Well, you have corporativism, which has certain similarities to social-democratic tripartism. The main difference is:
1) Strike and lockout is forbidden.
(since wage-negotiations happen without the employers and employees having this weapon, it has to be settled by either majority vote within a corporation, or - as it was in Italy before the full system was implemented, I think it was in 1936 - by the state-official, after having spoken to the parties involved. So for a long time, wages were really settled by the state-official, with the workers and employers representatives from the workplace in-question as advisors of sort, a rather shallow system)2) The corporative arrangements have a broader array of responsibilities that expands beyond wage-negotiations. Plans for expanding an industry and relating infrastructure is also often delegated to the corporations. Where social-democracy only have one, (alongside a lot of advisory-cometees off course, but those doesn't count) fascism have one for each group of production, defined rather broadly, "Fishing" "Agriculture" - etc. Mussolini organized 22 corporations that together encompassed the whole Italian economy
But such designs are all about gathering people into institutions for decision-making, so it doesn't say all that much about actual policies. It is never the less friendly towards market-intervention, because by making the system, one also indirectly says that "we are going to intervene", and provide the platform for intervening in a manner where both employers and employees have their say (spiced up with a few experts and consumer-representatives)
An alternative approach also exists, which is hostile to the idea of class-collaboration. It is called national-syndicalism, and involves only labour-union representatives. I am not entirely sure how they wanted to organize their system, and things get a bit blurry here, because the spanish falange called themselves "national-syndicalists" while actually proposing a system were the employer-side was represented as well.
Some people say Peron was a national syndicalist because his partido-justicalista had close ties to the labour-unions, and these were influential in policy-making. Critics protest against this claim, and argue that Peron was actually a corporativist in disguise, because (according to them, I don't know if they are right or wrong) the labour-unions themselves were corporativized, meaning that the employer-side got influential within unions that were originally made for workers-only, and that this happened through a legal framework made by Peron and the justicalistas.
There are also those fascists who does not like these types of set-ups at all, and wants some sort of one-man or at least a one-party rule. If you count Pinochet as a fascist (as some people do) then it is economic liberalization and lazes-faire politics, were a military-strongman uses several secret police and army-groups to suppress communists and socialists. Those fascists who lean further towards national-socialism, are usually more resistant towards corporativism, and more friendly towards racism, eugenics, etc.
If we keep Pinochet outside the fascist family (as most fascists do) then it will still be active suppression of communists and socialists, a one-party state, and mixed economy - meaning social welfare, Keynes, and all those things the social democrats wants - only with more militarization and more uniforms (uniformed youth-winges, parades, nationalism, perhaps even plans for territorial expansion)
In Portugal under Salazar, and Spain under Franco, I have heard that public social welfare services were not that impressive. This is partly because they were poorer than the rest of Europe, and for Spain at least, it was partly because Franco became more pro-capitalist and market-friendly from the mid 1950s and onwards.
(this happened due to the influence of Opus-Dei technocrats, who replaced many of the older military people. They were highly educated, and very market-friendly.) I think I have read somewhere that Franco was the first head-of-state to congratulate Pinochet with the successful coup against Allende in 1973, so when we sum it up, the conclusion might very well be that our regimes in the last century have been mostly market-friendly.
I have thought a lot about these things, done a lot of reading, and I concluded that a different and simpler corporative setup must be made. This thing is non-expansionist and involves a permanent split of parliament into four different parties, where they have 25% of the parliament each. This plan is quite politically-correct however, so it might not become very popular. I think maybe it is a completely different ideology:
http://bildr.no/view/992058Edit;
An even easier conclusion might be that we claim to be a "third way", make some half-hearted reforms the replaces neither nobility or landlords or big capitalists, and then we make complex systems that are supposed to strengthen "class-collaboration" and after these systems create a lot of confusion while failing, we end up going market-friendly and pro-capitalist - just with big prisons filled with political enemies, and a huge army that parades around the big leader. Depending on how racist big leader is, there might also be ethnic cleansing.
But that is only the last century. Who knows what the future might bring?
(Damn! More edit. the Tech-Func image got microscopic, but now it should work.) 
- By Verv
- By Fasces
- By Puffer Fish
- By Unthinking Majority