Siaroff EJPR1999

European Journal of Political Research 36: 175–205, 1999.
175
© 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
Corporatism in 24 industrial democracies:

Meaning and measurement
ALAN SIAROFF
The University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada
Abstract. The ongoing use of the concept of ‘corporatism’ in industrial democracies has
been stretched to include overlapping but still distinctive realities, which in turn often produce
different ‘lists’ of corporatist economies. Consequently, this analysis sets out to disentangle the
concept of corporatism and to suggest a replacement. It includes a comparative classification
of 24 long-term industrial democracies in terms of the corporatism scores given by 23 different
scholarly analyses. The divisions in scoring certain important but problematic cases (such as
Japan) can be explained by noting differing emphases in the term. I then propose an alternative,
more focused summary measure of economic integration which is clearly linear and which
has no ‘problem cases’. Precise scores on economic integration are given for four time periods
from the late 1960s through the mid-1990s. It will be seen that the industrial democracies have
always been dichotomised between integrated and non-integrated (or ‘pluralist’) economies.
Introduction
The economic crises affecting the advanced capitalist nations in the 1970s,
and their comparative responses to this, were a large part of the reason why
the study of neocorporatism grew to become a ‘growth industry’ (Panitch
1980). In later research widespread attention was paid to an understanding
of why corporatist economies were believed to have performed in ‘superior’
ways (e.g., Schmidt 1982b; Bruno & Sachs 1985; McCallum 1986; Castles
1987; Calmfors & Driffith 1988; Pekkarinen et al. 1992), or to challenges
to this supposed relationship (e.g., Therborn 1992; Woldendorp 1997). Inde-
pendent of concerns with political economy, corporatist policy-making also
came to be associated with one aspect of consensus – as opposed to majorit-
arian – democracy (Lijphart & Crepaz 1991).1 Yet the ongoing use of the term
‘corporatism’ – often with such prefixes as ‘neo-’, ‘liberal’, ‘democratic’,
or ‘social’ – has unfortunately been matched by its application in different
situations and for what amount to rather different concepts. Similarly, there
is increasing debate about which democracies are corporatist in addition to
‘standard’ cases such as Austria and Sweden – and even whether corporatism
‘matters’ in any case. In this regard, Therborn (1992: 40) has bluntly com-
mented that ‘[a]n nth rerun of corporatism and whatever variable between the
176 ALAN SIAROFF
OECD countries is hardly likely to add very much to our understanding of

anything’.2 All of this suggests that it is now time to disentangle the concept
of corporatism and perhaps even to suggest an alternative concept.
The organisation of the following analysis develops in five parts. First, I
will look at the conceptual differences, and suggest a summary ‘ideal type’ of
corporatism. Second, I shall assess the comparative ‘ranking’ of the long-term
industrial democracies in terms of corporatism and various sub-measures with
differing emphases. Third, I shall deal with the conceptual and/or measure-
ment problems with certain other alternative concepts. Fourth, I shall propose
an alternative summary measure of economic integration which is clearly lin-
ear and which can better serve as a variable for those who so choose. Finally, I
shall offer precise scores on economic integration for four time periods, from
the late 1960s through the mid-1990s. It will be seen that in each decade
the industrial democracies have been neatly dichotomised between integrated
(‘corporatist’) and non-integrated (‘pluralist’) economies.
Usages of the term ‘corporatism’
Analyses of corporatism have tended to involve two different uses (Lijphart

& Crepaz 1991: 235). The first is corporatism as a system of interest rep-
resentation (Schmitter 1979: 13). The second, and more common usage, is
of corporatism as an ‘institutionalized pattern of policy-formation’ above all
‘in the shaping of economic policy’ (Lehmbruch 1979: 150). A definition
similar to that of Lehmbruch was offered in the 1980s by Pryor (1988: 317):
‘Corporatism is a type of organized or coordinated capitalism where power to
make important economic policies is transferred from the parliament and gov-
ernment to semi-private organizations; these are based on economic function
or industrial sector and include a strong representation of labor interests’. Re-
cently Woldendorp (1997: 49–50) has written in the same vein that ‘the term
neo-corporatism is used to denominate any form of cooperation between the
government and the relevant socio-economic interest groups of employers’
associations and trade unions, aimed at forging a consensus over the formu-
lation and implementation of socioeconomic government policies, which in
turn enhances the effectiveness of these policies in terms of macroeconomic
performance’.
More succinctly in this regard, Calmfors & Driffill (1988: 24) conclude
that ‘[t]he concept of corporatism thus seems vaguely to capture the extent
to which some broader interests influence the determination of individual
wages’. For them, however, corporatism is essentially centralised wage bar-
gaining (which may or may not involve the government) which they thus set
out to rank. Woldendorp (1997: 52–53, 56–57) adopts a similar approach, but
CORPORATISM IN 24 INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACIES 177
he examines specifically the extent to which the government intervenes and

‘imposes’ an incomes policy or package on business and labour. Thus, ‘[t]he
less authoritarian the incomes policy is the higher the degree of coopera-
tion and, therefore, the stronger the corporatism in the country’ (Woldendorp
1997: 53). This focus solely on wage formulation can be seen simply as a
version of interest intermediation, or instead as a third distinct usage of the
concept of corporatism.
For our purposes, however, let us note the main features of the concept of
(liberal) corporatism at the national level as reflecting: within an advanced
industrial society and democratic polity, the co-ordinated, co-operative, and
systematic management of the national economy by the state, centralised
unions, and employers (these latter two co-operating directly in industry),
presumably to the relative benefit of all three actors. If this is taken to
be the core definition of corporatism, then its opposite (the lack of such
co-ordinated and co-operative management) may generally be defined as
‘pluralism’. Usually scholars reduce this issue to these two categories, or at
least a corporatism-pluralism continuum.3 In talking about the corporatism
(or pluralism) as a structure, one can obviously measure the extent of its ex-
istence. Beyond this, if corporatism is seen as a consciously-chosen strategy
of the government, then one can also evaluate its success in resolving conflict
(Woldendorp 1995: 124). This article will, however, more modestly focus just
on the issue of which advanced industrial democracies have in fact managed
their economies in a corporatist, or more specifically integrated, way.
The ideal type of corporatism
Various factors have often been considered to be virtual ‘preconditions’ for

the successful creation and/or maintenance of a corporatist system. I would
argue that an ‘ideal type’ of corporatism involves four distinct aspects:4 (1)
structural features, (2) functional roles, (3) behavioural patterns, and (4)
favourable contexts. I thus wish to include here factors in addition to the
structure notion of ‘interest intermediation’ and the functional notion of tri-
partite decision-making and implementation, so as to produce a fully detailed
measure. Of course, this measure is much broader than the focus of the usual
scholarly analyses, most of which only emphasise certain features – and then
not necessarily the same ones (Hicks 1988a: 700–701).
In summary, then, an ‘ideal type’ corporatist political economy would first
of all exhibit the following structures:
(1) a high degree of unionisation, especially amongst blue-collar workers;

