Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T19:53:38.465Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Political Origins of Coordinated Capitalism: Business Organizations, Party Systems, and State Structure in the Age of Innocence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2008

CATHIE JO MARTIN  and
DUANE SWANK
CATHIE JO MARTIN*
Affiliation:
Boston University
DUANE SWANK*
Affiliation:
Marquette University
*
Cathie Jo Martin is Professor of Political Science, Boston University, 232 Bay State Road, Boston, MA 02215 (cjmartin@bu.edu).
Duane Swank is Professor of Political Science, Marquette University, PO Box 1881, Milwaukee, WI (duane.swank@marquette.edu).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper investigates the political determinants of corporatist and pluralist employers' associations and reflects on the origins of the varieties of capitalism in the early decades of the 20th century. We hypothesize that proportional, multiparty systems tend to enable employers' associations to develop into social corporatist organizations, whereas nonproportional, two-party systems are conducive to the formation of pluralist associations. Moreover, we suggest that federalism tends to reinforce incentives for pluralist organization. We assess our hypotheses through quantitative analysis of data from 1900 to the 1930s from 16 nations and case studies of the origins of peak employers' associations in Denmark and the United States. Our statistical analysis suggests that proportional, multiparty systems foster, and federalism works against, social corporatist business organization; employers' organization is also greater where the mobilization of labor, traditions of coordination, and economic development are higher. These factors also largely explain pre-World War II patterns of national coordination of capitalism. Case histories of the origins of employers' associations in Denmark and the United States further confirm the causal importance of political factors. Although Danish and American employers had similar interests in creating cooperative national industrial policies, trajectories of associational development were constrained by the structure of party competition, as well as by preindustrial traditions for coordination.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 102 , Issue 2 , May 2008 , pp. 181 - 198
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Agerholm, Sophus, and Vigen, Anders. 1921. Arbejdsgiver Foreningen Gennem 25 Aar, 1896–1921.Google Scholar
Amorin, Octavio, and Coz, Gary. 1997. “Electoral Institutions, Cleavage Structures, and Number of Parties.” American Political Science Review 41: 149–74.Google Scholar
Atlanta Constitution, assorted articles, 1895.Google Scholar
Arbejdsgiver Foreningen Gennem 50 Aar. 1896–1946. Copenhagen: Langkjærs Bogtrykkeri, 1946.Google Scholar
Bacote, Clarence. 1959. “Negro Officeholders in Georgia under President McKinley.” The Journal of Negro History 44 (3 July): 217–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartolini, Stefano. 2000. The Political Mobilization of the European Left, 1860-1980. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bensel, Richard. 2000. The Political Economy of American Industrialization. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Berk, Gerald. 1994. Alternative Tracks. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bindslev, Alfred. 1937–38. Konservatismens Historie i Danmark. Bd. 2–3.Google Scholar
Blank, Stephen. 1973. Industry and Government in Britain. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Buck, Col AF letter to McKinley. January 8, 1896. McKinley Papers. Series 2 V87-P90.Google Scholar
Bureau of Labor, 1911. Industrial Education. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Chhibber, Pradeep, and Kollman, Ken 2004. The Formation of National Party Systems. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Close, David. 1973. “Conservatives and Coalition after the First World War.” Journal of Modern History 45 (2 June): 240–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colman, William D. 1987. “Federalism and Interest Group Organization,” In Federalism and the Role of the State, ed. Bakvis, Herman and Chandler, William M.. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 171–87.Google Scholar
Croly, Herbert. 1912. Marcus Alonzo Hanna. New York: The Macmillan Co, 184.Google Scholar
Crouch, Colin. 1993. Industrial Relations and European State Traditions. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cusack, Thomas, Iversen, Torben, and Soskice, David. 2007. “Economic Interests and the Origins of Electoral Institutions.” American Political Science Review 101 (August).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daadler, Hans. 1966. “Parties, Elites and Political Development in Western Europe.” pp. 43–77 In Political Parties and Political Development, ed. LaPalombara, Joseph and Weiner, Myron. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Davenport-Hines, R.P.T. 1988. “The Modernization Crisis of British Industry.” In Trade Associations in Business History, ed. Yamazuki, Hiroaki and Miyamoto, Matuo. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 205–26. “Delegates Got Down to Business.” Cincinnati Enquirer (1/24/1895), p. 8.Google Scholar
“Dixie the Toast,” Atlanta Constitution (January 28, 1895), 7.Google Scholar
Dobbin, Frank. 1992. “The Origins of Private Social Insurance.” American Journal of Sociology 997: 1416–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Due, Jesper and Madsen, Jørgen Steen. 2000 “Hvorfor er den danske aftale model anderledes en den Svenske?” FAOS Forskningsnotat, No. 26 (January).Google Scholar
