Varieties of Capitalism

Politique agricole, relance économique, vaccin contre le Covid-19, législation environnementale, etc. : l’Union européenne joue un rôle essentiel et controversé dans la vie de ses habitants depuis des décennies. Sur toutes ces questions, trois modèles s’affrontent : l’Europe du marché, l’Europe solidaire et l’Europe puissance.
À partir d’archives inédites, Laurent Warlouzet revisite l’histoire du continent au prisme de la lutte homérique entre ces trois visions depuis 1945 : l’Europe du marché, souvent dénoncée pour ses dérives ultralibérales, surtout depuis la tragédie grecque du début des années 2010 ; l’Europe solidaire, celle des législations sociales et de la promotion de l’égalité hommes-femmes, qui a conduit la majorité des syndicats britanniques à appeler à voter contre le Brexit ; l’Europe puissance, enfin, évanescente sur le plan militaire, mais s’exprimant dans les projets de politique industrielle communautaire ou dans la lutte contre les GAFAM, et voulant s’imposer face à ses concurrents, États-Unis, Russie ou Chine.
Cette nouvelle histoire de l’Europe, vivante, heurtée et mouvementée, nous montre que l’organisation de l’Union ne suit pas une logique mécanique et univoque. En exhumant des projets abandonnés mais sérieusement envisagés, elle propose aussi autant de futurs possibles dont les Européens pourraient se saisir.

This article engages critically with an emerging Brazilian research programme, ‘Varieties of Capitalism and Development in Latin America’, a perspective which seeks to ascertain the institutional chances of, and limits to, implementing state-led ‘national development strategies’. Adopting a critical political economy viewpoint, the text discusses the deficiencies inherent to this perspective and its neoinstitutionalist and neodevelopmentalist fundamentals. In particular, it questions the vision of the world economy as an arena of free competition and that of the nation-state as a ‘collective actor’, both of which are politically and analytically problematic. These criticisms are substantiated through evidence drawn from a case analysis of the recent trajectory of the Argentine neodevelopmentalist project.

Does capitalism generate prosperity and well-being in an atmosphere of freedom, as its defenders claim, or is it an unjust system in which workers are exploited for the benefit of a capital-owning minority, as its critics assert? Does capitalism lead inexorably to greater inequality, or does it have mechanisms that in the long run reduce inequalities? Do capitalist markets regulate themselves and manage to overcome the difficulties and turbulences generated by their functioning, or, on the contrary, do they lead to increasingly serious crises which, in one way or another, will lead to their collapse or their replacement by another social system? Beyond these dichotomies, which sketch a black and white world, this book explores the diversity of capitalisms, with all their colors, shades and nuances. Instead of repeating the discussion about whether capitalism is good or bad, it is about changing the questions: How diverse can capitalism be? Why do capitalisms differ? What factors provoke their transformations? What are the scope and limits of this form of economic and social organization? These and other questions are the
questions animate this work, which takes as its starting point a polemic thesis: other capitalisms are possible.

Human behaviour is a usable raw material. This raw material has developed into a production factor due to technological progress. The production factor has led to new business models that now have a massive impact on economic, political and social life. It is therefore necessary to speak of a new variation of capitalism: Behavioural Capitalism. This new form of capitalism is not yet understood as such, which entails the danger that it creates power and market relations that can hardly or only with great difficulty be corrected later.

Published in 1964, James Meade’s *Efficiency, Equality and the Ownership of Property* packs an incredible concentration of insightful analysis and provocative policy ideas in under 100 pages. The book is a brilliant exploration of what a more egalitarian society might look like, and of what measures might help us to get there.

As a work that went on to exert a deep influence on both the economists Thomas Piketty and Tony Atkinson, and the philosopher John Rawls, it does not merit the relative neglect in which it now rests. Time is ripe for its rediscovery.

Online at Policy Network here: http://www.policy-network.net/pno_detail.aspx?ID=4909&title=James-Meade-and-predistribution-50-years-before-his-time

This article argues that existing typologies on production and welfare regimes should be combined into a typology unifying the study of production and distribution in advanced capitalist countries. The article utilises a principal component and cluster analysis to show that such a typology indeed reflects the empirical diversity of countries. This is further illustrated by a brief literature review of different typologies. It is then shown how the integration of the two approaches helps to resolve problems addressed in the new literature on the varieties of capitalism approach, notably how welfare arrangements relate to production systems. Thereby, the relevance of an integrated typology for policy-makers in the fields of welfare and production will be illustrated. Lastly, some thoughts follow on how an integrated typology allows for a perspective that explains the development of various welfare and production regimes based on the common historical heritage of families of nations.

'Varieties of capitalism'have been conventionally delineated by the varying types of formal economy that exist. Given that the vast majority of employment globally is in the informal economy, this paper offers a new analytical framework which delineates varieties of capitalism by their degree of informalization and the character of the informal economy.

The Tweed Ring spawned a vibrant financial sector that was integral to its brief success but has never been previously examined. William “Boss” Tweed and his allies employed banks controlled or comanaged by Tammany politicians to embezzle funds, build political alliances, and invest in a wide array of business ventures. The capital of these savings and commercial banks—city money, deposits from Catholic charities, and the savings of immigrant laborers—was accumulated through political channels. During their operation between 1867 and 1871, politician-bankers engaged in a mix of patronage deals and profit-driven financial speculation. In effect, Tammany banks were ground zero for the Ring's conversion of political hegemony into a windfall of economic capital that fueled party activities and buoyed personal fortunes. Importantly, the anti-Ring mobilization by upper-class reformers was more than a revolt of wealthy taxpayers concerned with abstract goals of good government or rescuing city credit; it was also a reaction by old-line bankers in direct competition with Tammany upstarts. A dramatic bank run catalyzed by reformers in November 1871 drove them into bankruptcy, bringing this novel experiment in political capitalism to an end.

The fall of the Berlin-Wall has been interpreted as the end of history, i.e. above all the identification of neoliberalism as the definitive way of conceiving the economic order worldwide. To that aim, the political order has to be conceived as a mere instrument for developing the market order based on free competition, so that no social conflict is able to question it. The result is a depoliticized economic order, where legal scholars simply have to implement economic theories and practices, giving up the traditional expectation to organize society through their own professional knowledge. The European Union is the most representative context to identify these tendencies, which end up in a dramatic alteration of the balance between the two cornerstones of the Western legal tradition: democracy and capitalism.

Celem rozdziału jest przedstawienie opinii Polaków na temat społecznej odpowiedzialności przedsiębiorstw oraz próba ich wyjaśnienia za pośrednictwem różnorodnych korelatów. Stawiam pytania: Czego Polacy oczekują od przedsiębiorstw? Z jakimi czynnikami związane są te oczekiwania? Ważną częścią rozważań jest umieszczenie pytania o czynniki wpływu w kontekście postaw korporatystycznych i antykorporatystycznych, które wiążą się z przyporządkowaniem określonych zobowiązań różnym podmiotom życia społeczno-gospodarczego: państwu, przedsiębiorstwom, związkom zawodowym. Odwołuję się tym samym do sporu obecnego w literaturze naukowej dotyczącej relacji między instytucją Corporate Social Responsibility i systemem społeczno-ekonomicznym.

Institutionalistische Ansätze der Vergleichenden Kapitalismusforschung (VKF), insbesondere die firmenorientierten Perspektiven in der Tradition des VoC-Ansatzes, sind in jüngster Zeit vielfach kritisiert worden, wie u.a. zahlreiche Beiträge zu diesem Band zeigen. Es scheint uns trotzdem nicht angemessen, auf institutionelle Ansätze zur vergleichenden Analyse des Kapitalismus ganz zu verzichten. Statt „das Kind mit dem Badewasser auszuschütten“ liegt es für uns vielmehr nahe, an bewährte Erkenntnisse der etablierten Institutionenforschung anzuknüpfen, diese jedoch in kritischer Absicht weiter zu entwickeln. In diesem Beitrag klären wir dazu zunächst die Grundlagen von Begriffen wie „Institutionen“ und „Institutionalismus“, entwerfen die Programmatik eines kritischen Institutionalismus im Rahmen der VKF  und skizzieren knapp eine entsprechende Forschungsagenda. Wir hoffen damit zeigen zu können, das eine kritische VKF einen Teil der artikulierten Kritik berücksichtigen kann, ohne die Erkenntnise der in den vergangenen beiden Dekaden so reichhaltig betriebenen institutionellen Vergleichsanalysen völlig zu ignorieren. Im Gegenteil - wir sehen gerade in der Kombination von institutionalistischen und kritischen Ansätzen eine besonders fruchtbare Forschungsagenda für die VKF.

