513086

research-article2013

CNC38110.1177/0309816813513086Capital & ClassBieling

Article

Comparative analysis
of capitalism from a
regulationist perspective
extended by neoGramscian IPE

Capital & Class

2014, Vol. 38(1) 3143
The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0309816813513086
c&c.sagepub.com

Hans-Jrgen Bieling
University of Tbingen, Germany

Abstract
Over time, the comparative analysis of capitalism has moved beyond the strict
confines of the narrow varieties of capitalism (VoC) framework. In this sense, it is
possible to observe an emergent post-VoC discussion that goes beyond the static
design and methodological nationalism that can be found in a strictly comparative
and institutionalist account of capitalism. So far, however, the post-VoC discussion
has been barely able to address important politico-economic and societal themes
and issues. For the most part, assertions about time-diagnostic characterisations of
the current state of capitalism, the causes and processes of specific crisis dynamics
inherent to this current form of capitalism, and the asymmetrical forms of international
networks or formative transnational power relations, remain weak or chaotic. In
order to overcome these existing deficiencies, this paper argues from an analytical
perspective that situates itself in regulation theory and allows itself to be characterised
as an extended neo-Gramscian international political economy (IPE) approach.
Keywords
Neo-Gramscian IPE, regulation theory, post-VoC discussion, transnational
hegemony

Introduction
For some time now, in scientific as well as in political discussions, the word capitalism
has been used in a relaxed manner. The reasons for this are multifaceted. They lie in part
Corresponding author:
Hans-Jrgen Bieling, University of Tbingen, Germany.
Email: hans-juergen.bieling@uni-tuebingen.de

Downloaded from cnc.sagepub.com at UNLP on December 11, 2014

32

Capital & Class 38(1)

in developments within the subject area of international political economy (IPE) and in
the public debate over the causes and implications of the financial crisis. They also lie in
the fact that the term capitalism is no longer automatically associated, for example, with
a socio- and system-critical Marxist analysis in connection with a socialist economic
programme. In the last few years, many authors have more or less explicitly allied themselves with the varieties of capitalism (VoC) approach (cf. Hall and Soskice 2001). That
is to say, they have oriented themselves to an analytical perspective that is not a priori
categorised as critical of capitalism, but rather, which claims that the existence of different national models of capitalism is fundamentally given, though it is institutionally and
regulatorily manageable as long as the models international competitiveness is not
impaired.
The conditionality of international competitiveness means that the VoC approach
has admittedly contributed substantially to the revival of theoretical discussions of capitalism (see also Hartmann in this special issue on competition). However, given the primacy of economic performance, it was only to a limited extent able to account for
exploitation mechanisms, power relations, conflicts and contradictions; in short, for the
social character of specific capitalist formations. This point is further strengthened by the
fact that VoC is marked by a very lean societal theory and a deficient politico-economic
analytical framework. Above all, the dimensions that national capitalist models have in
common (cf. Streeck 2010; Bruff 2011), or the patterns of transnational reproduction
that structure or mesh the development of national models with one another (cf. Bohle
and Greskovits 2009; Bellofiore etal. 2011) are not adequately considered. With regard
to this, a post-VoC discussion in the broader comparative capitalisms (CC) literature has
begun to unfold, which goes beyond the static design and methodological nationalism
that can be found in a strictly comparative and institutionalist discussion of capitalism.
Despite an expanded research agenda and due to persistent institutional restrictions,
the post-VoC discussion is barely able to address important politico-economic and societal themes and issues (Jessop 2013). For the most part, assertions about time-diagnostic
characterisations of the current state of capitalism, the causes and processes of specific
crisis dynamics inherent to this current form of capitalism, and the asymmetrical forms
of international networks or formative transnational power relations remain weak or
chaotic. In order to overcome these existing deficiencies, this paper will argue from an
analytical perspective that situates itself in regulation theory and allows itself to be characterised as an extended neo-Gramscian IPE approach. Before the central reflections and
the fundamental assumptions of regulation theory and the neo-Gramscian extension and
reformulation are posed, the development and the current state of the comparative and
institutionalist discussions of capitalism will be outlined.

