Search results

Introduces Section IV with what is at its core an heuristic attempt to sketch a handful of the major attributes in which moralizing efforts differ among national economies, particularly how such efforts inform connections between advanced industrial economies & developing countries. Differences in the moralizing process are due to the diversity of cultural norms both across societies & across these societies' economic sectors. The diversity of political structures have also shaped societies' various treatment of forms of economic activity in terms of morality. Most of the following papers emphasize the behaviors of higher-income consumers on two kinds of matters: environmental issues & ones generally categorized as "ethical trade" & "fair trade.". K. Coddon

Comments on Amitai Etzioni's (2003) proposal, as part of a critical forum, for a fully theorized socioeconomic paradigm. Such a promising paradigm would be further enhanced by a concomitant emphasis on institutional analysis. The problematics of the concept of "institution" are surveyed, underscoring the need for shared standards vis-a-vis how to study institutions. Five key elements of a more rigorous institutional analysis are explicated: (1) norms & rules, (2) institutional arrangements, (3) institutional sectors, (4) organizational structures, & (5) outputs & performance. 1 Table, 7 References. K. Coddon

The study of institutions & innovativeness is presently high on the agenda of the social sciences. There is increasing concern with how a society's innovativeness is associated with its international competitiveness. As scholars have studied why the innovative styles of societies vary, there has been increasing concern with how the institutional makeup of a society influences its particular style of innovativeness. However, before there can be significant advance in the study of this problem, it is important that we have a better understanding of what constitutes institutional analysis. Every social science discipline -- with the exception of psychology -- has at least one distinctive strategy for doing institutional analysis. Because of the lack of consensus as to the appropriate boundaries & content of institutional analysis, we have limited ability to make theoretical advances in understanding how the institutional makeup of a society impacts its innovativeness. Recognizing that this is a serious problem for the social sciences, this article attempts to structure the field of institutional analysis & takes the first steps in relating it to the study of a society's style of innovativeness. 4 Tables, 2 Figures, 168 References. Adapted from the source document.

Argues that the coordination of economic institutions is occurring simultaneously at various spatial levels (eg, subnational region, nation-state, transnational region, global). Institutional arrangements that were once congruent at national levels are now more dispersed at multiple spatial levels. Impressive economic performance now requires that economic actors be well coordinated in all spatial areas simultaneously. In short, actors are increasingly nested in institutional arrangements that are linked at all levels. The parts of each system have become far more interdependent than was the case 20 years ago, & the increasingly complex distribution of power & resources across geographical levels is further evidence of how economic institutions have become nested in multiple worlds. This perspective about the diffusion of power suggests that a set of institutions for the governance of societies at multiple levels is slowly evolving, but this process is poorly understood & its long-term consequences are not known. The future is open, but long-term historical trends suggest that a major challenge today is to create a new theory of governance involving institutions & local territories nested in a world of unprecedented complexity, one in which subnational region, nation-state, continental, & global regimes are intricately linked. 87 References. Adapted from the source document.

Examines the long-term institutional history of US capitalism, suggesting that it arose in a context characterized by several features: a stress on short-term decision making; low capacity but highly adaptive industrial sectors; weak commitment to collective governance, but high reliance on state regulation; strong interest in continuous economic change; & weak commitment to economic equality. These qualities are traced to social norms & economic processes that have shaped the economic context since the founding of the country. Among processes described are the late-19th-century merger movement, the consequent growth of hierarchically coordinated firms, & the logic of networks among these firms. In response to post-WWII economic challenges from abroad, US firms have deepened networks among themselves in the absence of other associative institutions. However, these developments have come at the cost of equity, which, without the buffer of strong social institutions at the local-regional level, may result in greater social disorder & incivility. D. Ryfe

Die große Bandbreite der unterschiedlichen Steuerungsmechanismen im verarbeitenden Gewerbe der kapitalistischen Volkswirtschaften hat in den vergangenen Jahren immer wieder Verwunderung ausgelöst. In den USA ist die Bandbreite der Koordinierungsformen größer als in Japan, Deutschland und den kleineren europäischen Demokratien. Gründe hierfür sind nach der Analyse des Autors: die hohe Komplexität der amerikanischen Wirtschaft, die relative Schwäche der amerikanischen Verbandsstrukturen, die die Vielfalt der Koordinierungsformen fördert, die Vermischung alter und neuer Koordinierungsformen und die Ungleichzeitigkeiten in der amerikanischen Wirtschaft. Die Analysen bezogen sich teils auf die Verschiedenheiten von Märkten, Firmen und Akteuren zwischen den USA und Europa, teils auf die Unterschiede im kollektiven Verhalten der wirtschaftlichen Akteure. Der vorliegende Beitrag bemüht sich um eine Integration der beiden Ansätze und um die Entwicklung einer entsprechenden Typologie. (pka)

This paper was presented at a colloquium held by the Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften on April 26, 1989 in Munich. The colloquium was entitled "Der Föderalismus vor den Anforderungen der Gegenwart". In view of present tendencies towards globalization and the emergence of supranational political institutions, the question is raised whether federal constitutions are becoming anachronistic. In contrast to interpretations, which underline the compensatory functions which a federal political structure can fulfill in the process of modernization, it is here argued that poli tical structures such as German federalism are examples of a highly successful evolutionary form of social order. Federalism constitutes a multi-level decision structure which is in principle of a higher adapted value than the hierarchical forms of unitary states. ; Bei diesem Beitrag handelt es sich um einen Vortrag, der im Rahmen des von der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften am 26. April 1989 in München veranstalteten Kolloquiums "Der Föderalismus vor den Anforderungen der Gegenwart" gehalten wurde. Ausgangspunkt ist die Frage, welche Bedeutung föderalistische Strukturen angesichts zunehmender Globalisierung und der Herausbildung supranationaler und internationaler Institutionen (noch) besitzen. Im Gegensatz zu Interpretationen, die im Föderalismus wie auch im neuerdings wieder wachsenden Regionalismus vor allem ein Gegengewicht zu den Nivellierungs- und Vereinheitlichungsprozessen im Zuge gesellschaftlicher Modernisierung sehen, wird hier die These zu begründen versucht, daß der Föderalismus eine evolutionär höchst fortschrittliche Struktur ist, die durch die Tendenz zur Globalisierung funktionell keineswegs entwertet wird.