HETEROGENISATION AND CONSEPTION OF STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL INSTITUTIONAL COMPLEMENTARITY

Possibilities and limitations of explaining of the phenomenon of the institutional heterogenization of the socio-economic systems (SES) in conceptions of institutional matrices (IM), variety of capitalism (VoC), structural-functional complementarity of SES are considered. It is shown that teleologitions of conceptions of VoC for determinations of variants of economic development and heterogenizations are limiting by the term of existence and spheres (two opposite IM). As a results of the accent of VoC on the empiric methods of research it lose core reference-point of systematization of variants of models of capitalism and possibility of separation of institutional heterogenization, as process of convergence of different models of capitalism from divergence, as forming of new models. Advantages of conception of structural-functional complementarity of SES in determination of essence (combination in one model of institutional forms, which are based on the different social orientations of the valued systems) and mechanism (structural and functional co-operation of elements of institutional architectonics of SES) of heterogenization are exposed.

References: 

1. Campbell J. (2010) The Varieties of Capitalism and Hybrid Success: Denmark in the Global Economy/ John L. Campbell // Comparative Political Studies. - March. - № 40. – Р. 307-332.
2. Molina O. (2007) The Political Economy of Adjustment in Mixed Market Economies: A Study of Spain and Italy / O. Molina, M. Rhodes // Beyond Varieties of Capitalism: Conflict, Contradictions, and Complementarities in the European Economy / Hancke, et al. (eds.). – Oxford: University Press. – Р. 223-252.
3. Cornelakis A. (2009) Dual convergence or Hybridisation? Institutional change in Italy and Greece from Varieties of capitalism perspective / A. Cornelakis // CEU Political Science Journal. – Vol. 6. – 1. – P. 47 – 82.
4. Royo S. (2007) Varieties of Capitalism in Spain: Business and the Politics of Coordination / S. Royo // European Journal of Industrial Relations. - № 13. – Р. 47-65.
5. Miyajima H. (2012) Institutional Change and its Economic Consequence in Japan: The bright and dark sides of hybridization/ H. Miyajima // RIETI Discussion Paper Series 12-E-049. – 42 p.
6. Суслов Н. Гетерогенность социальных систем: что мы знаем? / Н. Суслов // Институциональные трансформации экономики: условия инновационного развития /Отв. ред. Г.П. Литвинцева. – Новосибирск : Изд-во НГТУ, 2013. – С. 143-152.
7. Липов В. Комплементарность и гетерогенность институциональных систем: культурные и отнологические предпосылки воспроизводства и изменения институтов / В. Липов // Научн. труды ДонНТУ. Сер : Экономическая. – Вып. - 43-1. – Донецк : ДонНТУ, 2013. – С. 28-37.
8. С. Кирдина Институциональные матрицы и развитие России. – Новосибирск: ИЭиОПП СО РАН, 2001. – 308 с.
9. Бессонова О. Раздаточная экономика России: Эволюция через трансформации. – М.: РОССПЭН, 2006. – 144 с.
10. Липов В. Институциональная комплементарность как фактор формирования социально-экономических систем / В. Липов // JOURNAL OF INSTITUTIONAL STUDIES – Том 4, № 1. – 2012. – С. 25 – 42.

Upload article :