What makes a market economy possible? Through multiple crises and recoveries, capitalism has proven to be an extraordinarily dynamic, durable and adaptive economic system. Market-allocation of goods and services has spread globally, encompassing developed and emerging economies alike, and subjecting the life-chances of billions of people to the logic of capitalism. Scholars recognize that this is not a monolithic economic system, for it is fraught with internal tensions and marked by complex heterogeneity. And yet, all this economic activity rests upon a set of core institutional foundations.
Some preconditions have long been recognized. Adam Smith noted that markets required property rights, a set of legally enforceable rules that governed claims and control over valuable assets. And unless these property rights are also alienable, market exchange is not possible. Early modern rulers promulgated standardized weights and measures as a way to create accurate market information and facilitate exchange. Sovereigns have long minted coins and regulated paper money to help monetize economic transactions. Max Weber underscored the importance of “rational capital accounting” and “calculable law,” backed by the coercive power of the state, for a capitalist economy. Governments even institutionalize economic failure and enforce hard budget constraints by creating a legal apparatus for corporate and individual bankruptcy. One key issue therefore concerns the linkage between political and economic structures, and whether representative democracies have a particular affinity with market economies.
Neither functional necessity nor performativity ensures the automatic satisfaction of these preconditions. On the contrary, Karl Polanyi argued that unrestrainedly competitive markets tended to erode their own foundations, but that public policy could mitigate this problem through a strategy of decommodification. The reproduction of labor power, for example, was supported by policies that protected household earnings from market instabilities and which socialized the costs of creating an educated workforce. Groups and organizations that constitute “civil society” may also play a role in this connection, either by shaping public policy or helping to remedy the problem directly. And larger problems than those envisioned by Polanyi now loom as societies face the market externalities that produce global climate change.
The establishment, maintenance and erosion of institutional foundations are contingent and conflicted processes that can move forward or backward, by design or accident, but always producing unintended consequences. Furthermore, establishment is a costly undertaking that requires dedicated resources (known sometimes as taxes). When these institutions malfunction, drama can ensue. Various regulatory and informational failures contributed to the financial crisis of 2008, and the ambiguities of intellectual property continue to generate conflict in the pharmaceutical and computer software industries, both nationally and internationally. The current failure of European labor markets to create adequate employment, especially among young adults, poses thorny political problems that will only grow.
Institutional foundations are traditionally located at the national level, but in the modern era they are increasingly pitched at regional or even global levels. The neo-liberal project of building markets now animates the European Union, WTO, and World Bank as much as it does nation states. Although the monetary base remains a largely national responsibility, the eurozone shows that multi-national arrangements are possible. And the articulation and protection of intellectual property is now shared between national patent, trademark and copyright laws and global agreements like TRIPS. Self-consciously theorized global models diffuse around the world, although implementation frequently reinserts significant local variability, and institutional convergence can be a remarkably inharmonious process.
Institutional foundations can also shift between public, quasi-public and private spheres, with important implications for democratic accountability and control. Consider the central role that ISDA plays in the massive over-the-counter derivatives market by creating standardized contractual language for swaps agreements, the importance of private credit rating agencies like Moody’s and S&P in governing global capital flows, the part of the Basel Committee in setting international bank capital standards, or the role of ISO in setting a host of product and process standards. Private regulation abounds. They also vary in formalization, with laws and official treaties at one extreme, and informal social arrangements (such as underpin the New York City diamond market) at the other.
The 2014 SASE Annual Meeting seeks contributions that explore the different social and institutional bases of modern capitalism, and how these are variably established locally, nationally, regionally, and globally. Historical and/or comparative research designs are especially welcome, as are projects that deploy a range of quantitative and qualitative methodologies.
The Mini-Conference theme proposals were incredibly strong for our 2014 meeting. Read on to learn more about this year’s Mini-Conference theme tracks…
Submissions to the SASE conference must be made through one of the Mini-Conferences below (or through a research Network). Paper and session abstracts, as well as full papers for grant, prize, and stipend applications, must be submitted to a Network or Mini-Conference by February 3, 2014. Candidates will be notified by March 3, 2014. Please note that Mini-Conferences require an extended (~1,000 word) abstract, and ask that you submit a full paper by June 1, 2014. For further information, please contact the organizer of the mini-conference to which you are submitting.
Mini-conferences are based around a selected number of focused themes, and have open submissions for panels and papers, based on an extended abstract (approx. 1000 words). Each mini-conference will consist of 2 to 6 panels. Each panel will have a discussant, meaning that selected participants must submit a completed paper by June 1st. If a paper proposal cannot be accommodated within a mini-conference, organizers will forward it to the program committee, who will pass it on to one of the networks as a regular submission.