Due, Jesper, Madsen, Jørgen Steen, Jensen, Carsten Strøby, Petersen, Lars Kjerulf. 1994. The Survival of the Danish Model. Copenhagen: DJOEF Publishing.Google Scholar
Duverger, Maurice 1954. Political Parties, their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Dybdahl, Vagn. 1969. Partier og Erhverv. Aarhus, Denmark: Universitets Forlaget i Aarhus.Google Scholar
Friis, Henning. 1969. “Issues in Social Security Policies in Denmark.” In Social Security in International Perspective, ed. Jenkins, Shirley. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Gable, Richard. “Birth of an Employers' Association.” Business History Review 33 (4): 535–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galenson, Walter. 1952. The Danish System of Labor Relations Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, Michael. 1991. “Proportionality, Disproportionality and Electoral Systems.” Electoral Studies 10 (1): 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garon, Sheldon. 1987. The State and Labor in Modern Japan. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garst, Daniel. 1999. “From Sectoral Linkages to Class Conflict.” Comparative Political Studies 32 (7 October): 788–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gourevitch, Peter. 1986. Politics in Hard Times. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Peter, and Soskice, David. 2001. Varieties of Capitalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Hal. 1997. Caps and Gowns: Historical Reflections on the Institutions That Shaped Learning for and at Work in Germany and the United States. University of Wisconsin, Unpublished Dissertation.Google Scholar
Hartz, Louis. 1955. The Liberal Tradition in America. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Hawley, Ellis 1966. The New Deal and the Problem of Monopoly, Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“A High-Tariff Republican President,” New York Times (January 25, 1895), 1.Google Scholar
“Home Interests and Foreign Trade,” American Statesman II (12 3/15/1899): 92.Google Scholar
Hounshell, David Allen 1978. From the American System to Mass Production. University of Delaware unpublished dissertation.Google Scholar
Huber, Evelyn, Ragin, Charles, and Stephens, John. 1993. “Social Democracy, Christian Democracy, Constitutional Structure and the Welfare State,” American Journal of Sociology 99 (3): 711–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyldtoft, Ole, Danmarks Økonomiske historie 1840-1910 (Aarhus 1999), Chapters 13–14.Google Scholar
“It's President Dolan,” Cincinnati Commercial Gazette (January 25, 1895), 1.Google Scholar
Iversen, Torben. 2005 Capitalism, Democracy and Welfare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iversen, Torben, and Soskice, David. No date. “Distribution and Redistribution: In the Shadow of the Nineteenth-Century.” Typescript, Department of Government, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter 1985. Small States in World Markets. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
King, Desmond. 2005. The Liberty of Strangers: Making the American Nation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Knudsen, Tim, 1991 “State Building in Scandinavia.” In Knudsen eds. Welfare Administration in Denmark, ed. Knudsen, Tim. Copenhagen: Publikationscentralen.Google Scholar
Labour Research Department. 1923. The Federation of British Industries. London: Labour Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Lawson, Kay, and Merkl, Peter. 1988. When Parties Fail. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, Daniel. 1978, “Conservatism and Tradition in Danish Social Welfare Legislation, 1890-1933.” Comparative Studies 20 (1 January): 54–69.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Rokkan, Stein, eds. 1967. “Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments.” Party Systems and Voter Alignments. New York: Free Press, 488–509.Google Scholar
Lowe, Rodney. 1978. “The Failure on Consensus in Britain: The National Industrial Conference.” The Historical Journal 21 (3 September): 649–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynn, Leonoard, and McKeown, Timothy. 1988. Organizing Business: Trade Associations in America and Japan. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
“Manufacturers Cheer for McKinley,” New York Times (1/22/1896), 1.Google Scholar
“Manufacturers in Convention,” Atlanta Constitution, 1/24/1895, 2.Google Scholar
William, McKinley to JF Hanson. Letter. February 27, 1896. McKinley Papers. Series 2 V87-P90.Google Scholar
“M'Kinley's Tour,” Macon Telegraph (March 27, 1895), 1.Google Scholar
Martin, Cathie J. 1991. Shifting the Burden. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Cathie Jo. 1994. “Business and the New Economic Activism.” Polity (Fall 1994).Google Scholar
Martin, Cathie Jo. 1995. “Nature or Nurture? Sources of Firm Preferences for National Health Care Reform.” American Political Science Review 89 (December): 898–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Cathie Jo. 2000. Stuck in Neutral. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Cathie Jo, and Swank, Duane 2004. “Does the Organization of Capital Matter?” American Political Science Review 98 (4): 593–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Cathie J. 2006. “Sectional Parties, Divided Business.” Studies in American Political Development, 20 (2 Fall).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDougall, Thomas. 1896. “The Home Market,” Proceedings of the First Annual Convention of the National Association of Manufacturers of the United States. Chicago (January 21, 22 and 23), 3–8.Google Scholar
McKinley, William. Letter to Col. JF Hanson. February 27, 1896. McKinley Papers. Series 2 V87–P90.Google Scholar
