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.

In the last decade, few countries have figured prominently as cases of late-late developers that achieved worldwide success with their Information Technology (IT) industries. This paper focuses on the Israeli case and argues that uniquely in that group, and in contradiction to the model proposed by late development theories, Israel's competitive advantage in the IT industries, is in Research and Development (R&D). The paper's main arguments are that (a) the declared aim of Israel's industrial policy has been to develop a “science-based” industrial system similar to what we see in Israel today; (b) however, these policies, focused on diffusion and not on creation of capabilities, were successful only because of the existence of an already sophisticated and extensive R&D capability in the universities – markedly different from other Newly Industrialized Countries. Looking at the present the paper concludes that the same operational model that led Israel's IT industry to success might now be undermining its future growth.

We know from observation that some democracies intervene deeply in their domestic economies while others adopt a more laissez faire approach. Can we explain these differences solely with ideology, or are other political influences also at work? I argue in this paper that elected leaders sometimes opt for hefty economic regulation purely to generate sources of patronage that can be used to maintain their political positions. Leaders are most tempted to take this approach, I contend, when their political parties are not stably linked to sources of electoral support. Unstably linked governing parties will tend to have very short time horizons, focusing on the immediate objective of avoiding massive vote losses in the next election. As a result, they will be less concerned with the potential future damage that a patronage-based policy may inflict on the national economy. I find support for this argument with a close examination of Indian economic policy under Indira Gandhi. Prime Minister Gandhi, I contend, increased the Indian state's control over trade, industrial production, and credit allocation just as the Congress Party's linkages to the electorate were destabilizing.

In recent years, International Political Economy literature on “politics beyond state” has emphasized the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in broader policy processes, both national and international. In addition to their impact on states, NGOs influence the policies of non-state actors such as firms via public and private politics. Dissatisfied with the progress firms have made in response to public regulation, NGOs have sponsored private authority regimes in several issue areas and pushed firms to participate in them. Across the world, the contest between NGOs and firms has provoked substantial behavioral and programmatic change'including widespread participation in these private authority regimes'among firms seeking to escape NGO pressures. Using firm-level data, this paper examines why direct targeting has not led firms in the U.S. forest products sector to participate in an NGO-sponsored private authority regime, the Forest Stewardship Council. This global regime has been adopted widely in Europe, but U.S.-based forestry firms have tended to favor a domestic industry-sponsored regime, the Sustainable Forestry Initiative. Our analysis suggests that the desire of firms to maintain control over their institutional environment in light of hostile relations with NGOs has led US-based firms to favor the Sustainable Forestry Initiative.