On the level of discourse analysis or diffusion theory, I can recommend the work of Marie-Laure Djelic (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marie-Laure_Djelic). Nevertheless, she focusses on the global spread of neoliberal discourse and ideas - and not their political implementation. Anyone?

The word-society literature, spearheaded by sociologist John W. Meyer, tries to quantify the diffusion of models via global civil society, yet the neo-institutionalism is ad-hoc and too phenomenological, ignoring not only the effects of cultural imperialism (in the Gramscian sense), but the material structural contradictions of power, social inequality, and geopolitical/socioeconomic conflict...which are certainly not mutually exclusive...

Article World Society and the Nation-State

Article World Society, Institutional Theories, and the Actor

Article The Effects of World Society on Environmental Outcomes

Article World Society, the Nation-State, and Environmental Protectio...

Article A Civil Religion for World Society: The Direct and Diffuse E...

David -

Nobel prize winner, economist Paul Krugman, has had a great deal to say about this, and seems to be particularly good at cutting through to the essentials, as convoluted as they may have become. He notes the empirical evidence - as well as common sense - that has historically and repeatedly presented itself, which demonstrates the disastrous nature of an unbridled 'free market.' Of course it isn't really a free market as advertised when some entities are 'free' to usurp the market for their own ends. Consider what befell the Tucker Motor Company.

You ask "How can we unpack the heterogeneity of interests and preferences across and within various types of corporate structures?" and I think that although there may be a mix of motivations involved, it seems painfully obvious when science/facts/sound economic evidence is being ignored. The US State of North Carolina decided that climate change could be legislated away. Members of the US Congress have ignored science. I know one US Congressman denied that statistical sampling was viable, which was embarrassing to me as a US statistician. Perhaps then, a measure of this trend can be found in studying increases in governmental policies that ignore sound evidence.

It would be difficult to find an acceptably objective method of quantifying the spread of this mind-boggling phenomenon in an interpretable format, but I think that a study of increased instances and severities of governmental policies made contrary to scientific evidence would be a good place to start looking.

Jim 

To answer this question, I would rather prefer to search for a combination of quantitative and historical methods. This approach should be appraised according to specific countries or regions. For instance, the so-called "Washington Consensus" reached in the eighties, changed all Latin America, spreading a neoliberal ethics. This has had the effect of more inequalities and an abandonment of social policies benefitting the poorests. This outlook changed afterwards even questionned by those that launched this "Consensus". Nevertheless, the advances and setbacks, without doubt would enlighten this discussion and concerns.

I have posted this new question:

Trump and Sanders are opposed to the TPP. How the International Trade theory and International Political Economy explain this?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Trump_and_Sanders_are_opposed_to_the_TPP_How_the_International_Trade_theory_and_International_Political_Economy_explain_this?_tpcectx=profile_questions

I believe that this is really what International Political Economy and International Trade theory must explain. Paul Krugman would not support Trump and Sanders's opposition, because he believes the gains from trade always exceeds loss of unemployment and pressure  on wages. How do you think? Please argue freely in the new question page.