Convergence hypothesis revisited (the): globalization but still the century of nations ?

Abstract

The paper distinguishes among three definitions for convergence: economic convergence, analogous systems combining democracy and markets, convergence in institutional forms and regulation modes. A survey of comparative long-term growth shows that convergence is not a permanent nor universal phenomenon, since it is restricted to a small set of countries, mainly after world war II. Similarly, even if the Fordist development mode has diffused after WWII, most institutional forms, and specially the capital labour relations continue to exhibit specific national idiosyncrasies. For instance, the decline of unions is not at all universal. Thus, the convergence theory is reassessed by a close examination of the possible mechanisms involved : most of them are uncertain and slow to operate. Basically, the idea of a one and unique best way should be replaced by a variety of punctuated equilibria, which take into account local specificities. The present phase of European integration clearly shows that convergence is not at all an automatic and simple process. We are still in the epoch of nations. UNE REEVALUATION DES THEORIES DE LA CONVERGENCE : GLOBALISATION MAIS TOUJOURS LE TEMPS DES NATIONS ? Robert BOYER

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 166 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.