American Capitalism.

Running Head: TITLE: AMERICAN CAPITLISM

American Capitalism

[Name of the writer]

[Name of the institution]

 American Capitalism. 2

American Capitalism

The American Decade and Its Aftermath

The 1990s were America’s ten years, economically speaking. The

United States experienced the longest expansion in its postwar

annals, evolving the motor of growth for the international

finances and the pace-setter for financial presentation in other

industrialized nations. (Whitman 1999 ) Our job loss rate dropped

to a grade (4 percent) that was not only the smallest amidst the

foremost industrialized countries but that had before been

considered to be attainable only at the cost of accelerating

inflation. Yet the U.S. inflation rate remained snugly under

control. Meanwhile, Western Europe labored with slow growth and

persistently high job loss while Japan, whose financial scheme

had been progressively hailed as a form for other ones to

emulate throughout the 1980s, became mired in an extended and

apparently troublesome slough of financial stagnation. (Whitman

1999 ) The last ten years of the twentieth 100 years started

contrary to the spectacular backdrop of the drop of the Berlin

Wall and the demise of the Soviet Union, expansion that led

Francis Fukazawa to affirm not only the international triumph of

capitalism but furthermore, in hindsight rather prematurely,

the “end of history”.1 By the end of the ten years the United

States’ outstanding macroeconomic presentation, simultaneously

 American Capitalism. 3

with powerful pressures for “system convergence” used by the

international integration of markets, proposed that it was not

just capitalism in general but American (or Anglo-Saxon) method

capitalism in particular that would override the international

finances as the 21st 100 years began. Much has altered,

although, since the starting of the new millennium. (Thomas 1999 )

The American finances slowed down harshly in mid-2000 and

the job loss rate reversed direction, coming to six per hundred

early in 2003. The disintegrate of the US supply market and the

demise of numerous of the brightest firing stars of the New

Economy, combining with a number of high-profile business

scandals, undermined self-assurance both at dwelling and

abroad. (Romano 1998 )

Three Varieties of Capitalism

These distinct diversity of capitalism are characterized mainly

by the environment of relationships between companies and their

foremost stakeholders, especially with employees and their

groups on the one hand and shareholders and their agencies on

the other, as well as by the way interactions amidst companies

and between companies and governments are organized. In so-

called liberal or Anglo-Saxon method market economies,

epitomized by the United States, such connections are usually

distinguished by formal contracting, arms-length transactions,

 American Capitalism. 4

and market-mediated competition. More organic forms of

capitalism, comprised in distinct variants by Germany and Japan,

depend much more very powerfully on non-market connections,

characterized by regulation or made-to-order, to form the

organization of their economies. (Romano 1998 )

At the starting of the 1970s, American companies and the

bosses who managed them relished an enviable situation. The

industrialized countries of Western Europe and Japan had not

yet converged on US grades of earnings, productivity, and

technological advancement; the nations behind the Iron Curtain

were competently out of the market; and today’s newcomers to

the association of economically sophisticated countries had not

yet attained that status. Lacking important affray, most large

American companies enjoyed substantial market power, both at

dwelling and overseas, and the high earnings margins that

accompanied it. (Sylvia 2000 )

In such attenuating components, the men who directed these

companies could hold all their major stakeholders satisfied:

buyers with sensible charges and a broad kind of goods to choose

from; workers with protected occupations, gradually increasing

salaries and bountiful advantages, and shareholders with usually

increasing share charges and stable dividends. As an outcome,

the job of head boss, one time attained, tended to be a lifetime

sinecure, and its holder generally enjoyed a stage of autonomy

 American Capitalism. 5

in the administration of the firm that provided birth to the

phrase “managerial capitalism”. (Thomas 1999 )

