Different Models Of Capitalism Research Articles

Moving beyond supply‐side arguments to explain over‐qualification: The ability to absorb graduates in different models of capitalism

AbstractThis study examines how the rise in the share of higher education graduates leads to over‐qualification, by focusing on the demand‐side drivers. We propose that the benefits of investments in higher education depend on the levels of innovation and economic growth in each national economy. We use a configurational method (Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis) to identify combinations of factors that lead to a high incidence of over‐qualification in 17 European countries. The results show that over‐qualification is greater in countries in which an increase in the number of graduates is accompanied by a failure to transition to a knowledge‐based economy and poor economic growth. Furthermore, a low weight of high‐tech manufacturing sectors in the GDP is a necessary condition for over‐qualification to occur. These arguments explain the more pronounced mismatch in Southern Europe and Austria compared to other European countries. As for policy implications, this study shows that investment in education did not lead to expected benefits in some countries because this investment did not boost competitiveness in high‐tech sectors. Thus, alternative policies must be implemented. Besides investment in education, some kind of industrial policy seems necessary in a number of European countries.

Compensation policies and comparative capitalisms

A widespread rhetoric suggests that market-like rules dominate employment relationships, and particularly compensation, but empirical evidence is inconclusive. This research examines organisations’ compensation policies in clusters of European capitalist economies to test such a hypothesis. Four fuzzy clusters emerged from data, namely, Standard, Internalised, Competitive and Incentive, which illustrates a division between organisation- and market-based models. Collective pay rules characterise organisation-based model, and this is the predominant model in all countries except for the liberal market economies. Firms from different models of capitalism rely on internal labour market pay rules, suggesting that the scope of the liberal market system is narrow. Differences within clusters of capitalist economies suggest a role for agency and hidden labour market specificities in each grouping. The similarities of pay policies open room to identifying capitalist economies differently.

Peripheral capitalism of the Visegrad group states – selected issues

The article presents different models of capitalism with special regard to those occurring in the countries of Central and East Europe after 1989. Next the reasons why in the Vysegrad Group countries, among others, the model of capitalism called peripheral, dependent, imitative or hybrid was shaped and got strengthened. A separate subject of reflections is the issue of further economic development.

The comparative empirical analysis of the social protection system in selected Central and Eastern European countries: Emerging models of capitalism1

Abstract This article analyzes the institutional architecture and the level of similarity between the social protection system in 11 new EU member states from Central and Eastern Europe and chosen Western European countries, representing four different models of capitalism identified by Amable. In the selected institutional area, a comparative analysis was performed, and based on it, similarity hexagons were created. They serve the purpose of comparing Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries with Western European countries of reference. The dynamic approach adopted in this study—two different time periods were compared—allows an analysis of path dependence and the evolution of institutional architecture over time. The analysis indicates that in 2014, in the area of social protection, almost all CEE countries, apart from Latvia and Romania, were most comparable to the Continental model of capitalism represented by Germany. Nevertheless, the variety of results for the individual variables (especially input and output variables) and substantial changes between 2005 and 2014 also show that the model of capitalism prevailing in Central and Eastern Europe in the area of the social protection system is evolving constantly at a very fast pace and thus currently may be called a hybrid or even patchwork capitalism.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN MYTH AND REALITY: EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVES

In reaction to the consequences of the global capitalism development in the years after 1990s, the challenges of sustainable development became one of the top subjects among scientists. In the UN resolution: “Transformation of our World: 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda” the responsibility of the global community and the necessity of each nation state to participate and contribute to resolving the key cumulated problems of the economic, social and environmental development is emphasized. The analysis will elaborate related controversies, dilemmas and identified crisis of the sustainable development concept, demonstrated through demystification of the neoclassical paradigms and extreme neoliberal monism, being unsustainable as such. The global scene is witnessing processes that are leading towards changes in the development paradigm. They are reflected in the shift from the domination of the unipolar neoliberal model to polycentric structures of the capitalist order, giving room to competitiveness of different models of capitalism. The need for the European Union to act proactively and affirm the EU model of social-market capitalism will be underlined. It incorporates a vast spectrum of different sustainable development concept dimensions, but nevertheless, needs redefining for better positioning within the new global order. Keywords: Sustainable development, neoliberalism, global economy, European Union, social- market capitalism

Immigrants, Precarious Workforce as a Structural Necessity of Modern Global Capitalism

This article focuses on the socio-economic aspects of migration and migrants – economic refugees. The author presents the migrants as a precarious workforce, which is an indispensable part of modern global capitalism. In this article, the author points out that among the many factors influencing migration, the economic ones play the most crucial role. Forces released by the neo-liberal paradigm led to the global economic and social tensions. This is due to the fact that the market has become the only regulator of economic and social relations. This article is not another critique of neo-liberal doctrine, advocating for replacing capitalism by “something else.” The author believes, similarly to John Gray, that what we need is a consensus between the states on different models of capitalism, as there are different cultures.

