Are American Corporations Unquestionably Superior to German Firms? A Comparative Analysis

Essay instructions:

‘American corporations are unquestionably superior to German firms.’ Discuss.

1. Students are required to produce an essay, that is an argumentative piece of work based on comparative evidence (facts) and reasons (positions, opinions, arguments, etc). This is NOT a report.

2. In sum, the essay requires students to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the module material i.e., essential reading

EXAMINING A KEY COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT DEBATE

Topic for the essay: ‘American corporations are unquestionably superior to German firms.’ Discuss.

You need to produce an essay in which, (answering the ‘what?’ question), examine the main institutional factors that explain such differences (answering the ‘why?’ question), and discuss their broader implications (answering the ‘so what?’ question).

A typical structure will look something like this:

1. Introduction to the debate (200 words)

2. Summary of Similarities and Differences i.e., answer to the ‘what?’ question (400 words)

3. Explanation of Similarities and Differences i.e., answer to the ‘why?’ question (800 words)

4. Discussion of Similarities and Differences i.e., answer to the ‘so what?’ question (400 words)

5. Conclusion (200 words)

Your essay must show evidence of knowledge and understanding of conceptual and empirical material covered in the module, as well as of essential reading.

Please note that the essential reading represents the necessary minimum to pass this assignment. You are expected to go beyond this and conduct your own research in addition to, and not instead of, the essential reading for your topic.

What do the ‘what’, ‘why’ and ‘so what’ questions mean?

These questions can be used for various purposes. They differ in the manner that they are used and what type of answers they are seeking. For the purposes of this assignment, this is what we mean:

The what question is used to request specific information about key aspects of your topic. If you are writing, for example, about corporate governance, then you would probably answer the what question by systematically analysing the main similarities and differences (i.e., ‘comparing’) of the shareholder and stakeholder models.

The why question is used to ask for an explanation about something. It is a question

concerning the cause or reason for something. It is more of an authoritative question. Continuing with the above example, in order to answer the why question, you’d probably try to establish the cause/reason countries operate within different models of corporate governance by ‘zooming out’ and looking at corporate governance as just one institutional element of broader types of capitalism: liberal and coordinated market economies.

The so-what? question is, essentially, a hypothetical question that a reader will ask if they can see why your argument is important. For this reason, all good essays ought to explicitly address the issue of their significance. How do you answer the so what question? You need to state, and make your argument, and then you need to tell your readers why that argument needs to be made. So, using the same example again. After you have analysed different models of corporate governance, and explained why different countries operate within different models, you need to take your essay

forward by, for example, arguing that countries operating under the shareholder model may learn a great deal from the stakeholder model, or anything else that you consider significant, provided that you state your argument/opinion and support it with evidence and reasons.

The following was also the answer from my lecturer to the students: 

3. For American corporations are unquestionably superior to German firms can

the comparative discussion be focused solely on the Corporate Governance aspect?

You may. Two observations though. First, as a general rule, the fewer the aspects, the better the argument needs to be in order to be convincing. It can be done but can be challenging. Second, in tackling this question, my advice is also to look into our discussion of different views of the capitalist firm i.e., the property view of the firm (LMEs/Anglo-Saxon), vs the community view (CMEs) in its two variants: the co-determined firm& (Germany) and the;employee-fauvoring firm; (Japan).

reading by Dore is essential:

Dore, R. (2006) Stock Market Capitalism, Welfare Capitalism. Japan and Germany versus the

Anglo-Saxons, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapter 4: Corporate Governance: From the

employee-favouring firm to the shareholder-favouring firm (pp. 71-132).

List of references that you MUST use.

Albert, M. (1993) Capitalism vs. Capitalism, New York: Four Wall Eight Windows. Chapter 6: The Other Capitalism, pp. 99-126 & Chapter 7: The Economic Superiority of the Rhine Model, pp. 127-146.

Can We Do It Ourselves? (Sweden, 2015) http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/can-we-do-it-ourselves/

Chang, H-O (2009) 23 Things they don’t tell you about capitalism. London: Penguin.

Dore, R. (2006) Stock Market Capitalism, Welfare Capitalism. Japan and Germany versus the Anglo-Saxons, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapter 2: A Society of Long-Term Commitments (pp. 23-48), Chapter 9: The Co-determined Firm (pp. 182-206), & Chapter 10: The Organised Community (pp. 207-215).

Koen, C. I. (2005) Comparative International Management, London: McGraw-Hill.

Sorge, A., Noorderhaven, N., and Koen, C. (2015) Comparative International Management. Second Edition. Abingdon: Routledge.

