What Is “Authoritarian” About Authoritarian Capitalism? The Dual Erosion of the Private–Public Divide in State-Dominated Business Systems

Abstract

The “return of the state” as an economic actor has left scholars at a lack of theoretical tools to capture the characteristics of state-dominated business systems. This is reflected in the fact that any type of state intervention in the economy is too easily qualified as a sign of “authoritarian capitalism,” which has led scholars to lump together countries as diverse as China, Singapore, and Norway under that heading. Rather than considering any type of state intervention in the economy as authoritarian, we propose a more sophisticated conceptualization, which distinguishes two boundaries between the public and the private domains and conceives of the “return of the state” as the erosion of one or both of them. This conceptualization allows us to clearly distinguish a shift from an ideal-typical market-based “regulatory capitalism” to “state capitalism” or “authoritarian capitalism,” respectively. We use interview data with business leaders in an extreme case of the return of the state to identify the nature of the mechanisms by which an authoritarian government erodes these private-public divides. We argue that a focus on these constitutive mechanisms of the erosion of private-public divides allows us to define “authoritarian capitalism” in a way that makes it a useful tool to understand contexts beyond the Chinese case in which it first emerged.

Manufacturing discontent: National institutions, multinational firm strategies, and anti‐globalization backlash in advanced economies

“…The state fulfills a variety of roles in organizing finance, labor, and even business associations in ways that go beyond the typical comparative capitalism assumptions of voluntary private organization with only a subsidiary role for the helping hand of government (Sallai & Schnyder, ). Both in East Asia (Wade, 1990) and in certain Western European countries (e.g.…”

State Capitalism in International Context: Varieties and Variations

“…We conceptualize state capitalism more broadly than previous management scholarship that tends to focus on state ownership and state-controlled capital (Aguilera, Capapé, & Santiso, 2016;Musacchio, Lazzarini, & Aguilera, 2015). We include the range of state intervention in the economy through tariffs, subsidies, formal and informal networks, etc., as is common in political science and other social sciences (Alami & Dixon, 2020;Nölke, 2014;Sallai & Schnyder, 2020).…”

‘Americanism not globalism will be our credo!’: An analysis of the economic nationalism(s) of Trump's administration and an agenda for further research

“…Here, the focus would shift to an analysis of the political dynamic created by the state's bureaucratic and representative institutions and to the inter-agency conflicts and struggles that ensue among them. For example, I noted above that upon taking power in 2010, Viktor Orban's Fidesz party succeeded in transforming its bureaucracy to operate according to the logic of clientelism and patronage that I identify as consistent with the populist variant (Sallai & Schnyder, 2020;Szanyi, 2019). Further comparative research could investigate how such transformations are achieved (or successfully resisted) and how certain variants come to hold the most powerful levers of state power.…”