José Ossandón is Assistant Professor in the Department of Organization, Copenhagen Business School and received his PhD from Goldsmiths, University of London. His main areas of interest are the enactment of finance objects, how markets are organized, evaluated and tamed, and broad contemporary social theory. His Ph.D. thesis focused on the history of private health insurance in Chile and is currently studying the consumer credit industry. José coordinates the collective academic blog https://estudiosdelaeconomia.wordpress.com/, has recently co-edited the books Adaptación. La empresa chilena después de Friedman and Disturbios Culturales and his most recent articles appeared in the Journal of Cultural Economy, Consumption Markets & Culture and the collected book Making Things Valuable.
Mariana Luzzi is Sociology Professor and CONICET research fellow at the University of General Sarmiento (Argentina). She received a Ph.D. from École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales. Her research explores the social construction and questioning of trust in money and social disputes over money meanings and politics. She has studied the conflicts about bank deposits, credits and regional currencies during the Argentine crisis of 2001 and is currently working on the dollarization of money practices in Argentina since the 1960s. She has also conducted research on the creation and use of social currencies. She published Réinventer le marché? Les clubs de troc face à la crise en Argentine.
Jeanne Lazarus is a tenured CNRS research fellow at the CSO in Sciences-po (Paris). Her research has focused on relationships between bankers and customers in French retail banks. She published L’Epreuve de l’argent in 2012, and edited several special issues on banking, credit and money management. The latest was co-edited with Mariana Luzzi «L’argent domestique: des pratiques aux institutions». Jeanne has also conducted research on the sociology of money and the consumption and monetary practices of the impoverished. She is currently studying the ways in which public policy structures household finances and conceives the protection of populations deemed to be at risk of financial insecurity, due to precarious employment and the withdrawal of social welfare provisions.
Social scientists looking for the institutional foundations of capitalism have often missed the way in which market economies, of all sorts, rely on the particular ways in which monetary transactions are knitted together with a range of other agents. This mini conference focuses its attention on the everyday encounters with monetary devices, commercial circuits, algorithms and financial assessment and exchange. By doing so it aims to bridge two stimulating areas in current social research. The first is the move within the social study of finance away from the trading floor to the highly specific ways in which monetary transactions are made, thought about and experienced. The second includes studies following how “big” transactional data is not only becoming a means for visualizing, assessing and targeting specific groups, but is also enabling the transaction itself to become a crucial site of global economic production.
Papers with varied disciplinary backgrounds discussing the following issues are welcome:
Olivia Nicol is a PhD candidate in sociology at Columbia University. Her dissertation focuses on attribution of responsibility for the financial crisis in the United States (2007-2010). She analyzes both media excerpts and interviews to explore the production of – and response to – a discourse of accusation for the crisis. She built a dataset of 5600 blaming ties derived from three main national newspapers (The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and USA Today), which she analyzes combining network, statistical and textual analysis. She also conducted 33 in-depth interviews in three major banks in Wall Street from Fall 2008 to Spring 2010. She shows that in a complex and collective failure, such as the financial crisis, a multiplicity of actors can be blamed, in a never ending causal chain. This situation is socially explosive, and paves the way for an intense blame game, which finds its resolution with the establishment of a party as the most guilty of all. A blame game is a mechanism to reestablish a disrupted social order.
The recent financial crisis has furthered a growing interest in sociology of finance. Studies have focused mainly on the causes or consequences of the crisis, investigating issues related to sociology of knowledge or to the functioning of financial institutions and their regulation. In the proposed session, we would be interested in contributions that open the black box of financial institutions, studying financial actors at work. Who are those “greedy bankers” who triggered so much public anger during the crisis? How are they recruited, trained, and promoted? How is their work environment organized? What is the ethos prevailing in financial institutions and their sub-divisions? We welcome studies that illuminate financial actors’ personal and professional trajectory, their status hierarchies, their norms and modes of cooperation and restraint, and their worldviews more generally. Financial actors could belong to different kinds of institutions, from investment banks to credit rating agencies to regulatory agencies. We welcome both qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Papers for this session could address questions such as the following:
Submissions for panels will be open to all scholars on the basis of an extended abstract. The mini-conference will be composed of 2 to 3 panels, depending on the quality of the submissions. Selected participants must submit a completed paper to discussant and organizers by June 1, 2013. If a paper proposal cannot be accommodated within the mini-conference, it will be forwarded to the most appropriate research network as a regular submission.
Klaus-Peter Buss is senior researcher at the Sociological Research Institute (SOFI) at the Georg-August-University of Göttingen. For his thesis about the corporate development of successful business models and competitive strength in the transformation process of the East German industry he received his doctoral grade in sociology from the University of Göttingen. For a long time, he has been working on issues of institutional change and industrial development in Germany as well as in internationally comparative perspective. His research covered topics like the transformation of East German industry, the development of the German apprenticeship system or the organization of innovation processes in high tech industries. Recently, he has finished a research project on the role of work councils and management actors in setting up corporate age management policies in large German industrial firms. He is currently working on a research project focusing on processes of inter-company knowledge creation and knowledge transfer in the IT industry.
