Всего публикаций в данном разделе: 444
Institutional Economics in France and Germany: German Ordoliberalism versus the French Regulation School [книги]
Опубликовано на портале: 25-03-2008Ред.: Agnes Labrousse
Изд-во: Springer, 2000, 384 с.
German Ordoliberalism and French Regulation theory, two institutionalist theories born in different national contexts, show striking convergences and complementarities. Based on an original comparison, Institutional Economics in France and Germany analyses the basic concepts, the development and the present relevance of both schools, the way they deal with the crucial methodological issue of complexity and with transformation in post-socialist Europe. It underlines the specificity and fruitfulness of these European approaches to institutional economics, often unfortunately ignored in the English-language literature. Written by leading scholars, this book is a clear presentation of both theories, with numerous illustrations and in-depth analysis of recent research developments. This theoretical, methodological and thematic comparison raises central issues in the growing field of socioeconomic and institutionalist theory.
After Fordism [книги]
Опубликовано на портале: 25-03-2008Robert Boyer, Jean-Pierre Durand
Изд-во: Palgrave Macmillan, 1997, 176 с.
After the Second World War, the economics of the western capitalist countries were based on a production system called fordism, but in the mid 1970s this system began to break down, and it has been in crisis since. But does resolving this crisis imply a complete break with the past, notably with the principles of Taylor and Ford? Based on an analysis of the transformations currently taking place in several international companies, this book reveals the complexities and subtleties of today's transitions.
Опубликовано на портале: 25-03-2008Robert Boyer, Michel Freyssenet
New-York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002, 144 с.
During the 1990s, many scientific publications, economic manuals and mass media pundits held that a correct representation of the industrial history of the 20th century would break this period down into three phases. The first phase was thought to involve “semi-craft” production, characterised by a wide variety of goods made by self-organised professional workers seeking to satisfy a demand that emanated from the upper social categories, these being the only persons who could access such custom-made items. Then came a phase of “mass production”, characterised by the manufacturing of large series of standardised goods by unskilled workers whose efforts were strictly defined and prescribed. Thanks to the economies of scale that were made possible by this system, it was supposedly during this period that the working classes acceded to a consumption of industrial products. Lastly, the century’s third and final phase of productive activity, called “lean production”, was said to have appeared in the 1990s, first in Japan before diffusing across the rest of the world. This system was said to have enabled a manufacturing of diversified, high-quality and competitively priced goods, thanks to employees’ and suppliers’ joint efforts towards a continuous improvement in performance (the purpose being to satisfy a market that was becoming increasingly competitive and globalised). This final phase was said to have signalled the end of the so-called Taylorian division of labour, assimilated with a separation of design and execution. The MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) researchers put together an International Motor Vehicle Programme (IMVP) to orient research into automobile manufacturers and into variations in their levels of productivity. It subsequently devised the lean production theory to account for the system of production it was describing. The IMVP stated that this system “would change the world”, and that it was imperative that American and European firms adopt it (Womack et. al., 1990). This thesis, which was widely successful internationally in both professional and scientific circles, nevertheless raised a greater number of questions, and even outright criticism. This in turn led to a new wave of research throughout the 1990s - initiatives that enabled more operative types of theoretical formulation. The purpose of the present book is to present these latter formulations. History however moves quickly. The “system that was going to change the world” was not able to keep the country where it was said to have originated from going into a protracted and painful crisis. Nor did it prevent some of the companies who allegedly embodied its principles from being forced to ally themselves with (or even be taken over by) foreign groups - only to be restructured and discover that they had much to learn from foreigners who were reputedly less efficient. Methods that had been attributed to the Japanese and which had seduced economic and political leaders (as well as many university professors and researchers) began to lose their charm. One intellectual fashion replacing another, now a new “Anglo-Saxon” model, based on the search for short-term profitability and a consequence of the power that has been acquired by institutional investors (pension funds, mutual funds, etc.) is supposedly forcing itself on the rest of the planet - just as 10 years ago people had been saying that lean production was sure to be the wave of the future. The disillusion is as blinding as it is fascinating. It makes it difficult to learn from the past and causes analysts to repeat the same mistakes - notably that which consists of seeing a new phenomenon as a potentially general and irreversible tendency without first examining the conditions that led to its birth or which are necessary if it is to spread. It is crucial that analysts avoid falling prey to faddish thinking again, whatever the nature thereof. Observers have to engage in conceptual clarifications and carry out meticulous analyses. This has been the goal of the “GERPISA International Network” (Group for the Permanent Study of and Research into the Automobile Industry and its Workers), an association of researchers who have been focusing on the automobile industry in an attempt to verify the validity of the IMVP’s