1Ethics, Business and Capitalism. Thailand and Indonesia in an Asian Perspective, edited by Janet Hunter, Patnaree Srisuphaolarn, Pierre van der Eng and Julia S. Yongue, examines the contemporary social dynamics of private firms in those two countries. Its 12 chapters focus on the ethical representations and values that shape entrepreneurship in that specific setting. The representations and values that are the heart of the matter are subject to outside influences and caught up in historical processes peculiar to each country.

2The introduction (Chapter 1) draws on theoretical and empirical considerations to question what is for some a universal economic model of shareholder capitalism in which the sole objective of private enterprise is the owner’s individual profit. The book defends a different perspective and encompasses moral considerations, the balance between individual and collective interests, corporate social responsibility and interconnections with the country’s all-round development. In their different ways, the subsequent chapters characterize local actor strategies and emphasize the dimensions that impart a specific social meaning to family business outside of any individual profit rationale. Chapter 2 aside, the book eschews comparative analyses of the two countries. It unpacks the interference patterns formed from the diverse perspectives and identifies specific business trajectories. The first part of this review identifies the most prominent of these perspectives that fall into two “families” cross-cutting a number of chapters. The second part initiates a critical review of the book and raises a number of queries.

3Family and ethnicity. The private business model studied by the authors is family-based. Families are sometimes incarnated in one central figure. He or she is behind the founding myth: the young man who sets about the toughest jobs within the family business (Chapter 8). While splits of varying extent occur, he makes wise strategic choices and steadily builds an “empire.” The “powder shampoo” imported from Japan gradually becomes a part of the success story that it initiated. Generally the “hero” entrepreneur is held in high esteem and the family saga told in (auto)biographies (Chapter 10). While the family may not actually be embodied by one member, it is perceived as a single entity. Family members occupy key positions and this form of nepotism forms solid bonds based on trust. However, the attribution of management positions based on family ties does not necessarily ensure efficiency. The author of Chapter 7 claims that giving precedence to membership of the clan rather than managerial skill impedes firms’ development. The book emphasizes family dynamics but does not disregard ties of other kinds. Being part of an ethnic group is not without its significance for entrepreneurs (Chapters 5 and 8).

4The organizational structure of the private businesses under study often depends on family bonds and an ethnic history (real or imaginary) that is necessary for building trust. The “profit motive” does not explain all the choices made, and both these aspects structure relations within the business and shape Thai and Indonesian business models.

5Philosophy and philanthropy. The term “philosophy” seems to reflect a vision of the corporate role, for some entrepreneurs, and makes reference to the business’s purposes. The business owner’s individual profit does not come first in the hierarchical order. The individuals taken as examples in the book view the firm as a productive organization in the service of a broader project. That project may be reliant on a national strategy (Chapter 2), and the fate of the business, which contributes to growth, is tied to the fate of other agents. Several of the authors see the place and role of the firm as originating to some extent in Shibusawa’s thinking. He does not draw any dividing line between the firm and society but views the firm as a part of a whole. Healthy businesses are a pre-condition for a thriving society and vice-versa. This “philosophy” relates to interdependence and firms must produce goods or services so as to make profits, to offer a coherent project to those who make the firm what it is (workers) and to compensate investors fairly. It is an outlook that contributes to and forms part of the nation’s development process. Thai (Chapter 2) and Indonesian (Chapter 4) business leaders draw on Shibusawa’s intellectual legacy which shapes a “noble” image of the firm. Business leaders take the view that their firms have a responsibility for their workers. Their ethical outlook is tightly bound up with philanthropic values (Chapter 10) and highlights corporate social responsibility (Chapter 9). When public institutions fail or fall short in providing social welfare, healthcare or education for their employees or their children, the organizations that employ them have to step up. Alongside various types of corporate social responsibility, technical innovation also contributes to the process of differentiating among economic models. The organization of production has changed substantially in Thailand. The contribution of agriculture to its GDP has declined and the industrial model is being constantly refashioned (Chapter 6). The pattern of change depends on a set of factors (extra-national networks, Thai public policy, R&D choices) in a socially situated combination that shapes the way forward for Thailand.

6Chapter 11 offers some thinking that stands somewhat apart in the book. It adopts a level of theoretical abstraction that in some instances is at something of a remove from observation of fact, and shows that opting for self-sufficiency as opposed to producing for the “market” can be a sensible choice. The author contrasts free-market capitalism and a model in which households provide their own foodstuffs. It is argued that the economic relations in the self-sufficiency model overcome the insecurity of market relations, limit poverty and strengthen certain social bonds. The claim is based on assumptions supported by the Thai agricultural sector.