In Germany and Japan, in compare, banks supplied a large

share of the external financing for companies, both as creditors

and as holders of large blocks of stock. German banks were well

comprised on the supervisory planks that vote into agency and

manage the managing planks of large companies, while banks in

Japan often dispatched their own executives to “assist” the

administration of a business when economic difficulties

threatened its proficiency to service or repay loans. And

Japanese companies were—and often still are—bound

simultaneously in large assemblies (called keiretsu) with

supplier and clientele firms, links that were cemented by

cross-holding of each others’ shares; large German firms were

furthermore distinguished by a high percentage of cross-

shareholding. (Sylvia 2000 )

Labor relatives in Germany stood in pointed compare to

those just described. They were (and still are) embedded in a

highly centralized corporatist scheme, engaging joint economic

administration by the ‘social partners”—employers, employees,

and government— at the nationwide or local grade and powerful

worker representation in administration at the level of the

firm. Employees held half the chairs on the supervisory planks

of large corporations, and some of those worker chairs were held

 American Capitalism. 6

by amalgamation representatives. Collective bargaining was

centralized at the commerce grade, and the salaries that emerged

from this bargaining method became competently smallest

salaries, applying to nonunion workers as well as amalgamation

constituents in a specific industry. (Whitman 1999 )

Although the corporatist association of work relatives was

more or less unique to Germany, effectively all the large

nations of continental Western Europe had (and continue to

have) much more powerful work defense laws—making it harder to

blaze workers or close plants—and more bountiful job loss

protection and welfare advantages than have ever lived in the

United States. In Japan, paid work security was founded less on

legislation than on made-to-order and a large body of case

regulation but, in performs, the occurrence of lifetime paid

work in large companies and seniority-based reimbursement made

Japanese labor markets the most rigid of all. (Peter 2001 )

Global Winds of Change

All of the industrialized countries faced powerful stresses

for financial change during the last quarter of the twentieth

100 years, in the pattern of an international slowdown in

growth, expanded financial and economic turbulence, and

intensified competition. The global finances was harshly

buffeted by the 1971-73 demise of the Breton Woods system of

 American Capitalism. 7

exchange-rate administration and the producing pointed boost in

the instability of exchange rates. The ensuing oil alarms of

1973 and 1979 spectacularly disturbed patterns of financial

undertaking in developed countries and initiated critical

liability difficulties in developing countries. Growth slowed

down in effectively every developed territory, and inflation and

unemployment worsened. (Thomas 1999 )

In this much more unsure and volatile financial natural

environment, more stepwise but equally important functional

expansion were expanding the power of competition both inside

and over nationwide borders. (Whitman 1999 ) The most conspicuous

of these was the deepening integration of markets made by trade

liberalization, chased successively under the expanding

multilateral umbrellas of the Organization for Economic

Cooperation and Development (OECD), the General Agreement on

Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and the World Trade Organization

(WTO). Over time, the scope of the liberalizing agenda

broadened from focusing on tariffs and quotas to encompass

household lawful and regulatory requirements pertaining to

measures for both goods and the methods by which they are

produced, services, and thoughtful property. (Romano 1998 )

Along with trade liberalization, household privatization

and-or economic deregulation in all three of our agent countries

amplified the domain of the private sector and opened up new

 American Capitalism. 8

possibilities for market affray, even as new types of social

guideline enforced constraints on companies in such localities

as employee and product safety, defense of investors and

pensioners, and the value of the environment. Finally, fast

improvement in data and communications expertise drastically

altered methods of output, extending provide chains in an

expanding number of industries virtually over the globe. This

improvement furthermore conceived entire new commerce and

increased the tradability of numerous services long considered

to be confined by their very nature to functioning inside a lone

household market. (Romano 1998 )

Pressures for Convergence

During the 1990s, the alterations just recounted came

simultaneously to make what has come to be renowned as American

or Anglo-Saxon shareholder capitalism. But, just as the defining

characteristics of the three methods of capitalism had become

most sharply differentiated, the stresses that had changed

financial connections in the United States were starting to

impinge on Japan and Germany, along with most other large

nations in Western Europe, as well. The stresses both from

underneath and from overhead that changed the demeanor of large,

publicly-held American companies throughout the 1970s and 1980s

did not hit companies in Germany and Japan with full force until
 American Capitalism. 9

rather later. But the characterizing happenings that

characterized these nations’ finances throughout the 1990s

furthermore started to narrow piece away the insulation that had

hitherto defended their large companies from the types of

alterations in relationships with foremost stakeholders that had

changed American businesses and sharpened the distinctions

between American- method capitalism and the variants represented

by these other two nations. (Thomas 1999 )

