1 / 13

Comparative Institutions and Response to Globalization

Comparative Institutions and Response to Globalization. Peter Gourevitch UCSD Princeton, April 2005. Economic theory and political preferences.

aspen
Download Presentation

Comparative Institutions and Response to Globalization

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparative Institutions and Response to Globalization Peter Gourevitch UCSD Princeton, April 2005

  2. Economic theory and political preferences 1.Bentley: From interests to preferences to policy -- with the proper specification of economic position, we can predict the preferences and policies: 2. Endogenous: preferences depend on policy context , not prior to them. Varieties of capitalism , institutional complimentarity 3 Endogenous: preferences depend on political calculations, not prior to them. Thus what is the strategic interaction of preferences with political context between what you want and what you can get

  3. The aggregation of preferences 1. Parchment Institutions 2. Intermediate institutions 3. De facto vs. de jure forms of power Important item of struggle: the social foundations of interest formation and aggregation of preferences.

  4. Parchment Institutions --electoral law: p.r. vs. Plurality -- Presidential vs. Parliamentary --divided government --federalism --Consensus vs. Majoritarian

  5. International parchment -what is the role of the international institutions . Vs interaction of domestic politics of different countries? WTO -- ? -- is this a delegation to international institutions, thus they are not autonomous actors? --vs. The process of delegation itself shapes the outcome-- it must, that is the point.. But just how Is a hot debate. This will come up in next panel:

  6. Intermediate institutions 1 --political parties --trade unions and business associations --professional associations --NGOs --media --churches, universities, think tanks, etc. --etc: many actors.

  7. Intermediate institutions 2 -- define policy packages, presenting alternatives, shaping ideological meaning: Goldthorpe and Lockwood --the Affluent Worker-- why do I have a TV set?: -US worker in moderate trade union: capitalism and markets work great. -French communist CGT member: my union forced the bosses to give me a TV set.

  8. Intermediate institutions 3: BUT: Ideology, ideas, framing --- these all are important, but not free floating: “luck or pluck” is mediated by social institutions that define options and meaning. The more complex the issue spaces , the more framing matters -- “enablers” “reputation indicators: So: understanding the the way groups shape the FRAMING process at work. Cross national differences in ideologies reflect difference in structures and weight of intermediate institutions, not generalized “national cultures”

  9. Interactive policies The varieties of capitalism theme: policies in different issue areas interact-- --labor markets -education and training --price setting --corporate governance etc. This blurs into: multiple dimensions of preference--- income, security, risk, stability of family (not to migrate), etc.

  10. De Jure vs. De Facto forms of Power De jure: voting, veto gates, etc.-- De facto: -- strikes: by labor or capital --demonstrations: artichokes and barricades --policy and army: guns --collective action , capacity for

  11. Social foundations of power Policies influence the intermediate institutions: --electoral law on parties --but also: --council housing in the UK --Taft Hartley and Right to work laws re Trade Union-- enforcement, or not of organizing rights for unions --corporate governance: mitbestimmung, --Financial institutions: does the rise of shareholding impact management? CalPERS and Hermes, TIAA CREF vs. Fidelity, Merrill Lynch -- UK rules on institutional investors.

  12. Implications for questions Research should be “Action” focused: what to pursue as action -- preferences over policies, more than “values” -- laws on protection vs. social protection -- public regulation vs. private “bonding” ( direct action--SEC rules vs. stock market listing requirements, OR, pressing the firm:Laws vs. strikes or demonstrations -- what types of laws: regulation by agencies, vs generalized laws : US general rules, Japan, specific ones,..

  13. Implications , two Case studies: Schattschneider: Smoot Hawley Bauer Pool Dexter : reciprocal trade Hiscox , et. al? Which Case or Cases--- So , how to locate the opinions into a strategic context: -- actions not preferences -- specific policy

More Related