Abstract
In this paper we focus on the question of why the organization of industrial relations in post-World War II Hong Kong has remained much less formalized and centralized than in other industrial societies. We assess the merits of three analytical perspectives — transaction cost economics, political conflict and neo-institutional sociology — in accounting for these characteristics. We argue that the economic and political perspectives, despite their limitations, contribute to the understanding of the Hong Kong case but that it is the institutional environment, analyzed from a neo-institutional sociological perspective, which has constituted the overarching framework within which political and economic variables operate. We conclude by suggesting that the contrast between the continuity in the organization of industrial relations in postwar Hong Kong and the reorganization of industrial relations in post-colonial Asian societies shows that political arguments may apply best during periods of major political transformation when significant shifts occur in the power structure.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call