The Layering of Meso‐Level Institutional Effects on Employment Systems in Japan
The Layering of Meso‐Level Institutional Effects on Employment Systems in Japan
复制标题
日本就业制度的中观层次制度效应
DOI：
10.1111/bjir.12296
复制
发表时间：
2018
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
Takahiro Endo
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jonathan Morris;Rick Delbridge;Takahiro Endo
日本的公司治理和雇佣关系制度一直面临着巨大的压力，要求其进行改革，向更接近英美模式的方向发展，而这与全球竞争加剧和“失去的”20年经济增长缓慢的背景背道而驰。但是，这些制度之间的关系是什么，具体来说，公司治理结构如何影响雇佣关系的实践？本文采用“系统、社会、支配地位和企业效应”框架，以分析和评估这些压力的结果，特别是在2007-2008年全球金融危机之后的时期。它报告了来自日本经济各个部门的案例研究数据，这些数据来自一系列基于公司的访谈和各种二手资料。有人认为，某些雇用做法，如终身雇用，即使在相对较新的高科技公司，也有很强的连续性，但其他做法的模式，如基于资历的工资，随着行业和个别组织之间的差异越来越大，情况更加复杂。我们阐述了不同的SSDC在日本企业中发挥作用的影响的分层评估。这种跨行业和跨组织的差异化既是战略选择（企业效应）的函数，也是在组织层面经历的中观层面制度压力的日益变化的函数;也就是说，相关的支配效应的来源和性质的差异化。
Japan's corporate governance and employment relations systems have been under considerable pressures to reform towards a more Anglo‐American model, against a back‐drop of intensified global competition and slow economic growth over two ‘lost’ decades. But what is the relationship between these systems, and specifically, how does corporate governance structure condition employment relations practice? This paper adopts the ‘Systems, Society, Dominance and Corporate (SSDC) effects’ framework in order to contextualize and evaluate the outcomes of these pressures, particularly in the period following the 2007–2008 global financial crisis. It reports case study data from various parts of the Japanese economy drawn from a series of firm‐based interviews and a variety of secondary sources. It is argued that there has been a strong degree of continuity in certain employment practices, such as lifetime employment, even in relatively new high technology firms, but that the pattern for other practices, such as seniority‐based pay, is more mixed with increasing differentiation between industries and individual organizations. We articulate a layered assessment of the varying SSDC effects at play in corporate Japan. This differentiation across industries and organizations is a function both of strategic choice (corporate effects) and also the increasing variation in the meso‐level institutional pressures that are experienced at organizational level; that is, the differentiation in the sources and nature of dominance effects that are relevant.