Patrick Feuerstein is lecturer and research associate at the Institute for Sociology at the Georg-August-University Göttingen. Previously, he worked as research associate at the Sociological Research Institute (SOFI) Göttingen. Patrick Feuerstein received his doctorate from the Georg-August-University Göttingen in 2011 for his research on emerging forms of work organization and control in the globalizing IT industry.
His research interests include the sociology of work and employment with a special focus on the effects of distributed modes of production and innovation on work organization and labor. His latest article “Patterns of Work Reorganization in the Course of the IT Industry’s Internationalization” was published in Competition & Change 17/1 (2013). He is currently working on a research project on collaborative forms of innovation and distributed knowledge creation in the IT industry.
Heidemarie Hanekop is senior researcher at the Sociological Research Institute (SOFI) at the Georg-August-University of Göttingen and the Göttingen Center of Digital Humanities (GCDH). She studied Sociology and Computer Science. For more than fifteen years she has been working on internet enabled innovations. In various empirical studies she has analyzed diffusion and adoption processes of Internet technologies from a sociological perspective. Her special emphasis is on user-driven innovations and the new role of users and customers as co-producers on the internet.
She is author of several articles and book chapters on internet and user-driven innovations, open source, user-generated web 2.0 services and the new of role of customers. Recent publications include “Customers working for customers: Collaborative Web 2.0 services” (in Dunkel & Kleemann (eds.)(2013): Customers at Work, Palgrave MacMillan) and “New Forms of Collaborative Innovation and Production on the Internet” (University Press Goettingen, 2011, with Volker Wittke). Her current research project is on collaborative forms of innovation and distributed knowledge creation in the IT industry with a special interest in open source ecosystems.
Jürgen Kaedtler is executive director of the Sociological Research Institute Goettingen (SOFI) and extraordinary professor at the Georg-August-University at Goettingen. He has worked on labor sociology, industrial relations and innovation for many years, with a special focus on the implications of globalization and financialization in these fields. Besides books and papers on these subjects he co-authored conceptual and resuming chapters of the “Second Report on Socioeconomic Development in Germany – Participation in Transformation” (soeb 2) with Nicole Mayer-Ahuja and Peter Bartelheimer. Currently, he is participating in the third phase of the transdisciplinary research network “Reporting on socioeconomic development in Germany”
Like economic behavior in general corporate innovation activities rest upon institutionalized rules, norms, routines and practices. Institutions are formative for the generation, distribution and allocation of knowledge and therefore essential for understanding innovation systems. For a long time innovation systems have predominantly been characterized by companies organizing their innovation activities in-house in order to utilize their exclusive, proprietary knowledge to gain competitive advantages. On the societal level, these corporate strategies were embedded in a corresponding institutional framework. Now, for several reasons firms increasingly strive to integrate external resources into their processes of innovation and knowledge creation. Instead of concentrating on internal R&D processes they open up their innovation processes to make use of external sources of knowledge or take part in distributed knowledge production. Such innovation strategies, for instance, may include networking with other companies or cooperation with lead users in product development processes, utilization of user experience to develop new applications, or joint efforts in external communities.
The mini-conference focuses on institutional preconditions and consequences of such distributed or open innovation strategies. Open innovation strategies force companies to reorganize their innovation processes in a more dynamic and application-oriented way raising organizational challenges since established strategies are put into question. In particular, companies have to re-define the conditions for knowledge transfer as well as the interfaces between internal and a broad variety of external resources and actors, be it other companies and individuals or new actors and new contexts of knowledge production like networks and communities. The increasing relevance of distributed knowledge (production) raises the question of how companies attempt to frame and coordinate distributed innovation processes and inter-organizational knowledge transfer. This question does not only point to organizational conditions but also to the institutional foundations of innovation systems. Hence, the mini-conference invites papers – empirically or theoretically informed – that address the following questions:
Andy Hodder is a Lecturer in Employment Relations at the University of Birmingham. Andy joined Birmingham Business School in September 2012 after completing a PhD at Keele University. Andy has conducted research on public sector union organizing and the relationship between young workers and trade unions. He is also looking at trade union use of social media and the possibilities for trade union involvement in Corporate Social Responsibility. Andy is a member of the British Academy of Management, the British Sociological Association and the Society for the Advancement of Socio-Economics. Andy is also on the Executive Committee of the British Universities Industrial Relations Association.
Lefteris Kretsos is a Senior Lecturer of Industrial Relations at University of Greenwich and Member of the ESRC Peer Review College. His research is focused on the rising trends and patterns of precarious employment, especially among young workers in the context of economic crisis. Lefteris has been involved in 22 research projects for the European Commission, ESRC, the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions and various trade union organisations.
He is currently co-editing a book on Young Workers and Trade Unions, while he recently (2014) co-edited another book on Radical Unionism in Europe. He is also heavily involved in the completion of a project funded by the European Research Council on the effects of marketization into European societies.
