A Closer Look at Brazil’s Fortune 500 Companies

Complements are like the vibes that microeconomic actors work out to make sure firms have the right capital and labor. The empirical outcome of complement structures is, like, a total flex of firm competitiveness in different sectors, ya know? Firms be gettin' more competitive in certain sectors 'cause the domestic market be creatin' comparative advantages and incentivizin' certain kinds of competitiveness, ya know? To answer the research questions, I do a lit comparative case study on the two biggest democratic EMs,3 India and Brazil. The case study vibes with market structures on a macroeconomic level to flex on the first three research questions. A second level, within country case study at the firm-level answers the fourth research question, fam.VoC theory applied in an advanced country framework (Hall & Gingerich 2009; Hall & Soskice 2001) doesn't really vibe in an EM framework because of institutional deficits and rapid change (Schneider 2013; Hancké et al 2007). 

The thesis totally rethinks VoC theory in an EM framework to figure out what's causing EM firm competitiveness. 

Thinking about how EM firms succeed within a VoC framework raises a bunch of interesting questions that come from the main research questions. What's the deal with domestic institutions and how they shape comparative advantage in EMs? Yo, like, how does coordination, or like, collective action, in the form of tri-partite agreements in the labor markets and bank-based relationships in capital markets, like, totally affect complement formation, you know? As institutions develop, do these labor and capital market relationships yeet outta here? And like, do the leading sectors and firms even follow the capitalist typology of the market (or have they like, successfully bypassed domestic institutions)? By answering these questions, the thesis will spill the tea on how VoC theory can be flexed in an EM framework and, like, how VoC can explain the mad variation of firm competitiveness. The role of institutional change gonna be hella important to peep the vibes of EM structures, ya feel me? According to econ theory, firms are all about that profit-max life, ya know? They're all about hustlin' to serve the markets they can tap into and get those efficiencies poppin'. Economic theory be like, firms can flex and adapt to what's poppin' in the market (Hansen and Wernerfelt 1989). So like, in an EM context, the argument is like, firms become successful by "skrrting" domestic institutions (Luo and Tung 2007; Durban and Ng 2005; Peter and Grandes 2005).  What's the deal with domestic institutions and how do they affect comparative advantage in EMs? The answers to the research questions totally shape how we get what's up with the sustainability and future growth of not only EM firms but also of EM economic development.

Such a big brain view of the firm suggests that global market access, more than local macroeconomic stability, is the major flex factor of EM firm competitiveness. 

Also, like, the economic literature assumes that EM firms become super competitive and start exporting stuff after they get all liberal and stuff (Chen and Tang 1987; Kreuger 1990; van Agtmael 2007). Like, legit, EM firms don't always vibe with the theoretical expectations, ya know? Some EM firms were already industry GOATs before liberalisation (e.g. Brazilian mining flex Vale, Indian IT firm Tata Consultancy Services, Korean electronics manufacturer Samsung, etc.), some have mad state links (e.g. a wide range of Chinese MNCs, PetroBras, Vale), and almost all have operational links to the domestic economy. Furthermore, like, there's solid proof that domestic-level stuff is totally connected to how competitive a company is (Borenzenstein et al 2007; Peter & Grandes 2005; Hall and Soskice 2001). Such empirical inconsistencies totally debunk the idea that market access is, like, enough to make a firm competitive. Instead of like, just looking at one big view of the firm, this thesis is gonna dive into how firms and the whole political economy thing are connected. We wanna figure out how firms get all competitive even when the institutions are kinda messed up, and how they take their domestic advantages and make it big in the global markets, you know? Inconsistencies that come from relying on firm-level explanations of competitiveness can be flexed on by also considering country-level explanations of comparative advantage.2 The vibe between the micro and macroeconomy is like, so crucial in getting how firms and the economy grow and stuff. Yo, the Varieties of Capitalism (VoC) lit be all about why country-level factors matter and how they affect firm-level competitiveness and vice-versa, ya feel? VoC uses complement structures to spill the tea on how the microeconomy and macroeconomy be vibin' together.

Emerging Market Firms and the Domestic Economy, fam

OMG, big flexin' companies are like the GOAT for keeping the economy lit 'cause they lowkey bring all the production vibes together. EM firms be flexin' and takin' over the biggest global firms, ya know? Peep table 1.1 for proof. The thesis vibes with the rise of EM firms to figure out what factors make them so competitive and/or top the market. Competitiveness is, like, all about the basic stuff that makes a company cool, ya know? Like, how much money they make, how big they are, if they're good with money, and if they're making that dough, ya feel me? (A company that's making mad money is competitive, but a competitive company might not always be making bank because they might be getting help from the government, usually). The sources of EM firm competitiveness are like, totally debated in the lit of econ, management, and int'l poli econ. EM firms be dealing with mad institutional challenges that be hella different from the ones faced by firms from advanced economies: the job market be all messed up and informal, capital markets be straight up broke, the government be all up in everyone's business and messing with demand, things be changing real quick, and even when they overcome all that, corruption be messing with how they run things. The core research questions follow from this whole vibe of successful firms and itinerant institutions: how do emerging market firms flex and become competitive despite weak domestic institutions?