scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Book

Divergent Capitalisms: The Social Structuring and Change of Business Systems

01 Jan 1999-
TL;DR: In this article, a comparative study of business systems in East Asia and Eastern Europe is presented, focusing on the development and change of the business system in the post-war business systems of South Korea and Taiwan.
Abstract: PART I: INTRODUCTION 1. Varieties of Capitalism PART II: THE COMPARATIVE BUSINESS SYSTEMS FRAMEWORK 2. The Nature of Business Systems and their Institutional Structuring 3. The Social Structuring of Firms' Governance Systems and Organizational Capabilities 4. The Social Structuring of Work Systems 5. Globalization and Business Systems PART III: THE DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE OF BUSINESS SYSTEMS IN EAST ASIA AND EASTERN EUROPE 6. Divergent Capitalisms in East Asia: The Development of the Post-War Business Systems of South Korea and Taiwan 7. Continuity and Change in East Asian Capitalisms 8. Path Dependence and Emergent Capitalisms in Eastern Europe: Hungary and Slovenia Compared 9. Enterprise Change and Continuity in a Transforming Society: The Case of Hungary
Citations
More filters
Posted Content
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors address the question of how and why corporate social responsibility (CSR) differs among countries and how it changes, and apply two schools of thought in institutional theory to conceptualize the differences between CSR in the USA and Europe.
Abstract: We address the question of how and why corporate social responsibility (CSR) differs among countries and how and why it changes. Applying two schools of thought in institutional theory we conceptualize, first, the differences between CSR in the USA and Europe and, second, the recent rise of CSR in Europe. We also delineate the potential of our framework for application to other parts of the global economy.

3,300 citations


Cites background or methods from "Divergent Capitalisms: The Social S..."

  • ...…whereas in the former it is more indirect and long term—admittedly a subject of continuing debate in the NBS literature (e.g., Quack, Morgan, & Whitley, 1999) One source of coercive isomorphisms in Europe is the EU itself, through deregulation of business and the liberalization of markets…...

    [...]

  • ...These institutional factors have informed the U.S. and European NBSs, specifically in terms of the nature of the firm, the organization of market processes, and coordination and control systems (Whitley, 1999)....

    [...]

  • ...…historical institutional frameworks inform differences in NBSs and how these contribute to our framework for understanding comparative CSR. Whitley (1999) has identified four key features of historically grown national institutional frameworks: the political system, the financial system,…...

    [...]

  • ...Hence, we adopt the national business system (NBS) or societal effect approach (Maurice & Sorge, 2000; Maurice, Sorge, & Warner, 1980; Sorge, 1991; Whitley, 1992, 1999, 2002a,b), which shares key features with the varieties of capitalism approaches that distinguish liberal market economies and…...

    [...]

  • ...and European NBSs, specifically in terms of the nature of the firm, the organization of market processes, and coordination and control systems (Whitley, 1999)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors address the question of how and why corporate social responsibility (CSR) differs among countries and how it changes and delineate the potential of their framework for application to other parts of the global economy.
Abstract: We address the question of how and why corporate social responsibility (CSR) differs among countries and how and why it changes. Applying two schools of thought in institutional theory, we conceptualize, first, the differences between CSR in the United States and Europe and, second, the recent rise of CSR in Europe. We also delineate the potential of our framework for application to other parts of the global economy.

3,015 citations

01 Jan 2001
TL;DR: In this article, the authors propose a new framework for understanding the institutional similarities and differences among the developed economies, one that offers a new and intriguing set of answers to 1111 211 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111 1 211 34 5 67 8 9 20111 1 2 3 4 4 56 7 89 20111 2 1.
Abstract: Political economists have always been interested in the differences in economic and political institutions that occur across countries. Some regard these differences as deviations from 'best practice' that will dissolve as nations catch up to a technological or organizational leader. Others see them as the distillation of more durable historical choices for a specific kind of society, since economic institutions condition levels of social protection, the distribution of income, and the availability of collective goods — features of the social solidarity of a nation. In each case, comparative political economy revolves around the conceptual frameworks used to understand institutional variation across nations. On such frameworks depend the answers to a range of important questions. Some are policy-related. What kind of economic policies will improve the performance of the economy? What will governments do in the face of economic challenges? What defines a state's capacities to meet such challenges? Other questions are firm-related. Do companies located in different nations display systematic differences in their structure and strategies? If so, what inspires such differences? How can national differences in the pace or character of innovation be explained? Some are issues about economic performance. Do some sets of institutions provide lower rates of inflation and unemployment or higher rates of growth than others? What are the trade-offs in terms of economic performance to developing one type of political economy rather than another? Finally, second-order questions about institutional change and stability are of special significance today. Can we expect technological progress and the competitive pressures of globalization to inspire institutional conver-gence? What factors condition the adjustment paths a political economy takes in the face of such challenges? The object of this book is to elaborate a new framework for understanding the institutional similarities and differences among the developed economies, one that offers a new and intriguing set of answers to 1111 211 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111 1 211 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 20111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 30111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 40 1 such questions. 1 We outline the basic approach in this Introduction. Subsequent chapters extend and apply it to a wide range of issues. In many respects, this approach is still a work-in-progress. We see it as a set of contentions that open up new research agendas rather than settled wisdom to be accepted …

2,676 citations


Cites background from "Divergent Capitalisms: The Social S..."

  • ...…at the regional, sectoral, or national level (Piore and Sabel 1984; Dore 1986; Streeck and Schmitter 1986; Dosi et al. 1988; Boyer 1990; Lazonick 1991; Campbell et al. 1991; Nelson 1993; Hollingsworth et al. 1994; Herrigel 1996; Hollingsworth and Boyer 1997; Edquist 1997; Whitley 1999)....

    [...]

  • ...Other valuable efforts to identify varieties of capitalism that have influenced us include Hollingsworth and Boyer (1997), Crouch and Streeck (1997b), and Whitley (1999). dominate the analysis of comparative capitalism....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors developed a theoretical model to describe and explain variation in corporate governance among advanced capitalist economies, identifying the social relations and institutional arrangements that shape who controls corporations, what interests corporations serve, and the allocation of rights and responsibilities among corporate stakeholders.
Abstract: We develop a theoretical model to describe and explain variation in corporate governance among advanced capitalist economies, identifying the social relations and institutional arrangements that shape who controls corporations, what interests corporations serve, and the allocation of rights and responsibilities among corporate stakeholders. Our “actor-centered” institutional approach explains firm-level corporate governance practices in terms of institutional factors that shape how actors' interests are defined (“socially constructed”) and represented. Our model has strong implications for studying issues of international convergence.

1,827 citations


Cites background from "Divergent Capitalisms: The Social S..."

  • ...Agency theorists treat employment relations as exogenously determined by labor markets, despite the employee voice within corporate boards of many European firms.3 Similarly, interfirm ownership may create networks that condition business competition, cooperation, and innovation (Whitley, 1999)....

    [...]

  • ...…and weaker when countries occupy intermediate positions; furthermore, we have discussed how the impact of any of the particular institutional domains on a stakeholder group may be reinforced by the existence of other institutions or may be modified in a countervailing fashion (Whitley, 1999)....

    [...]

  • ...Conversely, managers may prefer growth to profits (empire building may bring prestige or higher salaries), may be lazy or fraudulent (“shirk”), and may maintain costly labor or product standards above the necessary competitive minimum....

    [...]

  • ...Institutions may also create opportunities for specialization around diverse economic “logics” and thereby yield comparative institutional advantages for different business systems (Whitley, 1999) or varieties of capitalism (Hall & Soskice, 2001)....

    [...]