The transition of young people into employment is fraught with considerable difficulties in finding stable and well-paid employment when compared to older workers. Young workers have been particularly affected by the wider changes in global economic conditions, as such changes have seen an increase in employee insecurity and instability. Low-paid, low-status and insecure work is predominantly carried out by young workers and as the position of young workers in the labour market is increasingly precarious, one may expect them to join unions for protection. However, with trade union membership in a state of flux, it is important to assess union strategies to engage with and recruit young precarious workers.
We welcome abstract and paper submissions from diverse theoretical and methodological perspectives such as sociology, economics, employment relations, public policy and law on the following themes:
Alexander Ebner is Professor of Political Economy and Economic Sociology at Goethe University Frankfurt. Previously, he was Associate Professor of Political Economy at Jacobs University Bremen and Assistant Professor at the Chair of Public Finance and Fiscal Sociology at University Erfurt. Following his studies of economics, political science and sociology he obtained a doctorate in economics at Goethe University Frankfurt (summa cum laude). His habilitation was granted by the Faculty of the Sciences of the State at University Erfurt. International research appointments have included University of California at Berkeley, Latvian University Riga, and the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore. His research is primarily concerned with the institutional dynamics of capitalist development, involving the matter of entrepreneurship, innovation and economic policy, paralleled by an interest in the history of economic and social theory. Corresponding publications involve papers in journals such as Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, and Journal of the History of Economic Thought. He has edited and co-edited various volumes, including “The Institutions of the Market: Organisations, Social Systems, and Governance“ with Oxford University Press.
The perspective of a socio-ecological ‘greening’ of global capitalism has persistently gained in relevance due to phenomena such as climate change. Yet the corresponding notion of ‘green capitalism’ may seem like a contradiction in terms, given the Polanyian thesis that the prevalence of the market system is incompatible with a sustainable utilization of natural resources. Indeed, proponents of a ‘greening’ of capitalism promote the causes of sustainability and de-carbonization by hinting at diverse regulative measures. These include both market-constraining instruments and market-promoting instruments. However, such an inherently contradictious combination of market and non-market components adds to the question whether ‘green capitalism’ can be understood as a coherent and sustainable model for the organization of economic life. In view of these issues, the SASE Mini-Conference “Green Capitalism? Re-Embedding Nature in the Age of Globalization” highlights the following sets of questions and related problems in the wider domain of political economy and economic sociology: In how far is the ‘greening’ of capitalist market economies to be perceived as a feasible way out of the current undermining of the natural foundations of human society on a global scale? How may contradictions between the formation of a sustainable pattern of capitalist growth and the underlying tendencies of commodification and marketization be dealt with? What strategies and mechanisms are available to promote a re-embedding of the natural environment in non-market types of economic affairs and social relations? What is the actual relationship between market and non-market instruments in this regard? How can diverse sets of actors from the national, regional and international terrain as well as from the public and private sectors interact in proceeding with these re-embedding efforts? What kind of governance mechanisms and strategic coalitions are to be observed in corresponding processes of adaptation? In exploring these questions, the Mini-Conference calls for both theoretically and empirically oriented papers from all fields of the social sciences. Particular interest is dedicated to papers which utilize the analytical perspectives of the comparative capitalisms literature in order to explore national, regional or international endeavors in the socio-ecological transformation of capitalist market economies.
Rossella Ciccia is postdoctoral fellow at the National University of Ireland Maynooth. She is currently working on the ERC New Deals project, comparing workplace regimes in Europe. She was previously postdoctoral researcher at the political science department at Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands, working on a project analyzing gender equality and care policies across European economies. Her publications and research focus on the political economy of labour markets, its connection to welfare states and family policies, comparative methods and the application of configurational approaches in macro comparative research.
Seán Ó Riain is Professor of Sociology at the National University of Ireland Maynooth. His research interests are in the sociology of work and employment, comparative political economy, inequality and social change and the global information economy. Seán is the author of The Politics of High Tech Growth: Developmental Network States in the Global Economy (Cambridge, 2004) and of The Rise and Fall of Ireland’s Celtic Tiger: Liberalism, Boom and Bust (Cambridge, 2014). He is currently directing New Deals in the New Economy, a five year study of workplace bargains in Europe, incorporating survey analysis of the EU27 countries from 1995-2015 and a comparative case study analysis of three different sectors in each of Ireland and Denmark. This research is funded by a European Research Council Consolidator Grant, awarded in 2011. Seán earned his Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of California, Berkeley in 1999 and taught at the University of California, Davis from 1999-2003 before joining NUI Maynooth.