thesis. The GERPISA has been studying automobile firms’ trajectories as well as the spaces in which such companies have deployed their activities from the late 1960s through the late 1990s. This has been achieved via two international research programmes: “The emergence of new industrial models” (1993-1996) and “The automobile industry between globalisation and regionalisation” (1997-1999). The authors of the present book, who managed the scientific aspects of these two programmes, present here the conclusions that they have personally drawn from them, enhanced by findings from research on the automobile industry since its birth. The present book provides an analytical structure that could readily inspire research into other sectors of activity. For the moment, the automobile sector is the only one to have been subjected to systematic investigation at a worldwide level. The stakes are high in this debate. At a scientific level, they involve an understanding of the full diversity of the various forms that the relationship between capital and labour has assumed, wherever this relationship is being renewed on a daily basis (i.e., in those firms and economic and political spaces where such activities are deployed). At a practical level, we focus on the conditions underlying firms’ durable profitability (and thus longevity), thereby assessing the room to manoeuvre for each of the actors involved: shareholders, banks, executives, employees, labour unions, suppliers, the State and local authorities – with consideration being given to each actor’s own economic and social outlook. The first chapter of the present book suggests a framework for analysing the process that gives birth to a “productive model”. The purpose is to build a definition that can be used operationally. The six following chapters are devoted to the “profit strategies” that can become possible, depending on the state of the market or labour; and to the “productive models” by which these strategies (such as they have been defined up until now in the automobile industry) can be implemented. Each chapter presents the development of one (or two) productive model(s); the profit strategy it implements; the means it activates; the “company governance compromise” in which it is embedded; the firms that have successfully embodied it (and those who have failed); the crises it has known; and finally the future that can be predicted for it. The conclusion provides an overview of the way in which these productive models have evolved over time, and specifies both the conditions in which firms can be profitable as well as the room for manoeuvre that actors have at their disposal.
Опубликовано на портале: 25-03-2008Robert Boyer Economy and Society. 2000. Vol. 29. No. 1. P. 111-145 .
The viability and desirability of a nance-led growth regime is rst assessed against the historical evidence about the many alternative regimes that have been proposed as successors to Fordism. A purely hypothetical model is then built by assembling various hypotheses derived from the observation of current American trends. The imposition of nancial norms, such as shareholder value, requires a new and coherent architecture for the mode of governance of rms, the form of competition, the wage labour nexus and the objectives of monetary policy, public budget and tax system. According to the model, any requirement for increased pro t has a variable macro-economic impact on wages and economic activity according to the size of accelerator effects and the relative importance of wage and pro t in income formation. The stability of an equity-based regime depends on monetary policy which controls nancial bubbles and thus the diffusion of nance may push the economy into a zone of structural instability. The next major nancial crisis may originate in the USA whose economy approximates most closely to the model. But, the so-called American ‘new economy’ combines diverse but interdependent structural transformations: diffusion of Information and Communication Technologies, search for new rules for competition, increased exibility in wages and employment, shift from manufacturing to services. Finance is an element in, but not the whole of, this complex emerging regime.
Internationalization and Varieties of Capitalism: the Limited Effects of Cross-National Coordination of Economic Activities on the Nature of Business Systems [статья]
Опубликовано на портале: 24-03-2008Richard Whitley Review of International Political Economy. 1998. Vol. 5. No. 3. P. 445-481 .
The increasing internationalization of economic activities in the late twentieth century has encouraged the belief that a new form of cross-national economic organization is becoming established and replacing existing forms of capitalism. Both the intensification of international competition and growth of managerial coordination across borders are seen as generating the convergence of currently separate business systems. However, the extent of such internationalization is less than often claimed, especially when compared to the late nineteenth century, and the processes by which it will lead to such convergence remain obscure. Since the different varieties of capitalist economic organization in Europe, Asia and the Americas developed over some time interdependently with dominant societal institutions, the ways in which they change as a result of internationalization are path dependent and reflect their historical legacies as well as current institutional linkages. Qualitative changes in central business system characteristics, such as ownership relations, non-ownership coordination and employment policies, are therefore unlikely to be rapid or to result solely from internationalization. Furthermore, the ways in which firms from different business systems internationalize reflect their varied natures and strategies which are unlikely to alter greatly unless key institutions alter. If multinational firms do develop different characteristics from national competitors, their impact on their domestic and host business systems will likewise depend on a number of strong conditions. Similarly, the establishment of a distinctive and dominant 'global' business system is only likely in very restrictive circumstances.