*

7The various chapters of Ethics, Business and Capitalism. Thailand and Indonesia in an Asian Perspective draw on a range of trajectories and provide useful material for examining the broad diversity of economic dynamics. They provide food for thought about the multiple business models in Thailand and Indonesia and further afield. The apocryphal universality of instrumental rationality is largely contested and emphasis laid on historically and socially situated forms of rationality. Agents’ calculations are determined by a skein of relations, values and representations that are idiosyncratic as regards their “material” and the way they are combined. The authors’ economic analyses make much of the diversity of national trajectories or firms’ trajectories. This part of the book is well documented and most interesting. However, the conceptual tools wielded by the different authors leave the reader wondering at times about the book’s theoretical coherence. While the introduction (Chapter 1) sets out a theoretical framework for delimiting the analysis, it remains loose and the ensuing chapters fail to address this shortcoming. The multiple meanings of concepts are sometimes confusing while the levels of abstraction are sometimes inadequately demarcated, restricting the book’s analytical scope.

8A form of polysemy. The term “capitalism” is prominent in the book’s title and might be expected to be central to it. And yet the concept goes undefined despite being associated in places with other terms such as “free market capitalism” or “shareholder capitalism.” It seemingly constitutes a multifarious whole within which private firms operate. And yet capitalism does not necessarily rest upon private ownership of the factors of production and this politico-economic model has a “total” dimension. The use of the term raises questions because it fails to delimit the object of study. Is there more than one form of capitalism? What exactly is under study?

9This conceptual polysemy is reflected in the bibliography. Little use is made of the plentiful literature on capitalism. The many descriptions of capitalism fail to identify any convergence towards a canonical model. Capitalism comes in many shapes and sizes and follows many ever-changing national trajectories (cf. French Regulation Theory). Publications on capitalism would certainly have helped the authors to identify specific mechanisms for furthering their analyses. For instance, including ethics within the dynamics of capitalism would showcase its importance. Capitalism rests upon a fundamental asymmetry between workers, who sell their time and their skills at a price (wages), and the owners of the capital to which labour imparts value. Ethics—a “good” boss who does things for workers; individual merit; the owner’s position; etc. all shape behaviour and render acceptable the asymmetry that underpins inequality. Ethics produces representations that are required for inequality to be acceptable and for the asymmetric model to thrive. Conceptual fuzziness precludes the clear identification of the strength of these ties in that the authors very often situate capitalism and private enterprise on the same level of abstraction. However, these two concepts cast light on different phenomena and cannot be conflated in academic work. Most of the chapters focus on managerial techniques, the firm and the entrepreneur, but this bias is not actually stated. As with the concept of capitalism, these aspects are insufficiently theorised and this is a shortcoming in an area where there is plethoric literature. That literature would certainly have provided a well-ordered and fertile framework.

10These two levels of conceptual imprecision reflect the largely assumed and barely formalized influence of economics. The reader sometimes wonders whether neoclassical theory, which seems implicit, is not assimilated to observable phenomena and whether its principles are not conflated with economic policy recommendations. Admittedly, the principles in question sometimes provide the theoretical underpinning for policies in support of free movement and competition (the supposedly positive effects of which are pervasive in political thinking). Conversely, in analytical terms, the two levels at issue cannot be conflated. Neoclassical theory is grounded on abstract, universal and normative principles whereby the self-regulating market allocates the means of production efficiently. The theoretical principles in question are not “naturally” occurring in the societies under study. When they are to be found, the phenomena of competition, free movement and price formation remain institutional constructions in the service of selected social groups. It remains to be shown that they are guarantees of economic efficiency. Some of the chapters fail to situate neoclassical principles within their framework of ideas and to set them sufficiently apart from observable evidence.

11The book’s theoretical framework could be tighter to avoid a sort of continuum of capitalism, private enterprise, neoclassical theory and neoliberal policy. It fails to make adequate distinctions among these concepts and deals monolithically with separate levels of analysis. This conceptual plasticity has several academic consequences. First, it can influence research findings. Could Chapter 11 possibly reach the same conclusions if “free market capitalism” were clearly defined? If so, it seems important to show that a “free market” and “capitalism” lead to a theoretically adequate proposal for the analysis of Thailand’s agricultural economy. If not, it is difficult to come to grips with self-sufficiency as an alternative. Is it an alternative to a form of capitalism, or to the influence of neoliberal policy? Second, the conceptual fuzziness papers over gaps in the thinking about private enterprise that forms the book’s subject matter. Third, the book sometimes gives a positive impression of the entrepreneurial model. It seems to be looked upon favourably. The systems of domination (rendered acceptable by ethics) are not truly unpacked and corporate social responsibility is not discussed as a strategy to ensure business owners’ profits. This last observation has a bearing on the term “philosophy.” Is it actually a philosophy or is it merely the entrepreneur’s vision of the firm. The dividing line between philosophy and vision can be thin but I fail to understand why the term ‘philosophy’ is used uncritically in an academic work.

12These observations in no way detract from the empirical part of the book. The factual information on businesses in Thailand and Indonesia is of great value. My only regret is that the book purports to be a work on capitalism although the concept itself is not made the foundation for its different enquiries. The same observation holds for private enterprise.