Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T00:07:24.205Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Engaging the evolution of varieties of capitalism: a two-tier approach to examining institutional change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Michele Mastroeni
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is a continuing need for an analytical approach to institutional change, especially as applied to incremental, agent-driven change. Important institutional change can be incremental and not necessarily linked to immediate crisis. Institutional adjustments initiated by actors in the course of meeting specific economic and political goals can unblock systemic bottlenecks leading to improved economic performance. Aggregate incremental change could also lead to system evolution that deviates significantly from the original system model. This paper presents an approach that engages agent impact on the institutional system, and the political or social motives for action; the two-tiered approach moves away from the categories described in Varieties of Capitalism, one of the more influential approaches to analyzing institutional impact in an economy. Instead of static national categories, the approach presented in this paper differentiates between defining institutions and instrumental institutions, the differences in ease and speed of change which characterize each institutional tier, and how the system's evolution is impacted by the combined effect of changes in each tier. Differentiating between institutions in this manner, the paper provides an approach that is more flexible in explaining the interactions between agents and institutions, and the changes which may result.

Type
Research Article
Information
Business and Politics , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 1 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © V.K. Aggarwal 2013 and published under exclusive license to Cambridge University Press 

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

Ahlquist, J. and Breunig, C. 2012. “Model-based clustering and typologies in the social sciences.” Political Analysis 20: 92–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akkermans, D. C. Castaldi and Los, B. 2005. “Do Liberal market economies really innovate more radically than coordinated market economies? Hall and soskice reconsidered,” Paper presented at the EMAEE. Google Scholar
Amable, B. and Palombarini, S. 2009. “A neorealist approach to institutional change and the diversity of capitalism.” Socio-Economic Review 7: 123–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, F. and Bradley, J. 1997. “FDI and Trade: the Irish host-country experience.” Economic Journal 107: 1798–1811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, B. and Gilson, R. 2003. “Venture capital and the structure of capital markets: banks versus stock markets.” In: McCahery, J.A. and Renneboog, L.D.R. (eds.), Venture capital contracting and the valuation of high-technology firms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blyth, M. 2003. “Same as it never was: temporality and typology in the Varieties of capitalism.” Comparative European Politics 1: 215–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, J. and Pedersen, O. 2007. “The varieties of capitalism and hybrid success: Denmark in the global economy.” Comparative Political Studies 40: 307–332.CrossRefGoogle 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: 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cetindamar, D. and Jacobsson, S. 2003. “The Swedish venture capital industry: an infant, adolescent or grown-up?” In: Cetindamar, D. (ed.), The growth of venture capital: a cross-cultural comparison. London: Praeger, pp. 119–148.Google Scholar
Cogan, D. and McDevitt, J. 2000. Science, technology and innovation policy & science and technology policy evaluation: the Irish experience. Dublin: Converge Workshop.Google Scholar
Cortell, A. and Peterson, S. 1999. “Altered states: explaining domestic institutional change.” British Journal of Political Science 29: 177–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deeg, R. and Jackson, G. 2007. “Towards a more dynamic theory of capitalist variety.” Socio-Economic Review 5: 149–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. 2006. Strategy for science, technology and innovation, 2006–2013. Dublin.Google Scholar
Ireland, Enterprise. 1999. Seed and venture capital measure of the operational programme, 1994–1999 report. Dublin.Google Scholar
Evans, P. 1995. Embedded autonomy: states and industrial transformation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, J. 2001. Discussion paper from Ireland on building sustainable competitive advantage in Irish industry, peer review. Dublin: Mutual Learning Programme.Google Scholar
Gertler, M. 2010. “Rules of the game: the place of institutions in regional economic change.” Regional Studies 44: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giarratana, M., Pagano, A. and Torris, S. 2005. “The role of multinational companies.” In: Arora, A. and Gambardella, A. (eds.), From underdogs to tigers: the rise and growth of the software industry in Brazil, China, India, Ireland and Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 207–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girvin, B. 1989. Between two worlds: politics and economy in independent Ireland. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hall, P. 2007. “The evolution of varieties of capitalism in Europe.” In: Hancké, B., Rhodes, M. and Thatcher, M. (eds.), Beyond varieties of capitalism: conflict, contradictions, and complementarities in the European economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 39–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, P. and Soskice, D. 2001. Varieties of capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, P. and Gingerich, D. 2009. “Varieties of capitalism and institutional complementarities in the political economy: an empirical analysis.” British Journal of Political Studies 39: 449–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, P. and Thelen, K. 2009. “Institutional change in varieties of capitalism.” Socio-Economic Review 7: 7–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrekson, M. and Rosenberg, N. 2001. “Designing efficient institutions for science-based entrepreneurship: lessons from the US and Sweden.” Journal of Technology Transfer 26: 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrekson, M. and Jakobsson, U. 2003. “The Swedish model of corporate ownership and control in transition.” In: Huizinga, H. and Jonung, L. (eds.), Who will own Europe? The internationalisation of asset ownership in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 207–246.Google Scholar
Herrigel, G. and Zeitlin, J. 2010. “Alternatives to varieties of capitalism.” Business History Review 84: 667–674.Google Scholar
Hilliard, R. and Green, R. 2005. “Innovation policy governance and institutional change in Ireland.” Paper presented at the DRUID Summer Conference, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Immergut, E. 1998. “The theoretical core of the new instititutionalism.” Politics & Society 26 (1): 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacob, M., Lundqvist, M. and Hellsmark, H. 2003. “Entrepreneurial transformation in the Swedish university system: the case of Chalmers University of Technology.” Research Policy 32 (9): 1555–1568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasso, G. and Opp, K.-D. 1997. “Probing the character of norms: a factorial survey analysis of the norms of political action.” American Sociological Review 62: 947–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, M. and Asakawa, K. 2004. “Rethinking the public sector: idiosyncracies of biotechnology commercialisation as motors of national R&D reform in Germany and Japan.” Research Policy 33: 921–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mac Sharry, R. 2000. “Social partnership.” In: Mac Sharry, R., White, P. and O'Malley, J. (eds.), The making of the celtic tiger: the inside story of Ireland's boom economy. Cork: Mercier Press, Chapter 5.Google Scholar
Mastroeni, M. and Rosiello, A. 2010. “Life science innovation strategies, in Sweden, Ireland and Ontario: lessons learned for Scotland.” Commissioned report for Scottish Enterprise.Google Scholar
McGowan, P. 1990. Money and banking in Ireland. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration.Google Scholar
Nilsson, A., von Borgstede, C. and Biel, A. 2004. “Willingness to accept climate change strategies: the effect of values and norms.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 24: 267–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niosi, J. 2002. “National systems of innovation are “x-efficient” (and x-effective): why some are slow learners.” Research Policy 31: 291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niosi, J. and Bellon, B. 2002. “The absorptive capacity of regions,” Paper presented at the Colloque economie mediterranee Monde Arabe.Google Scholar
North, D. 1990. Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connor, T. 2001. “Foreign direct investment and indigenous industry in Ireland: review of evidence, one Europe or several?” Working Papers.Google Scholar
OECD, 1996. “The knowledge-based economy, OCDE/GD(96)102.” In: Science, Technology and Industry Outlook. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
O'Riain, S. 2004. The politics of high-tech growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rafiqui, P. 2010. “Varieties of capitalism and local outcomes: A Swedish case study.” European Urban and Regional Studies 17 (3): 309–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiter, J. 2003. “Changing the microfoundations of corporatism: the impact of financial globalization on Swedish corporate ownership.” New Political Economy 8: 103–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roland, G. 2004. “Understanding institutional change: fast-moving and slow-moving institutions.” Studies in International Comparative Development 38: 109–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, M. 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: 731–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinmo, S. 2003. “Bucking the trend? The welfare state and global economy: the Swedish case up close.” New Political Economy 8: 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, M. 2004. “Empirical evidence against varieties of capitalism's theory of technological innovation.” International Organization 58: 601–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tylecote, A. 1994. “Financial systems and Innovation.” In: Dodgson, M. and Rothwell, R. (eds.), Handbook of industrial innovation. Aldershot: Edward Elgar, Chapter 19.Google Scholar
Van Deth, J. 2003. “Measuring social capital: orthodoxies and continuing controversies.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 6: 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varheim, A. 2003. “Changing varieties of capitalism: Irish corporatism and innovation policy 1987–2000.” Paper presented at the second general conference of the European consortium for political research. Marburg, Germany.Google Scholar
Zysman, J. 1994. “Dynamic diversity: institutions and economic development in advanced countries.” In: Delorme, R. and Dopfer, K. (eds.), The political economy of diversity. Aldershot: Edward Elgar, pp. 126–146.Google Scholar
Zysman, J. 1986. “Financial systems and innovation.” Conference paper presented on innovation diffusion, Venice, March 17–22.Google Scholar