Contemporary Corporatism
Starting from the 1950s, what, historically speaking, had been defined as pure corporatism was completely dismissed after the fall of the political regimes that had endorsed it.
However, this was precisely the moment that social corporatism became extremely widespread and there is evidence of this in many seminal contributions (for example, Schmitter 1974; Alesina and Perotti 1997; Siaroff 1999; Hicks and Lane 2003). This renewed interest in corporatism - at least in its “social” version - proves that corporatism itself cannot be limited to a certain period or to the ideology of certain authoritarian nations. Moreover, there has been a conceptual development, which, according to its keenest representatives, goes so far as to identify corporatism with capitalism itself in its most recent forms (Siaroff 1999: 183-7). Therefore, we consider the term “neocorporatism” to be inadequate and incomplete for the many corporatist structures that emerged in a number of countries in the post war period. This would mean disregarding the historical continuity and adaptability of corporatism, that is, its most significant characteristic.Let us briefly examine the case of one country in particular. Germany (that is, initially West Germany and then the whole of Germany after 1989) deserves attention not only for its high degree of corporatism but also for its extraordinary economic performance. Wolfgang Streeck (1983) emphasised the significance of the relationship between the government and certain important German associations such as the Deutscher Industrie- und Handelskammertag (DIHT), the Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie (BDI) and the Zentralverband des Deutschen Handwerks (ZDH). These associations safeguarded their members’ interests and thus played an important role in terms of defining economic policies and obtaining juridical, self-regulating acknowledgement from the state.
The structure of the German economy probably went well beyond the balanced dynamics of the Soziale Marktwirtschaft and demonstrated a propensity for corporatism. Likewise, there are a number of other very similar empirical studies related to many economically developed countries.In a broader perspective, note that economic growth in the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s was supported in many developed countries by corporatist policies of a social democratic kind (Hicks 1988). This was so much so that some studies (for example, Alesina and Perotti 1997) demonstrated that welfare policies had significantly distorted competitiveness, particularly as far as taxes for redistribution and the role of trade unions were concerned.
Remarkable results derive from an empirical analysis of the rate of corporatism. A study carried out on 24 industrialised countries (Siaroff 1999) identified 22 factors, which affect the level of corporatisation in a country’s economy. These factors can be divided into four main groups relating to: (1) structure; (2) roles performed; (3) behavioural structures and (4) environment/conditions. As far as structures are concerned, examples of corporatism can be found in a high level of union participation, a relatively small number of unions, an entrepreneurial community dominated by large companies specialised in exports and highly centralised wage bargaining. We might also consider: the crucial role of both entrepreneurs and workers cooperating in programmes regarding education, training and social commitment; consensus reached between unions and companies; a low rate of strikes; voluntary or consenting policies regarding wage restraints; low military expenditure; an effort to achieve consensus by means of pacts rather than a majority vote and, finally, a high level of social expenditure along with successful economic performance. In more general terms, it is quite possible to assess the degree of corporatism in each individual country, measuring it in terms of the degree of deviation from the pure dynamics of a free market. Surprisingly, in this way, it becomes clear that nearly all developed countries have implemented varying degrees of corporatist policies. Corporatism was and still is vital. Since the beginning of the twenty-first century it seems to have paradoxically become not so much a third option, but rather to represent the most developed and adopted form of Western capitalism (Hicks and Kenworthy 2003; Streeck 2010).
Sergio Noτo