178 ALAN SIAROFF
(2) relatively few unions (Mitchell 1996) grouped into highly institutional-
ised peak confederations which have the key role in wage bargaining,
with ideally only one confederation for blue-collar workers (Golden
1993); conversely, a low degree of autonomy for shop stewards and plant
unions – in short a high ‘organizational power of labour’ (Cameron 1984:
168);5
(3) a business community dominated by large export-oriented firms, with
a relatively powerful and centralised employer’s federation. Indeed,
business centralisation has tended to reinforce or even inspire labour
centralisation, at least in Sweden (Fulcher 1991);
(4) highly centralised wage bargaining, with national or a few key branch-
level agreements (e.g., that of the metalworkers) setting the basis for the
entire economy;
(5) works councils in the main industrial firms and co-determination in key
industries;
(6) a centralised, powerful, and active state involved at least moderately in
the economy;
with these actors involved in the following roles:
(7) a central – and joint – role for labour and business in such policies as
training, education, and social programmes, often implemented through
tripartite boards or agencies;
(8) the institutionalised input of business and labour in the government policy
process, including the drawing up of the budget;
and showing the following patterns of behaviour:
(9) a strong economic and social consensus shared by business, labour, and
the state;
(10) recognition by business and labour of being joint ‘social partners’
(Katzenstein 1985: 87–88), and resulting patterns of co-operation and
coalescence;
(11) a long-term outlook held by both business and labour;
(12) low levels of strike activity;
(13) voluntary and/or bargained incomes policies rather than state-imposed
ones;
(14) independence of internal decision-making of the key actors;
and existing in the following contextual environment:
(15) a certain blurring of the public sector/private sector distinction;
(16) a small (Pryor 1988: 326–327; Williamson 1989: 150–151) open eco-
nomy;
(17) which has benefitted from the free trade provided by the post-World War
Two hegemony of the United States – indeed corporatist nations are often
militarily neutral and/or spend little on defence;
(18) a consensual or even consociational political tradition, rather than a
‘majoritarian’ one (Lijphart 1984);6
(19) a long-term political role or even dominance of a united social democratic
party, thus producing a leftist political ‘substructure’ [Unterbau] in the
words of Schmidt (1982a);
(20) with a resulting high level of expenditures on social programmes;
(21) generally successful economic performance, especially regarding pro-
ductivity, export competitiveness, and the maintenance of full employ-
ment; and
(22) often because their success thus ‘exports’ unemployment elsewhere,
to international economic stabilisers like the (non-corporatist!) United
States and the United Kingdom.
Although this list is quite long, we would argue that the true ‘ideal type’ of
corporatism does involve these various – and interrelated – factors. Moreover,
what should be noted is that the reality of nations such as Austria, Norway,
and Sweden is that they essentially have shown all or almost all of these
factors, and thus approximate our ‘ideal type’.
Corporatism in Austria, Norway, and Sweden is centred around peak la-
bour confederations (ÖGB, LO, and LO respectively) and powerful social
democratic parties (SPÖ, DNA, and SAP respectively). One qualification
should be noted here, however, as regards factors (10) and (18). Although
Elder et al. (1988) consider the Scandinavian nations to have a consensual
political tradition, Heclo and Madsen (1987: 30) disagree, noting that what
appears to be consensus in Sweden is merely the reflection of the ‘shattering
of opposition’ by social democratic hegemony. For his part, Therborn (1992:
35–37) distinguishes between two types of ‘relatively peaceful industrial
orders’: the consensual social partnership found in the Netherlands, Switzer-
land, and Austria, and the orderly regulation or even ritualisation of conflict
in Scandinavia. Thus for Therborn capital and labour in Scandinavia are def-
initely not ‘social partners’, but rather autonomous ‘labour market parties’
who engage in positive-sum (potential) conflict. This distinction would thus
leave Austria as the model type of corporatism (Marin 1985). However, it is
highly problematic to reduce corporatism to ‘that which is found in Austria’,
and given that in their own way Norway and Sweden – with some deviations
during ‘bourgeois’ governments – have achieved ‘peaceful industrial order’
as well as the remaining factors, one can still consider the ideal type of
corporatism to be what we shall call Austro-Scandinavian in nature.
Table 1. Comparative scholarly rankings of neo-corporatism
180
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 PR1 PR2 PR3 CN1 CN2 CN3 CN4 CN5 WB1 WB2
Australia . 3 1 . 2 1 1 1 N . N . . 2 . 3 1 N . 1 3 3 2
Austria 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Y 5 Y 5 5 5 5 5 5 Y 5 5 5 5 5
Belgium 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 1.5 N 4 3.5 3 . 3.5 4 3 3 N 3 3 3 3 3
Canada 2 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 N 1 N . . 1 1 1 1 N 3 1 1 1 1
Denmark 4 3 3 5 4 3 3 4 Y 2 . 4 3 3.5 4 5 3 N 4 3 3 3.5 5
Finland 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.5 Y 3 Y 4 . 3.5 4 (4) 1 N 3 3 3 3.5 5
France 1 1 3 1 2 CAM 1 1 N 1 CAM 2 1 1 2 1 3 N 2 3 1 2.5 3
Germany (West) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 Y 3 (3) 3 3 2 3 3 5 Y 5 5 3 3.5 4
Greece . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . .
ALAN SIAROFF
Iceland . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ireland 2 1 3 3 1 3 1 . N 2 . 3.5 . 2 1 . 1 N . 3 3 3.5 1
Israel . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Italy 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 1.5 N 1 . 3.5 1 1 1 1 1 N 1 1 2 2.5 2
Japan . 5 1 . 3 CAM 5 2.5 N . CAM . . I . 1 5 Y 4 5 CAM 2 3
Luxembourg . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Netherlands 4 3 5 5 4 5 3 5 Y 3 Y 3.5 5 2 4 3 5 Y 3 3 5 3.5 3
New Zealand . 3 . . 3 1 . 1.5 N . . . . . . . 3 N 2 1 . 3 2
Norway 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Y 5 Y 4 . 5 5 (5) 5 Y 4 5 5 4 5
Portugal . 1 . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . 1 . . 3
Spain . 1 . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . 1 . . 2
Sweden 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Y 4 Y 4.5 5 5 5 (4) 5 Y 4 3 5 4 5
Switzerland 3 5 3 3 4 2.5 5 3 Y 1 CAM 4 . 2 3 . 5 Y . 5 CAM 2 3
UK 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 N 2 N 2.5 3 2 3 3 1 N 1 1 2 2.5 1
USA 2 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 N 1 N . . 1 1 1 1 N 3 1 1 1 1
C# = a ranking essentially of ‘corporatism’; PR# = a ranking essentially of ‘power resources’; CN# = a ranking essentially of ‘consensus’; WB# = a ranking
essentially of wage bargaining; . = data not given or implied; CAM = classified by an alternative measure than the scale used for the main ranking.
Sources to Table 1:
C1: Schmitter (1981: 294) – social corporatism ranking compressed into a five-point scale.
C2: Schmidt (1982b: 135; used again in Schmidt 1983: 20–21) – corporatism ranking of high (=5), medium (=3), or low (=1).
C3: Czada (1983: 425) – classifications of neo-corporatist [= 5], sectoral [= 3], or pluralist [= 1].
C4: Braun (1983), as cited in the appendix of Keman et al. (1985: 222) – three-point summary scale of neo-corporatism: little [= 1], moderate [= 3], and strong [=
5].
C5: Keman (1984) [reproduced in the appendix of Keman et al. (1985: 222)] – reproduction of five-point summary scale of neo-corporatism.
C6: Lehmbruch (1984: 66) – a cumulative scale of corporatism [5 = strong, 3 = medium, 2 = weak, 1 = pluralism], with Japan and France separately listed as
‘corporatism without labour’.
C7: Schott (1984: 43) – corporatism ranking of: strong [= 5], medium [= 3], and weak [= 1].
C8: Bruno & Sachs (1985: 226) – additive 0 to 4 index of corporatism reproduced on a one-to-five scale.
C9: Crouch (1985: 117) – basic yes/no [Y/N] dichotomy of corporatism (versus pluralism).
C10: Marks (1986: 261) – a ranking of fifteen nations on neocorporatist incomes policy (he regroups these into four ordinal categories; we do so into five).
C11: Wilensky & Turner (1987: 10–15) – presence of corporatism in various socioeconomic policy areas.
C12: Compston (1997: 739) – mean values on an eleven-point scale of union influence over economic policy, regrouped into a five-point scale.
C13: Wiarda (1997: 73–76) – distinction amongst strong corporatism [= 5], weak corporatism [= 1], and intermediate countries [= 3].
PR1: Cameron (1984: 167) – values (out of 100) for the ‘organizational power of labour’ regrouped into a five-point scale.
PR2: Marks (1986: 269, 277) – an ordinal ranking based on leftist control of government and union density, which he in turn finds strongly associated (r = 0.91)
with his ranking of neocorporatism proper [C10].
PR3: Garrett & Lange (1986: 533)/Lange & Garrett (1987: 262) – corporatist nations defined as those high in both leftist participation in cabinet and labour
organisation [PR3 is an average of their two almost identical rankings].
CN1: Paloheimo (1984a: 20, 1984b: 173, 1984c: 16) – ranking of strong [= 5], medium [= 3], and weak [= 1] on economic consensus only.
CN2: McCallum (1986: 954) (see also McCallum 1983) – a distinction between high consensus [Y] and low consensus [N] nations based on strike levels and
CORPORATISM IN 24 INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACIES
corporatist institutions.
CN3: Tarantelli (1986: 12–13) – a ranking of neo-corporatism which reflects a key role of consensus, summary scores (up to 15) regrouped into a five-point scale.
CN4: Schmidt (1986: 263) – distinctions amongst three types of policy ‘concertation’ (Konzertierung), that is to say, policy co-ordination: concertation and
consensus [= 5], concertation without consensus [= 3], or fragmentation and conflict [= 1].
CN5: Lehner (1988: 70–71) (see also Lehner 1987: 58) – a summary scale of public-private interaction consisting of: pluralism [= 1], weak corporatism [= 2],
medium corporatism [= 3], strong corporatism [= 5], and ‘concordance’, a ‘broader, less focused’ system of concertation.
WB1: Calmfors & Driffill (1988: 18) – an index of centralisation of wage bargaining refashioned into a one-to-five scale.
181
WB2: Layard, Nickell & Jackman (1991) – separate scores of union and employer co-ordination in collective bargaining, added together and then reproduced on
a one-to-five scale; scores for Portugal taken from Layard (1991: 1–5), as cited in Tylecote (1992).
182 ALAN SIAROFF
At the other extreme from the Austro-Scandinavian cases are Canada and
especially the USA. These two neighbours essentially exhibit almost none of
the aforementioned factors, with their relatively low levels of unionisation,
decentralised labour relations, and nationally weak or even non-existent so-
cial democracy. In short, one can thus ascertain clearly the ‘model’ corporatist
cases and the ‘model’ non-corporatist or pluralist ones (Bruno & Sachs 1985:
224–227). Other nations, however, may not be so easy to classify. Let us thus
turn to how the advanced capitalist nations have in fact been ranked on this
measure.
Ranking nations in terms of corporatism
In this section we shall summarise (in Table 1) the corporatist rankings of

twenty-three different analyses made over the past two decades. Whereas
most of these analyses classify ‘corporatism’ generally defined, others may
refer to corporatism but in fact focus on what would be better called ‘the
power resources of labour’, or ‘consensus’ (sometimes as the underpinning of
corporatism), or simply the centralisation of wage bargaining. In this overall
assessment we have been inspired by Lijphart & Crepaz’s (1991) summary
of twelve authors (largely but not totally overlapping with our 23 analyses).
However, whereas Lijphart and Crepaz basically standardised all rankings
and produced an average for each country, we are also interested in the extent
of agreement which can of course be totally obscured in a mean score.
To this end, as Table 1 shows, the rankings are recalibrated into a five-
point scale, with ‘5’ always being strong corporatism and ‘1’ pluralism.7 It
should be noted that two analysts do not provide a true continuum of meas-
ures. Colin Crouch [C10] gives a basic ‘yes’ or ‘no’ dichotomy (Y/N), which
we thus translate into the extreme scores of 5 and 1. Equally, John McCallum
[CN2] ultimately dichotomises nations into high and low consensus, which
are likewise scored as 5 or 1. Conversely, Bruno & Sach’s additive index [C8]
uses half points, and these are retained.
There are some national exceptions to a straightforward ranking (or di-
chotomy) of corporatism; these are the ‘problematic’ cases of France, Japan,
and Switzerland. First of all, there is Lehmbruch 1984 [C6], who refers to
France and Japan as ‘corporatism without labour’; the term goes back to
Pempel & Tsunewaka’s (1979) analysis of Japan. Wilensky & Turner (1987:
12) [C11] modify this alternative slightly, referring to ‘corporatism without
full-scale participation by labor’ in Japan, France, ‘and perhaps Switzerland’.
Nevertheless, the absence of labour (or at least its weakness) at the centre
does seem to contradict far too much any basic notion of corporatism.
Secondly and more intriguingly, Lehner (1987, 1988) [CN5] classifies

