Bruno Amable

Last updated
Bruno Amable
Born (1961-12-15) 15 December 1961 (age 62)
France
Alma mater HEC Paris
OccupationProfessor at the University of Geneva

Bruno Amable (born 15 December 1961, in France) is a French economist and Professor at the University of Geneva. [1] Amable's research interests include political economy, comparative analysis of capitalism, and institutional economics. His research was awarded the first Best Young French Economist Award in 2000 (together with Agnès Bénassy-Quéré). [2]

Contents

He graduated from HEC Paris in 1984. [3]

Research

Bruno Amable's research centres on the different forms of capitalism, institutions and their influence on innovation and industry, leading to many publications on the nexus between globalization, industrial policy and technological progress. More recently, he has been studying labour markets and labour market policies as well as structural reforms in Europe. [1] In January 2019, he ranked among the top 2% of economists registered on IDEAS/RePEc in terms of number of published works (January 2019). [4]

Research on productivity growth, technology and innovation

In early work on productivity growth, Amable argues that countries require "social capabilities" to leverage their technological backwardness into catch-up growth, finding - contrary to most growth models - divergence between countries' productivity levels over 1960–85. [5] In later research, Amable further finds productivity growth to increase in inter-industry specialization and specialization in electronics. [6] In further research on the role of technology for economic development, Amable and Bart Verspagen find that technological advantage, as measured by patent counts and investment, significantly affects long-run price competitiveness. [7] With regard to innovation, in work co-authored with Rémi Barré and Robert Bayer, Amable makes the case for a richer perspective on innovation systems than the one provided by Keynesian, monetarist or Schumpeterian theories of innovation, as these fail to adequately account for the key roles of organization types, institutions, labour supply and attitudes and their mediation by globalization, claiming that mixed economies outperform both command and free market ones in terms of innovation and competitiveness. [8] Relatedly, he has also highlighted the role played by institutional complementarity and hierarchy for the co-existence of diverse social systems of innovation and production. [9] [10]

Research on capitalism and neoliberalism

This perspective - that economies may grow substantially and sustainably despite large differences in institutions - is also present in Amable's research on capitalism. Notably, in The Diversity of Capitalism, Amable explains how institutions - far from being irrelevant for economic development - may keep economies from converging towards a unique economic model. [11] He further offers a typology of capitalisms, distinguishing between (i) the neoliberal model, (ii) the continental European model, (iii) the social democrat model, (iv) the "Mediterranean" model" and (v) the Asian model of capitalism. Amable has been critical of political efforts to force countries to converge towards a single economic model (typically the neoliberal one), arguing that ongoing differences between developed countries in terms of financial systems, social protection, industrial relations, labour markets and education systems strongly suggest that a common economic system would be both inadequate and undesirable in the face of such diversity, and is bound to be opposed by populations. [12] In another study of capitalism, Amable argues that neo-liberal politics is driven by a moral imperative of competition, leading to a replacement of the "old" social contract of collective rights to social protection and redistribution by a new one based on reciprocity between the individual and society, with important implications for e.g. the emergence of the "modern" left. [13] More recently, taking a neorealist approach, Amable (with Stefano Palombarini) has theorized how types of institutional change and their timing may depend on the interplay between political strategies and demands for institutional change. [14]

Bibliography

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capitalism</span> Economic system based on private ownership

Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. The defining characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, price systems, private property, recognition of property rights, self-interest, economic freedom, meritocracy, work ethic, consumer sovereignty, economic efficiency, limited role of government, profit motive, a financial infrastructure of money and investment that makes possible credit and debt, entrepreneurship, commodification, voluntary exchange, wage labor, production of commodities and services, and a strong emphasis on innovation and economic growth. In a market economy, decision-making and investments are determined by owners of wealth, property, or ability to maneuver capital or production ability in capital and financial markets—whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Joseph Schumpeter</span> Austrian political economist (1883–1950)

Joseph Alois Schumpeter was an Austrian political economist. He served briefly as Finance Minister of Austria in 1919. In 1932, he emigrated to the United States to become a professor at Harvard University, where he remained until the end of his career, and in 1939 obtained American citizenship.

