THE COMPLEXITY OF CORPORATISM AND DIFFICULTIES FOR ITS UNDERSTANDING AND DEFINING

Novak Gajić

Abstract

Corporatism is a complex political phenomenon, long-lasting, highly diverse, and with many shapes and facets. This complexity causes various difficulties in its understanding and defining, as well as various approaches to it. This article compares six distinguished definitions of corporatism, each characterising a different perspective: societal-organisational, institutional, procedural, institutional-procedural, economic, and doctrinal. It then points to four difficulties for understanding and defining corporatism: different meaning of the term, wide spectrum of what is understood by it, stigmatisation of the very term, and finally its erroneous usage. The article concluded by proposing a minimal definition of corporatism, which could encompass the analysed differences and overcome the analysed difficulties, while distinguishing it sufficiently from other political phenomena.

References

• Carpenter, L.P. 1976. “Corporatism in Britain, 1930–45.” Journal of Contemporary History 11(1): 3–25.
• Chalmers, Douglas A. (1991) “Corporatism and Comparative Politics.” In New Directions in Comparative Politics ed. Howard J. Wiarda, 59–81. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• Cox, Andrew. 1988. “The Old and New Testaments of Corporatism: Is it a Political Form or a Method of Policy-making?” Political Studies, XXXVI: 294–308.
• Dirkem, Emil. 1972. O podeli društvenog rada. Beograd: Prosveta.
• Gierke, Otto von. 1900 [1881]. Political Theories of the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Halevi, Joseph. 1990. “Corporatism.” In Problems of the Planned Economy eds. John Eatwell, Murray Milgate & Peter Newman, 77–79. London & Basingstoke: The Macmillan Press Limited.
• Huo, Jingjing and John D. Stephens. 2015. “From Industrial Corporatism to the Social Investment State.” In The Oxford Handbook of Transformations of the State, eds. Stephan Leibfried et al., 410–425. Oxford: Oxford Univerity Press.
• Lehmbruch, Gerhard. 1977. “Liberal Corporatism and Party Government.” Comparative Political Studies 10: 91–126.
• Lehmbruch, Gerhard. 1984. “Concertation and the Structure of Corporatist Networks.” In Order and Conflict in Contemporary Capitalism, ed. John Goldthorpe, 60–80. Oxford: Clarenon Press.
• Leo XIII, Pope. 1891. Rerum Novarum http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html.
• Manoïlesco, Mihail. 1934. Le siècle du corporatisme : Doctrine du corporatisme integral et pur. Paris : Librairie Félix Alcan.
• Miller Lane, Barbara and Leila J. Rupp. 1978. Nazi Ideology Before 1933: A Documentation. Austin: University of Texas Press.
• Pahl, Raymond Edward & Jack T. Winkler. 1975. “The Coming Corporatism.” Challenge Vol. 18(1): 28–35.
• Panitch, Leo. 1980. “Recent Theorizations of Corporatism: Reflections on a Growth Industry.” The British Journal of Sociology 31(2): 159–187.
• Schmitter, Phillipe C. 1974. “Still the Century of Corporatism?” The Review of Politics 36(1): 85–131.
• Therborn, Göran. 1992. “Lessons from ‘Corporatist’ Theorizations.” In Social Corporatism: A Superior Economic System?, eds. Pekkarinen, Jukka, Matti Pohjola & Bob Rowthorn, 24–43. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Wiarda, Howard J. 1990. “Rethinking Political Development: A Look Backward over Thirty Years, And a Look Forward.” Studies in Comparative International Development 24(4): 65–82.
• Wiarda, Howard J. 1997. Corporatism and Comparative Politics: the other great “ism”. London: M.E. Sharpe.
• Wiarda, Howard J. 1998. “Is comparative politics dead? Rethinking the field in the post-Cold War era.” Third World Quarterly 19(5): 935–949.