How can competitiveness be achieved in post-crisis Europe: deregulating employment relations or enhancing high performance work practices?

The recent Eurozone crisis has reinvigorated neoliberal policies and brought to the fore an academic and policy debate over the deregulation of employment relations’ institutions ‘in the name of competitiveness’. In the context of this debate, we ask the following question: have firms with employment relations institutions been less able to improve productivity during the crisis? We consider this question by examining data from the European Company Survey. We also look into different models of capitalism to gauge whether there are context-specific institutional effects that may mediate firm-level outcomes. Contrary to the dominant neoliberal discourse, we do not find any strong evidence that employment relations institutions are negatively associated with productivity increases. Instead, we find that certain high performance work practices are positively and significantly associated with productivity increases across EU-15 and in particular institutional contexts. Taken together these results challenge the neoliberal ‘low road’ policies that are focused on dismantling employment relations institutions and suggest shifting the attention towards context-sensitive ‘high road’ policies and practices.

Approaching an Investigation of Multi-Dimensional Inequality Through the Lenses of Variety in Models of Capitalism

After a synthetic presentation of the state of poverty and inequality in the world and the contradictions incurred by economic theory in this field after decades of globalization and in the midst of a persisting global crisis, in paragraphs 2. and 3. we outline the rational for our theoretical analysis, underlining two main aspects. First of all, in paragraph 2. we recall the reasons which makes inequality a multidimensional phenomenon, while in paragraph 3. we explore the reasons why the models of capitalism theory is relevant for studying multidimensional inequality. These paragraphs emphasise that inequality is a multidimensional and cumulative phenomenon and it should not be conceived only as the result of the processes of personal and functional distribution of income and wealth, which even by themselves are intrinsically multidimensional. The basic idea is that institutions, the cobweb of relations among them and their interaction with the economic structure define the model of capitalism which characterises a specific country and this, in turn, affects the level and the dynamics of inequality. This approach is consistent with the sociological approach by Rehbein and Souza (2014), based on the analytical framework developed by Pierre Bourdieu. In paragraph 4. we outline the rational for our empirical analysis, applying the notion of institutional complementarity and examining the relationship between institutional complementarity, models of capitalism and inequality. Besides, refining Amable’s analysis (2003), we provide empirical evidence on the relationship between inequality in income distribution and models of capitalism. Additionally, basing on cluster analysis, we identify six different models of capitalism in a sample of OECD countries, provide preliminary evidence on the different level of inequality which characterises each model and suggest that no evidence supports of the idea that a single model of capitalism is taking shape in this sphere in EU. In paragraph 5. we give some hints about issues in search for a new interpretation capable to fasten together the process of increasing inequality, the notion of symbolic violence and the models of capitalism theory. In the last paragraph we focus on conclusions useful for carrying on our research agenda.

Approaching an investigation of multi-dimensional inequalitythrough the lenses of variety in models of capitalism

After a synthetic presentation of the state of poverty and inequality in the world and the contradictions incurred by economic theory in this field after decades of globalization and in the midst of a persisting global crisis, in paragraphs 2. and 3. we outline the rational for our theoretical analysis, underlining two main aspects. First of all, in paragraph 2. we recall the reasons which makes inequality a multidimensional phenomenon, while in paragraph 3. we explore the reasons why the models of capitalism theory is relevant for studying multidimensional inequality. These paragraphs emphasise that inequality is a multidimensional and cumulative phenomenon and it should not be conceived only as the result of the processes of personal and functional distribution of income and wealth, which even by themselves are intrinsically multidimensional. The basic idea is that institutions, the cobweb of relations among them and their interaction with the economic structure define the model of capitalism which characterises a specific country and this, in turn, affects the level and the dynamics of inequality. This approach is consistent with the sociological approach by Rehbein and Souza (2014), based on the analytical framework developed by Pierre Bourdieu. In paragraph 4. we outline the rational for our empirical analysis, applying the notion of institutional complementarity and examining the relationship between institutional complementarity, models of capitalism and inequality. Besides, refining Amable’s analysis (2003), we provide empirical evidence on the relationship between inequality in income distribution and models of capitalism. Additionally, basing on cluster analysis, we identify six different models of capitalism in a sample of OECD countries, provide preliminary evidence on the different level of inequality which characterises each model and suggest that no evidence supports of the idea that a single model of capitalism is taking shape in this sphere in EU. In paragraph 5. we give some hints about issues in search for a new interpretation capable to fasten together the process of increasing inequality, the notion of symbolic violence and the models of capitalism theory. In the last paragraph we focus on conclusions useful for carrying on our research agenda.