Intercollegiate Review, Summer 2013 (posted June 29, 2013).The first of a two-part series, this article charts what I think the third way movement known as Distributism gets right.  First I sketch the complicated relationships such thinkers in the movement have with state power and their views on employment versus business ownership. I then go on to discuss four things Distributists can teach those who subscribe to free markets under a rule of law: 1) their correct emphasis on moral culture with regard to markets, 2) their critique of economic centralization, 3) their emphasis on building a broader culture of ownership, and  4) their critiques of the damaging effect of the welfare state on humans.

This is a book about how 21st Century capitalism really works. Modern economics strips away social, historical, and political context from analysis of ‘the economic’, but the economy is far too important to leave exclusively to the economists. Comparative Political Economy (CPE) is a much broader, richer intellectual undertaking which ‘re-embeds’ the analysis of the economic within the social and political realm. This is at the heart of how to think like a political economist.

Clift maps the terrain, substantive focus and evolution of CPE. This provides the analytical tools to explore the many variants of capitalism, unearthing their roots in competing visions of the desirable distribution of the fruits of growth within firms and across societies, and varied practices of market-making across the advanced economies. Drawing on the insights of classical political economy, the book explains how these visions generate ongoing political struggles over how to regulate and manage capitalism.

This book connects Comparative Political Economy systematically to the subfield of International Political Economy (IPE), calling for cross-fertilisation between the two. Exploring key concepts and theoretical debates in the long-established field of Political Economy, this book analyses the production, reproduction and distribution of power and wealth within contemporary world order.

Connects Comparative political economy (CPE) systematically to the subfield of International Political economy – ideal for courses on each.
• Sets out the scope of political economy to provide the groundwork both for thinking like a political economist, and for in-depth exploration of CPE.
• Delineates the central focus of comparative political economy, charting its genealogy via consideration of some of the towering scholarship in the field
• Maps the major substantive themes, empirical developments and theoretical debates within the field of CPE over the last 50 years
• Provides the analytical toolkit – honed and crafted by the great political economy scholars of the past – for an in-depth analysis of contemporary dynamics in state/market relations
• Situates contemporary CPE within the evolution of the Classical political economy of Smith, Marx, List and  others, as well as seminal interventions by Hayek, Keynes and Polanyi

We develop a theoretical model to describe and explain variation in corporate governance among advanced capitalist economies, identifying the social relations and institutional arrangements that shape who controls corporations, what interests corporations serve, and the allocation of rights and responsibilities among corporate stakeholders. Our "actor-centered" institutional approach explains firm-level corporate governance practices in terms of institutional factors that shape how actors' interests are defined ("socially constructed") and represented. Our model has strong implications for studying issues of international convergence.

The second decade of the twenty-first century would seem to be an auspicious moment for historians of capitalism. The sudden and for many unexpected rise of China as a major economic power would appear to provide historians with opportunities to rethink the history of capitalism, especially with regard to the place of the state and the market in its development. Joyce Appleby's The Relentless Revolution is therefore to be welcomed as one of the first in what will surely be a series of long-range reflections on the history of capitalism which take us from its origins to the current coincidence of a global economic downturn and the rise of China. Her book is especially strong on the place of contemporary China in this story, as well as the earlier role played by Japan, though her chief focus is on the modern west, beginning with the origins of capitalist development which she finds in sixteenth-century England.

