Varieties of Capitalism

Last updated

Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage
Varieties of Capitalism.jpg
EditorsPeter Hall, David Soskice
CountryUnited Kingdom
LanguageEnglish
Subject Capitalism, Institutional economics, Comparative economic systems, Comparative advantage
Publisher Oxford University Press
Publication date
2001
Pages540 pp (first edition)
ISBN 0-19-924774-9
330.12/2
LC Class HB501 .V355 2001

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. [1] [2] The book established an influential debate among political economists about ways to categorize, qualify and analyze different ways in which economies are organized. [3]

Contents

Contents

Varieties of Capitalism includes an introductory chapter by Hall and Soskice, as well as further chapters by Kathleen Thelen, Robert J. Franzese, Jr., Margarita Estevez‐Abe, Torben Iversen, Soskice, Isabela Mares, Orfeo Fioretos, Stewart Wood, Pepper D. Culpepper, Robert C. Hancké, Sigurt Vitols, Mark Lehrer, Steven Casper, Gunther Teubner, and Jay Tate.

In their introductory chapter, "An Introduction to Varieties of Capitalism", Hall and Soskice set out two distinct types of market economy that implement capitalism: liberal market economies (LME) (e.g. US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland) and coordinated market economies (CME) (e.g. Germany, France, Japan, Sweden, Austria).

Those two types can be distinguished by the primary way in which firms coordinate with each other and other actors, such as trade unions. In LMEs, firms primarily coordinate their endeavours by way of hierarchies and market mechanisms. Coordinated market economies rely more heavily on non-market forms of interaction in the coordination of their relationships with other actors. The authors considered five spheres in which firms must develop relationships with others:

Varieties of Capitalism offers a new framework for understanding the institutional similarities among and differences between the developed economies, since national political economies can be compared based on the way in which firms resolve the coordination problems they face in these five spheres. The two models (CMEs and LMEs) are considered ‘ideal types’ at the pole ends of a spectrum, along which many nations can be arrayed; i.e. even within these two types, there may be significant variations in national political economies. [4] For instance, by categorizing the different OECD countries into LMEs and CMEs, Hall and Soskice identify another type - ‘Mediterranean capitalism’ (e.g. France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Turkey). Mediterranean capitalist political economies are said to have market arrangements in labour relations but non-market coordination in capital procurement as a result of a large agrarian sector and extensive state interventions in recent history. [5] Extending the scope of Hall and Soskice's framework to countries outside Western Europe and the US, other authors have developed different varieties of capitalism, such as dependent market economies, [6] and hierarchical market economies. [7]

According to the book, institutions are shaped not only by the legal system, but by informal rules or common knowledge acquired by actors through history and culture of one nation. Institutional complementarities suggest that nations with a particular type of institution then develop complementary institutions in other spheres. (For example: countries with stock market liberalization have less labour protection, and vice versa.) Firms of liberal and coordinated market economies respond very differently to a similar shock (an economic cycle), and institutions are socializing(?) agencies, and go through a continuous processes of adaptation.

Institutional arrangements of a nation's political economy tend to push its companies toward particular kinds of corporate strategy. Thus, the two types of economy have different capacities for innovation, and tend to distribute income and employment differently.

CriteriaLiberal market economyCoordinated market economy
MechanismCompetitive market arrangementsNon-market relations
EquilibriumDemand-supply and hierarchyStrategic interaction among firms and other actors
Inter-firm relationsCompetitiveCollaborative
Mode of productionDirect product competitionDifferentiated, niche production
Legal systemComplete and formal contractingIncomplete and informal contracting
Institutions' functionCompetitiveness
Freer movement of inputs
Monitoring
Sanctioning of defectors
Employment conditionsFull-time, general skill
Short-term, fluid
Shorter hours, specific skill
Long-term, immobile
Wage bargainFirm level (when hiring)Industry level (industrial action)
Training and educationFormal education from high schools and collegesApprenticeship imparting industry-specific skills
Unionization rateLowHigh
Income distributionUnequal (high Gini)Equal (low Gini)
InnovationRadicalIncremental
Comparative advantagesHigh-tech and serviceManufacturing
PoliciesDeregulation, anti-trust, tax-breakEncourages information sharing and collaboration of firms

Examples of LMEs are the US and the UK, while Scandinavian countries are typically of CMEs. Germany was often described as an CME, but following the Hartz reforms, this viewpoint has become highly contestable.