both Japan and Switzerland as examples of ‘concordance’, which he defines
as the ‘comprehensive co-ordination of the interactions of the public and
private sectors’, in order to minimise conflict almost as an end in itself. In
Switzerland especially, this co-ordination involves more than economic actors
and economic issues, reflecting in part the potential for a hostile referendum
on most any policy issue. On Lehner’s ‘scale of interactions’ of the private
and public sectors concordance is thus ranked highest, above strong corporat-
ism. However, even though concordance may be broader in scope and relevant
actors than corporatism, it still involves a less central role for labour.
The results of this analysis are presented in Table 2, which groups
advanced industrial nations by the extent to which they are considered corpor-
atist. The first column presents the mean values, then the standard deviation,
then the number of observations. (The ‘alternative measures’ of ‘corporatism
without labour’ and ‘concordance’ are scored a ‘2’, given the weaker central
roles of labour in these suggested concepts.) For comparison, the mean scores
determined by Lijphart & Crepaz (1991) are given in the final column; these
are basically in agreement, at least for the top five groupings. The placement
of most countries is not surprising. However, six industrial democracies –
Luxembourg, Iceland, Israel, Spain, Portugal, and Greece – are not classified
often enough to claim any scholarly agreement. Indeed, Lijphart & Crepaz
(1991: 238) do not rank these nations either, since they limited themselves to
nations with at least six measurements.
There is some disagreement over Finland especially between Paloheimo
[CN1] and McCallum [CN2] on the one hand, and Layard, Nickell & Jack-
man [WB2] on the other. In part, this may reflect the fact that Finnish
corporatism has increased over time (Pekkarinen 1992) – without, however,
seeing strikes vanish completely. More problematic however are the three
nations which in some scales have been classified by alternative measures:
Switzerland, Japan, and France. France is in fact not all that controversial:
it has an historic legacy of statism, now rather weakened, and certain areas
of sectoral corporatism (above all in agriculture); however, it is essentially
pluralist. Indeed, it only really has factors (6), (15), and (20) from our earlier
list.
In contrast, Switzerland and especially Japan are ranked with much more
variation. As Table 2 shows, these are the two nations the mean scores of
which have the highest standard deviations. Table 3 explores this result fur-
ther by giving the sub-scores wherever possible for the particular emphasis
of the analysts: corporatism proper, power resources, consensus, or wage
bargaining. As the table shows, the high variation in scores for Japan and
Switzerland occurs in part because these two nations – or at least Japan –
184 ALAN SIAROFF
Table 2. Agreed corporatist rankings
Mean Standard (N) Lijphart/Crepaz

deviation score
Nations considered to be strongly corporatist:

Austria 5.000 0.000 (23) +1.600
Norway 4.864 0.351 (22) +1.531
Sweden 4.674 0.556 (23) +1.396
Nations considered to be moderately-to-strongly corporatist:

Netherlands 4.000 0.989 (23) +1.006
Denmark 3.545 0.999 (22) +0.518
Germany (West) 3.543 0.940 (23) +0.480
Nations considered to be moderately corporatist:

Finland 3.295 1.043 (22) +0.427
Belgium 2.841 0.793 (22) +0.258
Nations considered to be weakly or only somewhat corporatist:

Ireland 2.000 1.015 (18) −0.528
New Zealand 1.955 0.907 (11) −1.106
Australia 1.688 0.873 (16) −1.025
UK 1.652 0.818 (23) −0.862
Italy 1.477 0.748 (22) −0.851
Nations considered to be not at all corporatist, but rather pluralist:

Canada 1.150 0.489 (20) −1.335
USA 1.150 0.489 (20) −1.341
Nations classified too infrequently for an agreed placement:

Luxembourg 3.000 0.000 (1) n.d.
Iceland 3.000 0.000 (1) n.d.
Israel 3.000 0.000 (1) n.d.
Portugal 1.500 1.000 (4) n.d.
Spain 1.250 0.500 (4) n.d.
Greece 1.000 0.000 (2) n.d.
Nations without agreement on placement or even on conceptualisation:

Switzerland 3.375 1.286 (20) +0.505
Japan 2.912 1.603 (17) +0.053
France 1.674 0.792 (23) −0.725
Source: Table 1.
Table 3. Corporatist rankings by the nature of emphasis
Maximum ‘N’ Corporatism Power Consensus Wage

proper resources bargaining
(13) (3) (5) (2)
Australia 1.375 2.50 1.50 2.50

Austria 5.000 5.00 5.00 5.00
Belgium 2.750 3.50 2.60 3.00
Canada 1.100 1.00 1.40 1.00
Denmark 3.583 4.17 2.80 4.25
Finland 3.458 3.83 2.20 4.25
France 1.462 1.33 2.00 2.75
Germany (West) 3.308 2.67 4.60 3.75
Greece 1.000 n.d. 1.00 n.d.
Iceland 3.000 n.d. n.d. n.d.
Ireland 2.050 1.50 2.00 2.25
Israel 3.000 n.d. n.d. n.d.
Italy 1.583 1.00 1.20 2.25
Japan 2.688 1.00 4.20 2.50
Luxembourg 3.000 n.d. n.d. n.d.
Netherlands 4.269 3.00 4.20 3.25
New Zealand 1.900 n.d. 1.75 2.50
Norway 4.917 5.00 4.80 4.50
Portugal 1.000 n.d. 1.00 3.00
Spain 1.000 n.d. 1.00 2.00
Sweden 4.808 4.67 4.40 4.50
Switzerland 3.375 2.50 4.25 2.50
UK 1.577 2.67 1.20 1.75
USA 1.100 1.00 1.40 1.00
Source: Table 1.
are seen as low in ‘power resources’ by those who essentially conceptualise

corporatism as such, whereas they are seen as high in consensus by those with
this sort of operationalisation.8
Indeed, Shalev (1990: 65) refers to Japan dramatically as ‘the veritable
Achilles heel of empirical operationalizations of corporatism’. Even Lijphart
& Crepaz’s (1991) ranking of Japan is hardly decisive. The reality is that
Japan and Switzerland have exhibited the co-operative behavioural patterns
of corporatism, at least economically [factors (9) through (14)]; a ‘free rider’
role in the world (factor 17); and (most of the time) a high level of economic
186 ALAN SIAROFF
success (factor 21), perhaps at others’ expense (factor 22); whilst only having
selected other factors.
Japan has a centralised business community (factor 3), an activist state
(factor 6) but one with minimal defence spending (factor 17 again), and a very
strong blurring of the boundaries between the public and the private sector
(factor 15). This produces a ‘total’ of only twelve factors, or just over ‘half’
of the ideal type (not that each are necessarily equal). Given the very different
nature of Japan’s labour relations, welfare programmes, and policy formation
in comparison with the social democratic nations of Western Europe, Shalev
(1990) explicitly rejects the concept of corporatism as applicable to Japan,
and thus criticises the various scholarly attempts to treat Japan as such. He
concludes that Japan’s
[l]abour quiescence since the middle of the 1970s is better explained by
the whip of market conditions, the pressure of unified opponents, and the
reinvigoration of the dual labour market, than by the elevation of peak
labour organizations to the status of guardians of public order. (Shalev
1990: 87)
Compared to Japan, Switzerland exhibits slightly more factors beyond

consensual economic behaviour, a centralised business community, a blurring
of the state/society distinction, and economic success; in particular, Switzer-
land is a small open economy (factor 16) which is neutral (factor 17) and
consociational (factor 18), and it does score highly on corporatist decision-
making and implementation (factors 7 and 8). This is symbolised in the use of
ad hoc commissions to prepare initial legislative proposals, followed by the
government receiving the formal written opinion of the main interest groups
(and other actors) before the proposal is finally submitted to parliament. Such
a pattern of policy-formation is given a legal basis in the Swiss constitution,
such as in article 32/3 (1947), which states that ‘[t]he interested economic
associations have to be consulted with regard to the elaboration of the laws
of execution and may be called to co-operate with the implementation of the
executive rules’ (quoted in Parri 1987: 89). Furthermore, the ability of organ-
ised interests to amass the necessary signatures for national policy referenda
is an additional reason to include them in the policy process.
At the same time as one notes these decision-making patterns, one must
also note the lack of centralised interest intermediation between business and
labour, the general weakness of the left, a very non-activist state (that is, no
factor 6, unlike even Japan), and indeed the extremely decentralised nature
of the Swiss nation (Parri 1987; Kriesi 1990). In summary, Switzerland has
(just) thirteen of the 22 ideal factors associated with the Austro-Scandinavian
version of corporatism. Yet is this enough for a partial – or alternative – type?
Katzenstein (1984, 1985) would say so, for he calls Switzerland, Belgium,
and the Netherlands examples of ‘liberal corporatism’ implying bourgeois
dominance and an outward-looking business community. Of these three na-
tions, Switzerland is the epitome of such ‘liberal corporatism’. This system
can be contrasted with the ‘social corporatism’ best exemplified by Austria.
Moreover, Katzenstein may have raised various differences (especially
the national role in the world economy) between Switzerland and Japan,
but he does not seem to object to parallels being raised between Japan and
the (liberal) corporatist systems of the small European states (Katzenstein
1988: 298). Thus for Katzenstein there seems to be three catagories: social
corporatism, liberal corporatism and (liberal) pluralism.
In contrast, Pekkarinen et al. (1992) imply that corporatism must be ‘so-
cial’ in nature. This would seem to exclude Switzerland, and indeed a major
analysis of corporatism and Switzerland concludes by stressing the following:
If corporatism is defined as a pluridimensional concept, embracing cent-
ralization of government, employers, and unions, public involvement in
relations between the government and the two classes, and class co-
operation, then it seems more appropriate to think of the Swiss system as
liberal capitalism. In the Swiss model, centralization of unions is absent
and centralization of government is only weak; furthermore, public in-
volvement is essentially lacking in matters of class conflicts. The Swiss
model more closely resembles paternalistic-liberal capitalism of the Ja-
panese type and may not therefore be considered a corporatist economy
as such. (Blaas 1992: 369)
Certainly, in addition to or perhaps as part of ‘concordance’ (Lehner),

Switzerland and Japan do seem to have more parallels with each other, espe-
cially a dualistic labour market, the paternalistic nature of employers (at least
vis-à-vis core employees), a small welfare state, and a generally unique route
to full employment and general economic success (Schmidt 1988a; Shalev
1990: 88). They thus have produced economic success without corporatism,
or at least without ‘proper’ corporatism. The analytical effect of these two
nations, though, implies that the macro distinction between corporatism and
pluralism may not be able to capture the full range of advanced industrial
political economies. Another approach is thus needed.
Alternatives to the corporatist paradigm
One such attempt is that of Hicks (1988b) who suggests a preliminary frame-
work of national collective economic action which involves the following five
types: the capitalist pluralism of the USA and the UK; the capitalist statism
188 ALAN SIAROFF
of Japan, France, and Italy; the social democratic corporatism of Austria,

Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden; the consociationalism (or effect-
ively liberal corporatism) of Switzerland, Belgium, and the Netherlands; and
the quadripartite corporatism of Germany. Hicks (1988b: 150) defines ‘quad-
ripartite corporatism’ as involving not just the state, business, and labour but
also a powerful financial actor, and he considers this four-actor pattern to be
unique to Germany. However, in such a model not only are neither Japan
nor Switzerland called corporatist, but they are each considered a separate
paradigmatic type. This result, combined with the equivocal and even incom-
plete nature of many classifications, renders Hicks’ framework more useful
as a heuristic device than as a new paradigm.
Yet Hicks is certainly justified in raising the issue of national financial act-
ors as they relate to business, labour, and the state. Moreover, his conclusion
that the more successful economies all involve some macro-societal means
for rational collective action implies that there is more than one successful
organisational alternative to pluralism (Hicks 1988b: 150–151). Although in-
triguing, this conclusion, which parallels Manfred Schmidt’s (1988a) notion
of ‘two routes to full employment’, again leaves us with multiple categories.
A similar problem arises with the analysis of Korpi (1991: 336–339),
who in a study of eighteen OECD nations discerns three different dom-
inant patterns of conflict settlements in the period 1973–1986. First, there
is the societal bargaining found in Sweden, Norway, Austria, Finland, and
Switzerland.9 This arose either through left-wing dominance as in the first
three cases, or via special constitutional factors which give veto power to the
moderately strong left found in both Finland and Switzerland. The second
pattern is one of pluralism, which is zero-sum and lacks the long-term
business-labour understanding of societal bargaining. Korpi ascribes this pat-
tern to most OECD nations, specifically the USA, Canada, Ireland, France,
Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, Belgium, the UK,
and Denmark. One should stress that Korpi is the only scholar to consider
(West) Germany and the Netherlands as essentially pluralist. Lastly, as was
noted earlier, Korpi defines the dominant pattern in Japan, and only Japan,
as one of state-led capitalism, involving the close co-operation of state and
business, but not labour, elites.
Korpi notes the problems with the open unemployment rates of Japan and
Switzerland, but still concludes that the average level of unemployment has
been much lower since 1973 in nations with either societal bargaining or
state-led capitalism than in the pluralist nations. Indeed, the largest increases
in unemployment have come in nations Korpi calls pluralist with a left of
medium strength, such as Denmark, the UK, the Netherlands, and Belgium.
The comparative unemployment performance of OECD nations has largely
been as Korpi has described. Moreover, his cases of societal bargaining –

Sweden, Norway, Austria, Finland, and Switzerland – have generally been
post-war economic successes. However, so has West Germany (despite its
lack of full employment) and Luxembourg (not discussed by Korpi but ap-
parently pluralist on his definitions).10 One also has the same problem as in
Hicks (1988b) of a merely nominal typology of advanced industrial political
economies.
Integrated economies
Thus the issue remains as to whether it is at all possible to come up with a uni-
dimensional and at least ordinal-level alternative to the corporatist-pluralist
continuum which is also not problematic with regards to Japan and Switzer-
land – not coincidently the two most difficult-to-classify advanced industrial
economies. Although far from settling the debate, we would argue for an
alternative term – integration – defined as follows:
a long-term co-operative pattern of shared economic management in-
volving the social partners and existing at various levels such as
plant-level management, sectoral wage bargaining, and joint shaping of
national policies in competitiveness-related matters (education, social
policy, etc.)
It should thus be noted that the level(s) at which such behaviour occur(s)
may not be the same in every nation. More generally, integration speaks
to the functional roles and behavioural patterns noted in the ideal types of
corporatism outlined earlier; however, it does not speak to – nor is it condi-
tional on – structural features (such as the level of unionisation) or favourable
contexts (such as the size or openness of a country, or the political role of
social democracy).
Tables 4a, 4b, 4c, and 4d set out to measure the levels of such integration at
four sequential time periods: the late 1960s (during the ‘golden age of capit-
alism’); the late 1970s (after the OPEC shock), the late 1980s (with increased
globalisation), and the current situation (as of the mid-1990s). Integration
scores are calculated based on eight measures which we have averaged into a
summary index. All measures are given on a scale from 5 (indicating greatest
integration) to 1 (indicating least). Scores for 21 democracies are given for
the first two time periods; with the addition of Greece, Portugal, and Spain,
the N increases to 24 democracies for the last two time periods.11
The first three columns indicate aspects of social partnership. First, there
is the level of strikes, wherein the fewer the strikes the higher the integration.
190 ALAN SIAROFF
Table 4a. Integrated versus pluralist economies, late 1960s
Factor [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Mean
Sweden 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 4.750
Austria 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 4 4.625
Norway 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 4.625
Israel 4 4 (5) 5 2 4 (5) (5) 4.500
Denmark 5 3 5 5 5 4 5 3 4.375
Switzerland 5 4 5 5 2 5 4 5 4.375
Netherlands 5 3 5 5 3 4 5 4 4.250
Belgium 4 3 4 5 5 4 5 3 4.125
Germany (West) 5 5 3 5 3 4 5 3 4.125
Luxembourg 5 3 (4) 5 (3) 4 (4) (4) 4.000
Finland 4 3 4 3 5 4 2 3 3.500
Japan 5 4 2 5 2 2 (2) 5 3.375
Iceland 1 3 (5) 3 3 2 (2) (3) 2.750
Australia 3 2 5 1 1 3 (2) 3 2.500
New Zealand 4 2 5 1 1 3 (1) (2) 2.375
Ireland 2 3 3 1 1 3 2 3 2.250
Italy 1 1 2 1 5 3 1 2 2.000
UK 4 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 2.000
France 4 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1.875
USA 2 4 1 1 1 3 (1) 1 1.750
Canada 2 2 2 1 1 3 (1) 1 1.625
Period mean 3.321

Standard deviation 1.133
Intercorrelations of the factors in Table 4a

(two-tailed significance, N = 21)
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Mean
[1] 1.000
[2] 0.483 1.000
(0.026)
[3] 0.396 0.258 1.000
(0.075) (0.259)
[4] 0.725 0.718 0.528 1.000
(0.000) (0.000) (0.014)
[5] 0.257 0.091 0.332 0.503 1.000
(0.262) (0.695) (0.141) (0.020)
[6] 0.516 0.600 0.483 0.633 0.349 1.000
(0.017) (0.004) (0.027) (0.002) (0.121)
[7] 0.689 0.657 0.589 0.892 0.478 0.759 1.000
(0.001) (0.001) (0.005) (0.000) (0.028) (0.000)
[8] 0.577 0.622 0.561 0.811 0.207 0.540 0.683 1.000
(0.006) (0.003) (0.008) (0.000) (0.369) (0.011) (0.001)
Mean 0.749 0.699 0.679 0.952 0.540 0.767 0.941 0.813 1.000
(0.000) (0.000) (0.001) (0.000) (0.011) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Table 4b. Integrated versus pluralist economies, late 1970s
Factor [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Mean
Sweden 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 4.750
Austria 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 4 4.625
Norway 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 4.625
Denmark 5 3 5 5 5 4 5 3 4.375
Switzerland 5 4 5 5 2 5 4 5 4.375
Finland 4 3 5 5 5 5 4 3 4.250
Israel 4 4 (5) 5 2 4 (5) (5) 4.250
Luxembourg 5 3 (4) 5 (3) 5 (4) (5) 4.250
Belgium 4 3 4 5 5 4 5 3 4.125
Germany (West) 5 5 3 5 3 5 4 3 4.125
Netherlands 5 3 4 5 3 4 3 4 3.875
Japan 5 4 2 5 2 2 (2) 5 3.375
Iceland 1 3 (5) 3 3 2 (2) (3) 2.750
Australia 3 2 5 1 1 3 (2) 3 2.500
New Zealand 4 2 5 1 1 3 (1) (2) 2.375
Ireland 2 3 3 1 1 3 2 3 2.250
Italy 1 1 3 1 5 3 1 2 2.125
UK 4 2 2 1 1 3 2 2 2.125
France 4 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1.875
USA 2 4 1 1 1 3 (1) 1 1.750
Canada 2 2 2 1 1 3 (1) 1 1.625
Period mean 3.351

Intercorrelations of the factors in Table 4b

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Mean
[1] 1.000
[2] 0.483 1.000
(0.026)
[3] 0.337 0.177 1.000
(0.135) (0.443)
[4] 0.719 0.701 0.487 1.000
(0.000) (0.000) (0.025)
[5] 0.257 0.091 0.420 0.563 1.000
(0.262) (0.695) (0.058) (0.008)
[6] 0.537 0.598 0.454 0.682 0.375 1.000
(0.012) (0.004) (0.039) (0.001) (0.094)
[7] 0.662 0.647 0.611 0.871 0.582 0.778 1.000
(0.001) (0.002) (0.003) (0.000) (0.006) (0.000)
[8] 0.586 0.593 0.504 0.792 0.202 0.529 0.674 1.000
(0.005) (0.005) (0.020) (0.000) (0.381) (0.014) (0.001)
Mean 0.745 0.679 0.646 0.953 0.597 0.789 0.949 0.786 1.000
(0.000) (0.001) (0.002) (0.000) (0.004) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
192 ALAN SIAROFF
Table 4c. Integrated versus pluralist economies, late 1980s
Factor [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Mean
Austria 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 4 4.625
Norway 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 4.625
Sweden 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 4.625
Switzerland 5 4 5 5 2 5 4 5 4.375
Finland 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 3 4.250
Luxembourg 5 3 (4) 5 (3) 5 (4) (4) 4.125
Germany (West) 5 5 3 5 3 5 4 3 4.125
Netherlands 5 3 4 5 3 4 4 4 4.000
Denmark 5 3 5 5 5 2 3 3 3.875
Belgium 4 3 4 5 5 2 3 3 3.625
Japan 5 4 2 5 2 4 (2) 5 3.625
Israel 2 4 (5) 5 2 4 (3) (3) 3.500
Australia 4 4 5 1 (2) 4 (4) (3) 3.375
Iceland 1 3 (5) 3 3 2 (2) (3) 2.750
Italy 2 1 3 3 5 4 2 2 2.750
Ireland 3 3 3 1 1 3 2 3 2.375
Portugal 5 1 3 1 3 3 (2) (1) 2.375
France 5 1 3 1 3 2 2 1 2.250
New Zealand 3 2 4 1 1 3 (1) (2) 2.125
USA 5 4 1 1 1 3 (1) 1 2.125
Spain 2 1 3 1 3 2 2 (1) 1.875
Canada 3 2 2 1 1 3 (1) 1 1.750
UK 3 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 1.750
Greece 1 1 3 1 3 2 (1) (1) 1.625
Period mean 3.188

