In Boyer’s theory (2004), which is grounded in modes of regulation, there is a distinction made among four variants of advanced capitalism: “market” economies, exemplified by the United States; “meso-corporatist” systems, as seen in Japan; “public/integration” models, typified by France; and “social democratic” arrangements, characteristic of the Scandinavian countries. Each of these models represents a unique approach to economic organization and governance, with varying degrees of reliance on market forces, corporate structures, public intervention, and social welfare policies.
In the context of Boyer’s framework, the “market” model underscores the primacy of free-market mechanisms, where individual actors largely determine economic outcomes, with minimal interference from the state. Contrastingly, the “meso-corporatist” model involves closer collaboration between government, corporations, and other societal actors to steer economic activities and mitigate market failures. France’s “public/integration” model emphasizes public intervention and regulation to foster economic cohesion and social integration, often through extensive welfare programs and state involvement in key sectors.
Conversely, the “social democratic” model, epitomized by the Scandinavian countries, emphasizes a strong welfare state, progressive taxation, and extensive social benefits aimed at reducing inequality and ensuring social welfare for all citizens. These four models offer different visions of how capitalism can be structured and regulated to achieve economic stability, social equity, and overall prosperity. Understanding these models provides valuable insights into the diverse approaches to capitalism and their implications for socioeconomic outcomes globally.
(Response: The four models of capitalism according to Boyer’s theory (2004) are: “market,” “meso-corporatist,” “public/integration,” and “social democratic.”)