Heft36 1 - SFB 580 - Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena

MARTIN SEMENOVA MENDELSKI
in the West. Developed economies, which
have already reached a certain level of stable
and settled market economy, possess a more
developed and settled form of capitalism
than post-communist economies, which are
still building their economic and institutional
systems. Given the different stages of
development between the developed West
and the lagging East, it is not surprising that
there is a different organizational logic in postcommunist
countries. This special logic in postcommunist
countries is driven by institutional
and economic catch-up strategies in still young
and evolving capitalist systems. Nevertheless,
the degree of capitalism ripeness differs even
among post-communist countries. On the one
hand, very advanced frontrunners (Estonia,
Slovenia) have already established clear and
settled institutional structures and are classified
in the Hall/Soskice framework as either LME’s
or CME’s. On the other hand, laggards from
South-Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the
Caucasus are still constructing and improving
their institutional system. Under such transitory
conditions, their still unsettled institutional
system does not allow for a classification in
Hall/Soskice’s framework. However, even the
situation of stable but mixed type of capitalism
in the Visegrad States makes categorization
difficult and would imply a need for additional
criteria describing capitalist variety.
A fourth method to classify capitalist systems
is according to their origin. Basically, two
forms are possible, internally or externally
driven capitalism. Internally driven capitalism
indicates a domestic and gradual development
of capitalist institutions over time. Successful
Western capitalist systems were developed
internally (e.g. in USA, Great Britain, Prussia)
and formal institutions could be adjusted to
local conditions. In contrast, externally induced
capitalism stands for imported capitalist
institutions from abroad. Such institutional
transfers based on Western models occurred in
CEE after the end of Habsburg domination at
the turn of the 19 th century and again after the
end of communism in the 1990s. Institutional
development in the CEECs has been based on
the imitation of technological or organizational
leaders from the West, characterized by
institutional or economic catch-up strategies
and institutional recombination (Stark 1996)
leading to an institutional patch-work system.
According to the VoC literature, such mixed
systems should not be very successful (Hall/
Soskice 2001; Cernat 2006).
Which criterion matters most to explain postcommunist
capitalist diversity? Is it possible to
apply Hall/Soskice’s VoC framework to postcommunist
economies? Before trying to answer
these questions myself, I would like to give an
overview of what other scholars have written
so far. Literature related to the application
of VoC in post-communist countries can be
divided into four kinds of analyses: single
country case studies, comparative case studies,
static comparative analysis and dynamic
comparative analysis.
Single country case studies focus on institutional
development in a single country
(see Charman 2007; Christophe
2007; Myant 2007; Hanson/Teague; Seite Page page 11
Korosteleva 2007). While this
frequent approach, conducted as a
qualitative case study, is able to reveal complex
agency-structure relationships over time, it
does not allow one to identify the sources