Reception

British Labour Party politician, Ed Miliband, was heavily influenced by Varieties of Capitalism during his time as Leader of the Opposition. [8] Miliband campaigned to become Prime Minister with the vision of transforming the British economy from the Liberal Market Economy it currently is to a Coordinated Market Economy - which he believed would be more equitable but retain economic competitiveness. [9] David Soskice disagreed arguing that "to be successful... you need to show that you're a party which understands what are the sectors" that deliver more university-driven growth, [10] whereas Colin Crouch was more sympathetic to Miliband's vision, stating that "it is possible for human beings... to try [and change the UK's type of capitalism]". [11]

Colin Crouch criticizes the deterministic nature of Varieties of Capitalism where “actors seem to exist in an iron cage of institutions, which they cannot change”. Crouch argues that “institutional entrepreneurs” frequently adjust the institutional framework which is viewed as stable in Varieties of Capitalism, citing examples such as Silicon Valley and Thatcherism. [12] Authors observe that many of the CMEs have been unstable since the 1990s and subject to institutional change and policy drift, including the archetypal Germany. [13] [14]

Varieties of Capitalism has been criticized for its claim that economies perform best economically when exhibiting institutional frameworks that are ideal-types of CMEs and LMEs. This claim was developed further by Peter Hall and Daniel Gingerich who claim to find higher levels of economic growth in countries with institutions which match each other in terms of being CME or LME-types. [15] Mark Blyth responds to this implicit explanation of the Eurosclerosis found in Southern European states, with their mixed institutions, by arguing that many of those countries have not actually underperformed the US and that unemployment metrics are not cross-comparable when considering the US’s mass incarceration. [16] Mark Taylor has questioned Soskice and Hall’s claim that ideal-types of CMEs and LMEs show innovative specialization in different subject areas. The empirical results in Soskice and Hall’s book are driven by a major outlier in innovation output – the US – with other LMEs not showing any distinct innovation patterns from CMEs or intermediate countries. [17] Other research provides more mixed support for the central thesis of the Varieties of Capitalism approach, highlighting how some sectors in different countries conform to expectations, while others do not. [18] The approach continues to influence important work in the area of socio-economics, including how institutions structure firms' and countries' responses to the climate emergency. [19] Work has also sought to highlight the similarities and differences between the Varieties of Capitalism approach and related frameworks, such as historical institutionalism and regulation theory [20]

See also

Related Research Articles

<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.

Race to the bottom is a socio-economic phrase to describe either government deregulation of the business environment or reduction in corporate tax rates, in order to attract or retain economic activity in their jurisdictions. While this phenomenon can happen between countries as a result of globalization and free trade, it also can occur within individual countries between their sub-jurisdictions. It may occur when competition increases between geographic areas over a particular sector of trade and production. The effect and intent of these actions is to lower labor rates, cost of business, or other factors over which governments can exert control.

International political economy (IPE) is the study of how politics shapes the global economy and how the global economy shapes politics. A key focus in IPE is on the distributive consequences of global economic exchange. It has been described as the study of "the political battle between the winners and losers of global economic exchange."

<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.

Ordoliberalism is the German variant of economic liberalism that emphasizes the need for government to ensure that the free market produces results close to its theoretical potential but does not advocate for a welfare state.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Economic sociology</span> Branch of sociology

Economic sociology is the study of the social cause and effect of various economic phenomena. The field can be broadly divided into a classical period and a contemporary one, known as "new economic sociology".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Comparative politics</span> Field in political science

Comparative politics is a field in political science characterized either by the use of the comparative method or other empirical methods to explore politics both within and between countries. Substantively, this can include questions relating to political institutions, political behavior, conflict, and the causes and consequences of economic development. When applied to specific fields of study, comparative politics may be referred to by other names, such as comparative government.

