国際政治経済学における資本主義収斂論争（成瀬龍夫博士退職記念論文集）
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
ContentsⅠ Economic GlobalizationⅡ Convergence Theory, Divergence Theory and Theory of Convergencewithin DiversityⅢ Critical Comments on Convergence TheoryⅣ Concluding Remarks The purpose of this essay is to survey convergence-controversy overcapitalism in the international political economy and to add critical commentson the convergence theory from author’s standpoint of comparativeeconomic systems.Studies of convergence towards the Anglo-American model of capitalism have been one of the central themes of international political economyover the past twenty years. Susan Strange, a pioneer of new international political economy in the 1970 s, suggested that different nationalmodels of capitalism would increasingly come close to the Anglo-American model.Contrary to this convergence theory, various negative or skeptical views have been argued by many researchers engaged in comparativecapitalism study. In author’s opinion, these views are classified broadlyinto two groups. The first one is the divergence theory. It insists that Rhenish, Scandinavian and Asian models of capitalism are not convergingtowards the Anglo-American model, but they still coexist unchangeably.The second one is the intermediate theory between the above-saidtwo theories, such as the theory of convergence within diversity. M.Paunescu, M. Schneider and D. Liebmann verify quantitatively and qualitatively based on much statistical data that indeed some countries of coordinatedmarket economy (Sweden, Finland and Denmark etc.) shifted towardsthe Anglo-American liberal market economy during the 1990 s, butthere were not any model-shifts in the other countries of coordinated marketeconomy (German, France and Belgium etc.) and in the countries ofMediterranean market economy (Spain, Italia etc.).According to author’s view, who takes a middle position, the convergence theory tends to argue at a highly general and abstract level, andso its persuasive ability is very weak, because it lacks almost concreteempirical verification based on quantitative statistical data. So it couldnot refute the above-mentioned Paunescu and others’ counterevidence.
論文 | ランダム
- 強さと弱さを支える地域の力 (特集 都市のソーシャル・キャピタル) -- (新しい生活者価値を生み出すソーシャル・キャピタル)
- 災害に強いコミュニティのために (特集 都市のソーシャル・キャピタル) -- (新しい生活者価値を生み出すソーシャル・キャピタル)
- 総合型地域スポーツクラブ構想と市民参加型まちづくり (特集 都市のソーシャル・キャピタル) -- (新しい生活者価値を生み出すソーシャル・キャピタル)
- 持続可能な社会とソーシャル・キャピタル (特集 都市のソーシャル・キャピタル) -- (新しい生活者価値を生み出すソーシャル・キャピタル)
- 地域情報ネットワークによるコミュニティ・ソリューションに向けて (特集 都市のソーシャル・キャピタル) -- (新しい生活者価値を生み出すソーシャル・キャピタル)