Liberal Market Economy or Composite Regime? Institutional Legacies and Labor Market Policy in the United States

Abstract

In comparative political economy the United States is denominated a ''liberal market economy'' characterized by market-based labor policy, but American political development studies suggest that national-level comparisons, which assume government institutions are a coherent package, may be misguided. In the decentralized American polity, many combinations of state-market relationships have emerged as state governments invest in labor market performance and economic agents adjust their market strategies. Analyses that conceive regimes as sets of complementary institutions that constrain individuals and government officials have difficulty explaining changing patterns of policy and market organization. This article investigates these policy developments to make a constructionist argument that departures from historical paths are possible because institutional agents can reflect on performance and adjust strategies. Building on the political development insight about the complexity of governing authority as well as the comparativists' critique of economic convergence, the article argues that innovation in America's composite regime is best understood against the institutional legacies of labor and race relations regulation. The argument is illustrated by evidence of the diversity of labor market policies in the states during the 1990s.

The Competition State, City-Regions, and the Territorial Politics of Growth Facilitation

“…Growth conflicts in Stockholm and Munich would certainly challenge the view that governance in Sweden or Germany is intrinsically more 'consensual' than that in the UK or that neoliberalisation is the sole source of state disempowerment or regressive social outcomes in spatial policy. The analysis bears out the argument that government institutions are rarely a coherent package that can be neatly categorised, with the picture instead being of 'multiple and clashing institutional orders' within the state system (Amberg, 2008). Given the sectoral and spatial challenges of growth facilitation it is possible that what is functional for some kinds of intervention may cause difficulties in other spheres, one example being the liberating, progressive, paralysing and regressive impacts of municipal state autonomy in the Munich city-region.…”

“…If the hypothesis is that neoliberalism has led to shortfalls in regulation and social provision that diminish the ability of states to manage the contradictions of growth (Peck and Tickell, 1992), then these differences in national and local modes of social regulation need to be explored. Yet there are doubts about whether idealised models of comparative capitalisms ring true in practice given the complexities and contradictions within national modes of governance (Amberg, 2008;Crouch, 2005;Hay, 2004;Peck and Theodore, 2007). Neoliberalisation certainly appears to have been a 'game changer' for urban governance in Germany (Keil, 2011; see also Brenner, 1997;Gualini, 2004) and in Sweden neoliberal extension has led to major programmes of labour-market deregulation, privatisation, and cuts in public spending since the 1980s (Lavelle, 2007).…”

How do social security expenditures vary by state? The surprising impact of unemployment

“…The state-centred work analyses differences related to state-level public policy choices directly under the control of state legislatures and governors. State-level variation has been linked to diverging paths of historical development, diverse political cultures, the presence of different racial and ethnic majorities, the ideologies of political leaders and citizens, different types of dominant economics interests and elites, and the economic health of the state (Elazar 1966; Jacoby and Schneider 2001; Amberg 2008; Lieske 2010). The variety of policies that this research encompasses is quite broad: from income support programmes and Medicaid to child support enforcement actions (for the latter, see Keiser and Soss 1998).…”

The Impact of Economic Development Strategy on Market Conditioned Income Inequality in the American States

“…Collective bargaining protections for public employees also impact labor union strength (Farber 2005), in particular among professional occupations such as public school and university teaching. The American states vary significantly in the enactment or absence of these laws (Amberg 2008). Generally, the Southeast and Mountain West maintain low union density through labor laws unfavorable to union organizing, while the Northeast, industrial mid-West, and Pacific Coast have higher union densities due to more union-friendly laws.…”