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.

Review of 'The Thai Village Economy in the Past'

This charmingly old-fashioned little book was first published in Thai in 1984, and now appears in an elegant English translation. The two major intellectual influences that gave it birth are rather older, dating from the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s. The first developed from the intersection of the academic pre-eminence of varieties of Marxist thinking about the Third World and the struggles of anticolonial peasant-based revolutionaries and produced a high age of romanticism about the Southeast Asian village and the unfortunate victims who inhabited them. The origins of the second are more uncertain, but probably represent, paradoxically, a Thai appropriation of those Western social-science constructions of Thai cultural uniqueness which were especially popular in the 1950s and 1960s.