Andrew Schrank is the Olive C. Watson Professor of Sociology and International and Public Affairs at Brown University, where he is also affiliated with the Department of Political Science, the Population Studies and Training Center, and the Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies. He studies the organization, regulation, and performance of industry, especially in the United States and Latin America. Schrank is best known for his work on the origins and remediation of “network failures” in global supply chains, the differences between the “Anglo-American” and “Franco-Latin” approaches to labor law enforcement, and the conceptualization and measurement of red tape, corruption, and the rule of law. His research has been funded by the Ford Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, National Science Foundation, and the Social Science Research Council, among others. He is currently a CIFAR Fellow in Innovation, Equity, and the Future of Prosperity. He has consulted for the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the US and Japanese governments, and various United Nations agencies. And he co-edits the Cambridge Elements series on Politics and Society in Latin America. Schrank is the co-author (with Michael Piore) of Root-Cause Regulation: Protecting Work and Workers in the Twenty-First Century (Harvard University Press 2018), as well as articles in leading journals in political science, sociology, and economic development. His most recent book is The Economic Sociology of Development (Polity 2023).
Workplace regimes are the complexes of formal and informal relations and institutions that structure the organisation of work in modern societies. A comparative understanding of their structure and significance is indispensable to socio-economics, for the organisation of work shapes not only the experience of life on the job but the material conditions and competitive prospects of workers and firms, the interests underpinning macro-level political bargains, and the prospects for social solidarity more generally. It is impossible to understand the varieties of capitalism, or their non-capitalist rivals and predecessors, without a firm understanding of the politics and practices of workplace regimes. But sociologists of work and comparative political economists tend to talk past each other, leaving potentially profitable opportunities for mutual dialogue unexploited.
This mini-conference is designed to bridge the gap between micro analyses of the workplace and macro political economy by fostering dialogue across disciplinary and sub-disciplinary boundaries. We invite papers that address different aspects of workplace organization (e.g. working time, security, pay, career ladders, the labor process, collective action, etc), their connections with macro-political institutions and actors, and adopt a comparative perspective. Submissions may use a range of methodological approaches (including case studies, quantitative methods, and qualitative comparative analysis), operate at different levels (national, regional, sectoral, corporate, etc.),and explore a wide variety of relevant topics including:
How is ‘labor’ constructed in different industries, workplaces and worlds of capitalism (e.g. in relation to gender, age, ethnicity, race, etc.) within and across different regions such as Asia, Europe, North and South America?
How do workplace regimes enable and constrain the strategies of key actors in the political economy (employers, unions, state agencies, transnational corporations, political elites, etc.)? And, how are workplace institutions and practices shaped themselves by these macro-political actors?
How can we best understand the dynamic nature of workplace relations, using comparative analysis to go beyond the imputation of interests based on structural locations or labor market assets?
How do political, economic, and technological transformations (e.g. globalization, financialization, tertiarization, neoliberalism, etc.) change the organization of labor?
How can workplace studies contribute to our understanding of diverse macro political economies, lending insight into debates over varieties of capitalism, welfare and production regimes, and development models?
In what ways do different workplace regimes and worlds of capitalism produce different outcomes in terms of individual and institutional capabilities, inequalities, and economic performance?
Christina Niforou is currently a Lecturer in Human Resource Management at Birmingham Business School, UK. She holds a BSc in Economics from University of Piraeus, Greece and a Master and PhD from Warwick Business School, University of Warwick. She is interested in comparative employment relations and HRM, corporate social responsibility and global labour governance. She has received funding from the ESRC, the Onassis Public Benefit Foundation, Warwick Business School and ‘Trade Union related Research Institutes’ (TURI – a joint initiative of the European Trade Union Institute and the Hans Böckler Foundation). Her work has been published in highly regarded journals including the British Journal of Industrial Relations, Human Resource Management and Economic and Industrial Democracy.
Paulina Ramirez is a lecturer in International Business and Innovation at Birmingham Business School. Paulina’s research focuses on the relationship between national and regional innovation and business systems and global innovation networks. She is particularly interested in how national and regional institutions shape knowledge flows within global R&D networks and how this affects the upgrading capabilities of firms. She has worked on a number of research projects looking at the outsourcing and offshoring of R&D activities in the pharmaceutical industry; the impact of FDI on the science and technology system of the Republic of Ireland; as well as work on the role on national institutions in the Chilean salmon-farming global value chain. Paulina is also interested in how national institutional systems (e.g. corporate governance, science and technology systems) shape the emergence of new areas of science and technology.
Phil Almond is Professor of International Management at Loughborough University London. He is also a lead researcher at the Interuniversity Research Centre on Globalization and Work (CRIMT), and organiser of the Comparative Employment Research Collaborative Network (CERCnet). His research interests concern the theoretical and practical challenges of the governance of work and employment in contemporary capitalism. He is the editor, with Anthony Ferner, of American Multinationals in Europe (Oxford University Press, 2006), and more recently has worked on the relations between foreign multinationals and actors in regional business systems across Canada, Ireland, Spain and the UK. He is currently working on ESRC-funded research on the resources mobilized by actors in the creation, diffusion, interpretation and negotiation of norms concerning the global coordination of human resources within multinationals.