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Market (economics)</span> System in which parties engage in transactions according to supply and demand

In economics, a market is a composition of systems, institutions, procedures, social relations or infrastructures whereby parties engage in exchange. While parties may exchange goods and services by barter, most markets rely on sellers offering their goods or services to buyers in exchange for money. It can be said that a market is the process by which the prices of goods and services are established. Markets facilitate trade and enable the distribution and allocation of resources in a society. Markets allow any tradeable item to be evaluated and priced. A market emerges more or less spontaneously or may be constructed deliberately by human interaction in order to enable the exchange of rights of services and goods. Markets generally supplant gift economies and are often held in place through rules and customs, such as a booth fee, competitive pricing, and source of goods for sale.

Historical institutionalism (HI) is a new institutionalist social science approach that emphasizes how timing, sequences and path dependence affect institutions, and shape social, political, economic behavior and change. Unlike functionalist theories and some rational choice approaches, historical institutionalism tends to emphasize that many outcomes are possible, small events and flukes can have large consequences, actions are hard to reverse once they take place, and that outcomes may be inefficient. A critical juncture may set in motion events that are hard to reverse, because of issues related to path dependency. Historical institutionalists tend to focus on history to understand why specific events happen.

Economic law is a set of legal rules for regulating economic activity. Economics can be defined as "a social science concerned with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services." The regulation of such phenomena, law, can be defined as "customs, practices, and rules of conduct of a community that are recognized as binding by the community", where "enforcement of the body of rules is through a controlling authority." Accordingly, different states have their own legal infrastructure and produce different provisions of goods and services.

David William Soskice, FBA is a British political economist and academic. He is currently the LSE School Professor of Political Science and Economics at the London School of Economics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stewart Wood, Baron Wood of Anfield</span>

Stewart Martin Wood, Baron Wood of Anfield is a Labour life peer in the House of Lords.

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.

Policy network analysis is a field of research in political science focusing on the links and interdependence between government's sections and other societal actors, aiming to understand the policy-making process and public policy outcomes.

The double movement is a concept originating with Karl Polanyi in his book The Great Transformation. The phrase refers to the dialectical process of marketization and push for social protection against that marketization. First, laissez-faire reformers seek to "disembed" the economy in order to establish what Polanyi calls a "market society" wherein all things are commodified, including what Polanyi terms "fictitious commodities": land, labor, and money. Second, a reactionary "countermovement" arises whereby society attempts to re-embed the economy through the creation of social protections such as labor laws and tariffs. In Polanyi's view, these liberal reformers seek to subordinate society to the market economy, which is taken by these reformers to be self-regulating. To Polanyi, this is a utopian project, as economies are always embedded in societies.

A knowledge regime is a type of system involving a specific set of actors, organizations, and institutions that create policy ideas used to alter the organization and overall operation of the policy-making and production process. Knowledge regimes are beneficial for the implementation of public policy because they introduce new sets of data, research, theories, recommendations, and many other influential ideas directed towards an end goal of economic competition.

Kathleen Thelen is an American political scientist specializing in comparative politics. She is the Ford Professor of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a permanent external member of the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies (MPIfG), and a faculty associate at the Center for European Studies (CES) at Harvard University.

Bruno Amable is a French economist and Professor at the University of Geneva. 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.

Matt Vidal is a British-American sociologist. He is Reader in Sociology and Comparative Political Economy in the Institute for International Management, Loughborough University London.