One of the foremost reasons of Europe’s single-market start

was, in detail, to increase the productivity and effectiveness

of constituent nations’ companies by eliminating physical,

fiscal, and regulatory obstacles to affray over nationwide

boundaries that are internal to the EU as a whole. This

liberalization method has influenced the markets for both items

and services but has been especially significant for the last

cited, where a variety of obstacles to market get access to had

been especially significant in limiting inter-country

competition. The proceed by 12 of the EU constituent nations to

connect simultaneously in the EMU and take up a lone currency

(the Euro) in location of their nationwide currencies has

expanded the scope for such affray even farther by producing it

harder for businesses and their distributors to ascribe

distinct charges in distinct EU markets. (Sylvia 2000 )

 American Capitalism. 10

The liberalization of so- called gray-market trade—the

sale of brand-name items in nations where manufacturers have

not authorized such sales—is functioning in the identical main

heading, most particularly in the automobile industry.

At the identical time, Germany’s holiday resort to

expansionary fiscal principle has been significantly guarded

by the obligations of the EMU’s Growth and Stability Pact,

which needs constituent countries to contain fiscal shortfalls

to no more than 3 per hundred of GDP, with the risk of very

large penalties for violations. In detail, although, both

Germany and France are actually in violation of the Pact, with

Germany broadly anticipated to be in that position for a third

successive year. (Thomas 1999 )

There the difficulty is rather that such principles have so

far verified utterly ineffective. Japanese concern rates are

currently competently none and the fiscal shortfall is an

unprecedented 10 per hundred of GDP, yet stagnation continues.

Although there are further measures that might be more effective

—such as utilizing monetary principle to goal a positive rate of

inflation or exercising fiscal expansion in the pattern of

enduring levy cuts rather than dollops of government expending

on unneeded infrastructure projects—the authorities have so far

been reluctant to take such measures.

 American Capitalism. 11

The accessibility of equity capital, especially project

capital, the rapidity of firm turnover, and the alleviate of

layoffs and high work mobility attribute of the US economy all

make this pattern of financial association especially well-

suited to the radical discovery attribute of high-risk, fast-

moving, research-intensive technology sectors like biotechnology

and programs, and those engaging the provision of complex,

system-based goods for example telecommunications and protecting

against systems. And it is in just such parts that the United

States has a relative benefit with esteem to both Germany and

Japan. The last cited nations, with their more steady, more

risk-averse, less fluid and adaptable work and capital markets,

excel in parts like buyer goods, transportation, and appliance

tools. (Thomas 1999 )

This commerce is distinguished by the sort of incremental

discovery to which their financial organizations are especially

well-suited. But in today’s financial natural environment, it is

fundamental discovery that underpins rapid productivity growth.

In specific, the slowdown in European and Japanese productivity

growth throughout the last cited half of the 1990s, as

mismatched with its pickup in the United States, is due in large

part to a US benefit in the output and diffusion of information

and communications technology. (Peter 2001 )

 American Capitalism. 12

Whither Convergence? Current Developments

The obtained wisdom in most consideration of the stresses

for system convergence as an outcome of deepening financial

integration is that these stresses are making it progressively

tough and exorbitant for countries to oppose going in the

direction of the American or Anglo-Saxon method of capitalism.

Certainly, this is the outlook popularized by Thomas Friedman in

his recount of the principles needed by what he has termed the

Golden Straightjacket. (Romano 1998 )

Ongoing expansion in other large industrialized countries

supports this view. Not only in Germany but furthermore in other

large continental European countries, the protected work markets

and associated welfare-state advantages affiliated with social-

market capitalism have arrive under expanding force from

international affray, budgetary strains, and persistently high

grades of unemployment. In France, Germany, and several smaller

European countries, companies are downsizing and restructuring

in the face of considerable political and well liked opposition.

