1.Introduction In a number of studies in the field of political economy,the ability of factor(that is,capital or labor)owners to move their productive assets across sectors features prominently.This ability is known as the cross-sectoral(or interindustry)factor mobility. For example,in the literature on international trade,mobile or specific factors determine whether Heckscher-Ohlin-Stolper-Samuelson framework or the Ricardo-Viner specific factors model,respectively,is more appropriate to explain the political economy in question (Jones 1971;Samuelson 1971;Stolper and Samuelson 1941).Besides trade, cross-sectoral factor mobility and especially cross-sectoral labor mobility plays an important role in the literature on the varieties of capitalism (VoC).For example, according to Hall and Soskice (2001a),one important difference between the coordinated market economies (CMEs)and the liberal market economies (LMEs)is that the institutional complementarities established within CMEs favor the construction of long term relationship and formation of specific skills,and in LMEs the opposite tends to be true.It follows that skills and human capital tend to be more specific in CMEs than in LMEs,so the inference is that cross-sectoral labor mobility tends to be lower in CMEs than in LMEs.Of course the diverging patterns of labor mobility (or conversely,labor specificity)may in turn reinforce the respective institutional complementarities,which are the very foundations of the varieties of capitalism. Furthermore,cross-sectoral factor mobility may also affect the trajectory of economic growth of a country.Barriers to cross-sectoral factor movement may take many forms,such as the coercive attachment to land (slavery,debt bondage,and seasonal compulsory labor,etc),guilds that limit the talents in and out of an industry,aristocracy1. Introduction In a number of studies in the field of political economy, the ability of factor (that is, capital or labor) owners to move their productive assets across sectors features prominently. This ability is known as the cross-sectoral (or interindustry) factor mobility. For example, in the literature on international trade, mobile or specific factors determine whether Heckscher-Ohlin-Stolper-Samuelson framework or the Ricardo-Viner specific factors model, respectively, is more appropriate to explain the political economy in question (Jones 1971; Samuelson 1971; Stolper and Samuelson 1941). Besides trade, cross-sectoral factor mobility and especially cross-sectoral labor mobility plays an important role in the literature on the varieties of capitalism (VoC). For example, according to Hall and Soskice (2001a), one important difference between the coordinated market economies (CMEs) and the liberal market economies (LMEs) is that the institutional complementarities established within CMEs favor the construction of long term relationship and formation of specific skills, and in LMEs the opposite tends to be true. It follows that skills and human capital tend to be more specific in CMEs than in LMEs, so the inference is that cross-sectoral labor mobility tends to be lower in CMEs than in LMEs. Of course the diverging patterns of labor mobility (or conversely, labor specificity) may in turn reinforce the respective institutional complementarities, which are the very foundations of the varieties of capitalism. Furthermore, cross-sectoral factor mobility may also affect the trajectory of economic growth of a country. Barriers to cross-sectoral factor movement may take many forms, such as the coercive attachment to land (slavery, debt bondage, and seasonal compulsory labor, etc), guilds that limit the talents in and out of an industry, aristocracy