Search results

This article analyzes the prospects for globalizing the varieties of capitalism (voc) debate. It identifies and compares firm-centered, governance-centered, and state-centered approaches to extending the debate on capitalist diversity, and discusses the distinctive contributions of each approach as well as the trade-offs between them. The author draws on three agenda-setting volumes that engage with the voc framework and study capitalist diversity in three regions not usually covered by this literature: Latin America, East and Southeast Asia, and East Central Europe. As these regions play an increasingly important role in the world economy, this article examines what the books imply about the current state of knowledge about global voc. The author argues that the extension of the voc debate to these parts of the world is important for advancing the understanding of economic institutions; the approach can reinvigorate research on capitalist diversity and the institutional foundations of economic development in the current era of globalization.

Examines the type of economic analyses of capitalism presented by leading exponents of the neoclassical, Marxian, Austrian, & institutionalist schools of economic thought. Although each school has something to offer, it is argued that all except the institutionalist school are largely insensitive to different types of structure in capitalism & are blind to the cultures & institutions that characterize different kinds of capitalism. This conclusion is reached by addressing three issues: the problem of universal & specific assumptions in economic analysis; the question of "necessary impurities" in an economic system; & the relationship between actor & structure. It is concluded that institutional economics is most sensitive to the immense actual & potential variety in capitalism itself, & recognizes that the development of different capitalist systems can be divergent rather than convergent. 1 Table, 145 References. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractThis article analyzes the prospects for globalizing the varieties of capitalism (voc) debate. It identifies and compares firm-centered, governance-centered, and state-centered approaches to extending the debate on capitalist diversity, and discusses the distinctive contributions of each approach as well as the trade-offs between them. The author draws on three agenda-setting volumes that engage with thevocframework and study capitalist diversity in three regions not usually covered by this literature: Latin America, East and Southeast Asia, and East Central Europe. As these regions play an increasingly important role in the world economy, this article examines what the books imply about the current state of knowledge about globalvoc. The author argues that the extension of thevocdebate to these parts of the world is important for advancing the understanding of economic institutions; the approach can reinvigorate research on capitalist diversity and the institutional foundations of economic development in the current era of globalization.

While the Varieties of Capitalism (VoC) approach is strong on pointing out the complementarities among national modes of accumulation, it falls short on capturing the dynamics of finance. From a regulationist perspective, its simple dichotomy of bank based versus market based finance overlooks functional equivalences and thus overemphasizes differences. The market based systems are misrepresented; in reality they do not conform to the ideals of transparency and dispersed shareholding. According to VoC, financialization emanates from the liberal market economies. However, the export successes of the coordinated market economies brought about financialization in the market systems by eliminating some of their industries. Most importantly, the VoC focus on firms treats finance as a service to companiesand not as a profit driven sector on its own.

"While the Varieties of Capitalism (VoC) approach is strong on pointing out the complementarities among national modes of accumulation, it falls short on capturing the dynamics of finance. From a regulationist perspective, its simple dichotomy of bank based versus market based finance overlooks functional equivalences and thus overemphasizes differences. The market based systems are misrepresented; in reality they do not conform to the ideals of transparency and dispersed shareholding. According to VoC, financialization emanates from the liberal market economies. However, the export successes of the coordinated market economies brought about financialization in the market systems by eliminating some of their industries. Most importantly, the VoC focus on firms treats finance as a service to companies and not as a profit driven sector on its own." (author's abstract)

Despite the considerable influence of Esping-Andersen's categorization of three "worlds" of welfare capitalism, researchers have largely neglected investigation of his dimensions of welfare state policy & politics. Building on & extending the foundations provided by Esping-Andersen, we explore the identities & consequences of welfare state regime dimensions. Our principal components analyses identify two such dimensions. The first, which we label "progressive liberalism," rearranges Esping-Andersen's separate "social democratic" & "liberal" dimensions into two poles of a single dimension. Its positive pole is characterized by extensive, universal, & homogeneous benefits; active labor market policy; government employment; & gender-egalitarian family policies. The second, which we label "traditional conservatism," is similar to but broader than Esping-Andersen's conservative dimension. It features not only occupational & status-based differentiations of social insurance programs & specialized income security programs for civil servants, but also generous & long-lasting unemployment benefits, reliance on employer-heavy social insurance tax burdens, & extensions of union collective bargaining coverage. Pooled cross-section time-series regressions covering 18 countries over the 1980s & 1990s suggest that progressive liberalism is associated with income redistribution & greater gender equality in the labor market. The principal consequence of traditional conservatism appears to be weakened employment performance. 9 Tables, 1 Appendix, 60 References. Adapted from the source document.

Despite the considerable influence of Esping-Andersen's categorization of three 'worlds' of welfare capitalism, researchers have largely neglected investigation of his dimensions of welfare state policy and politics. Building on and extending the foundations provided by Esping-Andersen, we explore the identities and consequences of welfare state regime dimensions. Our principal components analyses identify two such dimensions. The first, which we label 'progressive liberalism,' rearranges Esping-Andersen's separate 'social democratic' and 'liberal' dimensions into two poles of a single dimension. Its positive pole is characterized by extensive, universal, and homogenous benefits, active labor market policy, government employment, and gender-egalitarian family policies. The second, which we label 'traditional conservatism,' is similar to but broader than Esping-Andersen's conservative dimension. It features not only occupational and status-based differentiations of social insurance programs and specialized income security programs for civil servants, but also generous and long-lasting unemployment benefits, reliance on employer-heavy social insurance tax burdens, and extension of union collective bargaining coverage. Pooled cross-section time-series regressions covering 18 countries over the 1980s and 1990s suggest that progressive liberalism is associated with income redistribution and gender equality in the labor market. The principal consequence of traditional conservatism appears to be weakened employment performance.