Varidad De Capitalismos

The Link between the Diversity of Productive Models and the Variety of Capitalisms
A Review of the Literature and Contextualisation Using the Car Industry as a Case Study
Yannick Lung
Between the representative firm found in partial equilibrium analysis defined by its homogeneity/identity hypothesis1 and the radical heterogeneity characterizing the evolutionist approach2, many studies havetried to analyse the diversity of organisational forms, with organisational theory literature having been particularly fruitful in this respect. The present article does not purport to summaries all of this research. Conducted under the aegis of the ESEMK project, which analyses the variety dynamics underlying Europe’s socio-economic models, it focuses on a much more limited sub-section within thiscorpus, the one that tries to reflect upon the diversity of firms’ organisational modes by analysing them in terms of variety of capitalisms. In this approach, organisational models are linked to the institutional environments in which firms operate. The crux here is the interconnection between the micro and macro levels, an orientation excluding studies that concentrate on the sectorial levelalone. Nevertheless, no micro/macro linkage
Pure and perfect competition hypotheses imply that all firms are perfectly identical: all produce the same good, have access to the same information (using the same technologies) and factors of production, etc. In fact, as Coase states, economic analysis does not really incorporate the firm per se. 2 Who considers that each firm is different because itshistory is singular, meaning that its learning is specific.
1

can do without an intermediary level, to wit the industry level, which remains the dominant sphere in the structuring of a competitive process. Institutional form diversity approaches that link the micro (firm) level to the meso (industry/sector) and macro (economy/country) levels contain two kinds of stances. The first derives from ahypothesis of isomorphism between the firm and institutional environment levels (Di Maggio, Powell, 1983). Such approaches stress the importance of institutional constraints that are found in the environment and which generate a dominant (if not exclusive) form of organisation. Jackson’s formulation for this is as follows: “Institutional constraints… often lead to institutional isomorphism wherebyorganizations adapt similar structures and routines” (Jackson, 2004) Approaches of this ilk can be dynamic in nature, revolving around successions of varying organisational forms (models) throughout capitalism’s history. The idea here is that changes in firms’ organisational forms constitute the driver and/or outcome of capitalism’s transformations (Chandler, 1990; Langlois, 2003). They are alsosynchronic, emphasizing the singular nature of firms’ organisations in different national contexts: “French model” (Lesourne, 1998) or “German

Actes du GERPISA n°38

110 development. This involved a diachronic kind of diversity, with the organisational form that is the firm evolving in a way reflecting the institutional environment’s attributes. Conversely, synchronic approaches try toexplain the coexistence of different types of firms. The focus here is less on an analysis of the dynamics of institutional change and more on a justification of the contemporary diversity of institutional configurations that are apprehended either at a macro-economic level (variety of capitalisms) or else at a sectorial level, when the observer is scrutinising the interconnections between (and thecoherence of) the various institutional forms that are being established at the different industries’ levels. Historical approaches Here the idea is that each period of capitalism corresponds to a dominant form in the coordination of economic activities. This vision is explicit amongst authors who want to characterize changes in modes of coordination (hence firm’s organisation). It is implicit in...