Neo-pluralist political science, economic sociology and the conceptual foundations of the comparative capitalisms literatures

Abstract

In this paper, we critically assess two of the key conceptual foundations for the comparative capitalisms (CC) literatures, neo-pluralist political science and economic sociology, in order to identify more clearly the deep intellectual roots of these literatures. Principally, we focus on how the strengths of neo-pluralism and economic sociology – their attention to detail in considering the huge range of ‘types’ of capitalism that exist across the world – come at a high price. Put briefly, the redefinition of ‘capitalism’ as ‘the economy’ concentrates research agendas on the specific political and social conditions found across the world, leaving ‘the economy’ relatively untouched. In consequence, ‘capitalist diversity’ is quickly, and often silently, equated to ‘political diversity’ or ‘social diversity’. As such, a key weakness of CC scholarship, identified by various authors in this Capital & Class special issue – that it does not provide a satisfactory theoretical understanding of capitalist societies – is a problem that runs deeper than the limitations that can be observed in contemporary debates. The implications of our argument are discussed in the conclusion.

The Neoclassical Origins of Polanyi’s Self-Regulating Market

“…In recent years there has been an increasing number of attempts, across many disciplines, to critically assess and extend Polanyi’s ideas (Block 2003, 2005, 2007; Bruff and Hartmann 2014; Burawoy 2003; Dale 2010, 2012; Frerichs 2013; Hann and Hart 2009; Harvey, Ramlogan, and Randles 2007; Holmes 2012; Peck 2013; Robotham 2009; Steiner 2009). These critical reevaluations join a voluminous body of scholarly work that outlines various shortcomings and strengths of Polanyi’s thought (Barber 1995; Berthoud 1990; Block and Somers 1984; Dupré and Philippe-Rey 1978; Garlan 1973; Hann 1992; Hejeebu and McCloskey 1999; Humphreys 1969; Jenkins 1977; North 1977; Sievers 1949).…”

Moving to new generational beats: Lived experiences of capitalism, student-led (re)makings of knowledge, and the evolution of critical research agendas

“…For instance, week 2, on institutionalist perspectives on capitalist diversity, contained required readings on what is at stake when studying institutions (Deeg & Jackson 2007) and a text which explicitly raised the possibility that institutionalists and more critical scholars might have little in common apart from a shared interest in the study of capitalist diversity (Bruff & Hartmann 2014). Furthermore, all seminars now had two required readings, meaning that a more institutionalist and a more critical text were placed alongside each other rather than in a hierarchy (e.g.…”

Book Review: The National Origins of Policy Ideas: Knowledge Regimes in the United States, France, Germany, and Denmark by John L. Campbell and Ove K. Pedersen

“…That is, by focusing on knowledge regimes, the authors commit the same fallacy as more typical constructivist political economy approaches; namely that of (implicitly) redefining capitalism as 'the economy', and thus as little more than an external constraint or contextual factor (cf. Bruff & Hartmann 2014). This means that while the authors talk regularly of the 'interaction' between the knowledge regime and the politico-economic environment, this separation (leading to the aforementioned redefinition of capitalism) generates significant limits to the insights that can be provided.…”