Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T16:18:57.969Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative institutional advantage: an obituary

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 November 2018

Filippo Reale
Filippo Reale*
Affiliation:
Institute of Sociology, Goethe-University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
*
*Corresponding author. Email: reale@soz.uni-frankfurt.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article traces the remains of the theory of “comparative institutional advantage”, which was crucial during the early development of the “varieties of capitalism” approach to economics but fell into oblivion quickly afterwards. It follows the discussions of the concept over time and works out possible reasons – theoretical, methodological, and discursive – for the theory's decay. In conclusion, many arguments of the theory seem outdated today but it is a great witness to the zeitgeist of comparative political economy and institutional theory of the millennium.

Keywords

Varieties of capitalismcomparative capitalismsinnovation
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , August 2019 , pp. 569 - 578
Copyright
Copyright © Millennium Economics Ltd 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akkermans, D., Castaldi, C. and Los, B. (2009), ‘Do “Liberal Market Economies” Really Innovate More Radically than “Coordinated Market Economies”?’ Research Policy, 38(1): 181–191.Google Scholar
Albert, M. (1991), Capitalisme contre Capitalisme, Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Allen, M. M. C. (2004), ‘The Varieties of Capitalism Paradigm: Not Enough Variety?’ Socio-Economic Review, 2(1): 87–108.Google Scholar
Allen, M. M. C. (2006), The Varieties of Capitalism Paradigm: Explaining Germany's Comparative Advantage? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Allen, M. M. C., Funk, L. and Tüselmann, H. (2006), ‘Can Variation in Public Policies Account for Differences in Comparative Advantage?’ Journal of Public Policy, 26(1): 1–19.Google Scholar
Allen, M. M. C. and Whitley, R. (2014), ‘Internationalization and Sectoral Diversity: The Roles of Organizational Capabilities and Dominant Institutions in Structuring Firms’ Responses to Semiglobalization’, in Lane, C. and Wood, G. (eds), Capitalist Diversity and Diversity within Capitalism, London: Routledge, pp. 97–120.Google Scholar
Amable, B. (2003), The Diversity of Modern Capitalism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Amable, B. (2016), ‘Institutional Complementarities in the Dynamic Comparative Analysis of Capitalism’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 12(1): 79–103.Google Scholar
Amable, B. and Palombarini, S. (2008), ‘A Neorealist Approach to Institutional Change and the Diversity of Capitalism’, Socio-Economic Review, 7(1): 123–143.Google Scholar
Arthur, W. B. (1994), Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Baccaro, L. and Pontusson, J. (2016), ‘Rethinking Comparative Political Economy’, Politics & Society, 44(2): 175–207.Google Scholar
Bennett, A. and Elman, C. (2006), ‘Complex Causal Relations and Case Study Methods: The Example of Path Dependence’, Political Analysis, 14(3): 250–267.Google Scholar
Beyer, J. (2006), ‘Verfestigte institutionelle Vielfalt? Die komparativen Vorteile koordinierter Ökonomien und die Internationalisierung von Unternehmen’, MPIfG Working Paper 06/8.Google Scholar
Beyer, J. (2009), ‘Spielarten des Kapitalismus: Empirische Einwände gegen die Verfestigungsannahme’, in Pfau-Effinger, B., Sakač Magdalenić, S. and Wolf, C. (eds), International vergleichende Sozialforschung, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp. 41–64.Google Scholar
Blättel-Mink, B. and Ebner, A. (eds) (2009), Innovationssysteme: Technologie, Institutionen und die Dynamik der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
Blyth, M. (2003), ‘Same as it Never Was: Temporality and Typology in the Varieties of Capitalism’, Comparative European Politics, 1(2): 215–225.Google Scholar
Borrás, S. and Edquist, C. (2014), ‘Institutions and Regulations in Innovation Systems: Effects, Problems and Innovation Policy Design’, CIRCLE Papers in Innovation Studies No. 2014/29.Google Scholar
