Course Objectives and Marking:
For assignments, marks will be awarded for the appropriate use of comparison across nations, industries, companies and business functions. You should answer each question with reference to at least two countries and preferably more, even where only one country is cited in the question. A proper balance between theory and evidence and the appropriate use of national, industry or corporate examples in each answer will receive favourable consideration.
In Business in International Comparative Perspective, you will receive marks for fulfilling the following specific criteria:
• Answering the question.
You need, naturally, fully to interpret the set question; to consider key words or phrases; to decide how all parts of the question are connected (although possibly asked in two parts, there are connections that should be reflected in your answer); to devise an analysis and/or essay structure that allows you to answer the question fully; and, through analysis and thought, to determine the key issues, debates and subject matter as opposed to the peripheral or irrelevant.
• Knowledge of Cases and Evidence.
It is impossible to gain high marks unless you demonstrate knowledge of countries, institutions, industries, firms, and organizational functions. Evidence enables you to avoid annoying generalizations and sweeping statements. While some cases may support one interpretation of an issue or question, other cases may not. Use your cases and evidence within an analytical structure designed to answer the question rather than just mentioning cases and authors in turn and without clear purpose.
• Knowledge of Theory and Literature.
You need to demonstrate an understanding of major authors and theories whenever relevant. But please avoid repeating the work of others at length. Often a short summary is sufficient, and the questions on the course direct you to critique and not exegesis. You should employ theories and concepts as a means of shaping your use of evidence, and theory and evidence should be synergic and not separate.
• Analysis and Structure.
This is the main characteristic that defines a good assignment. You are expected to know the major literature and offer evidential support as a basic part of studying for the course. The point is whether you have thought about the material, and whether you can use it to argue coherently and analytically in response to a set problem. The insights implicit in your analysis should be reflected in the design of your assignment structure, which, in turn, should be apparent to the marker.
• Comparisons.
It should be no surprise on this course that you have to offer comparisons. It is better to avoid the sequential outline of cases, by which is meant a discussion of (say) the US, Germany, the UK, Japan and China in turn and separately. The approach causes problems in the design of an analytical structure, and it is not directly comparative because you treat each example separately. Place evidence from each nation within the issues set by an analytical structure: that is, if you were to discuss comparative human resources, place choices of evidence from Germany, UK, US, Japan and China into most of the assignment sections dealing with key issues such as training, management education, employment systems, trade unions, etc.
Knowledge of Theory and Cases
Students are advised to use the theoretical insights and the corporate and industry examples covered in both lectures and seminars. With respect to the industry cases studied, and their relevance to particular assignment topics, the following points may be noted.
• Material on pharmaceuticals is especially appropriate for R&D issues, managerial enterprise, the state and government regulation, multinational enterprise, education and human resources, national competitive advantage, culture, and to some extent other topics.
• The steel industry is especially appropriate for the state, managerial organization, late development, technology, finance, national competitive advantage, production and operations, and so on.
• Trade, banking, financial and retailing services are especially suited to national competitive advantage, state/regulation, technology, culture, multinational enterprise, human resources, finance, and so on.
• The electronics industry is especially suited to national competitive advantage, clusters, R&D, human resources, production management, finance, managerial enterprise, the state, culture, late development, and so on.
• The car industry is especially appropriate for production management, managerial enterprise, human resources, the state, multinational enterprise, finance, national competitive advantage, culture, late development, and so on.
• Aerospace is especially suited for managerial enterprise, the state, R&D, human resources, national competitive advantage, production management, culture, finance, and so on.
• Textiles is especially appropriate for clusters, culture, human resources, national competitive advantage, and so on
Furthermore, although each topic is treated and assessed separately, they inevitably share themes. For example, the late development question involves a number of other themes such as the role of the state, banking and finance systems, corporate governance and the management of key functions such as R&D or training systems. The topic of technology management involves late development, the state, human resources/training, managerial organization, and the international transfer of knowledge and FDI.
Topic:
Is the argument that national culture has ultimately determined the nature and competitiveness of major economies convincing?