Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Schmidt (2007) - Coggle Diagram

- - - - "In liberal market economies (LMEs), the market coordinates interactions among socioeconomic actors"
    - - "In coordinated market economies (CMEs) socioeconomic actors engage in non-market coordination"
    - - "A binary division into ideal-types tends to be too reductive, squeezing much too much into much too rigid a set of categories"
      - "The explanation is overly functionalist, with its emphasis on complementarity and positive feedback effects from coordination making the system largely static, overly path-dependent, and unable to account for institutional change"
      - "VoC has great difficulty dealing with country cases that are treated as outliers because they don’t fit well into either ideal-type and because they seem plagued by intra-system contradictions, misfits and perverse spillovers"
        
        🇫🇷 🇮🇹 🇪🇸
        "Where the state actually plays, and has in the past played, a much more significant role than in the countries that are the ideals for VoC’s two ideal-types, Britain and Germany".
        [mid-spectrum or mixed market economies]
        
        State-influenced Market Economies (SMEs)
        
        "SMEs encompass countries in which the state played a distinctive role in the postwar period, intervening more, and differently, for better or for worse, than in LMEs and CMEs; and in which the state retains significant influence over business and labor, playing a more active, and different, role"
        
        it helps identify a third variety of capitalism which is distinguishable on the basis of state action, grouping countries that have been left out of the two VoC ideal-types;
        
        State action
        
        Types
        
        3 more items...
        
        Components
        
        3 more items...
        
        it allows us better to understand and explain the coordination processes of all political economies; and
        
        Differences in state, business and labor. E.g., France: different patterns of network formation; different business-labor relations, even when more market-reliant; differences in patterns of adjustment.
        
        "Adjustment is still state-driven in those domains where neither business nor labor can exercise leadership—in la- bor rules, pension systems and the like—or where the state sees a need to reshape the general economic environment to promote competitiveness. In either case, the logic of interaction is one of hierarchical authority rather than joint-decision or unilateral action".
        
        it helps us to explain institutional change across countries.
- - - - "It, too, sees change as rare, coming only at moments of “punctuated equilibrium” (Krasner 1988). Moreover, if theorists do see development over time, such development tends to be highly historically deterministic": path dependence.
        
        "Path dependence is a self-reinforcing sequence of events which, through positive feedback or self-reinforcing mechanisms, ensure increasing returns that, if lasting over a very long time, make for a “deep equilibrium” that is highly resistant to change".
        
        "Implicitly, the micro-foundations of historical institutionalist explanations of VoC are in rational choice institutionalism"
        
        "But the problem here is that regular rational choice institutionalist accounts of strategic action assume fixed preferences with stable institutions that act as structures of incentives"
        
        Deliberation
        
        Defection
        
        Reinterpretation
    - - Open systems approach: different subsystems allow for contestation, contradiction and development.
      - Evolutionary approach: "This is an approach which has essentially put the historical back into historical institutionalism by focusing on the (many) evolutionary changes that may be as, if not more, transformative than the (rarer) revolutionary moments". Incremental change and historical indeterminacy allow for crooked paths and divergences in reaction to exogenous and endogenous factors.
        
        Institutional change "may take the form of “displacement” and defection; “layering” through reform; “drift” through neglect; “conversion” through reinterpretation or redirection; “exhaustion” through break down".
      - Discursive institutionalist approach
        
        Content of ideas: "On the substantive dimension, scholars tend to consider both the cognitive arguments that seek to justify change in terms of its necessity, with an account of the “facts”, and normative arguments that seek to legitimize change in terms of its appropriateness, with an appeal to values.
        
        Process of ideation: "On the interactive dimension, scholars tend to divide between those focused on the “coordinative” sphere of discourse, in which policy actors talk mainly to one another in the process of generating and/or reaching agreement on reforms (e.g., Lehmbruch 1999), and those more concerned with the “communicative” sphere of discourse, in which political actors translate the reforms developed in the coordinative sphere into more accessible language in order to communicate them to the general public for discussion and deliberation".
        
        "The content of ideas, the interactive processes by which those ideas are generated and communicated, and the institutional context in which they occur all have significant implications for our three varieties of capitalism. In a very preliminary way, we could point to the role ideas and discourse have played in promoting such change, whether in pushing greater liberalism in LMEs like the UK and the U.S., reinforcing cooperation in CMEs like Germany and Sweden, or reducing state influence in SMEs. Beyond this, however, we need to ask about discursive interactions in institutional context, that is, who is talking to whom where"