Definition

If we consider how corporatism has taken shape over the years, historical experience is more relevant than any theoretical foundations. During the course of its history, scholars of economics have spoken of several instances of corporatism, largely different and often labelled with different names.

The Latin word corpora refers to groups that are legally recognised, but it can also be interpreted more broadly. For instance, the term also encompasses the “vital” nature of these groups and hints at their “biological” structure, which is made up of various articu­lated functions and parts that are inextricably connected. We can thus define corporat­ism as a series of actions related to an economic policy which is not necessarily supported by an articulated theory. By means of the establishment of economic institutions, these actions aim to direct economic factors according to precise objectives that have been acknowledged by groups of varying sizes.

The word “corporatism”, however, is frequently used in different ways. For instance, an act that pursues limited interests connected to a single group is invariably considered to be corporatist. The lexical origin of the word seems to indicate that any act follows the general interest of a number of groups, but we argue that there is no contradiction between these two apparently contrasting uses. Corporatism is indeed an attempt to pursue general aims by means of supporting some more limited interests and is not simply a fight between public versus private interest.

The essence of corporatism may be found in the method used (that is, an alteration of the natural dynamics of economic processes) and not the purpose, which can change according to the situation. Corporatism may support and “drive” ethical rather than economic, political or social values, but in any case it will be identified as such by the means employed to achieve the aim. Furthermore, it should be noted that corporatism is neither merely a set of pure options nor just a type of behaviour associated with the ruling classes (collectively or otherwise). Corporatism requires institutions and laws to

be defined as such. Many aspects of corporatism are listed by Siaroff (1999: 177-9) in order to rate the current level of corporatism. These structures are largely adopted as a temporary solution to an economic crisis, but severely limit economic freedom and market dynamics (Hayek 2004).

There are three different versions of corporatism, two traditional and one which is perhaps less well known but equally significant. (1) Ethical corporatism - the purpose of this is to pursue ethical objectives (for example, religious goals). To some extent any cor­poratism is grounded on an ethical basis, but in some cases ethical purposes are clearly predominant. Medieval corporatism and the Christian social doctrine are the forerunners of this kind of corporatism. (2) Political corporatism - this was popular in Italy, France and Germany in the 1930s, and there are more recent examples in Scandinavia and the United Kingdom after the Second World War (Siaroff 1999: 184-5, tables 2 and 3). Its objective is political and the aim is to achieve greater control over political processes and consensus. (3) Economic corporatism - here the aim is to achieve certain economic goals (public/private wealth, production, prices, salary). Known as neo-corporatism, it is often the primary objective of a country. It is the most frequent and recent type of corporatism and is mainly the result of the introduction of laws or measures (for example, privatisa­tion), which have been presented as being of general interest. In effect it refers to certain influencing groups pursuing their own interests.

These three versions of corporatism are invariably intertwined since it is not always easy to identify the prevailing goals of corporatist economic choices. We may also argue that corporatism (as it aims to pursue collective interests through limited groups) is in itself contradictory and may often be the source of additional problems. This is the case for some countries, for example, which, with the purpose of achieving certain economic goals, potentially supported the interests of some influencing groups without these being explicitly endorsed by the population.