State capitalism is an economic system in which the state undertakes business and commercial economic activity and where the means of production are nationalized as state-owned enterprises. The definition can also include the state dominance of corporatized government agencies or of public companies in which the state has controlling shares.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Economic history</span>

Economic history is the study of history using methodological tools from economics or with a special attention to economic phenomena. Research is conducted using a combination of historical methods, statistical methods and the application of economic theory to historical situations and institutions. The field can encompass a wide variety of topics, including equality, finance, technology, labour, and business. It emphasizes historicizing the economy itself, analyzing it as a dynamic entity and attempting to provide insights into the way it is structured and conceived.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Market economy</span> Type of economic system

A market economy is an economic system in which the decisions regarding investment, production, and distribution to the consumers are guided by the price signals created by the forces of supply and demand. The major characteristic of a market economy is the existence of factor markets that play a dominant role in the allocation of capital and the factors of production.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Development economics</span> Economics of developing economies

Development economics is a branch of economics that deals with economic aspects of the development process in low- and middle- income countries. Its focus is not only on methods of promoting economic development, economic growth and structural change but also on improving the potential for the mass of the population, for example, through health, education and workplace conditions, whether through public or private channels.

The social market economy, also called Rhine capitalism, Rhine-Alpine capitalism, the Rhenish model, and social capitalism, is a socioeconomic model combining a free-market capitalist economic system alongside social policies and enough regulation to establish both fair competition within the market and generally a welfare state. It is sometimes classified as a regulated market economy. The social market economy was originally promoted and implemented in West Germany by the Christian Democratic Union under Chancellor Konrad Adenauer in 1949 and today it is used by ordoliberals, social liberals and modern (non-Marxist) social democrats alike. Its origins can be traced to the interwar Freiburg school of economic thought.

Democratic capitalism, also referred to as market democracy, is a political and economic system that integrates resource allocation by marginal productivity, with policies of resource allocation by social entitlement. The policies which characterise the system are enacted by democratic governments.

Eco-capitalism, also known as environmental capitalism or (sometimes) green capitalism, is the view that capital exists in nature as "natural capital" on which all wealth depends. Therefore, governments should use market-based policy-instruments to resolve environmental problems.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Economic system</span> System of ownership, production, and exchange

An economic system, or economic order, is a system of production, resource allocation and distribution of goods and services within a society. It includes the combination of the various institutions, agencies, entities, decision-making processes, and patterns of consumption that comprise the economic structure of a given community.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">German model</span>

The term German model is most often used in economics to describe post-World War II West Germany's means of using innovative industrial relations, vocational training, and closer relationships between the financial and industrial sectors to cultivate economic prosperity. The two key components of the German model is a national system for certifying industrial and artisan skills, as well as full union participation in the oversight of plant-based vocation training.

Post-capitalism is in part a hypothetical state in which the economic systems of the world can no longer be described as forms of capitalism. Various individuals and political ideologies have speculated on what would define such a world. According to classical Marxist and social evolutionary theories, post-capitalist societies may come about as a result of spontaneous evolution as capitalism becomes obsolete. Others propose models to intentionally replace capitalism, most notably socialism, communism, anarchism, nationalism and degrowth.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Regulation school</span> Group of writers in political economy

The regulation school is a group of writers in political economy and economics whose origins can be traced to France in the early 1970s, where economic instability and stagflation were rampant in the French economy. The term régulation was coined by Frenchman Destanne de Bernis, who aimed to use the approach as a systems theory to bring Marxian economic analysis up to date. These writers are influenced by structural Marxism, the Annales School, institutionalism, Karl Polanyi's substantivist approach, and theory of Charles Bettelheim, among others, and sought to present the emergence of new economic forms in terms of tensions within existing arrangements. Since they are interested in how historically specific systems of capital accumulation are "regularized" or stabilized, their approach is called the "regulation approach" or "regulation theory". Although this approach originated in Michel Aglietta's monograph A Theory of Capitalist Regulation: The US Experience and was popularized by other Parisians such as Robert Boyer, its membership goes well beyond the so-called Parisian School, extending to the Grenoble School, the German School, the Amsterdam School, British radical geographers, the US Social Structure of Accumulation School, and the neo-Gramscian school, among others.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Schools of economic thought</span> Group of economic thinkers who share or shared a common perspective on the way economies work

In the history of economic thought, a school of economic thought is a group of economic thinkers who share or shared a mutual perspective on the way economies function. While economists do not always fit within particular schools, particularly in the modern era, classifying economists into schools of thought is common. Economic thought may be roughly divided into three phases: premodern, early modern and modern. Systematic economic theory has been developed primarily since the beginning of what is termed the modern era.

Regulatory capitalism suggests that the operation maintenance and development of the international political economy increasingly depends on administrative rules outside the legislatures and the courts. In other words, it tells us that capitalism is a regulatory institution – one that is being constituted, shaped, constrained and expanded as a historically woven patchwork of regulatory institutions, strategies, and functions.