Intercorrelations of the factors in Table 4c

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Mean
[1] 1.000
[2] 0.470 1.000
(0.021)
[3] 0.055 0.372 1.000
(0.799) (0.074)
[4] 0.392 0.632 0.569 1.000
(0.058) (0.001) (0.004)
[5] 0.119 −0.004 0.515 0.562 1.000
(0.579) (0.986) (0.010) (0.004)
[6] 0.399 0.612 0.292 0.570 0.052 1.000
(0.054) (0.001) (0.167) (0.004) (0.808)
[7] 0.475 0.630 0.734 0.757 0.560 0.683 1.000
(0.019) (0.001) (0.000) (0.000) (0.004) (0.000)
[8] 0.422 0.721 0.540 0.811 0.221 0.632 0.703 1.000
(0.040) (0.000) (0.006) (0.000) (0.299) (0.001) (0.000)
Mean 0.559 0.736 0.690 0.910 0.539 0.694 0.932 0.849 1.000
(0.004) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.007) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Table 4d. Integrated versus pluralist economies, mid-1990s
Factor [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Mean
Austria 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 4 4.625
Norway 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 4.625
Sweden 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 4.625
Finland 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 3 4.375
Switzerland 5 4 5 5 2 5 4 5 4.375
Denmark 5 3 5 5 5 4 4 3 4.250
Germany 5 5 3 5 3 5 4 3 4.125
Luxembourg 5 3 (4) 5 (3) 5 (4) (4) 4.125
Netherlands 5 3 4 5 3 4 4 4 4.000
Belgium 5 3 4 5 5 2 3 3 3.750
Japan 5 4 2 5 2 4 (2) 5 3.625
Israel 2 4 (5) 5 2 4 (3) (3) 3.500
Australia 5 2 5 1 (2) 3 (3) (3) 3.000
Italy 4 1 3 3 5 4 2 2 3.000
Iceland 2 3 (5) 3 3 2 (2) (3) 2.875
Ireland 5 3 3 1 1 3 2 3 2.625
New Zealand 5 2 4 1 1 3 (1) (2) 2.375
Portugal 5 1 3 1 3 3 (2) (1) 2.375
France 5 1 3 1 3 2 2 1 2.250
USA 5 4 1 1 1 3 (1) 1 2.125
Greece 3 1 3 1 3 3 (1) (1) 2.000
Spain 3 1 3 1 3 3 1 (1) 2.000
UK 5 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 2.000
Canada 4 2 2 1 1 3 (1) 1 1.875
Period mean 3.271

Intercorrelations of the factors in Table 4d

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Mean
[1] 1.000
[2] 0.204 1.000
(0.340)
[3] −0.147 0.304 1.000
(0.492) (0.148)
[4] 0.095 0.712 0.569 1.000
(0.658) (0.000) (0.004)
[5] −0.003 0.039 0.515 0.562 1.000
(0.990) (0.855) (0.010) (0.004)
[6] 0.209 0.572 0.330 0.679 0.222 1.000
(0.326) (0.003) (0.115) (0.000) (0.298)
[7] 0.281 0.629 0.729 0.830 0.605 0.694 1.000
(0.184) (0.001) (0.000) (0.000) (0.002) (0.000)
[8] 0.267 0.712 0.540 0.811 0.221 0.604 0.724 1.000
(0.208) (0.000) (0.006) (0.000) (0.299) (0.002) (0.000)
Mean 0.275 0.719 0.691 0.934 0.585 0.727 0.956 0.844 1.000
(0.194) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.003) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
194 ALAN SIAROFF
Notes to Tables 4a–d:
Indicators of social partnership:
[1] Annual average level of strike volumes, 1963–1970 [Table 4a]/1973–1980 [Table 4b]/1983–1990
[Table 4c]/1993–1996 [Table 4d] (averaged from ILO, Yearbook of Labour Statistics 1971, 1981,
1991, 1997; cf. Cornwall 1990: 121)
5 = less than 100 person-days per 1000 workers; 4 = 100 to 200 person-days per 1000 workers; 3
= 200 to 400 person-days per 1000 workers; 2 = 400 to 600 person-days per 1000 workers; 1 =
more than 600 person-days per 1000 workers
[2] Nature and goals of trade unions (Piehl 1978 [as cited in Czada 1984: 161]) with additions; cf.
Slomp 1990; Armingeon 1994)
5 = reformist – balance of class forces (Germanic type); 4 = reformist – hegemonic (Scandinavian
type) or acquiescent system conformation without active participation; 3 = conflictual – reformist
with participatory goals (Belgian type); 2 = reformist – conflictual with goal of self-control rather
than participation (British type); 1 = revolutionary – confrontational (Latin type)
[3] Legal and state support for unions and union power (from Armingeon 1994, chapter 2, with
Israel from Shalev 1992)
5 = full support (highest score on each component); 4 = strong support; 3 = moderate support; 2
= some (additional) support; 1 = only the basic rights of existence
Indicators of industry-level co-ordination:
[4] Nature of economic ties and outlook of firms (Soskice 1990 and private communication)
5 = co-ordinated market economy; 3 = co-ordinated only in key regions; 1 = non-co-ordinated
market economy
[5] extent of co-determination in the workplace (from Armingeon 1994, chapter 2; Israel from
Bar-Haim 1988)
5 = required and regulated, with broad involvement, and with the councils dependent on unions;
3 = required and regulated, with broad involvement, but without workers’ representatives
necessarily being from unions; 2 = permitted and common, but not regulated; 1 = permitted but
rare
Overall national policy-making patterns:
[6] Nature of (conflict resolution in) national industrial adjustment and wage setting (based on
Zysman 1983, Lindberg 1985, Traxler & Unger 1990, Korpi 1991, and Compston 1997, with
additions)
5 = bargained or networked; 4 = bargained or networked, with some state imposition of policies, or
some pluralism; 3 = pluralist or liberal (generally hands-off state); 2 = statist, with some inclusion
of economic actors; or pluralist, with some state imposition of policies; 1 = statist, with the state
often imposing policies
[7] Extent of ‘generalized political exchange’ in industrial relations and national policymaking
(Crouch 1990, with additions)
5 = extensive, both at the sectoral and the national level; 4 = extensive at either the sectoral or
the national level; 3 = formerly extensive, but now clearly weaker in various ways and at various
levels; 2 = incipient or weak; 1 = none
[8] general nature of public-private interaction (Lehner 1987/1988, with additions)
5 = concordance (encompassing co-ordination); 4 = strong corporatism; 3 = moderate corpora-
tism; 2 = weak corporatism; 1 = pluralism
Indeed, a low level of strikes has often been used as a central feature of cor-
poratism, yet this may be more of a reflection of broader consensus. In any
case, both Cameron (1984: 152–157) and Blaas & Guger (1985: 268–273)
have found clear relationships between high strike levels and ‘stagflation’
(high inflation combined with high unemployment). Since strike levels can
ebb and surge, an average was taken in each case for an eight-year period.
The second indicator of social partnership is the nature and orientation
of a nation’s trade unions – generally reflecting historical patterns which are
decades if not indeed a century old. Integration is higher when unions are
reformist rather then conflictual (or revolutionary), and where unions seek
to be integrated into the political-economic system or are totally acquiescent
rather than seeking to preserve a strong autonomy. However, unions which are
reformist and integrated but seek ultimately to dominate the system (such as
the Scandinavian labour movements) have somewhat more underlying con-
flict than reformist-integrated unions which are ‘content’ with a balance of
class forces. This latter pattern is found in the Germanic nations, which are
the paradigmatic cases here. This point relates to the fact that these nations
are the ones wherein capital and labour are called ‘social partners’, a term
less common in (and for Therborn inappropriate for) Scandinavia.
Of course, trade union behaviour does not occur in a vacuum. The third
indicator, based on Armingeon (1994: 29–30), measures the extent to which
unions are not merely permitted to exist and to strike, but are also legally
recognised and supported in terms of their achieving centralised control, hav-
ing the right to arbitration, and having broad influence (such as the extension
of contracts to non-unionised workers). To be precise, Armingeon measures
four factors, the first three of which are added together and then re-calibrated.
Next there are two indicators of industry-level co-ordination. David
Soskice (1990, 1991) has developed the concept of a ‘co-ordinated market
economy’, which is contrasted with a ‘non-co-ordinated market economy’
(factor [4]). This concept is concerned with the nature of firms, and reflects
the following features: in terms of the major companies the extent to which
there is a ‘virtuous circle of innovation, retraining and employment security’
(Soskice 1990: 196) arising from: (1) a long-term perspective of the firm
itself; (2) an equally long-term perspective of related actors in finance, mar-
keting, and research and development; and (3) the flexibility and co-operation
of managers and employees, especially regarding (a) the need for interna-
tional competitiveness and (b) skills formation, on which the firms spend
significant sums.
A more macro-level version of the same point is made by Hart (1992:
284) who stresses that both the German and Japanese political economies can
diffuse new technologies more easily and quickly than is possible in the UK,
196 ALAN SIAROFF
the USA, or France. In Germany this occurs because labour is highly skilled
and integrated into policy-making, thus comprising part of what Katzenstein
(1977) would call Germany’s ruling coalition. In Japan, in contrast, only the
‘core’ labour force is highly skilled, however non-core labour is too weak
and divided to resist technological change. Moreover, not only is the business
sector in both Germany and Japan well-organised (as Hart discusses) but each
also has a long-term outlook as Soskice stresses. A similar focus on Germany
and Japan as the major (in terms of size) co-ordinated and long-term oriented
economies can be found in the more journalistic analysis of Keegan (1992,
especially chapters 7 and 8). Michel Albert (1991) also focusses on the su-
perior performance of what he calls the ‘Rhinish’ capitalism of Germany, its
smaller neighbours, and Japan over the Anglo-Saxon and French versions of
capitalism. Both Keegan and Albert note the irony that it was the more seduct-
ive but ultimately less successful Anglo-Saxon version of capitalism that was
in the upswing in the Thatcherite–Reaganite 1980s, as well as being what has
normally been stressed in the post-communist ‘triumph of capitalism’. Since,
as noted, at least ‘core’ labour must be part of the process for such patterns
of co-ordination to occur, factor [5] of integration is the extent to which this
is institutionalised through employee co-determination at the plant level and
on company boards of directors. Armingeon’s (1994: 30) fourth measure of
labour relations is used here, with a slight modification.
Finally, there are three measures which define overall policy-making pat-
terns in advanced industrial nations. These patterns, one should note, reflect
some of the aspects of the corporatist paradigm. Factor [6] focusses on the
tendency of the state to include, leave to, or override the social partners
in the areas of national economic/industrial adjustment and wage setting.
Perhaps ironically, many of the scholars cited here consider a strong state
to be the most effective route to economic adjustment. Nevertheless, for
our purposes such state-led imposition of change is the clearest antithesis
of integration in this regard. Next, there is Crouch’s (1990: 72) measure of
‘generalized political exchange’, that is to say, ‘a dense web of interactions
binding together a small number of actors’ as applied to industrial relations
and socio-economic policy-making. This tends to be the mode of exchange
characteristic of neo-corporatism.
Lastly, factor [8] utilises Lehner’s (1987, 1988) scale of public-private in-
teraction, but in contrast to corporatism rankings the most integrated category
here is that of the concordance which he finds in Japan and Switzerland. This
factor, perhaps more than any other, speaks to the basic (but somewhat vague)
notion of ‘consensus’.
However, all of these factors contribute to an understanding of integration,
the component measures of which almost always correleate significantly (at
least at the 0.01 level) with the mean in every or almost every time period.12
Perhaps more crucially, there are no negative correlations between any of the
component scores (cumulatively across the time periods). For the late 1960s,
with an N of 21, the cumulative measure of integration has a mean of 3.321
and a standard deviation of 1.133. For the late 1970s, still with an N of 21,
the cumulative measure of integration has a mean of 3.351 and a standard
deviation of 1.122. In the late 1980s, with the full sample, the mean is down
to 3.188 and the standard deviation is 1.048. Finally, in the 1990s the mean is
3.271 and the standard deviation is 0.995. In terms of extremes, in each time
period Sweden, Austria, and Norway are clearly at the top. The very bottom
is less sharp, but it includes Canada and later Greece. More crucially, in each
time period the advanced industrial economies can in fact be grouped into
two clear clusters: the integrated economies (those clearly above the mean in
the period) and the non-integrated or shall we say pluralist economies (those
below the mean). The only nation that has (temporarily) shifted between
clusters is Australia, which by the late 1980s was into the (bottom of the)
rank of integrated nations. This shift reflected the various Accords between
the Labor government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU),
but perhaps even more importantly the adoption of a ‘Scandinavian’ outlook
by the ACTU. In 1986 senior unionists visited Europe, resulting in a com-
prehensive report (Australia Reconstructed) which recommended a shift to
‘strategic unionism’ with an integrated long-term strategy à la Sweden and
Norway. The next year the ACTU adopted this as policy (Archer 1992: 405).
However, by the 1990s the Accords became less substantive, and the return
to power of the Australian conservatives in 1996 led to the ACTU returning
to its traditional labourist outlook.
Although Australia has been the only case to cross clusters, there has been
some movement within each cluster. On the one hand, Israel and Finland
have basically changed places within the integrated cluster. Furthermore,
after the 1970s integration clearly fell off in Belgium. From the 1960s to
the 1970s, integration also weakened in the Netherlands, although it would
recover somewhat from the early 1980s (Visser & Hemerijck 1997). On the
other hand, within the pluralist cluster Italy has become clearly less pluralist;
indeed, it may be the most likely candidate to become integrated at some fu-
ture date. In any case, it is our view that the dichotomy of advanced industrial
economies remains more crucial than any (sub-)movements. In particular,
it is important to stress that Japan, Switzerland, and Luxembourg have all
been integrated political economies, despite the fact that they may not be
corporatist in the traditional sense.
Indeed, one of the realities of both Japan and Switzerland is the fact that
co-operation between business and (core) labour occurs there in a much more
198 ALAN SIAROFF
Table 5. Corporatism versus integration scores
Corporatism scores Integration scores

