IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

How and Why Capitalisms Differ

  • Boyer, Robert
Registered author(s):

    Both the varieties of capitalism school (VOC) and regulation theory (RT) address the issue of how and why capitalisms differ. If VOC challenges the primacy of liberal market economies (LME) and stresses the existence of an alternative form, i.e. coordinated market economies (CME), RT starts from a long-term analysis of the transformation of capitalism in order to search for alternatives to the Fordist regime that emerged after the post-WW II era. Both approaches frequently use in-depth international comparisons, challenge the role of the market as the exclusive coordinating mechanism, and raise doubts about the existence of 'one best way' for capitalism. Finally, they stress that globalization deepens the competitive advantage associated with each institutional architecture. Nevertheless, their methodology differs: VOC stresses private-firm governance, whereas RT considers the primacy of systemic and macroeconomic coherence. Whereas for VOC there exists only LME and CME, RT recurrently finds at least four brands of capitalism: market-led, meso-corporatist, social democratic and state-led. VOC seems to consider that the long-term stability of each form of capitalism can only be challenged by external shocks, but RT stresses the fact that the very success of a regulation mode ends up in a – largely endogenous – structural crisis. Whereas RT started from a rather economic point of view and now investigates the crucial role of politics, VOC originated largely in political science and political economy but now explores the economic theory of the firm.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/19918/1/dp05-4.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies in its series MPIfG Discussion Paper with number 05/4.

    as
    in new window

    Length:
    Date of creation: 2005
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:zbw:mpifgd:054
    Contact details of provider: Postal: Paulstr. 3, 50676 Köln
    Phone: + 49 (0) 221-2767-0
    Web page: http://www.mpifg.de/
    Email:


    More information through EDIRC

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. Amable, Bruno, 1999. "Institutional complementarity and diversity of social systems of innovation and production," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Economic Change and Employment FS I 99-309, Social Science Research Center Berlin (WZB).
    2. Amable, Bruno & Petit, Pascal, 2001. "The diversity of social systems of innovation and production during the 1990s," CEPREMAP Working Papers (Couverture Orange) 0115, CEPREMAP.
    3. Eliasson, Gunnar, 1984. "Micro heterogeneity of firms and the stability of industrial growth," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 5(3-4), pages 249-274.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:mpifgd:054. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (ZBW - German National Library of Economics)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.