Busemeyer, M. R. (2009), ‘Asset Specificity, Institutional Complementarities and the Variety of Skill Regimes in Coordinated Market Economies’, Socio-Economic Review, 7(3): 375–406.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. L., Hall, J. A. and Pedersen, O. K. (2006), National Identity and the Varieties of Capitalism: The Danish Experience, Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. L. and Pedersen, O. K. (2016), ‘The Varieties of Capitalism and Hybrid Success’, Comparative Political Studies, 40(3): 307–332.Google Scholar
Carlin, W. and Soskice, D. (1997), ‘Shocks to the System: The German Political Economy under Stress’, National Institute Economic Review, 159(1): 57–76.Google Scholar
Casper, S. (2009), ‘Can New Technology Firms Succeed in Coordinated Market Economies? A Response to Herrmann and Lange’, Socio-Economic Review, 7(2): 209–215.Google Scholar
Casper, S., Lehrer, M. and Soskice, D. (1999), ‘Can High-technology Industries Prosper in Germany? Institutional Frameworks and the Evolution of the German Software and Biotechnology Industries’, Industry and Innovation, 6(1): 5–24.Google Scholar
Casper, S. and Matraves, C. (2003), ‘Institutional Frameworks and Innovation in the German and UK Pharmaceutical Industry’, Research Policy, 32(10): 1865–1879.Google Scholar
Casper, S. and van Waarden, F. (eds) (2005), Innovation and Institutions: A Multidisciplinary Review of the Study of Innovation Systems, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Casper, S. and Whitley, R. (2002), ‘Managing Competences in Entrepreneurial Technology Firms: A Comparative Institutional Analysis of Germany, Sweden and the UK’, ESRC Centre for Business Research Working Paper No. 230.Google Scholar
Casper, S. and Whitley, R. (2004), ‘Managing Competences in Entrepreneurial Technology Firms: A Comparative Institutional Analysis of Germany, Sweden and the UK’, Research Policy, 33(1): 89–106.Google Scholar
Crouch, C. (2005a), ‘Complementarity and Fit in the Study of Comparative Capitalisms’, in Morgan, G., Whitley, R. and Moen, E. (eds), Changing Capitalisms? Internationalization, Institutional Change, and Systems of Economic Organization, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 167–189.Google Scholar
Crouch, C. (2005b), ‘Models of Capitalism’, New Political Economy, 10(4): 439–456.Google Scholar
Crouch, C. and Streeck, W. (eds) (1997), Political Economy of Modern Capitalism: Mapping Convergence and Diversity, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Crouch, C., Streeck, W., Boyer, R., Amable, B., Hall, P. A. and Jackson, G. (2005), ‘Dialogue on “Institutional Complementarity and Political Economy”’, Socio-Economic Review, 3(2): 359–382.Google Scholar
Djelic, M.-L. and Quack, S. (2007), ‘Overcoming Path Dependency: Path Generation in Open Systems’, Theory and Society, 36(2): 161–186.Google Scholar
Edquist, C. (ed.) (1997), Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations, London: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
Emmenegger, P. (2009), ‘Specificity versus Replaceability: The Relationship between Skills and Preferences for Job Security Regulations’, Socio-Economic Review, 7(3): 407–430.Google Scholar
Fioretos, O. (1996), ‘How and Why Institutional Advantages are Preserved in a Global Economy: A Comparison of British and Swedish Multilateral Preferences’, WZB Discussion Paper FS I 96-320.Google Scholar
Flanagan, K. and Uyarra, E. (2016), ‘Four Dangers in Innovation Policy Studies – and How to Avoid Them’, Industry and Innovation, 23(2): 177–188.Google Scholar
Freeman, C. (1984), ‘Prometheus Unbound’, Futures, 16(5): 494–507.Google Scholar
Friel, D. (2011), ‘Forging a Comparative Institutional Advantage in Argentina: Implications for Theory and Praxis’, Human Relations, 64(4): 553–572.Google Scholar
Goodin, R. E. (2003), ‘Choose Your Capitalism?’ Comparative European Politics, 1(2): 203–213.Google Scholar
Greif, A. and Laitin, D. D. (2004), ‘A Theory of Endogenous Institutional Change’, American Political Science Review, 98(4): 633–652.Google Scholar
Hall, P. A. and Gingerich, D. W. (2004), ‘“Spielarten des Kapitalismus” und institutionelle Komplementaritäten in der Makroökonomie: Eine empirische Analyse’, Berliner Journal für Soziologie, 14(1): 5–31.Google Scholar