mean (std. dev.) Late Late Late Mid-
1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s
Austria 5.000 (0.000) 4.625 4.625 4.625 4.625

Norway 4.864 (0.351) 4.625 4.625 4.625 4.625
Sweden 4.674 (0.556) 4.750 4.750 4.625 4.625
Netherlands 4.000 (0.989) 4.250 3.875 4.000 4.000
Denmark 3.545 (0.999) 4.375 4.375 3.875 4.250
Germany (West) 3.543 (0.940) 4.125 4.125 4.125 4.125
Switzerland 3.375 (1.286) 4.125 4.125 4.125 4.125
Finland 3.295 (1.043) 3.500 4.250 4.250 4.375
Iceland 3.000 (0.000) 2.750 2.750 2.750 2.875
Israel 3.000 (0.000) 4.500 4.250 3.500 3.500
Luxembourg 3.000 (0.000) 4.000 4.250 4.125 4.125
Japan 2.912 (1.603) 3.375 3.375 3.625 3.625
Belgium 2.841 (0.793) 4.125 4.125 3.625 3.750
Ireland 2.000 (1.015) 2.250 2.250 2.375 2.625
New Zealand 1.955 (0.907) 2.375 2.375 2.125 2.375
Australia 1.680 (0.873) 2.500 2.500 3.375 3.000
France 1.674 (0.792) 1.875 1.875 2.250 2.250
UK 1.652 (0.818) 2.000 2.125 1.750 2.000
Portugal 1.500 (1.000) – – 2.375 2.375
Italy 1.477 (0.748) 2.000 2.125 2.750 3.000
Spain 1.250 (0.500) – – 1.875 2.000
Canada 1.150 (0.489) 1.625 1.625 1.750 1.875
USA 1.150 (0.489) 1.750 1.750 2.125 2.125
Greece 1.000 (0.000) – – 1.625 2.000
Mean 2.648 3.321 3.351 3.188 3.271

Standard deviation 1.234 1.133 1.122 1.048 0.995
Sources: Table 2, Table 4a, Table 4b, Table 4c, Table 4d.
decentralised way than in purely ‘corporatist’ nations with national tripartism

(Armingeon 1997: 171–172). This situation has proven to be a comparative
outlier or even a puzzle. In part this is because of the stress in the corporatist
literature on centralisation – and indeed the fact that certain authors define
corporatism in this way. In contrast, the concept of integration has no such
presumption of centralisation. Yet it is relevant to note that the causal pattern
‘corporatist centralisation leads to economic success’ contains an assump-
tion of an intervening variable, that of a high degree of communication and

goal sharing. In fact, as Hancock & Shimada (1993: 230–231) note, Japan
ranks very highly in terms of positive-sum information sharing and goal co-
ordination. Tsujinika (1993: 202) would agree with Hancock and Shimada;
indeed he argues that there are ‘osmotic networks’ involving the Rengō la-
bour confederation, large firms, and the state. However, whereas all of these
authors would thus see Japan as having ‘functional corporatism’ because of
this pattern, an alternative way of viewing Japan is to consider it as a highly
integrated political economy.
Finally, it certainly is true that the nations about which there is gen-
eral agreement on the presence of corporatism – such as Sweden, Austria,
and Norway – are integrated nations. Equally, clearly pluralist nations like
Canada, Greece, and the USA are also pluralist in the sense of being non-
integrated. For the purposes of comparison, Table 5 gives our integration
scores alongside the overall mean corporatism scores. The correlations with
the aforementioned mean score of corporatism are in fact extremely high: the
value (r) here is 0.914 for the late 1960s, 0.907 for the late 1970s, 0.911 for
the late 1980s, and 0.924 for the mid-1990s. The differences, however, are
crucial ones: as stressed above, by focusing essentially on roles and beha-
viour rather than the broader supposedly favourable structures and contexts,
we have established the clear ordinal ranking of the long-term democracies,
and the certainty of the integrated nature of the Japanese, Swiss, and Luxem-
bourg economies. Consequently, we feel that the integration scores are a clear
improvement in terms of comparative analysis.
Notes
1. Keman & Pennings (1995: 279) disagree, concluding that ‘corporatism should not be con-
sidered as an intrinsic component of consensus democracy’. Crepaz and Lijphart (1995:
288) hold to their argument, noting how corporatism correlates reasonably well with four
of the five traditional measures of consensus democracy.
2. See also Therborn (1987).
3. One exception here is Golden (1986), who sees two types of policy-making networks
at the opposite extreme from corporatism: pluralism and competitive symbiosis. These
patterns (as well as the form of corporatism, and patterns of labour exclusion and de-
mobilized democracy) are distinguished in large part by the unity or lack thereof of the
political left, in particular the presence of a strong communist party. Such categorisations
undoubtedly reflect Golden’s focus on post-war Italy; however, they do not seem broadly
applicable.
4. The following analysis generally draws on Schmidt (1982b: 253); Bornstein (1984: 57–
58); Held & Krieger (1984: 13–14); Paloheimo (1984a: 22–23); Bruno & Sachs (1985:
224–227); Scholten (1987: 124); Pekkarinen (1992: 298–301); and Woldendorp (1997:
54–61).
200 ALAN SIAROFF
5. Indeed, Mitchell (1996: 422) argues that the number of unions is a better, and certainly a
simpler, measure of labour concentration than the number of union confederations.
6. Of course, such durable consensual or even consociational patterns may only be a
post-World War Two phenomenon. Indeed, in nations like Austria and Finland the pre-
war behaviour or ‘alternative’ was often not so much liberal pluralism as it was class
polarisation and even civil war (for example, 1934 Austria).
7. Pryor (1988: 326–327) has done a similar procedure, but only for six authors (and using
a three-point scale).
8. Indeed, if the alternative measure ‘concordance’ used by Lehner [CN5] is re-scored with
a ‘5’ rather than a ‘2’ so as to reflect his argument that these are the most consensual
nations (even more so than the strongly corporatist cases), then the average sub-score for
an emphasis on consensus would increase to 4.80 for Japan and 5.00 for Switzerland. The
difference between these values and the sub-scores for an emphasis on power resources
would thus increase correspondingly.
9. Indeed, in The Democratic Class Struggle Korpi also prefers the use of the term ‘societal
bargaining’ to that of ‘corporatism’, which he associates with fascistic state corporatism.
However, the patterns of behaviour associated with ‘societal bargaining’ as used by Korpi
clearly parallel most usages of the concept of (liberal) corporatism (Korpi 1983: 20–21).
Moreover, ‘societal bargaining’ seems to have as one precondition the effective power
of the political left, factor (18) of our ideal type of corporatism. There is thus a clear
relationship in Korpi’s analysis (1991: 339 [Table 4]) between the dominant pattern of
conflict settlement and the long-term strength of the political left – a narrower version of
his notion of ‘power resources’.
10. Iceland is another OECD nation which would seem to be pluralist in terms of Korpi’s
(1991) classifications – yet which had almost no unemployment in the 1970s and 1980s.
The addition of both Luxembourg and Iceland would thus seem to weaken Korpi’s overall
conclusions, or else question his categorisation.
11. Even though Greece, Portugal, and Spain had each undergone a transition to demo-
cracy by the late 1970s, it was not until the 1980s that democracy was considered to
be consolidated in each case. Consequently they are first scored for the late 1980s.
12. The main exception here is the level of strike volumes in the mid-1990s, where the cor-
relation with the mean is only 0.275 (compared with 0.559 in the late 1980s) and which
correlates negatively with factor 3 (although not at a significant level). This weakened
relationship has arisen largely due to sharp drops in strike volumes in traditionally strike-
prone pluralist nations, specifically Greece, Ireland, New Zealand, and the UK. One may
thus question the (continued) utility of this measure. However, given that strike volumes
are measured for a shorter period (of four years) for the final time period, there does not
(yet) seem to be sufficient justification to discard the factor.
References
Albert, M. (1991). Capitalisme contre Capitalisme. Paris: Seuil.