Trajectories of comparative and institutionalist

analysis of capitalism: From the VoC approach to
the post-VoC discussion
The VoC approach addresses the situation that, regardless of globalisation, different
forms of national capitalist models continue to reproduce themselves. The beginnings of
these models go far into the past: indeed, the initial stages of the Industrial Revolution

Downloaded from cnc.sagepub.com at UNLP on December 11, 2014

Bieling

33

and the accompanying political and institutional conflicts shaped their central characteristics significantly. Thus it is not surprising that specific conceptions of comparative
political economy should have begun to develop in the early times of capitalism. As is
often shown in overview articles (cf. Ltz 2006: 27), contemporary discussions look back
to a substantial and stimulating heritage (see also Bruff & Hartmann in this special
issue). Ultimately, it is Michael Alberts (1992) study of ideal types of models of capitalism the Rhenish and neo-American ones on which the VoC approach strongly builds.
In principle, Peter Hall and David Soskice (2001) adopt Alberts dichotomy of capitalist
models; however, they do not derive their different varieties from a concrete regional
location. Instead, they speak more generally of coordinated market economics (CMEs)
and liberal market economics (LMEs).
Essentially, the VoC approach is a firm-centred perspective in two regards: first, politico-economic change is mainly seen as a product of managerial investment, innovation
and other modernisation concepts; and second, the set of specific institutional arrangements is mainly analysed by focusing on the development potentials of these business
activities. This is also underlined by the five areas which, from the VoC viewpoint,
mainly determine the specifics of national models of capitalism and their comparative
economic performance. These five areas include industrial relations, the vocational system, the corporate governance system, inter-firm relations (especially between corporations, suppliers and distribution companies), as well as intra-firm relations (that is, the
means that firms use to encourage loyalty and to reward their employees). These areas
illustrate the point that VoC addresses mainly the institutional preconditions and contextual conditions of business processes. The term institution is used broadly: it includes
in principle not only formal, but also informal rules, conventions and practices of societal reproduction. The often very limited conception of political economy as the interaction between markets and states is unmistakably broken up and expanded; at least to the
extent that in addition to market-based competition and to state regulation, other multifaceted forms of cooperation, including specific corporate organisational structures,
corporate negotiation systems and civil society networks, are considered to have an
impact on the national and international political economy.
Ultimately, the potential provided by this extension remains unexhausted. This is due
to the fact that the VoC approach is primarily located in the overall discussion of competitiveness. Without doubt it can take credit for questioning the modernisation theory
assumption of the existence of one single superior path of development or a best practice model, which all other models have more or less to follow. In contrast, the VoC
approach directs attention towards the fact that the economic performance of national
variants of capitalism is defined through the interaction and coherence between different
fields and particular institutional arrangements. However, since many other dimensions
and aspects that do not allow themselves to be classified as moments of competitiveness
or performance are left out, the VoC discussion falls short. This is also expressed by other
criticisms in which other specific deficits and problems of VoC are clearly shown (Radice
2000; Streeck 2010: 27): for example, a functionalist bias (Becker 2007: 268); a simplified or under-complex understanding of societal change (Kang 2006: 15); a half-hearted
break with neoclassical economics; a firm-centred and rationalist interpretation of
actions made by central actors (Bruff 2011); a stylised differentiation between two ideal

Downloaded from cnc.sagepub.com at UNLP on December 11, 2014

34

Capital & Class 38(1)

types, liberal market economies (LMEs) and coordinated market economies (CMEs),
which is often not helpful for understanding existing variances between and also within
different models of capitalism (Wagner and Lillie 2013); and a methodologically nationalist mode of comparison that often is not able to think of trans- or supranational institutional arrangements as constitutive elements of capitalist models (see also Hrtgen in
this special issue).
Over the last few years, the points of critique listed above have been noted within VoC
circles, productively approached, and through conceptual innovation, mitigated and
rebutted. The functionalism reproach was weakened since it was clarified that VoC only
seeks to explore the effects of institutional arrangements and their current societal support, not the beginnings of their creation (Hall and Thelen 2009: 14). In response to the
charge about the conceptualisation of societal and institutional change, it has been made
clear that through a stronger focus on social power relations, societal conflicts and informal institutionalisation aspects, some dynamics of change can be explained in a more
sophisticated manner (Hanck etal. 2007; Deeg & Jackson 2007; Hall & Thelen 2009:
17). Moreover, growing criticisms of the VoC perspectives methodological nationalism
(Peck & Theodore 2007; Bohle & Greskovits 2009) have led to a greater acknowledgement of the similar and overreaching elements of global capitalism. What all of this means
theoretically and conceptually for VoC and CC research more broadly is, however, still
underdetermined. Up until now, the post-VoC discussion has not been up to the task of
dynamising the static comparative perspective and taking into account capitalistic phenomena that cross national borders (for a different view, see May and Nlke 2013).

