business cooperation.

A famous early reference to the "worldwide web of Chinese business" was made by Harvard academic John Kao, in 1993:
For many generations, emigrant Chinese entrepreneurs have been operating comfortably in a network of family and clan, laying the foundations for stronger links among businesses across national borders...Not based in any one country or continent, this commonwealth is primarily a network of entrepreneurial relationships. ...the Chinese commonwealth consists of many individual enterprises that nonetheless share a common culture (Kao 1993: 1)

This has been echoed through the years:
The Overseas Chinese, the Chinese Commonwealth, or the Chinese Web, consists of companies formed by Chinese who are found outside of China and inside other countries, such as, the United States, Thailand, Singapore, and Malaysia. These Chinese entrepreneurs work under a set of familial, cultural, and relationship values. They help one another and protect each others businesses. (Herbig and Shao 1997: 3).

Investment and trade flows linking Southeast and Northeast Asia have been promoted by network-like relationships among firms and individuals. These relationships have fostered regionalization by reducing the costs and risks of transnational investment" (Hamilton-Hart 2002: 1)

These three strands within the mainstream internationalisation construct dominate much of the research on MNEs and FDI but they have their shortcomings. In particularly, many Asia scholars (who were frequently Chinese-speaking Asians) have objected that mainstream internationalisation theories, with their under-socialised and "Western" roots, cannot adequately explain the phenomenon of ethnic Chinese investment in the "motherland" (Yeung 2000: 10). These scholars have instead drawn upon the insights of network theory and several sociological studies of ethnic Chinese enterprises (that were done in the 1990s) to develop an alternative account-the Chinese Capitalism perspective-to elucidate the specific case of ethnic Chinese transnational expansion. As its name suggests, this large corpus of literature is exclusively concerned with ethnic Chinese enterprises because it is argued that they differ in important respects not only from Japanese and Western firms, but from other developing-country enterprises (Kao 1993).

Central to the Chinese Capitalism perspective is the premise that ethnic Chinese firms dominate FDI flows into China, and indeed much of the economic activity of East Asia, because of their ability to form and draw upon dense, interlinked webs of social/family/political relationships that span national boundaries and "rest on trust and reciprocation" (Hamilton 1996a: 17). These relationships-Chinese business networks (CBN)-are variously ascribed to cultural and/or institutional factors and ostensibly give ethnic Chinese TNEs a strong advantage, especially when entering culturally Chinese markets such as China, while non-ethnic Chinese businesses meet with less success (EAAU 1995). As Hamilton-Hart wrote:

as characterized by dense business networks that facilitate domestic and transnational business cooperation (e.g., Lim 1981; Redding 1990, 1996, 2000; Kao 1993; Kotkin 1993; Rowher 1995; East Asia Analytical Unit 1995; Hodder 1996; Weidenbaum and Hughes 1996; Seagrave 1996; Hiscock 1997; Jesudason 1997; Backman 1999; Yeung 2000; Jomo 2001). Much of this literature has theoretical foundations largely situated outside of economics. However, its key premise - that the internationalisation of Chinese enterprises is driven by intra-ethnic business networking�also appears within economics disciplines.

For example, Hamilton-Hart recently wrote, "Investment and trade flows linking Southeast and Northeast Asia have been promoted by network-like relationships among firms and individuals. These relationships have fostered regionalization by reducing the costs and risks of transnational investment" (Hamilton-Hart 2002: 1). And in a recent book examining the "East Asian Miracle," Jomo asserted:

Chinese business networks are believed to have played a crucial role in much of the economic dynamism of Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the economies of SEA. This suggests the possibility that contemporary Chinese capitalism, at least in SEA, has distinctive institutions, norms, and practices. It is possible that such networks - often based on trust, despite Fukuyama's (1995) assertions to the contrary, and other noncontractual relations ostensibly based on fictive as well as real kinship - have reduced some transaction, information, and other costs as well as risks, and resolved some coordination and collective action problems not satisfactorily addressed by state intervention... Capital accumulation by the Chinese is proceeding regardless of, or even despite, rather than because of state intervention. Consequently, the seemingly ethnically exclusive Chinese business networks are believed to be responsible for the success of Chinese business in Southeast Asia and elsewhere (Jomo 2001: 474).

The skill or special ability to combine a firm's resources with the complementary, important resources of its partners can no doubt be an important organisational capability and a source of competitive advantage in certain circumstances. This recognition underpins most of the literature promoting Chinese business networking and derives in large part from the network theorizing that developed in the 1990s, which will be reviewed in Section 3.1 Following this, a general survey of the Overseas Chinese literature is undertaken in Section 3.3, and the limitations of this literature - including the fact that there is a remarkable scarcity of empirical data supporting the Chinese business network presumption - are presented in Section 3.4.

The network-as-relationships perspective has increasingly become popular in explanations of transnational expansion. In particular, it has often been seen as a correction to the "under-socialised" nature of previous orthodox international business interpretations of what constitutes an ownership advantage in regard to international expansion (which views economic action as carried out by atomised, independent actors undergoing a "calculative process" to maximise their self-interest). For example, Johanson and Mattson (1988) contended that a firm's internationalisation process consists of the way in which a firm establishes positions in relation to counterparts in foreign networks, and Rugman and D'Cruz (2000) suggested that the competitive advantages of large multinationals increasingly depends on cooperative relationships with key suppliers, customers, competitors, and the non-business infrastructure (such as universities, local and national government, and trade unions).

Background: Networks as Social Relationships
This alternative approach within the network literature has as its central concern the interdependent relationships within networks (see, for example, Johanson and Mattson 1988). Rejecting transaction cost minimisation as an explanation for networks, this approach emphasises the web of interactions or relationships amongst a number of players (including customers, suppliers, competitors, and public and private support agencies) through which activities and resources are exchanged and shared. Rather than analysing transnational expansion purely in economic or transaction cost terms, this network approach acknowledges that firms do not operate in isolation of other firms and that transactions arise from embeddedness within broader patterns of network/stakeholder relations.

Perhaps the most prominent critic who argues along these lines is Mark Granovetter. Writing from a sociological perspective, Granovetter asserted that economic institutions can only be explained as social constructions (Granovetter 1992). Since much of the "Overseas Chinese" literature that has become so influential has its theoretical roots in this sociological approach, the following section will look closer at its key concepts.

The Concept of Embeddedness（留学作业网http://www.ukassignment.org/）
Granovetter's main critique of the transaction cost approach is that it explains institutions such as business networks as "the efficient solution to certain economic problems" (Granovetter 1985: 488 - ref). Whereas transaction cost theorists suggest that specific organisational forms are able to solve certain market failures which result from bounded rationality and opportunism, Granovetter points out "that most behavior is closely embedded in networks of interpersonal relations" which blurs the boundaries between organisations on the one hand and the market on the other (Granovetter 1985: 504). Since under both modes of governance the economic actors are tied into networks of social relations, the actual behaviour of individuals might differ from the one expected from an efficiency point of view. Therefore, only "pressures" exist toward a particular mode of governance, and there is no guarantee that the "most efficient one will be the one observed" (Granovetter 1985: 503).(责任编辑：留学生作业)

留学生作业网提供 www.ukassignment.org 代写essay,代写assignment，qq1455780998，email: 1455780998@