References

  1. Ebbinghaus, Bernhard (7 July 2016). Lodge, Martin; Page, Edward C.; Balla, Steven J. (eds.). Peter A. Hall and David Soskice. Vol. 1. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199646135.013.31. ISBN   978-0-19-964613-5.
  2. Thelen, Kathleen (15 June 2012). "Varieties of Capitalism: Trajectories of Liberalization and the New Politics of Social Solidarity". Annual Review of Political Science. 15 (1): 137–159. doi: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-070110-122959 . ISSN   1094-2939.
  3. Hassel, Anke; Palier, Bruno (2023). "Same Trend, Different Paths: Growth and Welfare Regimes Across Time and Space". Annual Review of Political Science. 26: 347–368. doi: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-051921-103030 . S2CID   256487583.
  4. Varieties of capitalism : the institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Peter A. Hall, David W. Soskice. Oxford [England]: Oxford University Press. 2001. p. 8. ISBN   0-19-924775-7. OCLC   46969900.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  5. Varieties of capitalism : the institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Peter A. Hall, David W. Soskice. Oxford [England]: Oxford University Press. 2001. p. 21. ISBN   0-19-924775-7. OCLC   46969900.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  6. Nölke, Andreas; Vliegenthart, Arjan (October 2009). "Enlarging the Varieties of Capitalism: The Emergence of Dependent Market Economies in East Central Europe". World Politics. 61 (4): 670–702. doi:10.1017/S0043887109990098. hdl: 11858/00-001M-0000-0012-454F-8 . S2CID   34522558.
  7. Schneider, Ben Ross (2013). Hierarchical capitalism in Latin America: business, labor, and the challenges of equitable development (1. ed.). Cambridge New York, N.Y.: Cambridge Univ. Press. ISBN   978-1107614291.
  8. "What is Milibandism?". The Observer. 1 February 2014. Retrieved 22 September 2020.
  9. "Departmental Determinism". The Economist. 1 January 2014. Retrieved 22 September 2020.
  10. "Varieties of Capitalism". Analysis. 23 June 2014. Event occurs at 25:44. BBC Radio 4. Retrieved 22 September 2020.
  11. "Varieties of Capitalism". Analysis. 23 June 2014. Event occurs at 21:33. BBC Radio 4. Retrieved 22 September 2020.
  12. Crouch, Colin (2005). Capitalist Diversity and Change: Recombinant Governance and Institutional Entrepreneurs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN   9780199286652.
  13. Blyth, Mark (2003). "Same as it Never Was: Temporality and Typology in the Varieties of Capitalism". Comparative European Politics. 1 (2): 215–225. doi:10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110008. S2CID   143370589.
  14. Thelen, Kathleen (2014). Varieties of Liberalization and the New Politics of Social Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN   9781107282001.
  15. Hall, Peter; Gingerich, Daniel (2009). "Varieties of Capitalism and Institutional Complementarities in the Political Economy: An Empirical Analysis". British Journal of Political Science. 39 (3): 449–482. doi:10.1017/S0007123409000672. hdl: 11858/00-001M-0000-002D-D630-E . S2CID   6709114.
  16. Blyth, Mark (2003). "Same as it Never Was: Temporality and Typology in the Varieties of Capitalism". Comparative European Politics. 1 (2): 215–225. doi:10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110008. S2CID   143370589.
  17. Taylor, Mark Zachary (2004). "Empirical Evidence Against Varieties of Capitalism's Theory of Technological Innovation". International Organization. 58 (3): 601–631. doi:10.1017/S0020818304583066. S2CID   154396496.
  18. Allen, Matthew M. C. (2013). "Comparative capitalisms and the institutional embeddedness of innovative capabilities". Socio-Economic Review. 11 (4): 771–794. doi:10.1093/ser/mwt018.
  19. Wood, Geoff (2020). "The comparative institutional analysis of energy transitions". Socio-Economic Review. 18 (1): 257–294. doi:10.1093/ser/mwz026.
  20. Allen, Geoffrey T.; Allen, Matthew M. C. (2020). "Comparing Capitalisms: Debates, Controversies and Future Directions". Sociology. 54 (3): 482–500. doi:10.1177/0038038519895937. hdl: 10072/393898 . S2CID   210846276.

Further reading