通过非正式和正式机构之间的互动解释亚洲增长悖论

IF 2.3 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
K. Chung, Daeun Kim
{"title":"通过非正式和正式机构之间的互动解释亚洲增长悖论","authors":"K. Chung, Daeun Kim","doi":"10.1108/AEDS-10-2020-0235","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeMuch of existing research has attempted to explain Asian Growth Paradox through formal institution – role of the government or rule of law. Therefore, this paper attempts to empirically explain the paradox with informal institution including interaction between informal and formal institutions. Two interrelated research questions summarize this research. First, how can we capture the relationship between informal and formal institutions? Then, how is that relationship different for Asian Paradox states vs non-paradox states?Design/methodology/approachTo capture the relationship between informal and formal institutions, we use Helmke and Levitsky (2004)'s framework to categorize the interaction as complementing, competing, substituting and accommodating. We perform cross-sectional regression analysis for more than 130 countries.FindingsWe find that the developed, developing and the Asian Paradox states display different patterns of interaction between informal and formal institutions. However, we also find that the interaction effect has a limited value explaining growth for most of these countries, suggesting that Helmke and Levitsky (2004)'s framework has limitations. Finally, we challenge the notion of Asian Paradox states, as countries outside of Asia also qualify as the Paradox states.Originality/valueNot much empirical effort has examined how different relationships between informal and formal institutions can explain growth internationally across countries. We show that different institutional patterns explain growth across the Paradox states and non-Paradox states.","PeriodicalId":44145,"journal":{"name":"Asian Education and Development Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Explaining Asian growth paradox through interaction between informal and formal institutions\",\"authors\":\"K. Chung, Daeun Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/AEDS-10-2020-0235\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeMuch of existing research has attempted to explain Asian Growth Paradox through formal institution – role of the government or rule of law. Therefore, this paper attempts to empirically explain the paradox with informal institution including interaction between informal and formal institutions. Two interrelated research questions summarize this research. First, how can we capture the relationship between informal and formal institutions? Then, how is that relationship different for Asian Paradox states vs non-paradox states?Design/methodology/approachTo capture the relationship between informal and formal institutions, we use Helmke and Levitsky (2004)'s framework to categorize the interaction as complementing, competing, substituting and accommodating. We perform cross-sectional regression analysis for more than 130 countries.FindingsWe find that the developed, developing and the Asian Paradox states display different patterns of interaction between informal and formal institutions. However, we also find that the interaction effect has a limited value explaining growth for most of these countries, suggesting that Helmke and Levitsky (2004)'s framework has limitations. Finally, we challenge the notion of Asian Paradox states, as countries outside of Asia also qualify as the Paradox states.Originality/valueNot much empirical effort has examined how different relationships between informal and formal institutions can explain growth internationally across countries. We show that different institutional patterns explain growth across the Paradox states and non-Paradox states.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44145,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Education and Development Studies\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Education and Development Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/AEDS-10-2020-0235\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Education and Development Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/AEDS-10-2020-0235","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的现有的许多研究试图通过政府或法治的正式制度来解释亚洲增长悖论。因此,本文试图实证地解释非正式制度的悖论,包括非正式制度与正式制度之间的互动。两个相互关联的研究问题对本研究进行了总结。首先,我们如何理解非正式机构和正式机构之间的关系?那么,亚洲悖论国家与非悖论国家之间的关系有何不同?设计/方法论/方法为了捕捉非正式和正式机构之间的关系,我们使用Helmke和Levitsky(2004)的框架将互动分类为互补、竞争、替代和包容。我们对130多个国家进行了横断面回归分析。我们发现,发达国家、发展中国家和亚洲悖论国家在非正式和正式制度之间表现出不同的互动模式。然而,我们也发现,互动效应在解释这些国家中大多数国家的增长方面的价值有限,这表明Helmke和Levitsky(2004)的框架存在局限性。最后,我们挑战亚洲悖论国家的概念,因为亚洲以外的国家也有资格成为悖论国家。原创性/价值没有多少实证研究表明非正式和正式机构之间的不同关系如何解释各国的国际增长。我们发现,不同的制度模式可以解释悖论状态和非悖论状态下的增长。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Explaining Asian growth paradox through interaction between informal and formal institutions
PurposeMuch of existing research has attempted to explain Asian Growth Paradox through formal institution – role of the government or rule of law. Therefore, this paper attempts to empirically explain the paradox with informal institution including interaction between informal and formal institutions. Two interrelated research questions summarize this research. First, how can we capture the relationship between informal and formal institutions? Then, how is that relationship different for Asian Paradox states vs non-paradox states?Design/methodology/approachTo capture the relationship between informal and formal institutions, we use Helmke and Levitsky (2004)'s framework to categorize the interaction as complementing, competing, substituting and accommodating. We perform cross-sectional regression analysis for more than 130 countries.FindingsWe find that the developed, developing and the Asian Paradox states display different patterns of interaction between informal and formal institutions. However, we also find that the interaction effect has a limited value explaining growth for most of these countries, suggesting that Helmke and Levitsky (2004)'s framework has limitations. Finally, we challenge the notion of Asian Paradox states, as countries outside of Asia also qualify as the Paradox states.Originality/valueNot much empirical effort has examined how different relationships between informal and formal institutions can explain growth internationally across countries. We show that different institutional patterns explain growth across the Paradox states and non-Paradox states.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Asian Education and Development Studies
Asian Education and Development Studies EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊介绍: Asian Education and Development Studies (AEDS) is a new journal showcasing the latest research on education, development and governance issues in Asian contexts. AEDS fosters cross-boundary research with the aim of enhancing our socio-scientific understanding of Asia. AEDS invites original empirical research, review papers and comparative analyses as well as reports and research notes around education, political science, sociology and development studies. Articles with strong comparative perspectives and regional insights will be especially welcome. In-depth examinations of the role of education in the promotion of social, economic, cultural and political development in Asia are also encouraged. AEDS is the official journal of the Hong Kong Educational Research Association. Key topics for submissions: Educational development in Asia, Globalization and regional responses from Asia, Social development and social policy in Asia, Urbanization and social change in Asia, Politics and changing governance in Asia, Critical development issues and policy implications in Asia, Demographic change and changing social structure in Asia. Key subject areas for research submissions: Education, Political Science, Sociology , Development Studies .
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信