Gregor Murray holds the Canada Research Chair on Globalization and Work in the School of Industrial Relations at the University of Montreal (ERIUM). He is also director of the Interuniversity Research Centre on Globalization and Work (CRIMT), which is an interdisciplinary centre linking researchers in a variety of universities and research institutes to a research program on the theoretical and practical challenges of actor and institutional renewal for the regulation of work and employment. Gregor’s particular research interests include international comparisons of employment relations, human resource practices, labour law and subsidiary embeddedness in multinational companies. He also works on union capacity and innovation, with a particular focus on the comparative analysis of workplace unions.
María C. González Menéndez is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Oviedo, Spain. Her active research interests include workers’ participation, gender and employment, labour management, and the role of sub-national socioeconomic governance systems in the attraction and retention of multinational firms. These interests are united by a strong internationally comparative focus on the role of social and political institutions in shaping the quality of work and employment. Recent publications include the book Women on Corporate Boards and in Top Management. European Trends and Policy (Palgrave, 2012), co-edited with Colette Fagan and Silvia Gómez, and the handbook on HRM in Spain Gestión de Recursos Humanos: Contexto y Políticas (Thomson-Civitas, 2011), co-edited with Rodolfo Gutiérrez and Miguel Martínez Lucio. She is currently co-leader of the work package on Policy Transfer and Comparative Frameworks within the large scale FP7 project Strategic Transitions for Youth Labour in Europe.
Lisa De Propris’ research interests focus on clusters, economic development and global value chains. In particular, her research has ranged from competitiveness in clusters and regions; innovation; clusters and foreign direct investment; onshoring and offshoring of manufacturing activities; high-value added manufacturing; knowledge economy to economic development policy. Her research has focused mostly on the European economies. Lisa De Propris leads the Global Value Chain research group in the Birmingham Business School in the University of Birmingham-UK.
This mini-conference explores institutional attempts – at supra-national, national and local levels – to mediate the effects of the changing global dynamics of production on local economies. It seeks contributions examining the interactions and tensions between globalising forces and local systems of production, innovation, labour regulation and political exchange, in the context of global economic crisis.
It promotes dialogue between different forms and levels of analysis, including: between institutional economics and societal institutionalism; analyses of global value chains and the multinational corporation; studies of innovation and of work/employment; and analyses of global, national and local institution-building.
It consists of five mini-panels.
PANEL A: The role of institutions and policy in redesigning global production
This panel explores what policies and actions governments are considering and endorsing to re-connect their domestic productive economies to global value chains. To what extent, and how, are governments re-discovering industrial policy? What options are open to policy-makers? What are the roles of national and local spaces in attempts to pursue growth and prosperity? What are the effects of changing global balances of productive power, e.g. the changing role of China?
PANEL B: Multinational corporations and local economic space
This panel examines relations between the multinational firm and sub-national institutional actors. What resources do actors in regional business systems attempt to deploy in dealing with geographically mobile firms? What is the role of subsidiary unit managers and workers in the above relationships? Is it useful to talk of ‘embeddedness’ when discussing the relations between foreign direct investors and local economic systems?
PANEL C: The dynamic re-configuration of global production and innovative activities
This panel explores the changing relationships between the ownership and location of production and innovation. In particular: to what extent have recent changes in the global economy re-configured the locations of innovative activities related to global production? What are the roles of global and local institutions, both in shaping these reconfigurations and in attempting to respond to them?
PANEL D: Global-local dynamics of production and the eroded foundations of labour protection
This panel examines the impact of re-configurations of global production on labour agency. How are different actors (trade unions, labour activists, private multi-stakeholder groups, grass roots organizations etc) at different levels responding to the consequences of global restructuring? What accounts for successes and failures in these responses? Is there scope for institutional innovation, re-design and/or demise in the evolving landscape of production and innovation?
PANEL E: Social and territorial foundations of comparative institutional advantage
This panel asks what comparative institutional advantage means in the current global economic context. Can historically established, place-specific, patterns of coordination be defended, reconfigured, recombined, or renewed in a context of crisis, in order to permit both economic and social renewal? What is the contemporary valency of sub-national institutional variety in shaping comparative institutional advantage?
Matthias Thiemann is an Associate Professor of European Public Policy at Sciences Po Paris. His work focuses on two areas. On the one hand, he analyzes the role of public development banks in attempts by the European Union to develop infrastructural power in the realm of economic policy, on the other hand he analyzes the regulation of financial markets, seeking to bring ideational and political economy accounts together. Prior to Sciences Po, he was an Assistant Professor at Goethe University Frankfurt am Main and a Postdoctoral Fellow at ESSEC Business School. His work has been published in the American Journal of Sociology, the Journal of European Public Policy, Regulation and Governance, the Review of International Political Economy and New Political Economy. In 2018, he published a monograph at Cambridge University Press on the regulation of shadow banking, and a new monograph is forthcoming at CUP entitled “Taming the Cycles of Finance? Central Banks and the rise of macroprudential regulation”.
