Σύγκριση μεθόδων

	Developmental State Analysis	Varieties of Capitalism Analysis
Πεδίο	Political Economy	Political Economy
Οικογένεια	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Έτος προέλευσης	1982	2001
Δημιουργός	Chalmers Johnson & Peter Evans	Peter A. Hall & David Soskice
Τύπος	Comparative institutional analysis framework	Comparative institutional analysis framework
Θεμελιώδης πηγή	Johnson, C. (1982). MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925-1975. Stanford University Press. ISBN: 9780804712064	Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (Eds.). (2001). Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 9780199247752
Εναλλακτικές ονομασίες	Developmental State Theory, Embedded Autonomy Approach, State-Led Industrialization Analysis, Plan-Rational State Analysis	VoC Analysis, Varieties of Capitalism Framework, Hall-Soskice Framework, Comparative Capitalisms Analysis
Συναφείς	3	4
Σύνοψη	Developmental state analysis is a state-centered framework for explaining rapid, state-led industrialization, built from Chalmers Johnson's 1982 study of Japan's MITI and Peter Evans's 1995 theory of embedded autonomy. Its central claim is that in the high-growth economies of East Asia the state did not merely set the rules or correct market failures but actively steered economic transformation — picking sectors, allocating credit, disciplining firms, and coordinating investment — through a meritocratic bureaucracy housed in a powerful pilot agency. The framework analyzes when and how a state acquires the capacity and the relationship to business that let such guidance promote development rather than predation.	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.