From the Search for Universal Correlations to the Institutional Structuring of Economic Organization and Change: The Development and Future of Organization Studies [статья]
Опубликовано на портале: 24-03-2008Richard Whitley Organization. 2003. Vol. 10. No. 3. P. 481-501 .
Organization studies become institutionalized as a distinct research field in North America in the 1960s as leading universities expanded to include the new behavioural and management sciences. In keeping with the prevailing image of science, it adopted an empiricist epistemology and an atomistic ontology that portrayed formal organizations as isolated, reactive hierarchies adapting to market selection mechanisms. The further expansion of higher education in North America and Europe in the 1970s and 1980s, especially in business and management studies, together with the failure of the logical empiricist research programme in the Anglo-Saxon philosophy of science and the decline of Fordism, encouraged considerable fragmentation of organization studies around rival frameworks. Additionally, the success of East Asian firms in many international markets and continued divergence of many European forms of capitalism from the US norm led to increasing interest in the role of institutional frameworks in structuring and reproducing competing forms of economic organization. This involved a radical reconceptualization of both the nature of formal organizations and their environments, which complemented developments in evolutionary and institutional economics. As a result, organizations have come to be seen as key mediating collectivities between national and international political-economic institutions and economic outcomes in different kinds of market economy.
Firms, Institutions and Management Control: the Comparative Analysis of Coordination and Control Systems [статья]
Опубликовано на портале: 24-03-2008Richard Whitley Accounting, Organizations and Society. 1999. Vol. 24. No. 5-6. P. 507-524 .
It is becoming increasingly recognized that management accounting and management control procedures and systems vary significantly between organizations, sectors and societies. Four characteristics of control systems, in particular, differ considerably between institutional contexts. These are: the extent to which control is exercised overwhelmingly through formal rules and procedures, the degree of control exercised over how unit activities are carried out, the influence and involvement of unit members in exercising control, and the scope of the information used by the control system in evaluating performance and deciding rewards and sanctions. These four characteristics can be combined to constitute four distinct types of control system: bureaucratic, output, delegated and patriarchal. The relative use of these kinds of control systems-and their effectiveness-reflect major variations in the kinds of organizations and firms that coordinate economic activities through administrative procedures, and their related institutional contexts. The key features of firms here are the diversity of activities coordinated, their rate of change, shareholder lock-in and the degree of owner management. These in turn reflect the nature of the financial system and state structures and policies. Additionally, the ways that skill development is organised in a society and skills are controlled in labour markets affect control techniques and practices, as do the nature of authority and trust relations. Thus, Taylorian control systems are unlikely to be widely used in countries where skill training is highly organised and controlled jointly by employers and unions-as for example in many Central and Northern European states, just as delegated ones are improbable in societies where systemic trust is low and authority patterns are patriarchal.
Опубликовано на портале: 24-03-2008Richard Whitley Industrial and Corporate Change. 2002. Vol. 11. No. 3. P. 497-528 .
The recent development of the biotechnology and computer industries has highlighted the variety of ways in which firms in different countries and sectors can develop innovative competences. Four aspects are particularly important: the degree of involvement in the public science system, involvement in industry collaborations, reliance on specialist skills of individuals, and the ability to change collective competences radically. National and regional variations in these result from differences in dominant institutional frameworks. In addition to the organization of capital and labour markets and the structure of inter-firm relations, these frameworks include the nature of the public science system. Particularly important features of these systems include: the organization of research training, the flexibility of researchers and organizations in developing novel goals and approaches, the organization of scientific careers, and the prevalent science and technology policies of the state. Distinct combinations of these institutional features have become established in different market economies and led to contrasting styles of innovative competence development being adopted. These in turn help to explain continuing variations in patterns of technological change between countries.
The Institutional Structuring of Organizational Capabilities: The Role of Authority Sharing and Organizational Careers [статья]
Опубликовано на портале: 24-03-2008Richard Whitley Organization Studies. 2003. Vol. 24. No. 5. P. 667-695.
The development of competitive competences in firms involves the generation of core employee commitment to collective problem solving and the development of firm-specific capabilities. Such commitment is often gained through authority sharing and providing organizational careers that reward contributions to organizational problem-solving routines and goals. However, firms vary considerably in how authoritative coordination of economic activities (both within and between companies) is achieved, and in the extent and scope of organizational careers. These differences affect their development of coordinating, learning and reconfigurational organizational capabilities. Owners and managers are encouraged to adopt varying degrees of authority sharing with groups of employees and business partners, and to invest in organizational careers to varying extents, by different institutional frameworks. In particular, variations in states' coordinating roles, the strength of business associations, the market for corporate control and the organization of training systems affect firms' delegation of discretion and career types. As a result, firms in different institutional frameworks develop distinctive kinds of capabilities that influence how they compete in different sectors and technologies.