Theory and critique of political economy: The

French Regulation School
One theoretical perspective that is headed in this direction and can help to solve some of
the problems in the (post-)VoC discussion is the French Regulation School. Even though
its development began in the 1970s, and even though a number of comparative regulation theory analyses have since been laid out, the Regulation School has still not received
prominent attention in the comparative capitalisms debate. This could be because of its
capitalism-critical impulse, which causes discomfort for status-quo-oriented institutionalist analyses of capitalism. However, this impulse varies within regulation theory. Some
representatives, including Robert Boyer (2005) and Bruno Amable (2003), pursue similar questions to those pursued by CC scholars, and are more focused on and interested
in the comparative performance of different national models of capitalism albeit with
due regard to macroeconomic constellations. In other regulation theory studies, especially in the earlier works of Alain Lipietz (1992) and Michel Aglietta (2000), the problem- and performance-biased approach played a lesser role. Instead, the focus is on
(socio-) economic upheavals and crisis processes, the articulation of societal conflicts and
contradictions, and the institutional and regulatory treatment of these aspects (see also
Becker & Jger 2013). In this sense, many regulation theory scholars are particularly
interested in comprehending how and why capitalist societal formations, despite inherent contradictions and moments of crisis, still have proven themselves to be capable of
stability and change.

Downloaded from cnc.sagepub.com at UNLP on December 11, 2014

Bieling

35

The answer to this question is, generally, that capitalist formations are not just characterised by the dynamics of economic accumulation, but also by non-economic, institutionally stabilising forms of regulation. The mode of operation of these regulatory
forms is designed to combat the inherently crisis-prone and structurally unstable nature
of capitalist accumulation (see also Jessop in this special issue). Hence, the mutually
dependent key categories of regulation theory are the regime of accumulation and the
mode of regulation. According to Alain Lipietz (1985: 120), the regime of accumulation refers to the macroeconomic mode of systematic distribution and reallocation of
societal values that has over a long period of time generated a specific correspondence
between changes in production conditions and changes in the conditions of final
consumption. The constitutive relevance that non-economic i.e. social, institutional
and political circumstances have for the process of capitalist reproduction is included
here. At the same time, these aspects of the accumulation process constitute a specific,
institutionally stabilised structure of societal regulation within the framework of the
capitalist valorisation process that allows the contradictions and conflicts inherent in the
system to be processed. Hence the concept of regulation is designed to be comprehensive. It takes into account the labour relation (reproduction of working power, social
security, family relations, school, lifestyle, forms and norms of consumption), the capital
relation (relocation of capital, the forms of competition and cooperation, forms of enterprise organisation), the money relation (meaning and mode of operation of capital,
credit and insurance markets), and also the legal, ideological and economic dimensions
of state intervention as well as international regimes.
In addition to the accumulation regime and the mode of regulation, scholars working
with the Regulation School approach from time to time refer to two other analytical
concepts. The first concept is the technological or industrial paradigm. This focuses on
the concrete, material dimensions of capitalist accumulation, including forms of production and labour organisation that are influenced by specific key technologies. The development and configuration of production and labour organisation is regarded as the
product of competing interests and expectations, or, in short, social conflicts and power
relations. At the same time, forms of production and labour organisation have their own
societal implications by influencing social structures and political actors means of action.
The second concept is that of a hegemonic bloc: this clarifies which alliances result from
these structures. It tries to make explicit that within the overall historical bloc that is
the entire, historically specific formation of capitalist societies the relationship and
interaction between the regime of accumulation and the mode of regulation (or, as it is
more generally formulated, between the economic and political institutional dimensions
of capitalist development) is mediated by social networks or civil society coalitions that
organise the processes of political consensus generation and compromise finding.
The aforementioned analytic conceptions underline that the fact there are intersections and meeting points between regulation theory and the (post-)VoC debate in
CC scholarship (see also Kannankulam & Georgi in this special issue). At the same
time, the differences between the two should not be ignored. Firstly, regulation
theory is more ambitious as a social theory in that it explores the dynamics and differences between different societal dimensions, including social, political and cultural structures, before it addresses the institutional arrangements through which

