Institutions | Papers

Same rules, different games: Variation in the outcomes of "Japanese-style" supply relationships

This paper debunks the myth of a monolithic model of “Japanese-style” supply relationships and illustrates how idiosyncratic elements of an industry’s environment interact with a country’s institutional environment.Our understanding of Japanese supply relationships comes primarily from studying the automobile industry. This paper identifies three elements of the automobile industry that, although generally assumed to be widespread, are largely absent in the notebook computer industry, leading to a different pattern of supply relationships: a sizable pool of external suppliers; the feasibility of shukko and cross-shareholding to strengthen supply relationships; and the adequacy of these means to manage external supply relationships. This finding debunks the myth of a monolithic model of “Japanese-style” supply relationships and illustrates the importance of idiosyncratic elements of an industry’s environment on its supply relationships. View and download

Liberalization and litigation: Evidence from Japan

This Essay examines the under-studied relationship between liberalization and litigation. Liberalization should lead to expanded civil litigation for four reasons: (1) new market entrants are less subject to informal sanctions and may have a greater propensity to go to court; (2) privatization transfers resources away from the state, expanding the number of transactions subject to civil law regimes; (3) liberalization reduces the government’s ability to resolve disputes outside the courts; and (4) liberalization leads to economic development, which is generally litigation-enhancing. We test these propositions using a unique dataset of prefecture-level civil litigation data in Japan during the 1990s. Using panel data, we find a small but significant effect of foreign firms on litigation.

Ginsburg, T., Hoetker, G., "Liberalization and litigation: Evidence from Japan", Washington University Global Studies Law Review, Vol. 8, 2009, pp. 303-315
View and download