In Varieties of Capitalism; The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage, Peter A. Hall and David Soskice (H&S) argue that technological specialization patterns are largely determined by the prevailing "variety of capitalism". They hypothesize that "liberal market economies" (LMEs) specialize in radical innovation, while "coordinated market economies" (CMEs) focus more on incremental innovation. Mark Zachary Taylor [Taylor, M.Z., 2004. Empirical evidence against varieties of capitalism's theory of technological innovation. International Organization 58, 601-631.] convincingly argued that Hall and Soskice's empirical test is fundamentally flawed and proposed a more appropriate test of their conjecture. He rejected the varieties of capitalism explanation of innovation patterns. We extend and refine Taylor's analysis, using a broader set of radicality indicators and making industry-level comparisons. Our results indicate that Hall and Soskice's conjecture cannot be upheld as a general rule, but that it survives closer scrutiny for a substantial number of industries and an important dimension of radicality.

We provide a multilevel theoretical model to understand why business organizations are increasingly engaging in corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives and thereby exhibiting the potential to exert positive social change. Our model integrates theories of organizational justice, corporate governance, and varieties of capitalism to argue that organizations are pressured to engage in CSR by many different actors, each driven by instrumental, relational, and moral motives. We conclude by highlighting empirical questions for future research and discussing some managerial implications.

This doc contains the first pages of the book. If you want to read the entire book, you could order it in hardback or kindle from the publisher or amazon (but amazon currently charges more than Routledge). Since the hardback is very expensive, I am also offering paperback copies (currently not available on Routledge or Amazon) for €35 (incl. postage). Please e-mail me at [email protected] if you are interested. If so, I can send you my payment details.

Due to the financialization of housing in today’s market, housing risks are increas ingly becoming financial risks. Financialization refers to the increasing dominance of financial actors, markets, practices, measurements and narratives.
It also refers to the resulting structural transformation of economies, firms, states and households. This book asserts the centrality of housing to the contemporary capitalist political economy and places housing at the centre of the financialization debate.
A global wall of money is looking for High-Quality Collateral (HQC) investments, and housing is one of the few asset classes considered HQC. This explains why housing is increasingly becoming financialized, but it does not explain its timing, politics and geography. Presenting a diverse range of case studies from the US, the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Spain, the chapters in this book include coverage of the role of the state as the driver of financialization processes, and the part played by local and national histories and institutions. This cutting edge volume will pave the way for future research in the area.
Where housing used to be something “local” or “national”, the wo-way coupling of housing to finance has been one crucial element in the recent crisis. It is time to reconsider the financialization of both homeownership and social housing. This book will be of interest to those who study international economics, housing systems, economic geography and financialization.

The issue of “housing” has generally not been granted an important role in post-war political economy. Housing-as-policy has been the preserve of social policy analysis and of a growing field of housing studies; housing-as-market has been confined to mainstream economics. This paper insists that political-economic analysis can no longer remain relatively indifferent to the housing question since housing is implicated in the contemporary capitalist political economy in numerous critical, connected, and very often contradictory ways. The paper conceptualizes this implication by identifying the multiple roles of housing when “capital” – the essential “stuff” of political economy – is considered from the perspective of each of its three primary, mutually-constitutive guises: as process of circulation, as social relation, and as ideology. Mobilizing these three optics to provide a critical overall picture of housing-in-political-economy (more than a political
economy of housing), we draw on and weave together the many vital contributions of housing research to our evolving understanding of capitalism.

Keywords: housing, political economy, capital, circulation, ideology, social relations

The 20th Century revolved politically around competing interpretations of Capitalism, Communism, Socialism and Fascism. These are all ways to organize the lives of people on a large scale. Are real alternatives or new interpretations likely to emerge in the challenging years ahead? What might they look like?

In this introductory essay to our special issue on elites, we outline some of the major challenges to research in this area and propose a series of theoretical and methodological pathways to address them. Theoretically we make four recommendations: (a) greater attentiveness to and specificity about the relationship between elites and power; (b) a clearer articulation of the relationships between elites and the varieties of capitalism; (c) far more attention to diversity within elites and the use of elites to understand forms of domination like white supremacy and masculine domination and (d) expanding beyond the orthodox form of Bourdieusian theoretical frameworks. Methodologically we outline how research using survey instruments, social network analysis (SNA) (and multiple correspondence analysis), interviews, ethnographic observation, experiments, archival research, administrative data and content analysis can each be deployed, built upon or redirected to help bring elites into greater focus.