at CEPREMAP and funded by the European Community under the Targeted Socioeconomic Research Programme. Although stressing the importance of innovation and technology, the project was in fact a comparative analysis of modern capitalist economies. The theoretical and empirical work performed in the course of this project led to examinations of the coherence of the various systems and the complementarity relationships between the various institutional forms characteristic of these systems.

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. www.econstor.eu Terms of use: Documents in ZITIERWEISE/CITATION Bruno Amable Institutional Complementarity and Diversity of Social Systems of Innovation and Production AbstractThis article proposes an institutional analysis of modern capitalist economies. It argues that the institutional dimension is crucial if one wants to account for the coexistence of different types of modern developed economies, characterised by substantially different institutional structures. It explains why no generalised pattern of convergence towards the same economic model should be expected, in spite of 'globalisation'. An institutional analysis of modern economies, or social systems of innovation and production, can be made using the concepts of complementarity and hierarchy of institutions. Institutional arrangements are complementary to each other and thus define the coherence as well as the potential for evolution of the various economies. The hierarchy of institution expresses which part of the institutional drives the others and is helpful for understanding historical evolutions. The paper proposes a classification of developed economies and draws some conclusions regarding the usefulness of the concepts of complementarity and hierarchy of institutions for economic policy.

The aim of this article is to analyse the links between the moral and political aspects of neo-liberal ideology and how appeals to certain ethics may legitimate the establishment of the institutions of neo-liberal capitalism through political action. It presents the original characteristics of neo-liberal ideology by emphasizing how it differs from classical liberalism. Although pressures and contradictions are inherent in neo-liberalism, it is possible to single out some of its most original characteristics which are far more vital to the analysis of capitalism than vague and commonplace notions such as "market fundamentalism". It also describes those moral aspects of neo-liberalism which differ from traditional morals and place the ethos of competitiveness at the centre of social life. It shows how the morals of neo-liberalism are linked to neo-liberal politics and policies. Freed in part from public sovereignty, neo-liberal politics must be guided by a moral imperative linked to competition. This paper reveals the consequences of these morals and politics for the definition of social policy. A contract based on reciprocity between the individual and society is substituted for collective rights to social protection and redistribution. This change in perspective is particularly important for the social policy advocated by the "modern" left.

No abstract

Abstract. The concept of institutional complementarity plays an important role in the comparative analysis of capitalism. It has often been criticised for being too static and too functionalist, unable to explain change because it would propose a view of institutional forms fitting perfectly with one another. After having presented the concept and its interest for comparative capitalism, this article argues in favour of its usefulness to explain institutional change. However, in order to be integrated fruitfully into a theory of institutional change, it is necessary to have a political economy definition of complementarity, which should not take institutions as some sort of inputs in a production function, but as socio-political compromises established in historically-specific conditions.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract