Author
Abstract
This paper analyzes institutional, organizational, and cultural sources that have become the most significant factors in generating labor disputes as China has transited into a market economy. It also compares direct sources of labor unrest among East Asian enterprises such as Hong Kong, Taiwanese, Korean, and Japanese firms invested in coastal cities in China. Findings, derived from the unique data on Quantitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and the historical data compild for local newspapers for descriptive explanations were systematically codified into a statistical analysis. The data shows that disputes have arisen over industrial hazards, frequently occurring in Hong Kong-owned firms due to a lack of concern with safety. Workers at Japanese electronics firms, however, went on strike for higher wages in the early 1990s. By the mid-1990s, workers became more disgruntled over inhumane treatment arising from cultural misunderstandings in Korean- and Taiwanese-owned firms. During the late 1990s, disputes over organizational factors leading to economic conditions such as pay held in arrears increased in Hong Kong and Taiwanese-owned firms. In Hong Kong-owned firms, institutional factors such as labor contract default and expiration also became an important element in labor disputes. In general, worker resistance strategies have taken the form of either strikes or collective petition. Such actions have not usually arisen out of the organized resistance but have been the result of spontaneous decisions made by local networks of workers or the work-floor section. A blending of case study insights and comparative analytic research should be undertaken to make a closer examination of the underlying crucial factors in labor disputes and everyday workplace resistance.
Suggested Citation
Young-Jin Choi, 2004.
"The Institutional, Organizational and Cultural Sources of Worker Resistance: East Asian-Invested Enterprises in China,"
International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 7(2), pages 41-61, September.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:intare:v:7:y:2004:i:2:p:41-61
DOI: 10.1177/223386590400700203
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:intare:v:7:y:2004:i:2:p:41-61. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.hufs.ac.kr/user/hufsenglish/re_1.jsp .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.