The Institutional Structuring of Innovation Strategies: Business Systems, Firm Types and Patterns of Technical Change in Different Market Economies [статья]
Опубликовано на портале: 24-03-2008Richard Whitley Organization Studies. 2000. Vol. 21. No. 5. P. 855-886.
Innovation patterns and technological specialization vary considerably between market economies with different institutions because they coordinate economic activities in different ways with different kinds of firms developing contrasting innovation strategies. Six major forms of economic organization, or business systems, with different kinds of firms can be distinguished: fragmented, coordinated industrial district, compartmentalized, collaborative, highly coordinated and state organized. These kinds of business system develop and are reproduced in particular institutional contexts. They are associated with five kinds of innovation strategies: dependent, craft-based responsive, generic, complex and risky, and transformative. These strategies can be distinguished in terms of the following characteristics of innovations: technical and user uncertainty, user differentiation and product quality specialization, organizational competence destruction, use of codified knowledge, and the complexity of the knowledge base. Firms with different kinds of governance structures and organizational capabilities pursue these innovation strategies to varying degrees in different institutional environments. As a result, institutional differences between market economies lead to variations in innovation strategies and patterns of innovative performance.
Опубликовано на портале: 24-03-2008Richard Whitley Organization Studies. 1994. Vol. 15. P. 153-182.
The identification of distinctive and effective forms of economic organization in East Asia has emphasized the close connections between dominant social institutions and ways of co-ordinating economic activities as well as the interrelations between firm and market characteristics in separate business systems. Differences in major institutions thus generate significant variations in how firms and markets are structured and operate. These variations suggest that an important element in the analysis of market economies is the comparison of firm-market relations across institutional contexts. This requires their key characteristics to be identified. These can be summarized under three main headings which constitute the components of business systems: the nature of firms as economic actors, the nature of inter-firm relations in markets and the nature of authoritative co-ordination and control systems within firms. Thirteen major characteristics form the basic dimensions of business systems, which vary as the result of differences in state structures, financial systems, cultural conventions and other key institutional features. Interdependences between these characteristics restrict the variety of business systems that become established in market economies and suggest that five major kinds can be identified on the basis of institutionalized patterns of risk-sharing and firm self-sufficiency: centrifugal, partitioned, collaborative, co-ordinated and state-dependent. These types of business system highlight the different patterns of economic organization, and some of their institutional connections, which have developed in Europe and other industrialized societies.
Опубликовано на портале: 24-03-2008Richard Whitley Organization Studies. 1991. Vol. 12. No. 1. P. 1-28.
Distinctive forms of business organization have become dominant and successful in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong over the past 40 years. These different business systems reflect historical patterns of authority, trust and loyalty in Japan, Korea and China. They also vary in their specialization, strategic prefer ences and patterns of inter-firm co-ordination because of significant differences in their institutional environments, especially the political and financial systems. Similar processes exist in western societies but distinctive business systems are not so sharply bounded between nation states and cultures in Europe and North America.
East Asian Enterprise Structures and the Comparative Analysis of Forms of Business Organisation [статья]
Опубликовано на портале: 24-03-2008Richard Whitley Organization Studies. 1990. Vol. 11. No. 1. P. 47-74.
The economic success of different forms of business organization in East Asian countries emphasizes the variety of viable enterprise structures and suggests the need for a comparative analysis of how they develop and operate in different societal contexts. Major differences between East Asian business 'recipes' include the range of activities that are authoritatively coordinated, their pattems of development, the ways in which they are organized and controlled and the organization of inter enterprise relations. These differences suggest eight major dimensions on which dominant enterprise structures in different societies can be compared and how their development can be linked to major social institutions.
Managing Competences in Entrepreneurial Technology Firms: A comparative institutional analysis of Germany, Sweden and the UK [статья]
Опубликовано на портале: 24-03-2008Richard Whitley, Steven Casper Research Policy. 2004. Vol. 33. P. 89-106.
