ABSTRACT
How firms are organised is an essential element in defining different forms of capitalism. Indeed, each national form of capitalism has been identified in terms of the organisation of its firms, which are assumed to be homogeneous, or even defined in terms of their organisation. This is particularly true for the Japanese firm, which tends to embody Japanese capitalism in its very self (Hall & Soskice, 2001; Jackson, 2010). However, this is not without its problems, as is emphasised by Robert Boyer (2005b), or Sébastien Lechevalier (2007b, 2012a). Indeed, not only did this way of putting it constitute an oversimplification in the 1980s, but it is in fact more and more false today given the increasing diversity of Japanese firms. This should lead us to re-think how to define the forms of capitalism. It should not be restricted entirely to how firms are organised, but rather it should also include the ways firms are coordinated at the macro and meso levels, as well as taking into account the question of the social compromise (Chapters 3 and 4).