Angelo Riva teaches finance at the European Business School where he is director of the research department of finance and he is associate researcher at the Paris School of Economics. His research interests include the organization of the stock exchange industry and the interactions between markets and (central) banks over the long run. He published several papers on the topic and he has recently published Histoire de la Bourse with Paul Lagneau-Ymonet, and “The Paris financial market in the XIXth century : complementarities and competition in microstructures” (Economic History Review, 2012) with Pierre-Cyrille Hautcoeur. He is the scientific supervisor of the Equipment of Excellence “Data for Financial History”.
Paul Lagneau-Ymonet is Associate Professor of Sociology at University Paris-Dauphine (IRISSO), Paris. His research interests include the organization of financial markets in historical and comparative perspective and the sociology of elites. He is the co-author of Histoire de la Bourse [History of the Paris Stock Exchange] (2012, with Angelo Riva). He has published in sociological, historical, economic and political economic journals.
Title of Lecture: “Prometheus to Dionysus: Can we Re-Enchant the Future?” – Thursday, June 27 – 12:45 to 1:45 pm
Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic, PhD Harvard 1996, Doctor Honoris Causa of the University of Stockholm, has been University Professor at the Sciences Po Centre of Organisational Sociology since September 2016. She is also Dean of the School of Management and Innovation at Sciences Po and was previously Professor at the ESSEC and Director of the Centre of Research on Capitalism, Globalisation and Governance.
Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic’s research work focuses on the contemporary transformations of capitalism, the international dissemination of ideas and practices, the spreading of globalisation and the dynamics of regulation and governance in a globalised economic environment, the social responsibility of companies and their political role in this context. Her work is published in top international academic reviews and university presses.
At ESSEC, Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic occupied a variety of administrative and managerial positions – Dean of Professors (2003-2007), Director of the Management Department (2008-2012), Associate Dean in charge of the PhD program (2012-2015).
Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic was Guest Professor at the University of Stanford, the University of Uppsala, the University of Stockholm and the Stockholm School of Economics in Sweden, at the Bocconi University in Italy and at the Institute of Higher International Studies and Development in Geneva, Switzerland. She also sits on many scientific councils or university evaluation boards in many countries in Europe and North America.
Braudel considered the stock exchange to be a “shortcut for the merchants’ world”. There took place power struggles to organize the mobilization of capital: financing states and enterprises; controlling means of production; reaping the profits of intermediation; and, eventually, speculating. Exchanges have long functioned as local monopolies, which generally constituted hybrid extensions of the public authority and of business interests, in order to organize the circulation of capital in a given territory. The organizational features of exchanges varied across time and location, but they all aimed at making instruments tradable and operations reliable, and, in fine, they defined a space for self-regulatory organization and informal coordination among financiers, who were part of the national elites and in relations to other international financial centres. Exchanges were flagship institutions (like national anthem, armies, universities…) of nation-states’ sovereignty.
Recently, the demutualization and listing of exchanges, combined with the rise of alternative trading venues, overhauled this institutional foundation of Western capitalism. From the 1980s, stock and derivatives exchanges gradually became limited companies. Then, at the start of the 21stcentury, many of them went public and even listed themselves on the markets they operate. They started to enter into mergers with other exchanges thus weakening their connection to national sovereignty and blurring their relations to local economy. At the same time, less-regulated trading venues, often backed by internationally-operating financial institutions, were allowed to directly compete with exchanges. The banks themselves put in place in-house systems to internalize the orders of their clientele or offer their best clients privileged access to restricted pools of liquidity. Such a trend towards private transactions on privatised trading venues culminated in the mid-Noughties, when the US Regulation NMS and the European Markets in Financial Instruments Directive were both promulgated. Consequently, stock exchanges officially morphed from hybrid-institutions organizing public competition between financial intermediaries into private companies competing with one another and with their main users to provide intermediation services.
This overhaul of stock exchanges forces to tackle the following questions, which all echo this broader paradox: the financialization of modern capitalism has profoundly weakened one of its crucial institutions.
The organizers are looking for contributions that will explore the economic history of exchanges, the political economy of their emergence, past and recent changes and the study of their organizations. In short, contributions which would enlarge our understanding of these typical and yet crumbling institutions of modern capitalism.
Dr. Andreas Nölke is Professor of Political Science at Goethe University (Frankfurt) and Senior Researcher at the Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE. Before joining Goethe University, he has taught at the universities of Konstanz, Leipzig, Amsterdam and Utrecht. His main research areas are at the intersection of comparative and international political economy, including the political economy of emerging economies, the political dimensions of financialization, the institutions of the German export model, the politics of European economic (dis-)integration and the political economy of populism. He has published in journals such as the Review of International Political Economy, New Political Economy, World Politics, Business and Politics, International Politics, Competition and Change, the European Journal of International Relations, Critical Perspectives on International Business, the Review of African Political Economy, the Socio-Economic Review, Environment and Planning and the Journal of Common Market Studies. Andreas also served as consultant in the field of development cooperation, mainly for the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ), but also for the European Commission and the World Bank.