An economic ideology is a set of views forming the basis of an ideology on how the economy should run. It differentiates itself from economic theory in being normative rather than just explanatory in its approach, whereas the aim of economic theories is to create accurate explanatory models to describe how an economy currently functions. However, the two are closely interrelated, as underlying economic ideology influences the methodology and theory employed in analysis. The diverse ideology and methodology of the 74 Nobel laureates in economics speaks to such interrelation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Innovation economics</span> Economic theory

Innovation economics is new, and growing field of economic theory and applied/experimental economics that emphasizes innovation and entrepreneurship. It comprises both the application of any type of innovations, especially technological, but not only, into economic use. In classical economics this is the application of customer new technology into economic use; but also it could refer to the field of innovation and experimental economics that refers the new economic science developments that may be considered innovative. In his 1942 book Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, economist Joseph Schumpeter introduced the notion of an innovation economy. He argued that evolving institutions, entrepreneurs and technological changes were at the heart of economic growth. However, it is only in recent years that "innovation economy," grounded in Schumpeter's ideas, has become a mainstream concept".

<i>Varieties of Capitalism</i> Book by David Soskice and Peter A. Hall

Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage is a 2001 book on economics, political economy, and comparative politics edited by political economists Peter A. Hall and David Soskice. The book established an influential debate among political economists about ways to categorize, qualify and analyze different ways in which economies are organized.

Institutional complementarity refers to situations of interdependence among institutions. This concept is frequently used to explain the degree of institutional diversity that can be observed across and within socio-economic systems, and its consequences on economic performance. In particular, the concept of institutional complementarity has been used to illustrate why institutions are resistant to change and why introducing new institutions into a system often leads to unintended, sometimes suboptimal, consequences.

Progressive capitalism is an economic framework that seeks to recalibrate the roles of the market, state, and civil society to enhance societal well-being. This approach advocates for a new social contract that leverages market forces and entrepreneurship while addressing issues such as market dominance, inequality, and the consequences of globalization. Progressive capitalism emphasizes the need for government investment in technology, education, healthcare, and green infrastructure, alongside implementing public options for essential services.

References

  1. 1 2 Profile of Bruno Amable on the website of the University of Geneva. Retrieved January 21st, 2019.
  2. Cercle des économistes (May 20th, 2000). Prix du Meilleur Jeune Économiste 2000. Retrieved January 21st, 2019.
  3. Bruno Amable
  4. Ranking of economists registered on IDEAS/RePEc by number of works. Retrieved January 21st, 2019.
  5. Amable, Bruno (January 1, 1993). "Catch-up and convergence: a model of cumulative growth". International Review of Applied Economics. 7 (1): 1–25. doi:10.1080/758528250 via Taylor and Francis+NEJM.
  6. Amable, Bruno (December 1, 2000). "International specialisation and growth". Structural Change and Economic Dynamics. 11 (4): 413–431. doi:10.1016/S0954-349X(00)00026-6 via ScienceDirect.
  7. Amable, Bruno; Verspagen, Bart (February 1, 1995). "The role of technology in market shares dynamics". Applied Economics. 27 (2): 197–204. doi:10.1080/00036849500000024 via Taylor and Francis+NEJM.
  8. [Amable, B., Barré, R., Boyer, R. (1997). Les systèmes d'innovation à l'ère de la globalisation. Paris: Economica.]
  9. Amable, Bruno (January 1, 2000). "Institutional complementarity and diversity of social systems of innovation and production". Review of International Political Economy. 7 (4): 645–687. doi:10.1080/096922900750034572. hdl: 10419/44076 . S2CID   18555007 via Taylor and Francis+NEJM.
  10. Crouch, Colin; Streeck, Wolfgang; Boyer, Robert; Amable, Bruno; Hall, Peter A.; Jackson, Gregory (May 1, 2005). "Dialogue on 'Institutional complementarity and political economy'". Socio-Economic Review. 3 (2): 359–382. doi:10.1093/SER/mwi015. hdl: 11858/00-001M-0000-0012-4EAA-0 via Silverchair.
  11. Amable, B. (2003). The Diversity of Modern Capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  12. Amable, B. (2005). Les cinq capitalismes. Diversité des systèmes économiques et sociaux dans la mondialisation. Paris: Éditions Seuil.
  13. Amable, Bruno (January 1, 2011). "Morals and politics in the ideology of neo-liberalism". Socio-Economic Review. 9 (1): 3–30. doi:10.1093/ser/mwq015. hdl: 11858/00-001M-0000-0012-3F50-F via Silverchair.
  14. Amable, Bruno; Palombarini, Stefano (January 1, 2009). "A neorealist approach to institutional change and the diversity of capitalism". Socio-Economic Review. 7 (1): 123–143. doi: 10.1093/ser/mwn018 via Silverchair.