At the identical time, the significance of both part-time

and provisional paid work has expanded, especially where limits

on such atypical arrangements have been relaxed.

The pace and nature of convergence in principles of

corporate governance will be significantly affected by the

 American Capitalism. 13

pending harmonization of global accounting standards. At

present, a struggle for the hearts and minds of the

International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) is being waged

in the search for a compromise between the broad “principles-

based” philosophy that prevails in Europe and the much more

detailed “rules-based” approach that underlies America’s

generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Just how things

will settle out by 2005, when all publicly- traded firms within

the EU will be required to conform to IASB rules, is as yet

unclear, although the recent rash of accounting-related scandals

in the United States has certainly unseated GAAP from its gold-

standard throne. (Thomas 1999 )

Whereas convergence continues to be primarily, although not

exclusively, toward U.S.-style capitalism in the arenas of labor

and capital markets and corporate governance, the picture is

more complex as regards relationships between companies and

their customers. In some instances, particularly in Germany, the

loosening of product-market regulations governing retail

pricing, store-opening hours, and related matters, represent

baby steps in the direction of American-style economic

deregulation. As regards traded goods and services, however, it

is the rules and standards of the European Union, whose “social

market capitalism” is characterized by stronger and more

pervasive economic and social regulation than prevails in the

 American Capitalism. 14

more laissez-faire United States, that are extending their reach

in the global economy. The major conduit for this extended reach

is EU regulations affecting both the characteristics of goods

and services that are internationally traded and the processes

by which they are produced. That is because, where protection of

consumers or of the environment is involved, EU requirements are

generally more stringent than those of the United States or of

most other nations. (Whitman 1999 )

This stringency is grounded in the Em’s strong adherence to

the precautionary principle which holds that, in cases where

there is uncertainty regarding the possibility of harm, rules

and standards should err on the side of caution. The EU has not

always prevailed when specific applications of the precautionary

principle have been submitted to the Two’s dispute-settlement

procedures, whose sanction is necessary for a provision to be

incorporated into the formal body of supranational law. But its

record in creating de facto global law is more impressive.

(Peter 2001 )

In May of 2003, the U.S. initiated legal action in the WTO

against the EU for its refusal to approve some genetically

modified (GM) crops, despite the fact that they have been

approved by EU scientists, allegedly because of political

sensitivity to European consumers’ concerns about their possible

health and environmental risks (concerns that have led to such

 American Capitalism. 15

crops being labeled “Franken foods” by those suspicious of their

potential effects). This illegal ban, the U.S. argues, is

costing it some $300 billion a year in lost exports. The U.S.

contends, furthermore, that the EU policy is undermining efforts

to fight hunger in Africa; because African nations are avoiding

growing food from better- yielding genetically modified seeds

for fear that such crops would not be exportable to EU

countries. In July 2003, the EU was in the process of passing

legislation imposing extremely strict and onerous labeling

requirements on any food or animal feed product containing more

than 0.9 percent GM components. This legislation will presumably

end the moratorium but, in the view of producers of GM seeds and

foods, is likely to leave the EU market still effectively closed

to exports of such products. (Sylvia 2000 )

Whither Convergence? Future Directions

Looking to the future, all three nations and the styles of

capitalism they represent are searching for effective ways to

combine the pressures for global convergence with national

economic objectives appropriate to the social attitudes and

institutions of their citizenry. (Thomas 1999 )

For the United States, whose form of capitalism appears to

be most consonant with the pressures created by global

integration of markets, three challenges are paramount. One is

 American Capitalism. 16

to restore public trust in the economic virtues for which it has

traditionally been recognized: transparency of financial

information and accountability to the interests of shareholders.

