<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>This article presents and assesses the methodology and results of a comparative analysis conducted by Bruno Amable in financial systems and corporate governance in the context of current policy and regulatory challenges. The article, which is based on a literature review and game theory examples, first describes and evaluates the methodology and final classification given by Amable. The role of Amable’s core concept; namely, institutional complementarity, is underlined. A game theory application in comparative institutional studies is then presented, including the author’s own “institutional game.” Finally, we assess Amable’s achievements in financial systems and corporate governance, concluding that they are valuable, innovative and useful despite some (perhaps justified) criticisms of the framework Amable used. In particular, the value of introducing institutional complementarity into comparative studies should not be underestimated. The analysis presented here suggests that Amable’s methodology may also be applicable when designing current financial reforms in the EU, especially European Capital Markets Union (CMU), because it can broaden policy maker’s horizons and promote consistent solutions.</p></abstract>

This article presents and assesses the methodology and results of a comparative analysis conducted by Bruno Amable in financial systems and corporate governance in the context of current policy and regulatory challenges. The article, which is based on a literature review and game theory examples, first describes and evaluates the methodology and final classification given by Amable. The role of Amable’s core concept; namely, institutional complementarity, is underlined. A game theory application in comparative institutional studies is then presented, including the author’s own “institutional game.” Finally, we assess Amable’s achievements in financial systems and corporate governance, concluding that they are valuable, innovative and useful despite some (perhaps justified) criticisms of the framework Amable used. In particular, the value of introducing institutional complementarity into comparative studies should not be underestimated. The analysis presented here suggests that Amable’s methodology may also be applicable when designing current financial reforms in the EU, especially European Capital Markets Union (CMU), because it can broaden policy maker’s horizons and promote consistent solutions.

Comparative Models of Capitalism in the Areas of Financial System and Corporate Governance – the Diversity of Capitalism Approach Perspective

Department of Economics II, Collegium of World Economy, Warsaw School of Economics,

International Journal of Management and Economics

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

This article presents and assesses the methodology and results of a comparative analysis conducted by Bruno Amable in financial systems and corporate...

Comparative Models of Capitalism in the Areas of Financial System and Corporate Governance – the Diversity of Capitalism Approach Perspective

Data publikacji: 23 sty 2017

Zakres stron: 59 - 76

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijme-2016-0027

Słowa kluczowe
financial markets, banking, institutional complementarities

© 2016 Paweł Pisany, published by De Gruyter Open

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Comparative Models of Capitalism in the Areas of Financial System and Corporate Governance – the Diversity of Capitalism Approach Perspective

Data publikacji: 23 sty 2017

Zakres stron: 59 - 76

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijme-2016-0027

Słowa kluczowefinancial markets, banking, institutional complementarities

© 2016 Paweł Pisany, published by De Gruyter Open

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Słowa kluczowe
financial markets, banking, institutional complementarities