The matching problem within comparative welfare state research: How to bridge abstract theory and specific hypotheses

Item does not contain fulltex

Does democracy promote equality?

The linkage between liberal democracy and income inequality has been the subject of considerable empirical research. However, the literature has largely ignored advances in the techniques for measuring income distribution which help to improve and strengthen the robustness of research findings in this field. by drawing upon recent developments in data collection and formal analyses, this paper explores inequality trends in selected Western democracies over the 1970s and 1980s. The results indicate that the gap between rich and poor is widening in some countries but not in all, thus pointing to the role of national policies in the redistribution of income. Conventional models grounded on demand driven policies persuasively explain declining income inequality, yet fail to account for the rising trends in the 1980s. Reasons for this failure are the omission of political 'slack' as a key dimension in redistributive options and the fallacy of linearity. The paper shows that despite significant progress, we are still not in a position to be confident of our theories and methods

How Many Varieties of Capitalism? Comparing the Comparative Institutional Analyses of Capitalist Diversity

This essay reviews the development of approaches within the comparative capitalisms (CC) literature and points to three theoretical innovations which, taken together, define and distinguish these approaches as a group. First, national economies are characterized by distinct institutional configurations that generate a particular systemic 'logic' of economic action. Second, the CC literature suggests a theory of comparative institutional advantage in which different institutional arrangements have distinct strengths and weaknesses for different kinds of economic activity. Third, the literature has been interpreted to imply a theory of institutional path dependence. Behind these unifying characteristics of the literature, however, lie a variety of analytical frameworks and typologies of capitalism. This paper reviews and compares these different frameworks by highlighting the fundamental distinctions among them and drawing out their respective contributions and limitations in explaining economic performance and institutional dynamics. The paper concludes that the way forward for this literature lies in developing a more dynamic view of individual institutions, the linkages between domains, and the role of politics and power.In diesem Discussion Paper werden Ansätze der Comparative-Capitalism-Diskussion vorgestellt. Sie haben drei theoretische Innovationen gemein. Erstens: Nationale Ökonomien werden durch institutionelle Konfigurationen geprägt, die auf jeweils eigene "systemische Logiken" wirtschaftlichen Handelns hinwirken. Zweitens: Die Comparative-Capitalism-Literatur beinhaltet eine Theorie der komparativen institutionellen Vorteile, der zufolge institutionellen Konfigurationen spezifische Wettbewerbsvorteile zugeordnet werden können. Zudem, drittens, beinhaltet die Comparative-Capitalism-Literatur auch eine implizite Theorie der Pfadabhängigkeit. Trotz dieser Gemeinsamkeiten unterscheiden sich die Ansätze hinsichtlich analytischer Zugriffe und Vorschläge zur Typologisierung nationaler Kapitalismen. Beim Vergleich dieser Ansätze werden besonders deren Stärken und Schwächen bei der Analyse wirtschaftlicher Performanz und institutioneller Entwicklungsdynamiken hervorgehoben. Der Aufsatz kommt zu dem Schluss, dass die Comparative-Capitalism-Literatur in dreierlei Hinsicht der Weiterentwicklung bedarf: hinsichtlich einer dynamischeren Modellierung von Institutionen, einem besseren Verständnis der Interaktion institutioneller Domänen und der Berücksichtigung von Macht und Politik in der Analyse von Produktionsregimen

Assumption without representation: the unacknowledged abstraction from communities and social goods

We have not clearly acknowledged the abstraction from unpriceable “social goods” (derived from communities) which, different from private and public goods, simply disappear if it is attempted to market them. Separability from markets and economics has not been argued, much less established. Acknowledging communities would reinforce rather than undermine them, and thus facilitate the production of social goods. But it would also help economics by facilitating our understanding of – and response to – financial crises as well as environmental destruction and many social problems, and by reducing the alienation from economics often felt by students and the public