1980/06/01 by Leo Panitch · 2 citations
Economics, Econometrics and Finance · #Economic Theory and Institutions
paper · doi:10.2307/589686
. , , . . . . . ln contemporary advanced caplta lSt socletles, corporatlsm was employed by a notably limited number of scholars. Only in the 1970S did we witness a veritable explosion of social scientific production which employs the term corporatism in the latter sense. This has occurred to such an extent that it is hardly incorrect to speak of corporatism as a major 'field of study' itself, with a spillover of usage of the term in the media and among political actors. Yet, the first thing that strikes one as one reads through the recent literature on modern corporatism is the profound lack of agreement on what the concept actually refers to. It is obvious that considerable confusion must attend a field in which the central concept is variously understood to connote a distinct economic system or mode of production (feudalism. capitalism, socialism . . . corporatism), a state form (parliamentarism, fascism . . . corporatism), and a system of interest intermediation (pluralism, syndicalism, monism . . . corporatism). This confusion must be compounded when, for instance, within the interest intermediation approach alone, one finds a range of theoretical and research practices which are at odds with one another, 'with respect to conceptual usage, substantive funding, causal reference or normative preference'.2 The view that the recent appearance of corporatism on the terminological stage of political science makes it 'somewhat premature to take its meaning for granted',3 may in this light be seen as both understatement and false optimism. For as the quantity of work on corporatism has expanded, it has been difficult to discern whether definitional convergence has really tended to outpace definitional refraction. Given this situation, there appears to be little basis for the belief that positive foundations have in fact been established for considering