Models of capitalism
Models of capitalism
复制标题
资本主义模式
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2005
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
C. Crouch
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
C. Crouch
Shonfield的工作，2其中审查了各种机构的作用，围绕经济-各种分支机构的国家，银行，证券交易所-在一些西欧国家，美国和日本。虽然他认为有些国家比其他国家更有效率--特别是那些将计划的一些要素插入自由市场的国家给他留下了深刻印象--但他并没有从历史超越的角度来谈论。20世纪80年代，当更倾向于理论的政治学家和社会学家重新考虑经济问题时，他们恢复了肖恩菲尔德对国家政治经济体系的关注，从而恢复了对资本主义国家多样性的关注。有时候，在一个国家的经济中也会出现子类型（主要是关于意大利和西班牙），但这些子类型几乎总是在地理上被细分，因此以领土为基础的经济的概念一直被保留下来。这并不意味着每个民族国家都被视为体现了自己独特的资本主义形式;相反，民族案例被归类为少数对比类型。这一文学成就颇多。它为有关全球化的简单论点提供了一种智力上的平衡，这些论点预测世界经济体之间不可避免的相似趋势。新制度主义对多样性的解释既提供了理论论据，也提供了一些经验证据，表明这些可能是严重的过度简化。然而，如果我们要更科学地模拟经济制度的多样性，特别是如果我们要研究制度变迁和创新，我们需要解构
Shonfield’s work, 2 which examined the role of various institutions surrounding the economy – various branches of the state, banks, stock exchanges – in a number of Western European countries, the United States and Japan. Although he thought some were more efficient than others – in particular, he was impressed by those that inserted some elements of planning into otherwise free markets – he did not talk in terms of historical transcendence. When more theoretically inclined political scientists and sociologists returned to considering economic questions in the 1980s, they resumed Shonfield’s concern with national politico-economic systems and hence national varieties of capitalism. Occasionally sub-types would be recognised within a national economy (mainly with regard to Italy and Spain), but these sub-types have nearly always been geographically subdivided, so the concept of territorially based economies has been retained. This does not mean that each nation-state has been seen as embodying its own unique form of capitalism; rather, national cases are grouped together under a small number of contrasted types. This literature has many achievements. It has provided an intellectual counterweight to easy arguments about globalisation, which predict an inevitable trend towards similarity among the world’s economies. Neoinstitutionalist accounts of diversity have provided both theoretical arguments and some empirical demonstrations to suggest that these may be great oversimplifications. However, if we are to model the diversity of economic institutions more scientifically, and particularly if we are to study institutional change and innovation, we need to deconstruct