Models of capitalism

That capitalist economies might take diverse forms has been long recognised by some scholars.Sometimes this diversity has been seen as a matter of evolutionary development.This was true of Max Weber's idea---type approach, that of the advocates of postwar modernisation theory, and of those who followed Antonio Gramsci's identification of a Fordist phase of capitalism that was deemed to succeed the classic free---market form.This last idea flourished particularly in the French regulationiste school.1These approaches, different from each other though they are, all see some forms of capitalism superseding, and as therefore in some sense superior to, earlier modes.Hence these are not theories of a true diversity in the sense of a continuing multiplicity of forms, the historical superiority of any of which might never come to an issue.Analysts willing to adopt a less historicist approach have been rarer.The modern locus classicus was Andrew 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 subtypes would be recognised within a national economy (mainly with regard to Italy and Spain), but these subtypes have nearly always been geographically subdivided, so the concept of territorially based economies has been retained.This does not mean that each national---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, Q1 we need to deconstruct