CONVERGENCE THEORIESor patterns of social relationships; systems of popu-
lar attitudes, values, and behavior; and systems of
political and economic control. Finally, he speci-
fies the different forms convergence and diver-
gence may take: (1) simple convergence involving
the movement from diversity to uniformity; (2)
convergence from different directions involving
movement toward a common point by an increase
for some cases and a decrease for others; (3)
convergence via the crossing of thresholds rather
than changes in absolute differences; (4) divergent
paths toward convergence, where short-term fluc-
tuations eventually fall into line or a ‘‘deviant’’ case
that eventually defines the norm for other cases
(for example, France’s move toward small family
size in the late eighteenth century); and (5) conver-
gence in the form of parallel change, where na-
tions all moving in the same direction along some
dimension of change continue to remain separat-
ed by a gap. Although parallel change of this sort
does not represent true convergence, it is consis-
tent with the key assumption of convergence theo-
ry, namely, that ‘‘insofar as they face comparable
situations of action... nations and individuals will
respond in broadly comparable ways’’ (p. 21).
Inkeles (1981) also describes various forms
that divergence may take: (1) simple divergence,
the mirror image of simple convergence, in which
movement occurs away from a common point
toward new points further apart than the original
condition; (2) convergence with crossover, where
lines intersect and then proceed to spread apart;
and (3) convergent trends masking underlying
diversity (for example, although the United States,
Great Britain, and Sweden all experienced large
increases in public assistance programs from 1950
to the early 1970s, the social groups receiving
benefits were quite different among the three
nations, as were the political dynamics associated
with the spending increases within each nation).
Finally, Inkeles (1981) notes the importance of
selecting appropriate units of analysis, levels of
analysis, and the time span for which convergence,
divergence, or parallel change can be assessed.
These comments echo earlier sentiments expressed
by Weinberg (1969) and Baum (1974) about how
to salvage the useful elements of standard conver-
gence theory while avoiding the pitfalls of a sim-
plistic functionalist-evolutionary approach. Com-
mon to these attempts to revive convergence theory
is the exhortation to develop more and better
empirical research on specific institutional spheres
and social processes. As the following sections
demonstrate, a good deal of work along these lines
is already being done across a wide range of sub-
stantive questions and topical concerns that can
aptly be described in the plural as convergence
theories, indicating their revisionist and more plu-
ralistic approach.INDUSTRIAL SOCIOLOGYDespite criticisms of Kerr and colleagues’ (1960)
concept of the logic of industrialism, the question
of convergent trends in industrial organization
has remained the focus of active debate and much
research. The large research literature related on
this question, reviewed by Form (1979), has pro-
duced mixed evidence with respect to conver-
gence. Studies by Shiba (1973, cited in Form 1979),
Form (1976), and Form and Kyu Han (1988),
covering a range of industrializing and advanced
industrial societies found empirical support for
convergence in workers’ adaptation to industrial
and related social systems, while Gallie’s (1977,
cited in Form 1979) study of oil refineries in Great
Britain and France found consistent differences in
workers’ attitudes toward systems of authority. On
the question of sectoral and occupational shifts,
Gibbs and Browning’s (1966) twelve-nation study
of industrial and occupational division of labor
found both similarities—consistent with the con-
vergence hypothesis—as well as differences. Stud-
ies across nations varying in levels of industrial
development revealed only ‘‘small and unsystematic
differences’’ in worker commitment (Form 1979,
p. 9), thus providing some support for the conver-
gence hypothesis. Japan has been regarded as an
exceptional case among industrialized nations be-
cause of its strong cultural traditions based on
mutual obligation between employers and em-
ployees. These characteristics led Dore (1973), for
example, to argue vigorously against the conver-
gence hypothesis for Japan. A more recent study
by Lincoln and Kalleberg (1990) ‘‘stands conver-
gence on its head,’’ arguing that patterns of work
organization in the United States are being im-
pelled in the direction of the Japanese model.
Finally, with respect to women in the labor force,
the evidence of convergence is mixed. Some stud-
ies found no relationship between female labor-
force participation and level of industrialization