CORPORATISM: The Past, Present, and Future of a Concept

Abstract

Following a period of almost obsessive academic attention in the 1980s, in the early 1990s the concept of corporatism fell from favor, as its explanatory powers appeared to wane and the Keynesian welfare systems under which it had flourished apparently fell into decline. In the late 1990s, a new interest in corporatism emerged, in line with new patterns of concertation and corporatist behavior in some unexpected places-countries in which the institutional basis for collaborative, bargained methods of policy making and conflict resolution seemed distinctly unpromising. We review the extensive literature on corporatism since the 1970s and consider its applicability in the contemporary period. We argue that an excessively structural-functionalist interpretation of corporatism led many wrongly to predict its demise as a form of policy making, and that an understanding of its persistence and new manifestations today must resurrect and strengthen some early, recently neglected insights into processes of political exchange.

Policy forums: Why do they exist and what are they used for?

“…Whether actors participate in a policy forum depends on (1) what resources they require and whether others can satisfy their demand, and (2) what resources they have to offer and whether their offer satisfies other actors' demands (Thomson and Perry 2006). For example, regular meetings of policy committees in corporatist arrangements can be understood as a tripartite exchange between trade unions, employers' associations, and governmental actors (Molina and Rhodes 2002): trade unions offer willingness to comply with arrangements to employers' associations and receive concessions concerning wages and labor conditions from them; and government receives social peace from both parties in exchange for allowing self-governance and providing its service as a facilitator and enforcer (Ostrom 1990).…”

“…There is evidence for different "civic epistemologies" and cultures of coordination among authorities, stakeholders and scientists across countries (Jasanoff 1987(Jasanoff , 2011Lentsch and Weingart 2011). For example, corporatist committees (Molina and Rhodes 2002) and comitology (Joerges and Neyer 1997;Gornitzka and Sverdrup 2008) can be found mainly in Europe while collaborative institutions rather exist in polities with less regulation by the state. Assessing these differences, and deducing some ideal-types of policy forums based on the characteristics we discussed in this paper, are important tasks for future research in this domain.…”

Enforcing international environmental cooperation: Technological standards can help

“…A useful distinction can be made between coordinated and liberal market economies because the role of the state in managing the economy is bigger in the former case (Hall and Soskice 2001;Molina and Rhodes 2002;Shonfield 1965;Thelen 2004). This presumably facilitates collusion between the government and the industry, so it could be that coordinated market economies readily choose technological standards, not only because the government prefers to directly manage economic activity, but also because these countries have greater commitment problems under flexible installation.…”

Toward a New Social Contract? The Participation of Civil Society in Swedish Welfare Policymaking, 1958–2012

“…Accordingly, researchers have typically emphasized labor unions and business interests as key players in developing various policies, often ones concerning economic issues. In particular, labor unions occupy a central position in policymaking given their large membership and ability to both control their members and gain legitimacy in the policymaking process, whereas business organizations, to put it simply, control production (Williamson 1989, p. 169;Molina and Rhodes 2002). A pivotal factor in that conceptualization is the assumption that either type of organization has the Voluntas resources or status necessary to control the implementation of policies among their members and therefore create stability in society.…”

“…In conceiving corporatism as a constantly evolving phenomenon, the traditional corporatist model of interest representation may have not disappeared, but instead adapted to a new political environment (Molina and Rhodes 2002). In that context, scholars have drawn attention to a potential shift in support for the welfare state from labor unions to welfare organizations.…”