Entwickeln sich kapitalistische Volkswirtschaften näher aneinander oder voneinander weg? Weder noch. Dauernde Unterschiede bleiben.

The basis of this seminar paper was given by the following questions:

1. Give some empirical examples of macroeconomic and sector performance indicators since World War II or at least since the 1970s. Do countries/sectors converge according to your data? 2. Can convergence in outcomes occur with no convergence of institutions? Can Capitalist Economies perform similar despite institutional differences?

3. Can convergence in institutions occur without convergence in outcome? Can the same institutions produce different results due to other factors?

If neither clear convergence nor divergence can be shown, which conclusions can be drawn? First, the absence of an assumed mechanism is an important factor as well. All empirical evidence suggests the thesis, that there is neither clear convergence nor divergence and that both trends and forces exist parallel. Even if evidence suggests that there are strong connections between the type of governance or the social system of production, it cannot be concluded, that these connections are uniform.

BOYER concludes: "Within such a vision, there may exist a multiplicity of punctuated equilibria and not a single one. Consequently, the very simple dynamics of convergence is only one out of many other evolutions: cumulative divergence, catching up and collapse, catching up and then forging ahead, partial convergence and then stabilisation of the productivity gap..."

Even if convergence is no automatism, it may still be pursued on purpose. The EU monetary policy with fixed exchange rates and the Maastricht treaty set up on-purpose-coordinating-mechanisms which are designed to converge policy, institutions and structures. But recent development shows the difficulty of the task. Furthermore, the more parameters are supposed to converge, the more unlikely it will succeed.