Search results

In the comparative political economy of rich democracies there is a long tradition of classifying countries into one of a small number of categories based on their economic institutions and policies. The most recent of these is the Varieties of Capitalism project, which posits two major clusters of nations: coordinated and liberal market economies. This classification has generated controversy. We leverage recent advances in mixture model-based clustering to see what the data say on the matter. We find that there is considerable uncertainty around the number of clusters and, barring a few cases, which country should be placed in which cluster. Moreover, when viewed over time, both the number of clusters and country membership change considerably. As a result, arguments about who has the "right" typology are misplaced. We urge caution in using these country classifications in structuring qualitative inquiry and discourage their usage as indicator variables in quantitative analysis, especially in the context of time-series cross-section data. We argue that the real value of both Esping-Andersen's work and the Varieties of Capitalism project consists of their theoretical contributions and heuristic classification of ideal types.

"In the comparative political economy of rich democracies there is a long tradition of classifying countries into one of a small number of categories based on their economic institutions and policies. The most recent of these is the Varieties of Capitalism project, which posits two major clusters of nations: coordinated and liberal market economies. This classification has generated controversy. We leverage recent advances in mixture model-based clustering to see what the data say on the matter. We find that there is considerable uncertainty around the number of clusters and, barring a few cases, which country should be placed in which cluster. Moreover, when viewed over time, both the number of clusters and country membership change considerably. As a result, arguments about who has the 'right' typology are misplaced. We urge caution in using these country classifications in structuring qualitative inquiry and discourage their usage as indicator variables in quantitative analysis, especially in the context of time-series cross-section data. We argue that the real value of both Esping-Andersen's work and the Varieties of Capitalism project consists of their theoretical contributions and heuristic classification of ideal types." (author's abstract)

In the comparative political economy of rich democracies there is a long tradition of classifying countries into one of a small number of categories based on their economic institutions and policies. The most recent of these is the Varieties of Capitalism project, which posits two major clusters of nations: coordinated and liberal market economies. This classification has generated controversy. We leverage recent advances in mixture model-based clustering to see what the data say on the matter. We find that there is considerable uncertainty around the number of clusters and, barring a few cases, which country should be placed in which cluster. Moreover, when viewed over time, both the number of clusters and country membership change considerably. As a result, arguments about who has the right typology are misplaced. We urge caution in using these country classifications in structuring qualitative inquiry and discourage their usage as indicator variables in quantitative analysis, especially in the context of time-series cross-section data. We argue that the real value of both Esping-Andersen's work and the Varieties of Capitalism project consists of their theoretical contributions and heuristic classification of ideal types. ; In der vergleichenden Politischen Ökonomie reicher Demokratien gibt es eine lange Tradition, Länder aufgrund ihrer unterschiedlichen wirtschaftlichen Institutionen und Policies zu typologisieren. Die jüngste dieser Typologien das Varieties-of-Capitalism-Konzept erfasst zwei Gruppen von Ländern: koordinierte und liberale Marktwirtschaften. Da diese Klassifizierung einige Kontroversen hervorgerufen hat, nutzen die Autoren neueste Fortschritte im mixture model-based clustering, um zu prüfen, welche Erkenntnisse die Daten zu diesem Problem liefern. Die Ergebnisse weisen eine beträchtliche Unsicherheit hinsichtlich der Anzahl der Cluster und, mit wenigen Ausnahmen, der Zuordnung der Länder zu Clustern auf. Betrachtet man größere Zeiträume, variieren darüber hinaus die Anzahl der Cluster und Ländermitgliedschaften erheblich. Als Folge dieser Befunde halten die Autoren Argumentationen über die richtige Typologisierung für unangebracht und raten davon ab, diese Länderklassifizierungen zur Strukturierung qualitativer Studien heranzuziehen oder als Indikatorvariablen in quantitativen Analysen zu nutzen. Dies gilt insbesondere im Kontext von gepoolten Zeitreihen- und Querschnittsdaten. Sie argumentieren, dass der substanzielle Wert sowohl der Forschung von Esping-Andersen als auch des Varieties-of-Capitalism-Ansatzes in den Beiträgen zur Theorie und den heuristischen Klassifizierungen von Idealtypen besteht.

Why do unemployment, inflation, and growth rates vary across political economies? Why are some capitalist societies more equitable than others? Why is public spending higher in some countries than others? Drawing on insights from political science, economics, and business, this book addresses these and other related questions in the context of advanced capitalist democracies. The first part of the book investigates how macroeconomic performance and policy outcomes such as public spending, tax revenue, and trade openness are shaped by various economic and political institutions as well as democratic politics. The second part probes the effects of economic performance and social changes on domestic politics. At the end of each chapter, key terms, review questions, and a short list of recommended readingsare included. Each chapter is designed to familiarize readers with core concepts, theoretical arguments, and empirical evidence related to different substantive themes. With in-text focus boxes and short case studies, this book is ideal for anyone seeking a rigorous introduction to the comparative political economy of advanced political economies, and will be a valuable text on courses in political economy, comparative economics, and related areas.