Abstract
This dissertation explores institutional changes in which multiple agents may engage with the cases of Korean and Japanese business systems. With the question “who drives what change?”, this dissertation aims to bring dynamics into the comparative capitalism (CC) literature; it has been severely criticised for its static characteristics due to its emphasis of institutional complementarities and its lack of consideration of internal diversity and agent-led institutional change. Hence, this dissertation addresses such critics and contributes to the CC literature by analysing multiple agents (e.g. MNEs, state actors and entrepreneurial individuals) and their agencies across different levels in Korean and Japanese business systems. This dissertation is comprised of four papers and an introductory chapter. The introductory chapter mainly covers the overall contribution. The first paper examines and tests the existing dominant bipolar model of Varieties of Capitalism. The findings suggest the reason why we need to turn our attention to the dynamics of institutional change. The second paper explores how MNE subsidiaries take strategic behaviour to adjust host country institutions, while implementing HRM practices. The findings indicate that MNE subsidiaries as agents could influence host institutions directly or indirectly. The third paper shows that multiple state actors as agents have engaged with online gaming industry’s development and that state actors’ agencies are not homogenous. The fourth paper covers the issue of regional diversity in national economies by analysing two entrepreneurial ecosystems and agents in the areas. Therefore, the dissertation with a focus on agents and agency could make important contributions to existing literature. First, it would allow us to advance the current discussion related to dynamism in CC literature. Secondly, it also could engage with international business (IB) literature in many respects. For example, the on-going discussions in the literature about institutional entrepreneurship and institutional distance.