Archer, R. (1992). The unexpected emergence of Australian corporatism, in J. Pekkarinen,
M. Pohjola & B. Rowthorn (eds.), Social corporatism: A superior economic system? (pp.
377–417). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Armingeon, K. (1994). Staat und Arbeitsbeziehungen: Ein Internationaler Vergleich. Opladen:
Westdeutscher Verlag.
Armingeon, K. (1997). Swiss corporatism in comparative perspective, West European Politics

20(4): 164–179.
Bar-Haim, A. (1988). Workers’ participation and personnel policies in Israel, International
Labour Review 127(3): 381–397.
Blaas, W. (1992). The Swiss model: Corporatism or liberal capitalism?, in J. Pekkarinen, M.
Pohjola & B. Rowthorn (eds.), Social corporatism: A superior economic system? (pp.
363–376). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Blaas, W. & Guger, A. (1985). Arbeitsbeziehungen und makroökonomische Stabilität im inter-
nationalen Vergleich, in P. Gerlich, E. Grande & W. C. Muller (eds.), Sozialpartnerschaft
in der Krise: Leistungen und Grenzen des Neokorporatismus in Österreich (pp. 255–277).
Vienna: Hermann Böhlaus.
Bornstein, S. (1984). States and unions: From postwar settlement to contemporary stalemate,
in S. Bornstein, D. Held & J. Krieger (eds.), The state in capitalist Europe: A casebook
(pp. 54–90). London: George Allen and Unwin.
Braun, D. (1983). De inkomenspolitiek als politiserings-strategie, Mededelingen van de
Subfaculteit der Algemene Politieke en Sociale Wetenschappen, 42, Universiteit van Am-
sterdam. As cited on pp. 220–222 in H. Keman, J. Woldendorp & D. Braun (eds.),
(1985), Het neo-korporatisme als nieuwe politieke strategie: krisisbeheersing met en
(door) overleg? Amsterdam: CT Press.
Bruno, M. & Sachs, J. D. (1985). Economics of Worldwide Stagflation. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Calmfors, L. & Driffill, J. (1988). Bargaining structure, corporatism, and macroeconomic
performance, Economic Policy 6: 14–61.
Cameron, D. R. (1984). Social democracy, corporatism, labour quiescence, and the represent-
ation of economic interest in advanced capitalist society, in J. Goldthorpe (ed.), Order and
Conflict in contemporary capitalism (pp. 143–178). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Castles, F. G. (1987). Neocorporatism and the ‘happiness index’, or what the trade unions get
for their cooperation, European Journal of Political Research 15(4): 381–393.
Compston, H. (1997). Union power, policy making, and unemployment in Western Europe,
1972–1993, Comparative Political Studies 30(6): 732–751.
Cornwall, J. (1990). The theory of economic breakdown: An institutional-analytical approach.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Crepaz, M. L. & Lijphart, A. (1995). Linking and integrating corporatism and consensus
democracy: Theory, concepts and evidence, British Journal of Political Science 25:
281–288.
Crouch, C. (1985). Conditions for trade union wage restraint, in L. N. Lindberg & Ch. S. Maier
(eds.), The Politics of Inflation and Economic Stagnation (pp. 105–139). Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution.
Crouch, C. (1990). Generalized political exchange in industrial relations in Europe dur-
ing the twentieth century, in B. Marin (ed.), Governance and generalized exchange:
Self-organizing policy networks in action (pp. 69–116). Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.
Czada, R. (1983). Konsensbedingungen und Auswirkungen neokorporatistischer
Politikentwicklung, Journal für Sozialforschung 23(4); 421–440.
Fulcher J. (1991). Labour movements, employers, and the state: Conflict and co-operation in
Britain and Sweden. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Garrett, G. & Lange, P. (1986). Performance in a hostile world: Economic growth in capitalist
democracies, World Politics 38: 517–545.
Golden, M. (1986). Interest representation, party systems, and the state: Italy in comparative
perspective, Comparative Politics 18: 279–301.
202 ALAN SIAROFF
Hancock, M. D. & Shimada, H. (1993). Wage determination in Japan and West Germany, in H.
Fukui et al. (eds.), The politics of economic change in postwar Japan and West Germany,
Volume 1: Macroeconomic Conditions and Policy Responses (pp. 207–232). Basingstoke
Macmillan.
Hart, J. A. (1992). Rival capitalists: International competitiveness in the United States, Japan,
and Western Europe. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Heclo H. & Madsen, H. (1987). Policy and politics in Sweden: Principled pragmatism.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Held, D. & Krieger, J. (1984). Theories of the state: Some competing claims, in S. Bornstein,
D. Held & J. Krieger (eds.), The state in capitalist Europe: A casebook (pp. 1–20). London:
George Allen and Unwin.
Hicks, A. (1988a). Social democratic corporatism and economic growth, Journal of Politics
50: 677–704.
Hicks, A. (1988b). National collective action and economic performance: A review article,
International Studies Quarterly 32: 131–153.
International Labour Organisation, Yearbook of Labour Statistics, various years. Geneva: ILO.
Katzenstein, P. J. (1977). Conclusion: Domestic structures and strategies of foreign economic
policy, International Organization 31: 879–920.
Katzenstein, P. J. (1985). Small states in world markets: Industrial policy in Europe. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.
Katzenstein, P. J. (1988). Japan, Switzerland of the Far East?, in T. Inoguchi & D. I. Okimoto
(eds.), The political economy of Japan, Volume 2: The changing international context (pp.
275–304). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Keegan, W. (1992). The spectre of capitalism: The future of the world economy after the fall
of communism. London: Radius.
Keman, H. (1984). Politics, policies and consequences: A cross-national analysis of public
policy-formation in advanced capitalist democracies (1967–1981), European Journal of
Political Research 12: 147–170.
Keman, H. & Pennings, P. (1995). Managing political and societal conflict in democracies: Do
consensus and corporatism matter?, British Journal of Political Science 25: 271–281.
Korpi, W. (1983). The democratic class struggle. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Korpi, W. (1991). Political and economic explanations for unemployment: A cross-national
and long-term analysis, British Journal of Political Science 21: 315–348.
Kriesi, H. (1990). Political power and decision making in Switzerland, in J. E. Hilowitz (ed.),
Switzerland in Perspective (pp. 35–50). New York: Greenwood Press.
Lange, P. & Garrett, G. (1985). The politics of growth, Journal of Politics 47: 792–827.
Lange, P. & Garrett, G. (1987). The politics of growth reconsidered, Journal of Politics 49:
257–274.
Layard, R. (1990). How to end pay leapfrogging, Employment Institute Economic Report
5 (July): 1–5. As cited in A. Tylecote (1992), Core-periphery inequalities in European
integration, east and west, in W. Blaas & J. Foster (eds.), Mixed economies in Europe (pp.
237–273). Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
Layard, R., Nickell, S. & Jackman, R. (1991). Unemployment: Macroeconomic performance
and the labour market. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lehmbruch, G. (1979). Liberal corporatism and party government, in Ph. C. Schmitter &
G. Lehmbruch (eds.), Trends toward corporatist intermediation (pp. 147–183). London:
Sage.
Lehmbruch, G. (1984). Concertation and the structure of corporatist networks, in J. H. Gold-