The Corporation (Canada, 2005)

Recommended films:

The Corporation (2003)

Can We Do It Ourselves? (2015)

The New Corporation (2022)

Dirty Money (USA, 2018) Series 1. Episode 1: Hard NOx. Not currently available. On VW Scandal read book ***

Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room (2005)

Bigger than Enron (USA, 2002)

Essay Assessment criteria

Markers will assess essays by evaluating the quality of each required section and criteria:

What? (Analysis) (20%): The quality of the essay’s analysis, or examination of its subject matter. Indicates knowledge and understanding of conceptual and empirical (comparative) material / debates and positions.

Why? (Explanation) (40%): The quality of the essays’ explanation, or account of its subject matter. Indicates knowledge and understanding of theoretical material to account for outcomes.

So what? (Critical discussion) (20%): The quality of the essay’s interpretation, or opinion on the meaning of its argument/subject matter. Indicating critical thinking; independent thought; reflection; insight.

Referencing (10%): The standard of referencing.

Presentation (10%): The quality of the essay’s structure, writing, and presentation.

Using the following ranges:

First Class Honours (70+): Excellent

Upper Second Class Honours (60-68): Good

Lower Second Class Honours (50-58): Competent

Third Class Honours (40-48): Satisfactory

Fail (30-38): Unsatisfactory

Bad Fail (-28): Poor

Thus:

	-28	30-38	40-48	50-58	60-68	70+
What? (20%)
Why? (40%)
So what? (20%)
Reading (5%)
Referencing (5%)
Presentation (10%)

General Module Assessment Criteria

Students are expected to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of module material including:

Knowledge and understanding of key terms, models and approaches to the study of comparative international management	x
Knowledge and understanding of key similarities and differences between countries, regions and models.	x

As well as an ability to:

Undertake basic research on comparative international management	x
Analyse similarities and differences in the institutional context in which management and organisation take place across countries, regions and models.	x
Explain similarities and differences in the institutional context in which management and organisation take place across countries, regions and models.	x
Critically evaluate similarities and differences in the institutional context in which management and organisation take place across countries, regions and models.	x

Assessment General Threshold Criteria

The descriptions below are indicative of what is needed to merit a mark at Level 6:

Percentage	General Criteria
80-100Outstanding	An outstanding piece of work: All assessment criteria have been met at an exceptionally high standard.Demonstrates exceptional independent thought and reflection in relation to complex ideas and concepts. Provides creative analysis of techniques/knowledge. Critically analyses information sources, techniques and approaches to analysis. Demonstrates extensive research across a range of sources. Communicates ideas and complexity with confidence, using appropriate format and excellent presentation.
70-79Excellent	An excellent piece of work: All assessment criteria have been met at a high standard.Takes a confident approach to critical analysis/reflection across a range of techniques/knowledge. Shows in-depth understanding of ideas and concepts. Demonstrates insightful/independent contextualisation and implications of theories/practices. Synthesises independent research across a range of authoritative sources. Communicates with clarity using appropriate format and excellent presentation
60-69Good	A good piece of work: All assessment criteria have been met at a good standard.Demonstrates systematic understanding across a range of techniques/knowledge in specialised area. Demonstrates confident analysis/reflection on key concepts/frameworks.Explores relationship of theories/practices within the wider context. Provides additional independent research across a range of authoritative sources. Communicates clearly, using appropriate format and with sound presentation.
50-59Competent	A sound piece of work: All assessment criteria have clearly been met.Demonstrates clear understanding of techniques/knowledge in specialised area. Demonstrates some independent synthesis and reflective analysis across key concepts/ frameworks. Provides evidence of research across a range of resources provided within the module. Communicates using appropriate format with satisfactory presentation.
40-49FAILInadequate	FAIL: An adequate piece of work: All assessment criteria have just been met. Demonstrates descriptive understanding of techniques/knowledge.Provides limited evaluation of ideas and concepts. Undertakes minimal research within module content. Communicates work using appropriate format with some weaknesses of presentation.
30-39FAILPoor	FAIL: An inadequate piece of work: One or more relevant assessment criteria are not metApplies techniques/knowledge with limited with some weaknesses/omissions. Demonstrates inadequate knowledge of key concepts and principles. Uses a minimal amount of relevant information from within the module. Communication is unclear with poor standard of presentation.
0-29	FAIL: A poor piece of work: Most of the relevant assessment criteria area not been met.Applies techniques/knowledge with significant weaknesses and omissions. Demonstrates major inaccuracies and/or misunderstandings flaws of key concepts and principles. Uses inadequate information sources from within the module. Communication is unclear with poor standard of presentation.