Varieties of capitalism in the twentieth century

Dore, Ronald; Lazonick, William; O’Sullivan, Mary

doi:10.1093/oxrep/15.4.102

Cited by 110 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The German innovation and production system, for example, has been characterised as having a focus on diversified quality production (DQP), involving the incremental customisation of products rather than mass production or products derived from radical innovation (Streeck, 1989). By contrast, the UK innovation and production system has been characterised by its dependency on fickle capital markets, short-term business objectives and a more opportunistic (or entrepreneurial) approach to innovation (Roper, 1997;Dore et al, 1999). The consequence is a tendency towards more radical and sporadic 3 A detailed analysis of the institutional and structural differences between the organization of innovation in the two countries is provided in Love and Roper (2004), and so only an overview is provided here.…”

Section: Knowledge Sourcing and Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The UK-Germany comparison is of particular interest both because of shortcomings in UK national innovation performance, differences in the nature of innovation activity (Finegold and Wagner, 1998;Herrigel, 1996), and the marked institutional and organizational contrasts between the two countries (Finegold and Soskice, 1988;Dore et al, 1999;Culpepper, 1999;Love and Roper 2004). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Organizing the Innovation Process: Complementarities in Innovation Networking

Love

Roper

2009

Industry and Innovation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper contributes to the developing literature on complementarities in organizational design. We test for the existence of complementarities in the use of external networking between stages of the innovation process in a sample of UK and German manufacturing plants. Our evidence suggests some differences between the UK and Germany in terms of the optimal combination of innovation activities in which to implement external networking. Broadly, there is more evidence of complementarities in the case of Germany, with the exception of the product engineering stage. By contrast, the UK exhibits generally strong evidence of substitutability in external networking in different stages, except between the identification of new products and product design and development stages. These findings suggest that previous studies indicating strong complementarity between internal and external knowledge sources have provided only part of the picture of the strategic dilemmas facing firms.

show abstract

Section: Knowledge Sourcing and Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organizing the Innovation Process: Complementarities in Innovation Networking

Love

Roper

2009

Industry and Innovation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Generally, sticky decisions, steady commitments and delayed responses in German institutions make for slow fluctuations, up or down, in economic activity and performance and for a low dispersion of outcomes" (Streeck, 1997, p. 41). By contrast the UK innovation and production system is often characterised by a dependency on fickle capital markets, short-term business objectives and a more opportunistic (or entrepreneurial) approach to innovation (Roper, 1997;Dore et al, 1999). The consequence is a tendency towards more radical and sporadic innovation activity in the UK and a greater disparity in performance between leading edge and less well performing businesses (IBM/LBS, 1994).…”

Section: Institutional and Contextual Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This final point is epitomised by debates about the relative merits of the Rhenish and Anglo-Saxon modes of capitalism and their ability or inability to adopt new production techniques in response to increasingly global competition (e.g. Dore et al, 1999).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, we focus on the systemic and institutional influences on: the nature of product innovation undertaken by UK and German plants; the collaborative activities of UK and German manufacturing plants as part of their innovation activity; and the organisation of innovation within UK and German plants (focussing particularly on multifunctional working). The UK-Germany comparison is of particular interest in this respect because of the marked institutional contrasts between the two countries (Dore et al, 1999) epitomised by the high skill equilibrium (HSE) in Germany (e.g. Finegold and Soskice, 1988) and the two countries' very different financial and industrial relations systems (Culpepper, 1999).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The organisation of innovation: collaboration, cooperation and multifunctional groups in UK and German manufacturing

Love¹,

Roper²

2004

Cambridge Journal of Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Marked differences exist between the institutional and social context for innovation in the UK and Germany. The question addressed here is how these different contexts impact on the objectives and organisation of innovation in UK and German manufacturing. In particular, we examine the extent to which UK and German plants engage in inter-plant collaboration and co-operation and multifunctional working as part of their innovative activity, and explore the reasons for differences in these patterns of involvement. The investigation is based on a large-scale, comparative survey of manufacturing plants in the two countries In Germany, institutional and social norms are found to encourage collaborative interplant innovation but aspects of the German skills training and industrial relations systems make the adoption of more flexible internal systems more difficult. In the UK on the other hand, the more adversarial nature of inter-firm relations makes it more difficult to establish external collaborations based on mutual trust, but less restrictive labour market structures make it easier for UK plants to adopt multifunctional working. This is linked to differences in attitudes to the property rights and transaction cost problems inherent in innovation.

show abstract

Does corporate ownership structure matter for economic growth? A cross‐country analysis

Kapopoulos

Λαζαρέτου²

2008

Manage Decis Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The role of corporations in allocating resources has been of great importance in the debate about the manner in which enterprises should be governed to enhance economic growth. Corporate governance features seem to be central to the dynamics by which successful firms and economies improve their performance over time as well as relative to each other. In this paper we try to clarify the relationship between corporate ownership structure and output growth by using the data of La Porta et al. (1999) on ownership structure of large-and medium-sized corporations in 27 wealthy economies. To search for empirical linkages, we use cross-country growth regressions. The evidence provided in the paper suggests that an environment with a higher percentage of directly and indirectly widely-held companies and a lower degree of state than private ownership is associated with a higher growth rate of per capita income. We also conclude that a higher degree of institutional investment does not seem to enhance the growth performance of an economy.

show abstract

Varieties of capitalism in the twentieth century

Cited by 110 publications

References 34 publications

Organizing the Innovation Process: Complementarities in Innovation Networking

Organizing the Innovation Process: Complementarities in Innovation Networking

The organisation of innovation: collaboration, cooperation and multifunctional groups in UK and German manufacturing

Does corporate ownership structure matter for economic growth? A cross‐country analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About