thorpe (ed.), Order and Conflict in Contemporary Capitalism (pp. 60–80). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Lehner, F. (1987). Interest intermediation, institutional structures and public policy, in H.
Keman, H. Paloheimo & P. Whiteley (eds.), Coping with the economic crisis: Alternative
responses to economic recession in advanced industrial societies (pp. 54–82). London:
Sage.
Lehner, F. (1988). The political economy of distributive conflict, in F. G. Castles, F. Lehner
& M. G. Schmidt (eds.), The future of party government, Volume 3: Managing Mixed
Economies (pp. 54–96). Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.
Lijphart, A. & Crepaz, M. M. L. (1991). Corporatism and consensus democracy in eighteen
countries: Conceptual and empirical linkages, British Journal of Political Science 21: 235-
246.
Lindberg, L. N (1985). Models of the inflation-disinflation process, in L. N. Lindberg & Ch.
S. Maier (eds.), The politics of inflation and economic stagnation: Theoretical approaches
and international case studies (pp. 25–50). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Marin, B. (1985). Austria: The paradigm case of liberal corporatism, in W. Grant (ed.), The
Political Economy of Corporatism. London: Macmillan.
Marks, G. (1986). Neocorporatism and incomes policy in Western Europe and North America,
Comparative Politics 18: 253–277.
McCallum, J. (1983). Inflation and social consensus in the seventies, Economic Journal 93:
784–805.
McCallum, J. (1986). Unemployment in the OECD countries in the 1980s, Economic Journal
96: 942–960.
Mitchell, N. J. (1996). Theoretical and empirical issues in the comparative measurement of
union power and corporatism, British Journal of Political Science 26: 419–428.
Paloheimo, H. (1984a). Pluralism, corporatism and the distributive conflict in developed
capitalist countries, Scandinavian Political Studies 7: 17–38.
Paloheimo, H. (1984b). Distributive struggle and economic development in the 1970s in
developed capitalist countries, European Journal of Political Research 12: 171–190.
Paloheimo, H. (1984c). Distributive struggle, corporatist power structures and economic
policy of the 1970s in developed capitalist countries, in H. Paloheimo (ed.), Politics in
the Era of Corporatism and Planning (pp. 1–46). Tampere: Finnpublishers Oy for the
Finnish Political Science Association.
Paloheimo, H. (1990a). Between liberalism and corporatism: The effect of trade unions and
governments on economic performance in eighteen OECD countries, in R. Brunetta &
C. Dell’Aringa (eds.), Labour Relations and Economic Performance (pp. 114–136). New
York: New York University Press.
Paloheimo, H. (1990b). Micro foundations and macro practice of centralized industrial
relations, European Journal of Political Research 18: 389–406.
Panitch, L. (1980). Recent theorizations of corporatism: Reflections on a growth industry,
British Journal of Sociology 31: 159–187.
Parri, L. (1987). Neo-corporatist arrangements, ‘Konkordanz’ and direct democracy: The
Swiss experience, in I. Scholten (ed.), Political stability and neo-corporatism (pp. 70–94).
London: Sage.
Pekkarinen, J. (1992). Corporatism and economic performance in Sweden, Norway and Fin-
land, in J. Pekkarinen, M. Pohjola & B. Rowthorn (eds.), Social Corporatism: A Superior
Economic System? (pp. 298–337). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
204 ALAN SIAROFF
Pekkarinen, J., Pohjola, M. & Rowthorn, B., eds. (1992). Social corporatism: A superior
economic system? Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Pempel, T. J. & Tsunekawa, K. (1979). Corporatism without labor: The Japanese anomaly, in
Ph. C. Schmitter & G. Lehmbruch (eds.), Trends toward corporatist intermediation (pp.
231–270). London: Sage.
Piehl, E. (1978). Konzepte gewerkschaftlicher Interessenvertretung in West-Europa, Forum
3(5): 58–83. As cited in R. Czada (1984), Zwischen Arbeitsplatzinteresse und Modern-
isierungszwang, in H. Wimmer (ed.), Wirtschafts- und Sozialpartnerschalt in Österreich.
Vienna: VWGÖ.
Pryor F. (1988). Corporatism as an economic system: A review essay, Journal of Comparative
Economics 12: 317–344.
Schmidt, M. G. (1982a). Staatliche Politik, Parteien und der politische Unterbau: Zur Kritik
an Klaus von Beymes ‘Do Parties Matter?’, Politische Vierteljahresschrift 23: 199–204.
Schmidt, M. G. (1982b). Does corporatism matter? Economic crisis, politics and rates of un-
employment in capitalist democracies in the 1970s, in G. Lehmbruch & Ph. C. Schmitter
(eds.), Patterns of Corporatist Policy-making (pp. 237–258). London: Sage.
Schmidt, M. G. (1983). The welfare state and the economy in periods of economic crisis: A
comparative study of twenty-three OECD nations, European Journal of Political Research
11: 1–26.
Schmidt, M. G. (1986). Politische Bedingungen erfolgreicher Wirtschaftspolitik: Eine ver-
gleichende Analyse westlicher Industrieländer (1960–1985), Journal für Sozialforschung
26(3): 251–273.
Schmitter, Ph. C. (1979). Still the century of corporatism?, in Ph. C. Schmitter & G.
Lehmbruch (eds.), Trends toward corporatist intermediation (pp. 7–52). London: Sage.
Schmitter, Ph. C. (1981). Interest intermediation and regime governability in contemporary
Western Europe and North America, in S. Berger (ed.), Organizing Interests in Western
Europe (pp. 285–327). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scholten, I. (1987). Corporatism and the neo-liberal backlash in the Netherlands, in I. Scholten
(ed.), Political stability and neo-corporatism (pp. 120–152). London: Sage.
Schott, K. (1984). Policy, power and order: The persistence of economic problems in capitalist
states. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Shalev, M. (1990). Class conflict, corporatism and comparison: A Japanese enigma, in S.
N. Eisenstadt & E. Ben-Ari (eds.), Japanese Models of Conflict Resolution (pp. 60–93).
London: Kegan Paul.
Shalev M. (1992). Labour and the political economy in Israel. Oxford: Oxford University
Press
Slomp, H. (1990). Labor relations in Europe: A history of issues and developments. New York:
Greenwood Press.
Soskice, D. (1990). Reinterpreting corporatism and explaining unemployment: Co-ordinated
and non-co-ordinated market economies, in R. Brunetta & C. Dell’Aringa (eds.), Labour
relations and economic performance (pp. 170–211). New York: New York University
Press.
Soskice, D. (1991). The institutional infrastructure for international competitiveness: A com-
parative analysis of the UK and Germany, in A. B. Atkinson & R. Brunetta (eds.),
Economics for the New Europe (pp. 45–66). New York: New York University Press.
Tarantelli, E. (1986). The regulation of inflation and unemployment, Industrial Relations 25:
1–15.
Therborn, G. (1987). Does corporatism really matter? The economic crisis and issues of
political theory, Journal of Public Policy 7: 259–284.
Therborn, G. (1992). Lessons from ‘corporatist’ theorizations, in J. Pekkarinen, M. Pohjola

& B. Rowthorn (eds.), Social corporatism: A superior economic system? (pp. 24–43).
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Traxler, F. & Unger, B. (1990). Institutionelle Erfolgsbedingungen wirtschaftlichen Struktur-
wandels, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft 16(2): 189–223.
Tsujinaka, Y. (1993). Rengō and its osmotic networks, in G. D. Allinson & Y. Sone (eds.),
Political Dynamics in Contemporary Japan (pp. 200–213). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Visser, J. & Hemerijck, A. (1997). ‘A Dutch miracle’: Job growth, welfare reform and
corporatism in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Wiarda, H. J. (1997). Corporatism and comparative politics: The other great ‘ism’. Armonk,
NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Wilensky H. & Turner, L. (1987). Democratic corporatism and policy linkages. Berkeley:
Institute of International Studies.
Williamson, P. J. (1989). Corporatism in perspective: An introductory guide to corporatist
theory. London: Sage.
Woldendorp, J. J. (1995), Neo-corporatism as a strategy for conflict regulation in the
Netherlands (1970–1990), Acta Politica 30: 121–151.
Woldendorp, J. J. (1997), Neo-corporatism and macroeconomic performance in eight small
west European countries (1970–1990), Acta Politica 32: 49–79.
Zysman, J. (1983). Governments, markets, and growth: Financial systems and the politics of
industrial change. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Address for correspondence: Alan Siaroff, Department of Political Science, The University
of Lethbridge, 4401 University Drive, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada T1K 3M4
Phone: (403) 329-2581; Fax: (403) 382-7148; E-mail: [email protected]

Siaroff EJPR1999

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Siaroff EJPR1999

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Siaroff EJPR1999

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

European Journal of Political Research 36: 175–205, 1999.

Corporatism in 24 industrial democracies:

OECD countries is hardly likely to add very much to our understanding of

Usages of the term ‘corporatism’

Analyses of corporatism have tended to involve two different uses (Lijphart

he examines specifically the extent to which the government intervenes and

The ideal type of corporatism

Various factors have often been considered to be virtual ‘preconditions’ for

(1) a high degree of unionisation, especially amongst blue-collar workers;

Ranking nations in terms of corporatism

In this section we shall summarise (in Table 1) the corporatist rankings of

Secondly and more intriguingly, Lehner (1987, 1988) [CN5] classifies

Table 2. Agreed corporatist rankings

Mean Standard (N) Lijphart/Crepaz

Nations considered to be strongly corporatist:

Nations considered to be moderately-to-strongly corporatist:

Nations considered to be moderately corporatist:

Nations considered to be weakly or only somewhat corporatist:

Nations considered to be not at all corporatist, but rather pluralist:

Nations classified too infrequently for an agreed placement:

Nations without agreement on placement or even on conceptualisation:

Maximum ‘N’ Corporatism Power Consensus Wage

Australia 1.375 2.50 1.50 2.50

are seen as low in ‘power resources’ by those who essentially conceptualise

Compared to Japan, Switzerland exhibits slightly more factors beyond

Certainly, in addition to or perhaps as part of ‘concordance’ (Lehner),

Alternatives to the corporatist paradigm

of Japan, France, and Italy; the social democratic corporatism of Austria,

been as Korpi has described. Moreover, his cases of societal bargaining –

Table 4a. Integrated versus pluralist economies, late 1960s

Period mean 3.321

Intercorrelations of the factors in Table 4a

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Mean

Period mean 3.351

Intercorrelations of the factors in Table 4b

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Mean

Table 4c. Integrated versus pluralist economies, late 1980s

Period mean 3.188

Intercorrelations of the factors in Table 4c

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Mean

Period mean 3.271

Intercorrelations of the factors in Table 4d

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Mean

Notes to Tables 4a–d:

Indicators of social partnership:

Indicators of industry-level co-ordination:

Overall national policy-making patterns:

Table 5. Corporatism versus integration scores

Corporatism scores Integration scores

Austria 5.000 (0.000) 4.625 4.625 4.625 4.625

Mean 2.648 3.321 3.351 3.188 3.271

decentralised way than in purely ‘corporatist’ nations with national tripartism

tion of an intervening variable, that of a high degree of communication and

Albert, M. (1991). Capitalisme contre Capitalisme. Paris: Seuil.

Armingeon, K. (1997). Swiss corporatism in comparative perspective, West European Politics

Lehmbruch, G. (1984). Concertation and the structure of corporatist networks, in J. H. Gold-

Therborn, G. (1992). Lessons from ‘corporatist’ theorizations, in J. Pekkarinen, M. Pohjola

You might also like