Methoden vergleichen

	Institutional Complementarity Analysis	Varieties of Capitalism Analysis
Fachgebiet	Political Economy	Political Economy
Familie	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Entstehungsjahr	2001	2001
Urheber	Peter Hall & David Soskice; Masahiko Aoki; Bruno Amable	Peter A. Hall & David Soskice
Typ	Comparative institutional analysis framework	Comparative institutional analysis framework
Wegweisende Quelle	Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (Eds.). (2001). Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 9780199247752	Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (Eds.). (2001). Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 9780199247752
Aliasnamen	Institutional Complementarities, Complementarity Analysis, Coherence of Institutional Configurations	VoC Analysis, Varieties of Capitalism Framework, Hall-Soskice Framework, Comparative Capitalisms Analysis
Verwandt	3	4
Zusammenfassung	Institutional complementarity analysis is a comparative-capitalism framework, central to the varieties-of-capitalism program of Peter Hall and David Soskice (2001) and to Masahiko Aoki's comparative institutional analysis (2001), for explaining why national economic models cohere into a small number of stable types rather than mixing institutions freely. Two institutions are complementary when the presence of one raises the returns to, or the efficiency of, the other — so that the value of any one arrangement depends on the configuration of the rest. Because complementary institutions reinforce each other, economies tend to settle into coherent clusters (such as coordinated and liberal market economies), and Bruno Amable (2003) extended the logic to a richer typology of five models defined across multiple institutional domains. The framework supplies the micro-logic behind both the coherence and the path dependence of national capitalisms.	Varieties of Capitalism (VoC) analysis is a firm-centered comparative framework, set out by Peter A. Hall and David Soskice in their 2001 edited volume, for understanding why advanced capitalist economies are organized in systematically different ways. Its central move is to place the firm at the heart of the analysis and to ask how firms resolve the coordination problems they face with workers, owners, suppliers, and one another. The framework distinguishes two ideal types — Liberal Market Economies (LMEs) such as the United States and United Kingdom, where firms coordinate primarily through competitive markets, and Coordinated Market Economies (CMEs) such as Germany and Japan, where firms coordinate strategically through non-market institutions — and argues that institutions in different spheres reinforce one another to produce distinct, durable, and internally coherent national models with their own comparative institutional advantages.