Capitalist diversity and de-growth trajectories to steady-state economies

Growth-critical scholarship has done much to both expose the environmentally unsustainable nature of the capitalist growth-economies of the overdeveloped part of the world and to develop an alternative vision of a de-growth transition leading to a steady-state economy. However, this scholarship fails to adequately take into consideration that if planned de-growth actually materialised it would do so in societies that differ considerably from one another and that this would have implications both for the transition processes and the nature of their outcomes. In other words, not enough importance is ascribed to capitalist diversity and the nature of institutional change in the growth-critical literature. Against this background, the purpose of the present article is to make the “concrete utopia” of de-growth scholars and steady-state economists more specific by utilising insights from scholarship on capitalist diversity and institutional change. On the basis of a typology of different models of capitalism, the article suggests that if de-growth transitions took place they would take different forms and lead to a variety of types of steady-state economies (SSEs). To illustrate this point, three ideal-typical SSEs are delineated.

A Critique of the Anglo-American Model of Corporate Governance

There is a developing literature comparing different models of capitalism from alternative analytical frameworks highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of diverse forms of capitalism, and the prospects for institutional diversity when confronted with growing pressures for international economic integration.This paper examines how different varieties of capitalism produce different levels of inequality. Specifically how the Anglo-American variant of corporate governance in its US manifestation afforded CEOs of large corporations inordinate power and wealth, and the consequences of this for inequality in wider society. Arrogation of an increasing share of the wealth of corporations by CEOs impacts upon relationships with other stakeholders and displaces CEOs objectives. The significance is that this is precisely the model of capitalism that is being propagated vigorously throughout the world. This dynamic induced the present international financial crisis, in which investment bank executives were massively incentivised to pursue vast securitization and leverage which hugely enriched themselves, but caused the collapse of financial institutions worldwide, the violent instability of financial markets, substantial damage to the real economy, and impacted severely on the employment security and living standards of working people.

Which model of capitalism best delivers both wealth and equality?

Capitalism is the dominant economic system adopted throughout the global economy, but there are many different models of capitalism practiced depending on what the society decides “economic effectiveness” is. In this study, we assert that an effective economy simultaneously achieves two seemingly divergent outcomes: it (1) creates economic wealth efficiently, and (2) shares that wealth equitably. Employing insights from Whitley’s national business systems framework and fuzzy set analysis, we examine how national institutions collectively configure with respect to the overall level of equitable wealth creation within 48 developed and developing economies. We find that three configurations are associated with relatively high levels of equitable wealth creation, and another three are associated with relatively low levels. As such, our analysis supports the notion of equifinality – that there is no one optimal model of capitalism. Furthermore, we begin to demonstrate that these models of capitalism are constantly evolving, but their evolution is generally slow even when considering the practice of capitalism before and after the 2008 global economic crisis. We discuss the implications of these findings for the study of international business, with a special emphasis on considering a more holistic context for exploring how multinational enterprises interact with their institutional environment(s).

Varieties of green capitalism: economy and environment in the wake of the global financial crisis

In the wake of the global financial crisis, interest in the relationship between the economy and the environment substantially increased. Several proposals emerged between 2008 and 2012 for the creation of a ‘Green New Deal’, ‘Green Stimulus’, and a ‘Green Economy’. These proposals are often conflated with one another under the rubric of ‘green capitalism’, but there are important distinctions to be made between them. Each suggests a different role for the state in regulating the market and the financial sector (i.e. they suggest different models of capitalism). The proposals can also be distinguished by the positions taken on ecological modernisation (i.e. they put forward different models of ‘greenness’). Recognition that there are varieties of green capitalism being mooted increases the opportunities for more targeted critiques of each model and enables a more constructive debate about the options for creating sustainable economies in the developed world.