McKinley, William. Letter to RE Wright. January 4, 1896. McKinley Papers. Series 2 V87–P90.Google Scholar
“Metropolitan Cash Used for M'Kinley,” New York Times (April 4, 1908).Google Scholar
Milkis, Sidney. Forthcoming. The Progressive Party Campaign of 1912 and the Birth of Modern American Politics Kansas University Press.Google Scholar
Møller, Iver Hornemann. 1994. Velfaerdsstatens udbygning. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
“Mr. Blaine's ‘Deadly Stab,”’ New York Times (December 26, 1890), 4.Google Scholar
NAM, “Advice from the South” National Industrial Review II (6 July 1895), p. 154.Google Scholar
NAM. 1896. Proceedings of the First Annual Convention of the National Association of Manufacturers of the United States. Chicago (January 21, 22 and 23).Google Scholar
NAM. 1902. Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Convention of the National Association of Manufacturers of the United States (New York: NAM Bureau of Publicity, April 15, 16, and 17).Google Scholar
NAM. 1926. “Reports of Officers.” Proceedings of the Thirty-first Annual Convention of the National Association of Manufacturers of the United States of America (New York: NAM).Google Scholar
“The National Association of Manufacturers and other Organizations.” American Trade II (19) (7/1/1899): 148.Google Scholar
The National Industrial Review II (6 July 1895): 148. (no title.)Google Scholar
The National Industrial Review I (4 May 1895). (no title).Google Scholar
“A Ninth Cabinet Member: A Contingent Offer Made.” New York Times (2-23-1897): 1.Google Scholar
Olcott, Charles. 1916. William McKinley Vol. 1. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 213.Google Scholar
Olson, Mancur 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Østergård, Uffe. 1992. “Peasant and Danes,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 34 (1 January): 5–31.Google Scholar
WM Osborne letter to McKinley, McKinley Papers Series 1, Reel 1 “1847 Sept 6 1987 Feb 22.”Google Scholar
Piore, Michael, and Sabel, Charels. 1984. The Second Industrial Divide. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D.Making Democracy Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
“Remarkable Works for Cincinnati,” Nation's Business 1 (2) (9/23/1912): 3.Google Scholar
Schneider, Ben Ross. 2004. Business Politics and the State in Twentieth-Century Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Search, Theodore. 1901. “President's Report,” Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Convention of the National Association of Manufacturers. New York: NAM Bureau of Publicity, p. 23–24.Google Scholar
Search, Theodore. 1902, “Annual Report of the President,” Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Convention of the National Association of Manufacturers of the United States. New York: NAM Bureau of Publicity, April 15, 16, and 17, 1902, p. 15.Google Scholar
Search, Theodore. 1898. “To the Executive Committee and Members of the National Association of Manufacturers.” Proceedings of the Third Annual Convention of the National Association of Manufacturers. New York: NAM Bureau of Publicity, January 25, 26, 27), 3–32, 13–14.Google Scholar
“Shall Quay Rule or Not,” New York Times (September 7, 1890), 1.Google Scholar
Shefter, Martin. 1896. “Trade Unions and Political Machines.” In Working Class Formation, ed. Katznelson, Ira and Zolberg, Aristide. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Stephens, John. 1979. The Transition from Capitalism to Socialism. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steigerwalt, Albert. 1964. The National Association of Manufacturers 1895–1914. Grand Rapids, MI: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Steinmo, Sven. 1993. Taxation and Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Swank, Duane. 2002. Global Capital, Political Institutions and Policy Change in Developed Welfare States. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swank, Duane, and Martin, Cathie Jo. 2001. “Employers and the Welfare State.” Comparative Political Studies 34 (October): 889–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swenson, Peter. 2002. Capitalists against Markets. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tedlow, Richard. 1988. “Trade Association and Public Relations,” In Trade Associations in Business History, ed. Yamazuki, Hiroaki and Miyamoto, Matuo. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 139–72.Google Scholar
“They Welcomed M'Kinley,” Macon Telegraph (March 18, 1895), p. 1.Google Scholar
Thelen, Kathleen. 2004. How Institutions Evolve. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolliday, Steven, and Zeitlin, Jonathan 1991. The Power to Manage. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
EP, Wilson, “The Cincinnati Convention,” American Trade II (5 12/1/1898): 1.Google Scholar
“Tomorrow in Odd Fellow's Temple.” Cincinnati Enquirer (January 21, 1895, p. 8).Google Scholar
Torcal, M., and Mainwaring, Scott. 2003. “The Political Recrafting of Social Bases of Party Competition,” British Journal of Political Science 33 (January): 55–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United States Department of Commerce, 1961. “Foreign Trade and Other International Transactions.” Historical Statistics of the United States. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Weinstein, James. 1968. The Corporate Ideal in the Liberal State, 1900-1918. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Werking, Richard. 1977. The Master Architects. (Lexington KT: University of Kentucky).Google Scholar
Windmuller, John, and Gladstone, Alan, eds. 1984. Employers Associations and Industrial Relations. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar