{"title":"寻找资本主义的变种:顽强的多年生植物还是麻烦的杂草?","authors":"M. Blyth, H. Schwartz","doi":"10.4337/roke.2022.02.02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Are varieties of capitalism real things in the world, or analytic artifacts that scholars project into the world? The first part of this essay considers the utility of sorting different capitalist economies into different types. We build upon Hay (2020) to argue that some varietals are both more real and more useful than others. Specifically, we argue that recent work on growth models (Baccaro and Pontusson 2016) marks a progressive extension of the Comparative Political Economy research program on advanced capitalist states. But from an International Political Economy perspective, this research program can only reach its potential by clearly determining whether the causal origins of variety lie in either unit or system-level characteristics. We argue for incorporating a more system-led explanation of variety that focuses upon fallacies of composition, power asymmetries, and credit cycles. To show this, we walk through four different arguments about system–unit relations – the ‘four Galtons’ – and add in Minsky’s argument about financial crisis cycles.","PeriodicalId":45671,"journal":{"name":"Review of Keynesian Economics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In search of varieties of capitalism: hardy perennial or troublesome weed?\",\"authors\":\"M. Blyth, H. Schwartz\",\"doi\":\"10.4337/roke.2022.02.02\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Are varieties of capitalism real things in the world, or analytic artifacts that scholars project into the world? The first part of this essay considers the utility of sorting different capitalist economies into different types. We build upon Hay (2020) to argue that some varietals are both more real and more useful than others. Specifically, we argue that recent work on growth models (Baccaro and Pontusson 2016) marks a progressive extension of the Comparative Political Economy research program on advanced capitalist states. But from an International Political Economy perspective, this research program can only reach its potential by clearly determining whether the causal origins of variety lie in either unit or system-level characteristics. We argue for incorporating a more system-led explanation of variety that focuses upon fallacies of composition, power asymmetries, and credit cycles. To show this, we walk through four different arguments about system–unit relations – the ‘four Galtons’ – and add in Minsky’s argument about financial crisis cycles.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45671,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of Keynesian Economics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of Keynesian Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4337/roke.2022.02.02\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Keynesian Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/roke.2022.02.02","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
资本主义的多样性是世界上真实存在的东西,还是学者们投射到世界上的分析产物?本文的第一部分考虑了将不同的资本主义经济分类为不同类型的效用。我们以Hay(2020)为基础,认为一些品种比其他品种更真实,更有用。具体而言,我们认为,最近关于增长模型的研究(Baccaro and Pontusson 2016)标志着对发达资本主义国家的比较政治经济学研究计划的逐步延伸。但从国际政治经济学的角度来看,只有明确地确定多样性的因果起源是在单位层面还是在系统层面,这一研究方案才能发挥其潜力。我们主张采用一种更以系统为导向的解释,将重点放在构成谬误、权力不对称和信贷周期上。为了说明这一点,我们回顾了关于系统-单位关系的四种不同观点——“四个高尔顿”——并加入了明斯基关于金融危机周期的观点。
In search of varieties of capitalism: hardy perennial or troublesome weed?
Are varieties of capitalism real things in the world, or analytic artifacts that scholars project into the world? The first part of this essay considers the utility of sorting different capitalist economies into different types. We build upon Hay (2020) to argue that some varietals are both more real and more useful than others. Specifically, we argue that recent work on growth models (Baccaro and Pontusson 2016) marks a progressive extension of the Comparative Political Economy research program on advanced capitalist states. But from an International Political Economy perspective, this research program can only reach its potential by clearly determining whether the causal origins of variety lie in either unit or system-level characteristics. We argue for incorporating a more system-led explanation of variety that focuses upon fallacies of composition, power asymmetries, and credit cycles. To show this, we walk through four different arguments about system–unit relations – the ‘four Galtons’ – and add in Minsky’s argument about financial crisis cycles.
期刊介绍:
The Review of Keynesian Economics (ROKE) is dedicated to the promotion of research in Keynesian economics. Not only does that include Keynesian ideas about macroeconomic theory and policy, it also extends to microeconomic and meso-economic analysis and relevant empirical and historical research. The journal provides a forum for developing and disseminating Keynesian ideas, and intends to encourage critical exchange with other macroeconomic paradigms. The journal is dedicated to the development of Keynesian theory and policy. In our view, Keynesian theory should hold a similar place in economics to that held by the theory of evolution in biology. Many individual economists still work within the Keynesian paradigm, but intellectual success demands institutional support that can leverage those individual efforts. The journal offers such support by providing a forum for developing and sharing Keynesian ideas. Not only does that include ideas about macroeconomic theory and policy, it also extends to microeconomic and meso-economic analysis and relevant empirical and historical research. We see a bright future for the Keynesian approach to macroeconomics and invite the economics profession to join us by subscribing to the journal and submitting manuscripts.