Hall, P. A. and Gingerich, D. W. (2009), ‘Varieties of Capitalism and Institutional Complementarities in the Political Economy: An Empirical Analysis’, British Journal of Political Science, 39(3): 449–482.Google Scholar
Hall, P. A. and Soskice, D. (2001a), ‘An Introduction to Varieties of Capitalism’, in Hall, P. A. and Soskice, D. (eds), Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–67.Google Scholar
Hall, P. A. and Soskice, D. (eds) (2001b), Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, P. A. and Soskice, D. (2003), ‘Varieties of Capitalism and Institutional Change: A Response to Three Critics’, Comparative European Politics, 1(2): 241–250.Google Scholar
Hanusch, H. and Pyka, A. (2006), ‘Principles of Neo-Schumpeterian Economics’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31(2): 275–289.Google Scholar
Herrmann, A. M. (2008), ‘Rethinking the Link between Labour Market Flexibility and Corporate Competitiveness: A Critique of the Institutionalist Literature’, Socio-Economic Review, 6(4): 637–669.Google Scholar
Herrmann, A. M. (2010), ‘How Macro-level Sampling Affects Micro-level Arguments: A Rejoinder to Steven Casper’, Socio-Economic Review, 8(2): 333–339.Google Scholar
Johnston, A., Hancké, B. and Pant, S. (2014), ‘Comparative Institutional Advantage in the European Sovereign Debt Crisis’, Comparative Political Studies, 47(13): 1771–1800.Google Scholar
Johnston, A. and Regan, A. (2016), ‘European Monetary Integration and the Incompatibility of National Varieties of Capitalism’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 54(2): 318–336.Google Scholar
Kay, A. (2005), ‘A Critique of the Use of Path Dependency in Policy Studies’, Public Administration, 83(3): 553–571.Google Scholar
Kenworthy, L. (2005), ‘Institutional Coherence and Macroeconomic Performance’, Socio-Economic Review, 4(1): 69–91.Google Scholar
Lange, K. (2009), ‘Institutional Embeddedness and the Strategic Leeway of Actors: The Case of the German Therapeutical Biotech Industry’, Socio-Economic Review, 7(2): 181–207.Google Scholar
Lechevalier, S. (2007), ‘The Diversity of Capitalism and Heterogeneity of Firms: A Case Study of Japan during the Lost Decade’, Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, 4(1): 113–142.Google Scholar
Lehrer, M. (1997), Comparative Institutional Advantage in Corporate Governance and Managerial Hierarchies: The Case of European Airlines, unpublished dissertation, Fontainebleau: INSEAD.Google Scholar
Lehrer, M. (2001), ‘Macro-varieties of Capitalism and Micro-varieties of Strategic Management in European Airlines’, in Hall, P. A. and Soskice, D. (eds), Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 361–386.Google Scholar
Lundvall, B.-Å. (ed.) (1995), National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Mahoney, J. and Thelen, K. (eds) (2015), Advances in Comparative-Historical Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, G. and Kristensen, P. H. (2006), ‘The Contested Space of Multinationals: Varieties of Institutionalism, Varieties of Capitalism’, Human Relations, 59(11): 1467–1490.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R. (ed.) (1993), National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis, New York City: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Cambridge: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Paunescu, M. and Schneider, M. R. (2004), ‘Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und Dynamik institutioneller Standortbedingungen: Ein empirischer Test des “Varieties-of-Capitalism”-Ansatzes’, Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften, 124(1): 31–59.Google Scholar
Pavitt, K. (1999), Technology, Management and Systems of Innovation, Northampton: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (2000), ‘Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics’, American Political Science Review, 94(2): 251–267.Google Scholar
Regan, A. (2014), ‘What Explains Ireland's Fragile Recovery from the Crisis? The Politics of Comparative Institutional Advantage’, CESifo Forum, 15(2): 26–31.Google Scholar
Ricardo, D. (1817), On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Riordan, M. H. and Williamson, O. E. (1985), ‘Asset Specificity and Economic Organization’, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 3(4): 365–378.Google Scholar
