The Institutional Complementarity Hypothesis (ICH) could be useful for analyzing simultaneously the antipoverty policies and the viability of growth regimes. The different brands of capitalism are the outcome of complementary institutions concerning competition, labour market institutions, welfare and innovation systems. Generally, such configurations cannot be emulated by poor developing countries, but there are some common features to all successful experiments. Antipoverty policies are efficient when they create the equivalent of virtuous circles within which growth enables antipoverty programmes, and conversely these programmes sustain the speed and stability of growth. The paper proposes two methods in order to detect possible complementarities and design economic policies: the Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) on one side, and national growth diagnosis on the other side. A special attention is devoted to the timing of policies and the role of policy regimes.