View Original - Middle East Technical University

constructivism of institutionalised compromises ever implicit in the post factum
institutional complementarity inside a mode of regulation or even the scant social co-
evolution of systemness in economic governance, theory lingers on ‘the ability of
collective actors to generate restructuring compromises beyond their direct sphere of
influence’(Boyer 2002:331). Furthermore, Boyer would contrast ‘static hierarchy’
with ‘dynamic hierarchy’. For the Fordist mode of regulation, wage/labour nexus was
the hierarchically superior institutional form in that ‘it imposed structural constraints
on the configuration of other institutional forms’(Boyer 2000:291) or ‘the inner design
of one institution takes into account the contraints and incentives associated to
anohter’(Amable 2000:660). To that effect, the static hierarchy within the
institutional structure of Fordism is redolent of the complementarity of that regulation
mode; that is, that complementarity was a consequence of the stasis within an
institutional hierarchy. However one of the institutional forms can be hierarchically
superior while the transformation of a mode of regulation is afoot because
‘transformation of one institution affects the evolution of another’(ibid.), hence the
‘dynamic hierarhy’. Still this ‘does not imply that the mode of régulation which
emerges from this complex of transformations will be coherent’ unlike as in static
hierarchy(Boyer 2000:291).
69