Corporatism (and Neo-corporatism)

  • Peter Munk ChristiansenEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13895-0_36-1

Definition

Corporatism – without the prefix “neo” – as a political ideology is originally related to Catholic political thinking as a way to moderate the negative consequences of capitalism by creating political positions for representatives from society’s different economic interests. During the 1920s–1940s, it became associated with Fascist thinking and practice. The “neo” prefix is meant to distinguish present-day corporatism from its prior relation to Fascism. Neo-corporatism comes with several definitions. Part of the literature emphasizes neo-corporatism as a way of organizing market economies in which representatives for business and trade unions are integrated with the state and coordinate economic issues such as inflation, unemployment, labor market regulation, and vocational training. Another strand of the literature is more occupied with the way organized interests are integrated into the political and administrative decision-making process in order to create policies that...

Keywords

Corporatism Neo-corporatism Interest groups Interest group system Interest mediation Variety of capitalism Liberal market economies Coordinated market economies Variety of democracy Consensual policy-making 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Armingeon, K. (2002). The effects of negotiation democracy: A comparative analysis. European Journal of Political Research, 41(1), 81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Binderkrantz, A. S., & Christiansen, P. M. (2015). From classic to modern corporatism. Interest group representation in Danish public committees in 1975 and 2010. Journal of European Public Policy, 22(7), 1022–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Binderkrantz, A. S., Christiansen, P. M., & Pedersen, H. H. (2015). Interest group access to the bureaucracy, parliament and the media. Governance, 28(1), 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouwen, P. (2004). Exchanging access goods for access: A comparative study of business lobbying in the European Union institutions. European Journal of Political Research, 43(3), 337–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cawson’s, A. (1986). Corporatism and political theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Cerasi, L. (2017). Rethinking Italian corporatism. Crossing borders between corporatist projects in the late liberal era and the Fascist corporatist state. In A. C. Pinto (Ed.), Corporatism and Fascism. The corporatist wave in Europe (pp. 103–124). London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Christiansen, P. M., Nørgaard, A. S., Rommetvedt, H., Svensson, T., Thesen, G., & Öberg, P. (2010). Varieties of democracy: Interest groups and corporatist committees in Scandinavian policy making. Voluntas – International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 21(1), 22–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (Eds.). (2001). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Johansen, L. N., & Kristensen, O. P. (1982). Corporatist traits in Denmark 1946–76. In G. Lehmbruch & P. Schmitter (Eds.), Consequences of corporatist policy-making (pp. 189–218). London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  10. Kenworthy, L. (2003). Quantitative indicators of corporatism. International Journal of Sociology, 33(3), 10–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Martin, C. J., & Swank, D. (2012). The political economy of business interests: coordination, growth and equality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Molina, O., & Rhodes, M. (2002). Corporatism: The past, present, and future of a concept. Annual Review of Political Science, 5, 305–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Öberg, P., Svensson, T., Christiansen, P. M., Nørgaard, A. S., Rommetvedt, H., & Thesen, G. (2011). Disrupted exchange and declining corporatism: Government authority and interest group capability in Scandinavia. Government and Opposition, 46(3), 365–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pinto, A. C. (2017). Corporatism and ‘organic representation’ in European dictatorships. In A. C. Pinto (Ed.), Corporatism and Fascism. The corporatist wave in Europe (pp. 3–41). London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rokkan, S. (1966). Norway: Numerical democracy and corporate pluralism. In R. A. Dahl (Ed.), Political opposition in western democracies (pp. 70–115). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Schmitter, P. (1974). Still the century of corporatism? The Review of Politics, 36(1), 85–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schmitter, P., & Streeck, W. (1981). The organization of business interests: a research design to study the associative action of business in the advanced industrial societies of Western Europe. Berlin: Wissenschafts-Zentrum Berlin.Google Scholar
  19. Scruggs, L. (2002). The Ghent system and union membership in Europe, 1970–1996. Political Research Quarterly, 55(2), 275–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shonfield, A. (1965). Modern capitalism. The changing balance of public and private power. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Siaroff, A. (1999). Corporatism in 24 industrial democracies: Meaning and measurement. European Journal of Political Research, 36(2), 175–205.Google Scholar
  22. Streeck, W., & Schmitter, P. (1985). Community, market, state and associations? The prospective contribution of interest governance to social order. In W. Streeck & P. Schmitter (Eds.), Private interest government: Beyond market and state (pp. 1–29). Beverly Hills: SAGE.Google Scholar
  23. Winkler, J. T. (1976). Corporatism. European Journal of Sociology, 17(1), 100–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark

Section editors and affiliations

  • Anne Binderkrantz Skorkjær
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark