CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE DEBATE

Convergence and Divergence Debate



Convergence and Divergence Debate

Introduction

The concept of convergence is used increasingly frequently in the analysis of contemporary governance. In an era of globalization, it is often assumed increasingly strong selection mechanisms influence the choice and development of governance regime such that they tend to converge over time. In many conventional accounts, heightened competition between states and national economies in an ever-more-integrated global market pit governance regimes against one another in an ever-more-intense competitive struggle. Özbilgin (2005) mentions only those regimes capable of sustaining high growth rates under such conditions will survive and prosper. Over time, through this neo-Darwinian process of “survival of the fittest,” the current diversity of governance regimes will be narrowed (Özbilgin, 2005). The global diffusion of neoliberal governance is often predicted. This paper discusses convergence and divergence in a concise and comprehensive way.

Convergence and Divergence Debate: A Discussion

The convergence versus divergence debate has been an ongoing strand of the literature on management in general for decades. In brief, the convergence thesis argues that differences in management systems that have arisen as a result of the geographical isolation of businesses, and the consequent development of differing beliefs and value orientations of national cultures, are being superseded by the logic of technology and markets, which requires the adoption of specific, and therefore universally applicable, management techniques (Özbilgin, 2005). Arguably, Max Weber's theory of bureaucracy and rationalization represents one of the earliest contributions to this thesis of long-term convergence in management practice. Regardless of whether the economic system is organized on a capitalistic or a socialistic basis, Weber argues that the dictates of applying technical knowledge efficiently require the adoption of the bureaucratic system with its universalistic characteristics. Early post-1945 thinking was also for the most part convergent. Many of the early authorities in organization studies argued that organization, technology and planning, and the worldwide rise of the professional manager would mean that gradually the way that organizations operate would converge (Hall & Soskice, 2001). They argued that management systems represented attempts to manage technology as efficiently as possible. As the United States was the technological leader, it followed that U.S. management practices represented best practice and other nations would eventually seek to, or be forced to, emulate them.

These early (and many later) convergence perspectives are characterized by a functionalist mode of thought. The practice of management is explained in terms of its contribution to technological and economic efficiency. More recently, the convergence thesis has received support from transaction cost economics, which also contends that at any one point of time there exists a best solution to organizing labor. Parts of the industrial organization literature also argue that to ensure long-term survival, firms tend to seek out and adopt the best solutions to organizing labor within their product markets. The result is a tendency for firms to converge toward similar structures of organization.

Of course, the “convergers” (Hall & Soskice, 2001) recognize that in practice there are many variations in management approaches around the world, but ...