Skip Navigation

Socio-Economic Review 2005 3(2):331-358; doi:10.1093/SER/mwi014
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Höpner, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Related Collections
Right arrow P50 - General
Right arrow L50 - General
Right arrow P12 - Capitalist Enterprises
Right arrow J53 - Labor-Management Relations; Industrial Jurisprudence
Right arrow G34 - Mergers; Acquisitions; Restructuring; Corporate Governance
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© Oxford University Press and the Society for the Advancement of Socio-Economics 2005. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions{at}oupjournals.org

What connects industrial relations and corporate governance? Explaining institutional complementarity

Martin Höpner

Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, Cologne

Correspondence: Martin Höpner, MPIfG, Paulstr. 3, 50676 Cologne, Germany. E-mail: hoepner{at}mpifg.de

The concept of institutional complementarity is central to the recent debate on the internal logics of production regimes, redirecting our attention from the effects of single institutions to interaction effects. The article provides definitions of complementarity, coherence and compatibility and discusses the ways in which different authors describe interaction effects between corporate governance and industrial relations. It turns out that some of the interaction effects are actually direct causal links rather than effects deriving from complementarity. It is argued that complementarity may be caused by both structural similarity and incoherence, and that the concept provides only weak predictions with respect to institutional change. The article is followed by comments from Bruno Amable, Robert Boyer, Colin Crouch, Peter A. Hall, Gregory Jackson, Wolfgang Streeck, and an epilogue by Martin Höpner.

Key Words: Political economy • Varieties of capitalism • Industrial relations • Corporate Governance • Institutional complementarity • JEL classification: P5 Comparative economic systems; J5 Labour–management relations


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.