Globalization, multinationals and institutional diversity

This article aims to explore the impact of globalization and in particular multinationals on diversity within national varieties of capitalism. Do the actions of multinationals create more diversity within national systems, do they reduce diversity or do they have relatively little impact on diversity within national systems? The article argues that there are distinctive structures of institutional diversity across different national systems. Therefore, the question is not how do MNCs impact on institutional diversity per se but how do they impact on these different structures of diversity? In order to develop this argument, the paper also differentiates types of multinational. The article uses distinction between market-seeking, resource-seeking, efficiency-seeking and strategic asset-seeking in order to identify a range of different MNC activity across manufacturing, professional and financial sectors. These different sorts of MNC activity vary across time and contexts in terms of their significance. The article looks in detail at four different models of capitalism and examines how the entry of different sorts of multinationals with distinctive objectives impacts on the relationships between key social actors which underpin and reinforce these models. In this way, it suggests how institutional diversity within different types of capitalism may evolve under the impact of MNCs and globalization.

Corporate Governance and Training

This article uses the notion of national recipes of corporate governance to explore national differences in the provision, extent, range, cost and arrangements made for training by employers. Drawing on an extensive database, careful analysis shows that there are significant differences between the liberal market economies and others in their employer training provision and systems. The research also highlighted considerable differences in practice in coordinated market economies, most notably between the social democracies of the Nordic countries and the Rhineland continental economies. The data also shows evidence of the embeddedness of training systems in the society and the industrial relations systems in which they operate: there are a limited number of clusters of countries that retain distinctive features. These clusters broadly correspond to the five different models of capitalism identified by Amable (2003), with differences encountered being generally on the lines predicted by the latter.

Changes in developed countries’ economic systems since the 1980s: implications for developing countries

This article reviews changes in institutional arrangements among developed countries over the past twenty-five years, and assesses how far these can be explained in terms of recent theories of different models of capitalism. It argues that globalization has acted to undermine central features of the key models and weaken the position of labour. The account in this article points to limitations in the current varieties of capitalism approaches in explaining recent patterns of institutional changes and sketches possible bases for enhancing the approach. Comparisons are made with economic systems in developing countries, particularly in Latin America.

Economic upgrading in a state-coordinated, liberal market economy

Well-established research into different models of capitalism has not been applied well to developing countries. Changing global conditions, institutional differences, and path-dependent histories have forced late developing countries to create models of their own. By and large, however, these models have been less than successful in fostering economic development through technological upgrading. A comparison of skills upgrading in several fast-growing economies in Southeast Asia suggests that perhaps there is a new “State Coordinated, Liberal Market Economy” developmental model that can successfully lead to upgrading-driven economic development. This model combines elements from the Developmental State, Coordinated Market, and Liberal Market Economy models while differing significantly from each.

Coalition Formation and Models of Capitalism

Why do different industrial democracies employ different processes in determining trade policy and different models of capitalism? Two variables account for the nature of the decision-making process for trade policy. First, the level of inter-industry factor mobility determines if class or sectoral coalitions predominate. Second, the size of policy coalitions depends on which branch of government dominates trade policy. Legislatures favor minimum winning coalitions, while executives favor maximal coalitions. These two variables condition different patterns of coalition making: partisan, pluralist, corporatist, and interventionist. I illustrate this theory analyzing the development of policymaking concerning trade in France and Sweden.

Institucionální aspekty nové komparativní ekonomie: ČR a EU

The study focuses on evaluation of institutional quality in European Union countries and its possible impact on economic performance and competitiveness. The text stems from the theoretical framework of new institutional economics, especially historical and comparative institutionalism, and it bases on the concept of good governance. The source of the evaluation is the scheme of the World Bank Governance Matters, supplemented with research of other institutions working with individual institutional characteristics. Authors evaluate following characteristics - voice and accountability, political stability, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law and control of corruption, which together form aggregate indicator of institutional quality. Old member countries of European Union (EU-15) are classified into different models of capitalism according to their different institutional quality. Institutional changes in new member countries (EU-10, eventually EU-8) in period 1996-2004 illustrate both institutional adjustment of postcommunist countries and dynamics of these changes and their convergence to different types of capitalism.

LABOR HISTORY SYMPOSIUM

LABOR HISTORY SYMPOSIUM