Hay, C. (2000) ‘Contemporary Capitalism, Globalization, Regionalization and the Persistence of National Variation’, Review of International Studies, Vol. 26 (4), 509-531.

Hay, C. (2000) ‘Contemporary Capitalism, Globalization, Regionalization and the Persistence of National Variation’, Review of International Studies, Vol. 26 (4), 509-531.

• When development is periodized (capitalism vs. pre-capitalism, democracy vs. proto-democracy) it is implied that the national, regional, and cultural difference between nations are less important than their periodized level of development.
•     This method of thought implies common theories that can bring common solutions to common problems shared by periodized states. It proves less than helpful in reality b/c diverse national situations have to be conformed to a rigid periodization (such as Marx's levels of civilizational progress).
•     The author argues that in the case of capitalism, the differences are large enough that periodization becomes unhelpful and ignores several patterns and subsets of national capitalisms.
• Most literature on national capitalisms focuses on institutionalism; the way political and cultural institutions have affect capitalism in that nation or region. This is in contrast to the general dominance of rational choice theory among periodized studies of capitalist development.
•     B/c domestic systems and situations are different, the common challenges of periodized capitalism are likely to affect and be dealt with by national systems in profoundly different ways.
•     Without knowing domestic or regional situations, then there is no guarantee that the same input will produce the same output across multiple nations.
•     It is equally wrong to assume that similar outputs are produced by the same inputs or the same domestic processes.
• Because of capitalist globalization some scholars, such as Weiss, have suggested that institutional strengths in some systems may exacerbate differences in development -- as they advance comparatively more quickly than nations with weak institutions.
•     Moreover, the weakening of some kinds of economic controls in the face of globalization does not imply that new controls will not become available and still result in divergent development.
• Lots of sources to be mined regarding differing interpretations of globalization and regionalism, in terms of whether they are the same process or contradictory (pg. 522-524).
• Differing national capitalisms mean that globalization is expressed in different ways among different nations. This can be shown through different projects of regional integration as well, as the same inputs or even the same policies in no way imply the same results.