Downloaded from cnc.sagepub.com at UNLP on December 11, 2014

36

Capital & Class 38(1)

these structures are reproduced or changed (see the recent Capital & Class special
issue on regulation theory [Dannreuther & Petit 2013]). In comparison to especially
the actor-centred and rationalistic orientation of VoC, regulation theory is also
interested in analysing societal power structures, which are themselves discursively
confirmed or questioned through cultural-political and political-ideological hegemonic struggles carried out in civil society. Secondly, regulation-theoretical research is
based on a broader understanding of the economic, which critical of businesscentred and equilibrium theory concepts leads to a Keynesian or neo-Marxist
macroeconomic perspective. Production relations are therefore understood to be
forms of specific social power and appropriation relations. Occasional references are
also made to reflections made by Nicos Poulantzas (1975: 21), who analysed concrete capitalist formations as an ensemble of different, partially also non-capitalistic
production relations that are, however, capitalistically dominated. Poulantzas also,
by maintaining the primacy of production relations vis--vis productive forces, questioned the allegedly neutral character of technological innovation. Third, regulation
theory distinguishes itself through its double comparative perspective. In contrast to
mainstream scholarship, which only analyses different capitalist models in space, i.e.
through international comparison, regulation theorists are also interested in intertemporal differences and changes. Historically, regulation theory identifies and differentiates between particular capitalist models such as Fordism, high-tech capitalism
or financial market capitalism, and so on, which have all been characterised by specific patterns of capitalist accumulation and regulation (Grahl & Teague 2000;
Aglietta etal. 2002).
This last point in particular shows that regulation theory takes the post-VoC discussion further, in that it is focused on the societal effects of capitalist accumulation, production and labour organisation. Regulation theory offers a framework for analysis and
interpretation that endogenises the dynamics and changes within capitalist models and
is therefore also able to reckon with social changes within formally unchanged institutional settings. The social character of specific institutional arrangements is explored
more explicitly up to the point that, in contrast with VoC and indeed most CC research,
regulation theory, even if just limited to Europe, is not just limited to the differentiation
of two variants but includes many specific variants (cf. Amable 2003).
Despite these principally advantageous analytical options, some difficulties and problems remain. For instance, regulation theory also runs the risk of suffering from an
implicit functionalism, as the mode of regulation is primarily observed through the way
in which it stabilises the accumulation regime. This tendency is admittedly much more
apparent when individual research adopts a socio-technological and regulatory problemsolving perspective that barely asks how societal contradictions and crises escalate and
articulate specific power structures and conflicts. However, it is not just the functionalist
bias that makes regulation theory and CC research close to one another. They also share
the problem that their analytical perspective is ontologically influenced by a dichotomous view of nation-state/world market relations (cf. Bieling & Deppe 1996a: 487;
contributions to Brand & Raza 2003). Therefore, it is difficult for both to grasp the
international and transnational dynamics of capitalistic development that have gained
importance in the context of globalisation.

Downloaded from cnc.sagepub.com at UNLP on December 11, 2014

Bieling

37

National development paths from a neoGramscian IPE perspective

In order to solve this problem, which is in part due to the historical development of regulation theory, it helps to expand and transnationalise the regulation theory perspective
with the help of neo-Gramscian IPE. In doing this, one should take into account the fact
that neo-Gramscian IPE is less a clearly defined theory than an ensemble of specifically
arranged or at least combinable theory fragments. One could roughly divide neoGramscian IPE into three strands of thought (Bieling 2011): Robert Coxs (1987) critical-realist perspective, the transnational perspective of the Amsterdam School (Overbeek
2004), and the constitutionalist perspective, which was most notably developed by
Stephen Gill (2002, 2003). As the name suggests, neo-Gramscian IPE mostly addresses
questions of international and, if necessary, also comparative political economy. NeoGramscianism can thus bring certain aspects into the discussions that are almost completely left out by regulation theory. Not least, neo-Gramscian concepts can help to
productively overcome the aforementioned deficits or dangers with which regulation
theory discussions are faced, including the functionalist problem-solving bias and the
nation-state/world market dichotomy.
In order to illustrate this potential, it is necessary to look at the basic principles of
neo-Gramscian IPE (Bieling & Deppe 1996b; Bieler & Morton 2006). Its foundations
are based on the thoughts of many classical thinkers such as Karl Marx, Fernand Braudel,
Karl Polanyi and Max Weber, but most importantly on the theoretical reflections of the
Italian politician and philosopher Antonio Gramsci. Some of the concepts he developed
for instance, hegemony, historical bloc, civil society, passive revolution create the
cornerstones of a research programme whose analytical perspective is defined by specific
characteristics.
The first characteristic is a comprehensive understanding of international or transnational hegemony based on sophisticated historical and social theory. Neo-Gramscian IPE
understands hegemony as a consensually supported modus of transnational development
that goes beyond the relationship between states (Cox 1983: 171). Here, not only the
processes of economic penetration and interdependence, but also the transnational
dimensions of social relationships, including corresponding forms of the discursive, cultural and politico-institutional organisation of dominance and consensus, come into
view. A second characteristic of neo-Gramscian IPE is a particular understanding of the
state. Accordingly, the state represents a specific institutionalised arena of social (class)
struggles (Cox 1987: 19), whose mode of operation is dependent on societal power relations and socioeconomic, cultural, and ideological structures of reproduction. The connection between the governmental practices of official state apparatuses and their
everyday legitimation is supported in this regard via consensus generation and the processes of compromise finding in civil society. In order to underline this, neo-Gramscian
IPE often uses the concept of state-civil society-complexes.
Third, the sustainability of international and transnational hegemony structures is not
just the product of the interaction between state and civil society, but should also be understood as a product of the given conditions of socioeconomic (re)production. Moreover, the
attractiveness and partial international generalisation of a capitalist development model is

Downloaded from cnc.sagepub.com at UNLP on December 11, 2014

38

Capital & Class 38(1)

dependent on the productive potential of the socioeconomic conditions of (re)production.

Conceptually, neo-Gramscian IPE allows for the identification of such a development
model in a national or transnational context when it speaks of the (trans)national historical
bloc. Such a bloc exists when, within a historical constellation, a relatively coherent interaction between economic accumulation, political and institutional regulation, and discourses in civil society is present. Fourth, the emergence of national or transnational
historical blocs is contingent to the extent that it depends on the ability of social and
political actors to universalise their interests in the form of generally accepted ideas, norms,
rules, and institutions. Neo-Gramscian IPE interprets this process of proliferation and generalisation of hegemony as a passive revolution (Morton 2010). This relates to a transformation of societal structures that can come from outside and/or from above. A passive
revolution is, therefore, to be understood as a kind of deep change that happens without
fully being realised and put into practice from below.
Finally, the fifth characteristic is that neo-Gramscian IPE, in order to disassociate
itself from problem-solving theories, likes to explicitly refer to itself as critical theory
(Cox 1981: 128). It aims to identify the contradictions inherent in given power relations
and to analyse the processes of their political and societal articulation. Here, as with regulation theory, societal crisis processes and phases of change are very important because
they open up the possibilities for the reorganisation of society. If and how such crises (of
hegemony) are confronted, the question of whether it is done in an emancipatory,
nationalistic, or authoritarian-repressive, etc. way (Polanyi 1977), tends to be left open.
Crises are potential turning points in which different forms of criticism are articulated
and which, with regard to all concessions to given political economic, institutional, and
sociocultural circumstances, may be put into effect in political practice.
The outlined characteristics indicate that there is a certain elective affinity between
neo-Gramscian IPE and regulation theory, which can be seen in a similar understanding
of the interaction between economy, politics and society. A few considerations may
briefly illustrate this. First, in both perspectives the capitalist economy is based on social
relations of production, which are connected with one another through an ensemble of
external market relationships. What makes the term social relations of production
unique is the fact that the economy itself is understood to be a field of social forces, or a
terrain for societal conflicts shaped by political, institutional, and cultural influences,
and penetrated by manifold power relations.
Second, both regulation theory and neo-Gramscian IPE assume that capitalist development is defined by specific national and international patterns of reproduction which
are disrupted and put into question during periods of crisis and fundamental change. In
contrast to regulation theory, neo-Gramscianism focuses more on the international context. The advanced national capitalist models are of interest insofar as they bring forward
the transnational and international creation of hegemony (Cox 1987). Third, the theories are similar to one another in their view of societal conflicts. For both, the character
of social conflicts is mainly but not exhaustively defined through the contradictions of
capitalist accumulation, i.e. the relationship between capital and labour. In this sense,
other relations of power and dominance, including differences in gender or ethnicity,
have a constitutive meaning for the process of capitalist accumulation as they affect the
capital-labour relation, as well as for hegemonic struggles, because gender or ethnic

Downloaded from cnc.sagepub.com at UNLP on December 11, 2014

Bieling

39

groups could specifically articulate themselves in support of concrete political projects in

the arenas of civil society.
The outlined similarities, or at least the complementary viewpoints, make it possible
to correct the deficits in regulation theory with the help of neo-Gramscian IPE. The latter can especially attenuate the implicit functionalism and problem-solving bias in the
regulation theory perspective, because it accentuates societal contradictions, distributional conflicts, and hegemonic struggles. Beyond that, neo-Gramscian IPE provides a
theoretical component, with its concept of a transnational historical bloc, that can help
to correct the regulationist fixation on the nation-state. This is not meant to allege that
the perception of specific national capitalist development models is obsolete because
they do not merge with one another at the international level. However, it points out
that national models of development are shaped by international and transnational societal links which are constituted by trade, production and credit relations, their institutional and legal embedding, and manifold discussions and cooperative arrangements in
transnational civil society (Beckmann etal. 2003).
The national capitalist models are exposed to external influences to the extent that
they reproduce themselves through regional and global integration dynamics (e.g. see
Bieler [2012] on the differences between small European countries). In this sense, neoGramscian IPE on the one hand refers to overreaching processes, but on the other hand
also considers the continuing existence of specific national paths of capitalist development. Considering these specific paths of development, one can ideally differentiate
between the liberal-oriented states of the Lockean heartland and the so-called Hobbesian
contender states (van der Pijl 2006: 6) or between hyper-liberal forms of state and
state-capitalist organisation models (Cox 1987: 286). Within the ideal-typical differentiation, the organisation patterns of given capitalist models are empirically specified. The
actual variances between capitalist paths of development, however, can conceptually only
be insufficiently analysed. This opens the possibility not only that regulation theory
concepts can be expanded through neo-Gramscianism, but also that neo-Gramscian IPE
can be supported with regulation theory. On the one hand, the conception of the accumulation regime sharpens the view of macroeconomic regularities and the corresponding
forms of economic-political, financial-political and monetary-political regulation. On
the other hand, the concept of the mode of regulation is suitable for analysing the specific institutional qualities of transnationally moulded, yet still nationally particularly
implemented reorganisation processes.

Conclusion and perspectives

The ideas developed in this paper should have made clear that a partially reformulated
regulationist perspective extended by neo-Gramscian IPE can help to overcome the deficits in the comparative analysis of capitalism left by the post-VoC discussion. The institutionally biased, often rather static and methodologically nationalist comparative
analysis can be corrected in several ways: through the analysis of the material, discursive
and institutional relations of power and dominance; through a double comparative perspective that focuses on societal contradictions, crises and conflicts as well as on processes
of change and transformation not only in space but also in time; and through

Downloaded from cnc.sagepub.com at UNLP on December 11, 2014

40

Capital & Class 38(1)

consideration of supranational and transnational dynamics that increasingly structure

and reshape the development and characteristics of national models. These all help to
make comparative analysis of capitalism more dynamic, and to contextualise it in international and societal terms.
The last of those aspects as listed above includes bringing issues and concepts critical
of dominance and capitalism back into the discussion. However, the critical expansion
and increase in complexity of the analytical perspective also brings new problems. These
arise not least from the holistic analytical perspective, which at best gives a rough guidance for how the characteristic features and interaction patterns between economics,
politics and society, as well as the implicit power structures, can be empirically unscrambled. This is worsened by the elasticity of Gramscian categories; but nevertheless, this
elasticity may possibly help to resolve the problems at the same time. For eventually, the
elasticity clarifies the fact that Gramscian categories almost always need a contextdependent specification and operationalisation with respect to the concrete object of
study. How this might be done in the context of European integration has been shown
to some extent through comparative analyses of industrial relations, labour markets, and
welfare states or public infrastructure (see Beckmann 2007; Bieling & Deppe 1997;
Bieling etal. 2008).
However, up until now the attempts to implement a regulationist perspective extended
by neo-Gramscian IPE in practical research have exhibited some difficulties. While the
supranational and transnational influences on national models of capitalism can be
explored relatively well as long as they concern economic, institutional, or legal processes, the discursive-ideological and more sociological aspects of power and authority,
i.e. the central aspects of neo-Gramscian analysis, have proved to be more difficult to
investigate empirically. Depending on the object of study and question, these difficulties
are sometimes rather substantial. Eventually, however, for all those interested in a contemporary critical and comparative analysis of capitalism, there is no other option but to
search for ways with which to overcome them.
Acknowledgements
A previous, German-language version of this article entitled Vergleichende Kapitalismusanalyse
aus der Perspektive einer neo-gramscianisch erweiterten Regulationstheorie was published in
Bruff I, Ebenau M, May C, Nlke A (eds.) (2013) Vergleichende Kapitalismusforschung: Stand,
Perspektiven, Kritik (Mnster: Westflisches Dampfboot). In revising an earlier draft, I have had
the benefit of comments from the editors, particularly from Ian Bruff.

References
Aglietta M (2000) A Theory of Capitalist Regulation: The US Experience (new ed.). London: Verso.
Aglietta M etal. (2002) Umbau der Mrkte. Akkumulation Finanzkapital Soziale Krfte.
Hamburg: VSA.
Albert M (1992) Kapitalismus contra Kapitalismus. Frankfurt: Campus.
Amable B (2003) The Diversity of Modern Capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Becker J (2009) Regulationstheorie. In Becker J, Grisold A, Mikl-Horke G, Pirker R,
Rauchenschwandtner H, Schwank O, Springler E, Stockhammer E (eds.) Heterodoxe
konomie. Marburg: Metropolis.

Downloaded from cnc.sagepub.com at UNLP on December 11, 2014

Bieling

41

Becker J, Jger J (2013) Regulationstheorie und Vergleichende Kapitalismusforschung: Die

Europische Union in der Wirtschaftskrise. In Bruff I, Ebenau M, May C, Nlke A (eds.)
Vergleichende Kapitalismusforschung: Stand, Perspektiven, Kritik. Mnster: Westflisches
Dampfboot.
Becker U (2007) Open systemness and contested reference frames and change: A reformulation of
the varieties of capitalism theory. Socio-Economic Review 5(2): 26186.
Beckmann M (2007) Das Finanzkapital in der Transformation der europischen konomie.
Mnster: Westflisches Dampfboot.
Beckmann M, Bieling H-J, Deppe F (2003) Euro-Kapitalismus: begriffliche Provokation oder
heuristische Analysekonzeption? In Beckmann M, Bieling H-J, Deppe F (eds.) EuroKapitalismus und globale politische konomie. Hamburg: VSA-Verlag.
Bellofiore R, Garibaldo F, Halevi J (2011) The Great Recession and the contradictions of
European neomercantilism. In Panitch L, Albo G, Chibber V (eds.) Socialist Register 2011.
The Crisis This Time. London: Merlin Press.
Bieler A (2012) Small Nordic countries and globalisation: Analysing Norwegian exceptionalism.
Competition & Change 16(3): 22442.
Bieler A, Morton AD (2006) Neo-Gramscianische Perspektiven. In Schieder S, Spindler M (eds.)
Theorien der Internationalen Beziehungen (2nd ed.). Opladen: UTB.
Bieling H-J (2010) Konturen und Perspektiven einer europischen Zivilgesellschaft. In Wienand
J, Wienand C (eds.) Die kulturelle Integration Europas. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.
Bieling H-J (2011) Integraler Staat und Globalisierung. In Opratko B, Prausmller O (eds.)
Gramsci global. Neogramscianische Perspektiven in der Internationalen Politischen konomie.
Hamburg; Berlin: Argument Verlag.
Bieling H-J, Deckwirth C, Schmalz S (eds.) (2008) Liberalisierung und Privatisierung in Europa.
Die Reorganisation der ffentlichen Infrastruktur in der Europischen Union. Mnster:
Westflisches Dampfboot.
Bieling H-J, Deppe F (1996a) Gramscianismus in der Internationalen Politischen konomie. Das
Argument 38(5/6): 72940.
Bieling H-J, Deppe F (1996b) Internationalisierung, Integration und Regulierung. In Jachtenfuchs
M, Kohler-Koch B (eds.) Europische Integration. Opladen: Leske & Budrich.
Bieling H-J, Deppe F (eds.) (1997) Arbeitslosigkeit und Wohlfahrtsstaat in Westeuropa. Neun Lnder
im Vergleich. Opladen: Leske & Budrich.
Bohle D, Greskovits B (2009) Varieties of capitalism and capitalism tout court. In European
Journal of Sociology 50(3): 35586.
Boyer R (2005) How and why capitalisms differ. Economy and Society 34(4): 50957.
Brand U, Raza W (eds.) (2003) Fit fr den Postfordismus? Theoretisch-politische Perspektiven des
Regulationsansatzes. Mnster: Westflisches Dampfboot.
Bruff I (2011) What about the elephant in the room? Varieties of capitalism, varieties in capitalism. New Political Economy 16(4): 481500.
Cox RW (1981) Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond International Relations theory.
Millennium 10(2): 12655.
Cox RW (1983) Gramsci, hegemony and international relations: An essay in method. Millennium
12(2): 16275.
Cox RW (1987) Production, Power, and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Dannreuther C, Petit P (2013) Special issue on the regulation approach and the contemporary
crisis. Capital & Class 37(1).
Deeg R, Jackson G (2007) Towards a more dynamic theory of capitalist diversity. Socio-Economic
Review 5(1): 14979.

Downloaded from cnc.sagepub.com at UNLP on December 11, 2014

42

Capital & Class 38(1)

Fulcher J (2007) Kapitalismus. Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam.

