Contents
Ⅰ Economic Globalization
Ⅱ Convergence Theory, Divergence Theory and Theory of Convergence
within Diversity
Ⅲ Critical Comments on Convergence Theory
Ⅳ Concluding Remarks The purpose of this essay is to survey convergence-controversy over
capitalism in the international political economy and to add critical comments
on the convergence theory from author’s standpoint of comparative
economic systems.
Studies of convergence towards the Anglo-American model of capitalism have been one of the central themes of international political economy
over the past twenty years. Susan Strange, a pioneer of new international political economy in the 1970 s, suggested that different national
models of capitalism would increasingly come close to the Anglo-American model.
Contrary to this convergence theory, various negative or skeptical views have been argued by many researchers engaged in comparative
capitalism study. In author’s opinion, these views are classified broadly
into two groups. The first one is the divergence theory. It insists that Rhenish, Scandinavian and Asian models of capitalism are not converging
towards the Anglo-American model, but they still coexist unchangeably.
The second one is the intermediate theory between the above-said
two theories, such as the theory of convergence within diversity. M.
Paunescu, M. Schneider and D. Liebmann verify quantitatively and qualitatively based on much statistical data that indeed some countries of coordinated
market economy (Sweden, Finland and Denmark etc.) shifted towards
the Anglo-American liberal market economy during the 1990 s, but
there were not any model-shifts in the other countries of coordinated market
economy (German, France and Belgium etc.) and in the countries of
Mediterranean market economy (Spain, Italia etc.).
According to author’s view, who takes a middle position, the convergence theory tends to argue at a highly general and abstract level, and
so its persuasive ability is very weak, because it lacks almost concrete
empirical verification based on quantitative statistical data. So it could
not refute the above-mentioned Paunescu and others’ counterevidence.
引用
彦根論叢, 第382号, pp. 157-175
The Hikone Ronso, No.382, pp. 157-175
国際政治経済学における資本主義収斂論争（成瀬龍夫博士退職記念論文集）
382 fukuda.pdf
(387.79KB)
