A Complementary Economy? National Markets and International Product in Early Australian Theatre Managements

The international circulation of commercial theatre in the early twentieth century was driven not only from the centres of Great Britain and the USA, but by the specific enterprise and habitus of managers in ‘complementary’ production sites such as Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand. The activity of this period suggests a de-centred competitive trade in theatrical commodities – whether performers, scripts, or productions – wherein the perceived entertainment preferences and geographies of non-metropolitan centres were formative of international enterprise. The major producers were linked in complex bonds of partnerships, family, or common experience which crossed the globe. The fractures and commonalities displayed in the partnerships of James Cassius Williamson and George Musgrove, which came to dominate and shape the fortunes of the Australian industry for much of the century, indicate the contradictory commercial and artistic pressures bearing upon entrepreneurs seeking to provide high-quality entertainment and form advantageous combinations in competition with other local and international managements. Clarke, Meynell and Gunn mounted just such spirited competition from 1906 to 1911, and their story demonstrates both the opportunities and the centralizing logic bearing upon local managements shopping and dealing in a global market. The author, Veronica Kelly, works at the University of Queensland. She is presently undertaking a study of commercial stars and managements in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Australia, with a focus on the star performer as model of history, gender, and nation.

Explaining variations in the knowledge economy in three small wealthy countries

At a broad level, it has been shown that different institutional contexts, policy regimes and business systems affect the kinds of activities in which a nation specialises. This paper is concerned with the way in which different national business systems affect the nature of participation of a nation in the knowledge economy. The paper seeks to explain cross-national variations in the knowledge economy in the Australia, Denmark and Sweden with reference to dominant characteristics of the business system. Although Australia, Denmark and Sweden are all small wealthy countries, they each have quite distinctive business systems. Australia has been regarded as a variant of the competitive business system and has generally been described as an entrepreneurial economy with a large small firm population. In contrast Sweden has a coordinated business system that has favoured large industrial firms. The Danish variant of the coordinated model, with its well-developed vocational training system, is distinguishable by its large population of networked small and medium size enterprises. The three countries also differ significantly on two dimensions of participation in the knowledge economy. First, there is cross-national variation in patterns of specialisation in knowledge intensive industries and services. Second, the institutional infrastructure of the knowledge economy (or the existing stock of knowledge and competence in the economy, the potential for generation and diffusion a new knowledge and the capacity for commercialisation of new ideas) differs across the three countries. This paper seeks to explain variations in these two dimensions of the knowledge economy with reference to characteristics of the business system in the three countries.

Institutional governance systems and variations in national competitive advantage: An integrative framework

Creating competitive industries has become one of the key tasks of governments. Different adaptation outcomes in industries across nations cannot be accounted for fully simply by an emphasis on firm-level capabilities, market-driven policies, or state-level policies. We propose an integrative framework that draws on both the strategic management and political economy literature to explain variations in national industrial competitiveness.. We discuss differences with respect to institutional characteristics and capabilities, competitive outcomes, conditions of best fit, and who bears the cost of industry adaptation.