- private ownership co-exists with varying degrees of public ownership and state
regulation; - wage-labour co-exists with self-employment and unpaid family work (including
in particular women’s domestic labour); and - markets co-exist with different types of non-market allocation mechanisms
(such as welfare benefits and public services).
How do we categorise the varieties of ways in which real capitalist societies
diverge from the ideal type? And can we map different types of capitalism
against different industrial relations systems? There is a rapidly expanding
literature on ‘varieties of capitalism’. At its core is the argument that markets
do not exist in a social vacuum: they are social institutions which are in turn
‘embedded’ in the broader framework of each society (Granovetter, 1985).
Because no two societies are identical, it follows that market economies are dif-
ferentiated: it may be appropriate to speak of capitalisms in the plural rather
than the singular. Modern capitalisms may be conceived in terms of (at least)
four different dimensions of social relations. Slightly adapting the categories
proposed by Crouch (1999), these may be defined as
- the property regime;
- the production regime;
- the welfare regime; and
- the gender regime.
The property regimeThe property regime denotes the system of ownership and economic gover-
nance within a society. Private ownership of productive resources can be quali-
fied by the existence of a (perhaps extensive) nationalised sector, and by forms
of state regulation and planning which limit the autonomy of private owners.
Ownership itself can be concentrated or dispersed: it is a paradox that while
neoclassical economic theory assumes that no economic actor is large enough
to affect market outcomes by their individual decisions, where economies of
scale exist the natural consequence is the growth of monopolies or oligopolies
which tend to undermine competition. To differing degrees, most countries
possess anti-monopoly legislation; and conversely, many countries provide
support and incentives for small businesses. Since nations’ rules and practice
vary – as do the historical roots of their economic structures – the proportions
of employees in companies of different size differ markedly.
Another key factor emphasised by the ‘varieties of capitalism’ literature is
the nature of company financing. An influential classification by Albert (1993)
distinguishes between ‘Anglo-American’ and ‘Rhineland’ capitalism. In the
National industrial relations and transnational challenges 413