This trust was severely shaken, both at home and abroad, by the

corporate scandals of recent years, and its restoration is

currently a work-in- progress just begun. The second challenge

is to continue integrating the focus of American shareholder or

investor capitalism with attention to the demands of other

stakeholders as well, including customers, workers, host

communities both at home and abroad, and the environment. That

American business has already moved ahead in recognizing the

competitive advantage—and therefore the benefit to shareholders—

of such attention is recognized rhetorically in successive

statements by the Business Roundtable, a group composed of the

CEOs of 200 of the nation’s largest and most influential

companies. These statements have moved over a period of 20 years

from regarding obligations to shareholders and to other

stakeholders as competitive to seeing them as complementary.

(Whitman 1999 )

An increasing number of companies see certification that

they are adhering to the guidelines for corporate environmental

responsibility known as ISO 14000, issued in 1997 by the non-

governmental International Standards Organization, as a valued

reputation symbol. And several voluntary codes of labor

 American Capitalism. 17

standards, generally promulgated on an industry-by- industry

basis, are accumulating growing numbers of adherents and

developing monitoring and certification processes. A prominent

feature of these codes, developed under the pressure of public

awareness create primarily by activist NGOs, is that they

require signatory firms to take responsibility not only for

their own labor practices but for those of their global

suppliers as well. Finally, although the tolerance for job

insecurity and income inequality is likely to remain higher in

the United States and other Anglo-Saxon countries than in other

industrialized nations, the desire for some degree of personal

and family security is universal. As expectations of long-term

job security with a single firm have waned, the concept of

employability security, in the form of measures that increase a

person’s probability of making a successful job transition, has

gained prominence. (Peter 2001 )

All three forms of capitalism are thus playing a role in

global convergence, and all three are undergoing significant

change in the process. The case of both the German and the

Japanese varieties, the movement, however hesitant and fraught

with political and social pushback, is toward the greater

transparency and adaptability of the American system. And

American investor capitalism is itself evolving as its

participants confront twin challenges: to restore the trust that

 American Capitalism. 18

has underlain its success and to integrate the adaptability and

market-responsiveness of its rules and institutions with the

broadened focus on corporate responsibility to multiple

stakeholders that is increasingly perceived as a significant

ingredient in global competitiveness and sustainable

profitability.
 American Capitalism. 19

References

Adolph A. Berle and Gardiner C., 2002 Means. The Modern

Corporation and Private Property (New York: Macmillan).

Dani Rodrik, 2000 “How Far Will International Economic

Integration Go?” Journal of Economic Perspectives (Winter),

p.182

Manpower, Inc., The Argus (May 1998), p.7.

Malcolm Gladwell, 2000, the Tipping Point: How Little Things Can

Make a Big Difference, p. 19-66.

OECD Economic Surveys 1994-95—Germany (OECD 1995), p.117 and

Mitsuhiro Fukao, Financial Integration, Corporate

Governance, and the performance of Multinational Companies

(Washington, D.C.:Brookings Institution, 1995), p.70.

Patrick McGeehan, 2003 “Study Finds Number of Chiefs Forced to

Leave Jobs Is Up,” New York Times, May 12, and Michael

Skapinker, “CEO Dismissals Rise as Investors Strike Out,”

Financial Times, May 12, pg 33.

Peter A. Hall and David Soskice, 2001 Än Introduction to

Varieties Of Capitalism,” in Peter A. Hall and David

Soskice (eds.), Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional

Foundations of Comparative Advantage (Oxford and New York:

Oxford University Press,), pp.35 and 40-44.

Romano Prodi, 1998 European Industry and Finance Face World

 American Capitalism. 20

Competition,” BNL Quarterly Review, n. 205(June),

p.165.

Sylvia Ostry, 2000 “Convergence and Sovereignty: Policy Scope

for Compromise?” in Aseem Prakash and Jeffrey A. Hart

(eds.), Coping With Globalization (New York: Routledge,),

p.62.

Thomas Friedman, 1999 The Lexus and the Olive Tree:

Understanding Globalization (New York: Farrar,Straus and

Giroux,)pg 34-43.

Whitman, Marina v.N., 1999 New World, New Rules: The Changing

Role of the American Corporation (Boston, Mass.: Harvard

Business School Press,), p.45.