Abstract

Production regime theory has been one of the most innovative and influential recent contributions to neo-institutional debates about the varieties of capitalism. This review takes issue with its claim that there are major differences in the quality of work between the two principal regime types that are held to characterize European societies - coordinated market economies and liberal market economies - by examining the evidence for Denmark, Finland, Germany, Sweden, and the UK. Although the broad pattern of skill differences corresponds reasonably well to the arguments of the theory, the evidence does not confirm the other claims about work and employment conditions, in particular with respect to employee job control, autonomous work teams, organizational participation, and job security. Rather, it points to the distinctiveness of the Scandinavian countries and hence to the importance of factors that lie outside the explanatory framework of the thesis.