Institutional conditions of enterprises capitalization in innovation developed countries of Asia-Pacific region

Andrey V. Firsov


The relevance of the study of Eastern directions of institutional context of enterprises capitalization is due to the high achievements in the development of the economies, societies, and states in the Asia-Pacific region (Australia, Indonesia, Canada, China, Mexico, Russia, USA, South Korea, Japan, etc). The study of Eastern vector will provide an opportunity to use theoretical and practical experience of the Asian countries in Ukraine in order to expand the variations of ideas for business development. Thus, the desire for dominance of competitive high-tech, innovative enterprises in the structure of Ukraine’s economy should rely on capitalization as one of the tools of business development. Therefore, it is expedient to consider international experience, especially its Eastern vector as a priority in institutional matters of enterprises capitalization. The main aim of the research is the analysis and generalization of the experience of the Asia-Pacific region in the institutional issues of enterprises capitalization with the possibility of its further use in Ukraine. In the article the institutional conditions of innovative development of a state as the fundamental prerequisite to the process of enterprises capitalization are considered on the basis of the Asia-Pacific region and Ukraine. The list of innovative development of countries in 2013 and the rating of the countries concerning the institutions that affect the innovation in the same period are given. The institutions affecting innovation in Ukraine and in the countries of the Asia-Pacific region are compared. The institutional potential of the countries of the Asia-Pacific region and Ukraine in innovation activity is identified. The experience of Japan and South Korea in the institutional changes "management" in order to capitalise the industrial enterprises is studied. The basic institutional conditions of functioning of "joint ventures" in Japan and South Korea are considered. The institutional comparison of Japan and South Korea is conducted. The important trend that affects the cost of business changes over time is identified. The main characteristic features that determine the processes of change of business value and enterprises capitalization in Asian countries are detected. The mechanism of capitalization of domestic enterprises is developed.


capitalization; innovative activity; institutional environment; Asia-Pacific region; keiretsu; chaebol

Full Text:



MBAlib (2014). Institution Change Theory. Retrieved from制度变迁理论 [in Chinese].

PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2014). The BRICs and beyond: prospects, challenges and opportunities. Retrieved from URL :

International Monetary Fund (2014, October). World Economic Outlook Database. Retrieved from

MBAlib (2014). Institutional Economics. Retrieved from [in Chinese].

Kagami, S. (2000). Theoretical Aspects of the Japanese Institutional Relations Model and its Effectiveness for Corporate Governance in the Context of Globalization. Retrieved from

S.Ju. Glaz'ev & V.V. Haritonov (Eds.). (2009). Nanotechnologies as a key factor in the new technological order in the economy. Moskow: Trovant [in Russian].

Businessweek-Bloomberg (2014). Most Innovative in the World 2013: Countries. Retrieved from

The Global Innovation Index (2014). Global Innovation Index 2013: Compare two countries. Retrieved from http://www.glo¬bal¬in¬

Jwa, S.H. & Lee, I.K. (2000). Korean Chaebols in Transition: Road Ahead and Agenda. Seoul: Korea Economic Research Institute.

Buleev, I.P. (2011). Some institutional aspects of innovative development of Ukrainian economy. Naukovi pratsi Donets'koho natsional'noho tekhnichnoho universytetu. Economic series, Issue 40-2, 52-56 [in Russian].

Menard, С. & Shirley, M. (Eds.). (2008). The Handbook of New Institutional Economics. Heidelberg: Springer. (2014). Keiretsu. Retrieved from (2014). Chaebol. Retrieved from

Tu, H.S., Kim, S.Y. & Sullivan S.E. (2002). Global strategy lessons from Japanese and Korean business groups. Business Horizons, 45 (2), 39-46. DOI: 10.1016/S0007-6813(02)00186-6.

Grabowiecki, J. (2006). Keiretsu Groups: Their Role in the Japanese Economy and a Reference Point (or a Paradigm) for Other Countries. Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization, V.R.F. Series (No. 79).

Peng, M.W., Lee, S.-H. & Tan J.J. (2001). The keiretsu in Asia: Implications for multilevel theories of competitive advantage. Journal of International Management, 7(4), 253-276.

Roehl, T. (2011). Japanese business institutions: An illustration of the Douglas North institutional economics. The Hikone Ronso, 387, 38-49.

Kuznetsova, N.V. (2013). Keiretsu: Past, present and future. World Applied Sciences Journal, 26(12), 1569-1573. DOI: 10.5829/idosi.wasj.2013.26.12.13592.

Jung, D.H. (2013). Debates on Korean Chaebol (Conglomerates). Retrieved from

Debnath, S.Ch. & Tokuda, A. (2013). Value-based Management in Japanese Keiretsu and Korean Chaebols. Ritsumeikan International Affairs, 11, 45-70.

Murillo, D. & Sung, Y-d. (2013). Understanding Korean Capitalism: Chaebols and their Corporate Governance. Retrieved from (2014). Crony capitalism. Retrieved from¬talism.asp.

Kim, В.K. (2004). Chaebol Restructuring and Family Business in Korea. Retrieved from p-0013.doc.

Tipton, F.B. (2009). Southeast Asian capi¬talism: History, institutions, states, and firms. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26, 401-434.

Mehri, D. (2009). Restructuring in the Toyota Keiretsu during the Asian Financial Crash: An Ethnographic Perspective into Neo-liberal Reforms and the Varieties of Capitalism. Retrieved from

Högberg, A. (2009). Formal and informal institutions in Asia: A survey of Asian corporate governance. Retrieved from

Lu, Y., Tsang, E.W.K. & Peng, M.W. (2008). Knowledge management and innovation strategy in the Asia Pacific: Toward an institution-based view. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25, 361-374.


  • There are currently no refbacks.