“확고한 도덕적 의무”? 포스트 식민시대 동남아시아에서의 영국기업
“A Certain Moral Obligation”? British Firms in Post-Colonial Southeast Asia
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Immediately after the end of the World War II, British Firms in Southeast Asia were confronted by unprecedented challenges posed by war destruction, political and economic instability, and the presence of nationalist movements across the region, over which the British government hardly had any control. The British governments and firms with business interests in the region worked together to overcome post-war problems. However, despite the fact that there was a symbiosis of interest in the interactions between them, there were limitations as to how far that this could go and the firms were often left alone to deal with problems. In such circumstances, if the firms were determined to survive, they had to adapt to new situation. This paper aims at exploring firms’ own strategy for survival, often in the absence of assistance from the central governments. The findings suggest that the British firms needed flexibility to continue their business, thus pursued the localization of management. They also diversified the range of business operations and widened the sphere of investment. Underlying these efforts was a belief that their contribution to the region’s economy would also help get them through the post-war difficulties. In spite of the efforts made by the Southeast Asian governments to diversify their economies away from concentration on the extractive industries, the significance of these industries in the Southeast Asian economies remained throughout 1950s and 1960s and even beyond, and so did the foreign influence in these economies. British firms had the relative advantage of being the traditional commercial power in the region, but nevertheless much depended on the goodwill of the newly independent countries.
Abstract
Immediately after the end of the World War II, British Firms in Southeast Asia were confronted by unprecedented challenges posed by war destruction, political and economic instability, and the presence of nationalist movements across the region, over which the British government hardly had any control. The British governments and firms with business interests in the region worked together to overcome post-war problems. However, despite the fact that there was a symbiosis of interest in the interactions between them, there were limitations as to how far that this could go and the firms were often left alone to deal with problems. In such circumstances, if the firms were determined to survive, they had to adapt to new situation. This paper aims at exploring firms’ own strategy for survival, often in the absence of assistance from the central governments. The findings suggest that the British firms needed flexibility to continue their business, thus pursued the localization of management. They also diversified the range of business operations and widened the sphere of investment. Underlying these efforts was a belief that their contribution to the region’s economy would also help get them through the post-war difficulties. In spite of the efforts made by the Southeast Asian governments to diversify their economies away from concentration on the extractive industries, the significance of these industries in the Southeast Asian economies remained throughout 1950s and 1960s and even beyond, and so did the foreign influence in these economies. British firms had the relative advantage of being the traditional commercial power in the region, but nevertheless much depended on the goodwill of the newly independent countries.
참고문헌 (49)
- Pluvier, "South-East Asia", 43~
- M.C. Ricklefs, "A History of Modern Indonesia: c. 1300 to the Present", 144~145 (1981)
- G.C. Allen, "Western Enterprise in Indonesia and Malaya; A Study in Economic Development", 31~32 (1954)
- J.A.M. Caldwell, "‘Indonesian Export and Production from the Decline of the Culture System to the First World War’ in The Economic Development of South-East Asia: Studies in Economic History and Political Economy", pp.88~89 (1964)
- C. Gamba, "Table 21 Rubber Estates Malaya: Nationality of Ownership 1952 in The Origins of Trade Unionism in Malaya: A Study in Colonial Labour Unrest", 257~ (1962)
- C. Gamba, "The National Union of Plantation Workers: The History of the Plantation Workers of Malaya, 1946-58", 33~ (1962)
- Pugh, "Harrisons & Crosfield", 76~
- M.R. Stenson, "Industrial Conflict in Malaya: Prelude to the Communist Revolt of 1948" (1970), Kuala Lumpur
- Y.J. Jung, "A natural harmony? Government, Business and British Interests in Southeast Asia 1945-1951", 박사, pp.2002
- King, "Volume IV of the History of the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation", 95~
- "PRO FO 371 63554 F3521", 3521, pp.1947, ~
- "PRO FO 371 46545 F4298", G Policy towards Siam by Far Eastern Committee, 1945[DOI]
- Ricklefs, "Modern Indonesia", 220~
- "PRO FO 371 92494 FH1151", 22 The 38th Annual General Meeting of AsAhan Rubber Estates, 1951, ~
- "The Times", ~ (1951), 8 Feb
- "PRO FO 371 92494 FH1151", 20 British Embassy, 1951[DOI]
- "PRO FO 371 92495 FH1151", 47 Parliamentary Under-Secretary, to Geoffrey Wilson, House of Commons, 1951[DOI]
- "PRO FO 92494 FH1151", 30 Royal Norwegian Consulate General, 1951[DOI]
- "PRO FO 92495 FH1151", 38 E. Davies, Parliamentary Under-Secretary, to P.G.T, 1951[DOI]
- Ricklefs, "Modern Indonesia", 226~
- Fieldhouse, "Unilever Overseas", 286~
- Ricklefs, "Modern Indonesia", 233~
- Longhurst, "The Borneo Story", 112~113
- Pugh, "Harrisons & Crosfield", 106~
- M. Wilkins, "‘The History of European Multinationals: A New Look’", The Journal of European Economic History, 15, pp.497~498 (1986)
- C.R. Attlee, "As It Happened", 176~
- Allen, "Western Enterprise", 129~
- C. Wilson, "Unilever 1945-1965 Challenge and Response in the Post-War Industrial Revolution", 243~ (1968)
- Fieldhouse, "Unilever Overseas", 191~192
- M. Kidron, "Foreign Investments in India", 5~ (1965)
- H. Hill, "Foreign Investment and Industrialisation in Indonesia", 4~ (1988)
- Fieldhouse, "Unilever Overseas", 296~299
- P.P. Courtenay, "A Geography of Trade and Development in Malaya", 142~ (1972)
- M. Rudner, "‘The Draft Development Plan of the Federation of Malaya 1950-1955’", Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 3, pp.67~ (1972)
- Woodcock, "The British in the Far East", 241~
- Drabble, "‘The British Agency Houses’", 304~306
- Pugh, "Harrisons & Crosfield", 76~
- R. Rajah, "Foreign Capital and Industrialization in Malaysia", ~ (1995)
- "PRO DO 35 9900 letter from G.W. Tory, to D.W.S. Hunt, Commonwealth Relations Office", ~ (1959), 27 Aug.
- "The Financial Times", ~ (1949), 16 Aug.
- "PRO DO 35 9863 Commonwealth Relations Office C.R.O. Ref: MAL80", 1 Federation of Malaya: The Economy, UK High Commissioner for the Federation of Malaya to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, 1959[DOI]
- D.W. Fryer, "Emerging Southeast Asia; A Study in Growth and Stagnation", 283~ (1970)
- MRC, "MSS.292", 959.1, pp.1955[DOI]
- MRC, "200", F, D3, pp.6, 75 Federation of British Industries (Kipping File) D[DOI]
- MRC, "MSS.292", 959.1, ~
- Lee Kam Hing, "‘Malaya: New State and Old Elites’ in Asia-the Winning of Independence", 234~ (1981)
- MRC, "MSS. 200", F, D3, pp.6, 75 Federation of British Industries (Kipping File) D[DOI]
- Davenport-Hines, "British Business in Asia", 7~