Gill S (2002) Constitutionalizing inequality and the clash of globalizations. International Studies
Review 4(2): 4765.
Gill S (2003) Power and Resistance in the New World Order. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Grahl J, Teague P (2000) The Regulation School, the employment relation and financialization.
Economy and Society 29(1): 16078.
Gramsci A (1991) Gefngnishefte. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Hamburg: Argument-Verlag.
Hall PA (1993) Policy paradigms, social learning and the state. Comparative Politics 25(3):
27596.
Hall PA (2006) Stabilitt und Wandel in den Spielarten des Kapitalismus. In Beckert J etal. (eds.)
Transformationen des Kapitalismus. Frankfurt: Campus.
Hall PA, Soskice D (2001) An introduction to varieties of capitalism. In Hall PA, Soskice D
(eds) Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Hall PA, Thelen K (2009) Institutional change in varieties of capitalism. Socio-Economic Review
7(1): 734.
Hanck B, Rhodes M, Thatcher M (2007) Introduction: Beyond varieties of capitalism. In Hanck
B, Rhodes M, Thatcher M (eds.) Beyond Varieties of Capitalism: Conflict, Contradictions, and
Complementarities in the European Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jessop B (2013) Der Weltmarkt und die Reproduktion von Akkumulationsregimen in der
Vergleichenden Kapitalismusforschung: Variegierter Kapitalismus statt Spielarten des
Kapitalismus. In Bruff I, Ebenau M, May C, Nlke A (eds.) Vergleichende Kapitalismusforschung:
Stand, Perspektiven, Kritik. Mnster: Westflisches Dampfboot.
Kang N (2006) A critique of the Varieties of Capitalism approach. International Centre
for Corporate Social Responsibility Research Paper Series, 45. Nottingham: University of
Nottingham.
Lipietz A (1985) Akkumulation, Krisen und Auswege aus der Krise: Einige methodische
berlegungen zum Begriff Regulation. Prokla 15(1): 10937.
Lipietz A (1992) Towards a New Economic Order: Postfordism, Ecology, and Democracy. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Ltz S (2006) Governance in der politischen konomie. In Ltz S (ed.) Governance in der politischen
konomie. Struktur und Wandel des modernen Kapitalismus. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.
May C, Nlke A (2013) Kritischer Institutionalismus in der Vergleichenden Kapitalismusforschung:
Konzeptionelle berlegungen und Forschungsprogramm. In Bruff I, Ebenau M, May C,
Nlke A (eds.) Vergleichende Kapitalismusforschung: Stand, Perspektiven, Kritik. Mnster:
Westflisches Dampfboot.
Morton AD (2010) The continuum of passive revolution. Capital & Class 34(3): 31542.
Peck J, Theodore N (2007) Variegated capitalism. Progress in Human Geography 31(6): 73172.
van der Pijl K (2006) Global Rivalries: From the Cold War to Iraq. London: Pluto Press.
Polanyi K (1977) The Great Transformation. Politische und konomische Ursprnge von Gesellschaften
und Wirtschaftssystemen. Wien: Europa Verlag.
Poulantzas N (1975) Klassen im Kapitalismus heute. Berlin: VSA.
Overbeek H (2004) Transnational class formation and concepts of control: Towards a genealogy of the Amsterdam Project in international political economy. Journal of International
Relations and Development 7(2): 11341.
Radice H (2000) Globalization and national capitalisms: Theorizing convergence and differentiation. Review of International Political Economy 7(4): 71942.
Streeck W (2010) E Pluribus Unum? Varieties and commonalities of capitalism. MPIfG Discussion
Paper 10/12. Cologne: Max-Planck-Institut fr Gesellschaftsforschung.

Downloaded from cnc.sagepub.com at UNLP on December 11, 2014

Bieling

43

Wagner I, Lillie N (2013) Institutionalismus und rumliche Desintegration in der Vergleichenden

Kapitalismusforschung: Arbeitsbeziehungen an der EZB-Baustelle Frankfurt. In Bruff I,
Ebenau M, May C, Nlke A (eds.) Vergleichende Kapitalismusforschung: Stand, Perspektiven,
Kritik. Mnster: Westflisches Dampfboot.

Author biography
Hans-Jrgen Bieling is a professor of political economy and economic didactics at the Department
of Political Science, Eberhard Karls University Tbingen, Germany. His recent publications
include Theorien der Europischen Integration, 3rd ed. (VS 2012, as co-editor), Internationale
Politische konomie. Eine Einfhrung 2nd ed. (VS 2011), and Die Globalisierungs-und
Weltordnungspolitik der Europischen Union (VS 2010).

Downloaded from cnc.sagepub.com at UNLP on December 11, 2014