The Origins of Nonliberal Capitalism: Germany and Japan in Comparison

By W. Streeck, K. Yamamura. 2001

230 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/350aa0936d2e01fe0c9d6b0d52542459f0dc13ca

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. Richard Deeg
2. A. Nölke
3. B. Amable
4. M. Höpner
5. Gregory Jackson
6. P. Toner
7. Michael A. Witt
8. P. Hall

Citations in the corpus

• Economic causes of the Eurozone crisis: the analytical contribution of Comparative Capitalism (2016, background): “…the VoC research program have led to a flurry of extensions, in particular with a background in historical and sociological institutionalism (e.g. Yamamura and Streeck, 2001; Schmidt, 2002; Amable, 2003, 2008; Jackson and Deeg, 2006; Hassel, 2006, 2014; Hancké et al., 2007; Becker, 2009; Hall…”
• Comparing capitalisms: understanding institutional diversity and its implications for international business (2008, background): “In particular, different capitalisms were not created as coherent wholes, but were the result of political contention (Vogel, 2006) or unintended results of piecemeal development over long periods of time (Aoki, 2001; Streeck & Yamamura, 2001).”
• Institutional complementarities in the dynamic comparative analysis of capitalism (2015, background): “…complementarity found in the Japanese model of capitalism between an ‘imperfect’ labour market – imperfect according to the mainstream economics view, that is – and a centralised financial system did not result from a simultaneous creation of these institutional forms (Streeck and Yamamura, 2001).”
• Continuity and Change in Corporate Governance: Comparing Germany and Japan (2005, unknown): “Only recently has a small but growing literature tried directly to compare the similarities and differences between “deviant” models such as Germany and Japan (Dore, 1996, 2000; Streeck and Yamamura, 2001; Yamamura and Streeck, 2003) or differentiate among East Asian, Latin and other European models”
• From comparing capitalisms to the politics of institutional change (2008, background): “These considerations have led to empirical work on the dynamics of national capitalisms by looking at their historical origins (Streeck and Yamamura, 2001).”
• Mapping the business systems of 61 major economies: A taxonomy and implications for varieties of capitalism and business systems research (2018, unknown): “For instance, a number of works have put the evolution of varieties of capitalism in historical perspective and identified drivers leading to the present diversity among advanced industrialized economies (Streeck and Yamamura, 2001; Thelen, 2004; Hancké et al., 2007; Cusack et al., 2010).”
• Asian Business Systems: Institutional Comparison, Clusters, and Implications for Varieties of Capitalism and Business Systems Theory (2013, background): “…such as how the Japanese business system compares with those of other advanced industrialized economies (e.g., Berger and Dore, 1996; Dore, 2000; Streeck and Yamamura, 2001) and how it evolves over time (e.g., Dore, 2000; Yamamura and Streeck, 2003; Anchordoguy, 2005; Vogel, 2006; Westney,…”
• Sino-Capitalism: China's Reemergence and the International Political Economy (2012, unknown): “29 Streeck and yamamura 2001.”
• Workforce Skills and Innovation: An Overview of Major Themes in the Literature. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 55. (2011, background): “Many other elements have been identified in these systems such as technology diffusion programmes and even “patient” capital (Streeck and Yamamura, 2001).”
• Towards a More Dynamic Theory of Capitalist Variety (2007, background): “The most recent CC literature has indeed begun to address these issues and we build upon these efforts (Aoki, 2001; Streeck and Yamamura, 2001; Morgan et al., 2005; Streeck and Thelen, 2005).”