Eduardo Gomes is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Fluminense Federal University, in Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. He hold a Ph. D. in Political Science from the University of Chicago, with a dissertation on a failed project of turning Brazil into an exporter of manufactured products before the neoliberal reforms. He has been a Visiting Professor in a couple of colleges in the United States, including as a Fulbright Scholar in Residence. He was awarded the “Amos Chair of Eminent Professor of Latin American Studies” at Columbus University, Georgia. His fields of interests are Interest Politics, Political Economy, and Comparative Politics. He has conducted research on business politics, small business, corporate social responsibility, and comparative political economy of development, having published a number of articles and book chapters on these topics in Brazil and abroad. Currently, he is working on state capacities of emergent countries, focusing on advising councils and new arenas of public-private negotiations of the BRICS, as well as on tripartism in Latin America.
Flavio Gaitan is a Post doctoral fellow IESP-UERJ (Institute of Social and Political Studies, State University of Rio de Janeiro), PhD IUPERJ (Research University Institute of Rio de Janeiro), Researcher of INCT-PPED (National Institute of Science and Technology “Public Policies, Strategies and Development”). He has published articles in Journals and book chapters. His areas of interest include developmental state, development strategies, social protection, articulation between production regime and welfare state and role of strategic elites in dynamics of development. Among his latest publications are Legacies of excludent development: inequality and poverty in peripheral South American capitalism (in Arzate Salgado, Gutierrez & Huamán, Poverty Reproduction in Latin America, CLACSO-CROP, 2011) and Politics and Development: Lessons from Latin America (with Renato Boschi, in Boschi & Santana,Development and semi-periphery, Anthem Press, 2012).
Christiano Fonseca Monteiro is a Professor of Sociology at Fluminense Federal University, in the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. He obtained his Doctor’s degree in Sociology at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, with a dissertation on the state-market relations and the political dynamics of neoliberal reforms in the air transportation market in Brazil. He has published several articles and book chapters on these topics, including the article “Political dynamics and liberalization in the Brazilian air transport industry: 1990-2002” (Brazilian Political Science Review, 5/1, 2011). He has been the coordinator of the working group on Economic Sociology at the meetings of the Brazilian Society of Sociology since 2009 and he is currently coordinating a project on Economic Development and Sociopolitical action in Southern Rio de Janeiro.
One often neglected dimension of the debate about the BRICS is whether these countries’ rising economic power can also trigger political and social aspects of a welfare state. There is a lot of contentiousness between strategic actors concerning the role and extension of social policies and improving working conditions as part of these countries’ economic development. In such a way, it is crucial to discuss the emerging new arenas of concertation and its implications for the social dimension of this new type state capitalism.
The rationale for social dialogue between capital, labour, as well as government representatives can stem from three broad streams. One stream is related to the idea of social pacts to implement pro-market reforms in advanced industrial countries, after the crisis of fordist accumulation regime. Under the neoliberal tenets, competitiveness is enhanced mainly through labour costs reduction and labour rights retrenchment. The other stream for concertation has to do with labour rights enforcement associated to democratization processes in developing countries. The latter is much more akin to ILO initiatives concerning the enhancement of newly democratic countries. Compliance with ILO guidelines coupled with labour market regulation has contributed to national peak level negotiations involving employers and employees organizations.
However, a third stream for this type of concertation is more prone to play a strategic role. It is related to the coordination among strategic actors to enhance economic and, sometimes, social upgrading such as what has been taking place in BRICS. Some authors mention a new type of state capitalism in these countries, especially in the cases of China, India, Russia, but we would also include Brazil and South Africa. South Africa’s National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC), and Brazil’s Conselho de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social have contributed to the sustainability of the economic and social reform process over the past decade. NEDLAC has deepened democracy by creating new labour market institutions that have included constituencies that were previously excluded from the policy-making process. CDES played a key role in the Economic Growth Acceleration Program (PAC) and in the design of recent industrial policies in Brazil and their social implications. In both cases, neocorporatist peak level organizations were the most relevant actors.
Under a comparative capitalism framework and in the vein of the idea of a new type of organized capitalism, this mini-conference seeks contributions that examine institutional arrangements and their role in development strategies through policymaking related to industrial upgrading as well as social protection in BRICs, East Asia, Africa and Latin American countries. What kinds of strategies and policy options have predominated and with what impact? Which factors can explain differences across countries? What has been the role of corporatist arrangements and deliberative democracy in shaping specific policy options? What role have international organizations played with regard to the state in promoting social policy reforms such as the ILO? Are there new distributional coalitions underpinning current policy arrangements?