Rugman, A. and Verbeke, A. (2009), ‘The Regional Dimension of Multinationals and the End of “Varieties of Capitalism”’, in Collinson, S. and Morgan, G. (eds), The Multinational Firm, Chichester: Wiley, pp. 23–44.Google Scholar
Schneider, B. R. and Soskice, D. (2009), ‘Inequality in Developed Countries and Latin America: Coordinated, Liberal and Hierarchical Systems’, Economy and Society, 38(1): 17–52.Google Scholar
Schneider, M. R. and Paunescu, M. (2012), ‘Changing Varieties of Capitalism and Revealed Comparative Advantages from 1990 to 2005: A Test of the Hall and Soskice Claims’, Socio-Economic Review, 10(4): 731–753.Google Scholar
Schneider, M. R., Schulze-Bentrop, C. and Paunescu, M. (2010), ‘Mapping the Institutional Capital of High-Tech Firms: A Fuzzy-Set Analysis of Capitalist Variety and Export Performance’, Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2): 246–266.Google Scholar
Soskice, D. (1990), ‘Reinterpreting Corporatism and Explaining Unemployment: Co-ordinated and Non-Co-ordinated Market Economies’, in Brunetta, R. and Dell'Aringa, C. (eds), Labour Relations and Economic Performance, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 170–211.Google Scholar
Soskice, D. (1994), ‘Innovation Strategies of Companies: A Comparative Institutional Approach of some Cross-Country Differences’, in Zapf, W. (ed.), Institutionenvergleich und Institutionendynamik, Berlin: edition sigma, pp. 271–289.Google Scholar
Soskice, D. (1999), ‘Divergent Production Regimes. Coordinated and Uncoordinated Market Economies in the 1980s and 1990s’, in Kitschelt, H., Lange, P., Marks, G. and Stephens, J. D. (eds), Continuity and Change in Contemporary Capitalism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 101–134.Google Scholar
Soskice, D., Hancké, B., Trumbull, G. and Wren, A. (1998), ‘Wage Bargaining, Labour Markets and Macroeconomic Performance in Germany and the Netherlands’, in Müller, W. A., Bihn, M., Delsen, L. and de Jong, E. (eds), The German and Dutch Economies, Contributions to Economics, Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag HD, pp. 39–51.Google Scholar
Streeck, W. (2005), ‘Von der gesteuerten Demokratie zum selbststeuernden Kapitalismus: Die Sozialwissenschaften in der Liberalisierung’, MPIfG Discussion Paper 08/7.Google Scholar
Streeck, W. (2011), ‘E Pluribus Unum? Varieties and Commonalities of Capitalism’, in Granovetter, M. S. and Swedberg, R. (eds), The sociology of Economic Life (3rd edition), Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 419–455.Google Scholar
Streeck, W. (2012), ‘Skills and Politics: General and Specific’, in Busemeyer, M. R. and Trampusch, C. (eds), The Political Economy of Collective Skill Formation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 317–352.Google Scholar
Taylor, M. Z. (2004), ‘Empirical Evidence against Varieties of Capitalism's Theory of Technological Innovation’, International Organization, 58(3): 601–631.Google Scholar
Taylor, M. Z. (2009), ‘Empirical Evidence against Varieties of Capitalism's Theory of Technological Innovation’, in Hancké, B. (ed.), Debating Varieties of Capitalism: A Reader, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 221–250.Google Scholar
Vitols, S., Casper, S., Soskice, D. and Woolcock, S. (1997), Corporate Governance in Large British and German Companies, London: Anglo-German Foundation for the Study of Industrial Society.Google Scholar
Vitols, S. and Engelhardt, L. (2005), ‘National Institutions and High Tech Industries: A Varieties of Capitalism Perspective on the Failure of Germany's Neuer Markt’, WZB Markets and Political Economy Working Paper No. SP II 2005-03.Google Scholar
Watson, M. (2003), ‘Ricardian Political Economy and the “Varieties of Capitalism” Approach. Specialization, Trade and Comparative Institutional Advantage’, Comparative European Politics, 1(2): 227–240.Google Scholar
Whitley, R. (1999), Divergent Capitalisms: The Social Structuring and Change of Business Systems, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Whitley, R. (2007), Business Systems and Organizational Capabilities: The Institutional Structuring of Competitive Competences, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Witt, M. A. and Jackson, G. (2016), ‘Varieties of Capitalism and Institutional Comparative Advantage: A Test and Reinterpretation’, Journal of International Business Studies, 47(7): 778–806.Google Scholar