Diversity of Capitalisms in Latin America by Ilan Bizberg, Cham, Palgrave Macmillan, 2019, xxxviii.
Diversity of Capitalisms in Latin America by Ilan Bizberg, Cham, Palgrave Macmillan, 2019, xxxviii.
复制标题
《拉丁美洲资本主义的多样性》作者：Ilan Bizberg、Cham、Palgrave Macmillan，2019 年，xxxviii。
DOI：
10.1111/deve.12218
复制
发表时间：
2019
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Kaori Baba
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Miwa Hirofumi;Arami Reiko;Taniguchi Masaki;馬場香織;荒木田岳;中井遼;内海麻利;中田瑞穂;金井利之;荒見玲子;馬場香織;内海麻利;中田瑞穂;中田瑞穂;金井利之;仙石学;荒見玲子;Ariyoshi Ogawa;荒見玲子;伊藤武;荒見玲子;荒木田岳;Kaori Baba
直到最近，将拉美纳入当代比较资本主义辩论的尝试还寥寥无几。更罕见的是，关注后华盛顿共识政治经济体在该地区的多样性的研究。为什么一些经济体看起来比其他经济体的状况要好？制度和经济活动之间有什么特殊的关系吗？伊兰·比兹伯格的书为理解资本主义多样性和当代拉丁美洲政治经济的不同轨迹提供了一个新的框架。霍尔和索斯基斯(2001)的“资本主义种类”(VOC)框架被广泛视为理解处于相对较高发展水平的经济的相关方法。与新制度主义关于规范的“最佳方式”的假设不同，VOC学派向更复杂的发展概念迈出了重要的一步，它表明有两种不同但同样有效的VOC导致了发达经济体：具有市场协调的自由市场经济(例如英国和美国)，以及由社会参与者和国家进行战略协调的协调市场经济(例如德国和瑞典)。由于制度的互补性，一种特定的经济协调形式往往在特定经济体中占主导地位，这反过来又解释了社会经济绩效的差异。这些文献引发了巨大的争议，包括该框架是否能够揭示经合组织核心国家以外的市场经济的问题(费尔德曼，2019)。将VOC框架扩展到世界其他地区提出了困难的挑战；尽管似乎不可能将所有全球资本主义经济体纳入自由和协调市场经济的二元区分中，但识别新的资本主义类型可能会减少原始VOC模型的理论简约性。在这方面，施耐德(2013)的两种新资本主义有效地将拉丁美洲经济体纳入了关于资本主义多样性的辩论，同时成功地保持了原始VOC框架的理论优雅。施耐德将重点放在与最初的VOC方法类似的公司上，根据分配机制的不同逻辑，演绎出另外两种资本主义：等级制度和信任。分级市场经济模式，以分级为基础进行协调
Until recently, there have been few attempts to incorporate Latin America into the contemporary comparative capitalism debate. Even more rare are studies that focus on the diversity of the post–Washington Consensus political economies in the region. Why do some economies seem better off than others? Is there any particular kind of relationship between institutions and economic activities? Ilán Bizberg’s book offers a new framework for understanding capitalist diversity and different trajectories of contemporary Latin American political economies.Hall and Soskice’s (2001) framework of “varieties of capitalism”(VoC) is widely viewed as a relevant approach for understanding economies at relatively high levels of development. In contrast to the neo-institutionalist assumption of a normative “one best way,” the VoC school made an important step to a more complex conception of development by showing that there are two different but equally effective VoC that have led to developed economies: liberal market economies with market coordination (eg, the United Kingdom and the United States), and coordinated market economies with strategic coordination by social actors and the state (eg, Germany and Sweden). Because of institutional complementarities, a particular form of economic coordination tends to predominate in a given economy, which in turn accounts for differences in socioeconomic performance. The literature spurred great controversy, including the question as to whether the framework could shed light on market economies beyond the core OECD countries (Feldmann 2019). The extension of a VoC framework to other parts of the world raises difficult challenges; while it seems impossible to fit all global capitalist economies into the binary distinction between liberal and coordinated market economies, identifying new typologies of capitalism may reduce the theoretical parsimony of the original VoC model. In this regard, Schneider’s (2013) two new varieties of capitalism effectively incorporated Latin American economies into the debate on capitalist diversity, while succeeding in maintaining the theoretical elegance of the original VoC framework. Keeping a focus on firms similar to the original VoC approach, Schneider deductively identifies two other varieties of capitalism based on distinct logics of allocative mechanisms: hierarchy and trust. The hierarchical market economy model, with coordination based on hierarchical