Brazil's Contribution to the Fortune 500

 OMG, South Korea is so lit! The state totally vibes with complement coordination (Kohli 2006; Chibber 2003; Sridharan 1996; Moreira 1995). It's like, super interesting, you know? OMG South Korea (and like kinda Japan too, cuz it was the OG economy to do the whole East Asian export thing) shows how traditional VoC stuff and developmental states in EMs are like totally connected (Hall & Gingerich 2009; Hall & Soskice 2001; Aoki 2001; Aoki 1996; Wade 1990). Lit AF! The vibes in South Korea and Brazil and India are so different, it's lowkey mind-boggling. Like, trying to put Brazil and India in a VoC framework? Big yikes, it's a whole new level of confusion, fam. And like, when you look at it from a developmental perspective, South Korea's export game is on fleek while India and Brazil are kinda struggling, even though all three countries were trying to flex their manufacturing skills with their state policies. 

South Korea is, like, the ultimate flex of an export-oriented "East Asian" miracle economy (Balassa 1988; World Bank 1993; Stiglitz and Yusuf 2001). 

Following the logic of VoC theory, like, cooperatively coordinated market structures totally flex comparative advantages in incremental innovation and consequently support South Korean manufacturing export-orientation, ya know? OMG, South Korea's top industries are all about that manufacturing life (WTO 2012) and the most fire companies in the world come from those sectors (Fortune 2013; Forbes 2013). A case study approach lets the researcher flex with a bunch of extra factors in a specific situation to like, connect the dots better (George and Bennett 2005). Country-level case studies be like making typological conclusions by comparing different systems of capitalism (Hall and Soskice 2001; Hancké et al 2007). The firm-level cases add, like, a whole vibe of process tracing to understand micro-function (see discussion Bennett 2010). The firm cases flex on the development of corporate governance standards across firms from leading domestic sectors to peep how firms do and do not differentiate themselves. The mixed methods approach is like totally lit cuz it combines the OG VoC theory/comparative political economy with that firm-specific analysis anchored in process tracing (Brady et al 2010). It's all about that balance, ya know? Like, why India and Brazil couldn't flex the same level of development and manufacturing vibes and ended up with different leading sectors is, like, hella interesting, you know?

India and Brazil are lowkey lit when it comes to theory stuff cuz they got mad similarities: 

 both economies went through major changes after they got woke in the 90s cuz of some money problems; they're like the biggest democratic EMs4; and both economies have mad competitive companies. Despite these similarities, the comp and sector-based vibes of competitive firms from each country is hella different. Also, like, there's totally been some lit comparisons between India and Brazil in the literature (Kohli 2006; Sridharan 1996; Evans 1995). Like, the comparison is usually all about the pre- liberalisation era, and the thesis looks at both pre and post liberalisation vibes of these economies. The cases wanna flex VoC in two ways, ya know? First, like, as VoC theory goes global in EMs, I'm like, it's important to do cross regional comparisons to tell apart different paths of capitalism and explain why some sectors aren't coming together. Like, a lot of times, the EM VoC lit is all about the features of EMs in, like, a specific regional context (check out Schneider 2013, Nolke and Vliegenthart 2009, Carney 2007, Hancké et al, Amable 2003). Economies from the same region may flex similarities that help define a lit style of capitalism that's hella common in the region, ya know? Like, for real, the similarities of some post-Communist Eastern European countries make it lit to group those markets (Nolke and Vliegenthart 2009) or, in the current situation, Brazil is often compared to other Latin American countries, you know? The Brazil - Mexico comparison is like, sooo relatable since they're like the two biggest Latin economies, but like, they're totally different in some important ways that we can't ignore, ya know?5ive A cross-regional comparison of market typologies helps us flex on how emerging institutions may differ across regions and, like, how VoC theory can be thought about in a more global context, you know?

The second VoC related flex of the thesis is to like, totally connect VoC with the lit on economic development that's all about political economy and the state, you know? 

The role of dev states and how state influence filters into indus development is hella crucial for both theories. Lit focused on the poli econ of development (4 which I use the acronym DPE - developmental poli econ) seeks 2 explain how state institutions & developmental paradigms affect domestic market incentives (Chibber 2003; Johnson 1999; Aoki 1996; Wade 1990). Basically, like, a major vibe in the development literature not applied in VoC attempts to flex developmental states (see for example Nolke 2012) is that not all developmental states are created equal (Kohli 2006; Chibber 2003; Evans 1995). With, like, a way more big brain understanding of how political vibes from developmental states impact complement structures, VoC can totally nail down complement structures, especially in EMs. The fact that South Korea is included in the VoC literature is, like, a major flex on how important those theoretical considerations are, you know? SoKo wasn't even in the OG VoC measurements and framework (Hall & Soskice 2001) but then it got included in the research like almost 10 years later (Hall & Gingerich 2009). Hall & Gingerich classify South Korea as a CME cuz of the coordinated vibes of South Korea's capital and labour markets (ibid).six the inclusion of South Korea is like a flex, it shows that they've leveled up and their economy is on point.