Abstract The value attached to the concept of guanxi (關係) by Chinese enterprises in Southeast Asia can be observed in their business culture. Previous scholars have attributed the success of Chinese enterprises in Southeast Asia to "guanxi networks." The author's observations on Thai enterprises made over a 5-year period are here used to validate their research findings. In conclusion, the author classifies Thailand as a market economy where business activities are conducted based on the value of guanxi and economic strategies.
The automobile industry plays a leading role in a country's industrialization. Various countries have used different methods to identify a model of industrial development. For developing countries, establishing the automobile industry is crucial for promoting industrialization. After Southeast Asian countries achieved independent, their automobile industries underwent establishment and development stages. The domestic and overseas competiveness of the automobile industries in ASEAN have received global attention. How can the industrial development of Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines, which are ASEAN countries, be understood? Researchers have proposed various views regarding the industrial development of these four ASEAN countries. We researched the political economy of these countries to understand the development of their automobile industries. Thailand's automobile industry was successfully developed because of the government's crucial role in implementing a coordinated market economy and national system of innovation. In Indonesia, government-business relations hampered the government's efforts to meet society and market needs, thereby limiting the country's industrialization. Malaysia must learn how to coordinate its industries with a market economy through liberalization and coordination. The Philippines has positioned its automobile industry on manufacturing automotive parts because of the country's limited industrialization.Theoretically, following the 1997 Asian financial crisis, these ASEAN countries have adopted market economy-oriented policies; however, because of the historical context of political economy, the development of their automobile industries has varied. Under the context of globalization, the economic systems of various countries have exhibited low convergence. In this study, we show that embedded liberalism is the preferred interpretation in ASEAN automobile industry development. In other words, researchers should look beyond convergence theory and consider the political economy characteristics of various countries. Accordingly, further comparative research must be conducted to clarify the differences in the economic systems and policies in ASEAN studies.
The development of auto industry needs a series of related policies and conditions, including market, technology, management, basic infrastructure, etc. Several Southeast Asian countries are hoping to develop their auto industries in order to lead the development of other industries in their countries. Having the largest auto market in Southeast Asia, Indonesia is supposed to have more favorable conditions than Thailand and Malaysia on the development of auto industry. Unlike Malaysia's auto industry that has its own national brand, Indonesia does not have a national auto brand, nor like Thailand as the largest auto exporting country in Southeast Asia, a Japanese scholar even contends that Indonesia's auto industry is "technology-less industrialization". Based on the above analysis, the paper argues that the failure of Indonesia's auto industry has to do with the structural factors in Indonesia's political economy. This paper therefore will, by taking the perspective of political economy, explore the following four factors over the failure of Indonesia's auto industry: (1) inappropriate state intervention, (2) distorted government-business relations, (3) failure to join international complementarities in the auto industry, and (4) ineffective management on globalization.
Numerous differences exist between the neoclassical and national development schools of economics on how an economy should develop. For example, should the state interfere in the market using state resources, and cultivate certain industries to achieve specific developmental goals? Although the automotive industries in both Thailand and Malaysia developed in the 1970s with considerable government involvement, they have evolved along very different lines. Can these differences be traced to different interactions between the state and industry in these two countries? This paper examines this issue and finds that although industries in developing countries need government assistance, the specific political and economic contexts of each country affect the policies adopted and their effectiveness. The choice between "autonomous development" (Malaysia) and "dependent development" (Thailand) is the first issue. The second issue is that politics in Malaysia has deterred the automotive industry from adopting a "market following" position. This paper finds that the choice of strategy and political interference are the two main reasons the automotive industry in Malaysia is less competitive than that in Thailand.