Innovating firms in new industries face a number of technological and market risks, especially appropriability and competence destruction. However, the relative significance of these varies between different sub-sectors, and so do managerial ways of dealing with them. These in turn are influenced by institutional frameworks, particularly those governing skill formation systems and labour markets. Consequently, the relative success of firms in fields with different appropriability and competence destruction risks is likely to vary between countries with contrasting patterns of labour market organisation. In the biotechnology and computer software industries, there are major differences in the dominant risks faced by innovating firms such that we would expect their relative success to differ between Germany, Sweden and the UK. While the UK and, to a limited extent, Sweden, have developed institutions similar to those found in the US that help govern “radically innovative” firm competences, Germany has invested in institutional frameworks associated with “competency enhancing” human resource practices that give its firms an advantage in more generic technologies in which organisational complexity is higher.While the distribution of public companies across sub-sectors broadly follows these expectations, Sweden has developed considerable strength in middleware software. This results from changing property rights and personnel policies at Ericsson.
Varieties of Capitalism and Institutional Complementarities in the Macro-Economy: An Empirical Analysis [статья]
Опубликовано на портале: 18-03-2008Peter A. Hall, Daniel W. Gingerich MPIfG, Discussion Paper. 2004. No. 5.
Using aggregate analysis, this paper examines the core contentions of the “varieties of capitalism” perspective on comparative capitalism. We construct a coordination index to assess whether the institutional features of liberal and coordinated market economies conform to the predictions of the theory. We test the contention that institutional complementarities occur across sub-spheres of the macroeconomy by examining the correspondence of institutions across sub-spheres and estimating the impact of complementarities in labor relations and corporate governance on rates of growth. To assess the stability of the institutional features central to the theory, we assess the dynamics of institutional change in recent years. The evidence suggests that there are powerful interaction effects among institutions across sub-spheres of the political economy that must be considered if the economic impact of institutional change in any one sphere is to be accurately assessed.
How and Why Capitalisms Differ [статья]
Опубликовано на портале: 18-03-2008Robert Boyer Economy and Society. 2005. Vol. 34. No. 4. P. 509-557.
The variety of capitalism school (VOC) and regulation theory (TR) are both analyses of the diversity of contemporary national economies. If VOC challenges the primacy of liberal market economies (LME) and stresses the existence of an alternative form, i.e. coordinated market economies (CME), TR starts from a long-term analysis of the transformation of capitalism in order to search for alternatives to the Fordist regime that emerged after the post-Second World War era. Both approaches make intensive use of international comparisons, challenge the role of market as the exclusive coordinating mechanism, and raise doubts about the existence of a ‘one best way’ for capitalism. Finally, they stress that globalization does deepen the competitive advantage associated with each institutional architecture. Nevertheless, their methodology differs: VOC stresses private firm governance, whereas TR considers the primacy of systemic and macroeconomic coherence. Whereas for VOC there exist only LME and CME, TR recurrently finds at least four brands of capitalism: market-led, meso-corporatist, social democrat and State-led. VOC seems to consider that the long-term stability of each capitalism can be challenged only by external shocks, but TR stresses the fact that the very success of a regulation mode ends up in a structural crisis, largely endogenous.
Опубликовано на портале: 17-03-2008Ronald Philip Dore
Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987, 264 с.
Flexible Rigidities: Industrial Policy and Structural Adjustment in the Japanese economy, 1970-80 [книги]
Опубликовано на портале: 17-03-2008Ronald Philip Dore
Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1986, 278 с.
The Future of Rhenish Capitalism [статья]
Опубликовано на портале: 11-03-2008Michel Albert, Rauf Gonenc Political Quarterly. 1996. Vol. 67. No. 3. P. 184-193.
Focuses on the `Rhenish' model of the market economy. Contractual structure underpinning the governance of business corporations; Globalization of capital markets; Model's potential in the global economic circumstances.
Опубликовано на портале: 11-03-2008Геннадий Александрович Осипов Социологические исследования. 2007. № 8. С. 65-70.
К проблеме выяснения макроэкономических пропорций, обеспечивающих обществу экономическое процветание, автор подошел в связи с рассмотрением возможностей достижения в России плодотворного межклассового сотрудничества. Понятие "социальные классы" используется им в политэкономическом значении и для упрощения задачи учитываются только два класса: управляющий и управляемый (первый владеет средствами производства и организует их работу; второй заинтересован в наиболее выгодной продаже своего труда). Автор полагает, что для определения оптимального соотношения между двумя подразделениями вполне можно применить электротехническую модель, ввиду общности математического описания. Оптимум обеспечивает наилучший обмен ресурсами и наиболее эффективное использование рабочей силы (условие согласования источника электроэнергии с нагрузкой). Констатируется, что в России бизнес не считает необходимым заботиться о межклассовом сотрудничестве: низкая цена труда, неучастие работников в распределении прибыли, социально несправедливые налоги и отчуждение общества от природных богатств - все это нарушает единство производственной и социальной сторон экономики, подтверждённое с помощью модели и закреплённое мировой практикой.