Corporations, Classes, and Social Movements After Managerialism

Davis, Gerald F.; McAdam, Doug

doi:10.1016/s0191-3085(00)22006-6

Cited by 98 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 46 publications

(51 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…DiMaggio, 1983;Dobbin & Dowd, 1997;Kelly & Dobbin, 1999), even though much of contemporary organizational analysis remains relatively disconnected from the broader study of society and social change (Stern & Barley, 1996). We believe that there is much to be gained by connecting the study of organizations, politics, social movements and institutional change (Davis & McAdam, 2000;Rao, Morrill & Zald, 2000). While a few sociologists have begun to traverse these boundaries (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social movements, field frames and industry emergence: a cultural-political perspective on US recycling

Lounsbury¹,

Ventresca²,

Hirsch³

2003

Socio-Economic Review

673

497

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines how social movements contribute to institutional change and the creation of new industries. We build on current efforts to bridge institutional and social movement perspectives in sociology and develop the concept of field frame to study how industries are shaped by social structures of meanings and resources that underpin and stabilize practices and social organization. Drawing on the case of how non-profit recyclers and the recycling social movement enabled the rise of a for-profit recycling industry, we show that movements can help to transform extant socioeconomic practices and enable new kinds of industry development by engaging in efforts that lead to the deinstitutionalization of field frames. 3 SOCIAL MOVEMENTS, FIELD FRAMES AND INDUSTRY EMERGENCE:A CULTURAL-POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE ON U.S. RECYCLING "We have to realize that there is a certain ironic, wry success in that nonprofits all over the country have test-piloted it [recycling] so successfully that big capital has come in and taken over" (quoted in Weinberg, Pellow & Schnaiberg, 2000: 95).How do marginal practices become the foundation for the emergence of new economic institutions such as industries? While the study of how industries and markets emerge has received little attention in economics (Granovetter & Swedberg, 2001), sociologists have directed increasing attention to such questions over the past couple of decades (e.g. Hollingsworth & Boyer, 1997;Fligstein, 2001;White, 2002). Sociological approaches to industry emergence are varied, but have highlighted the importance of studying how economic institutions are embedded in wider fields of interaction that include professional and trade associations, governmental agencies, and other nonprofit and for-profit actors (e.g. DiMaggio & Powell, 1983;Campbell, Hollingsworth & Lindberg, 1991;Schneiberg, 1999). Extant constructionist accounts, rooted in organizational and economic sociology, focus on tracking the processes and mechanisms by which economic activities and practices take shape as an industry as a result of the development of a supporting organizational infrastructure, the creation of symbolic boundaries that define appropriate industry activities, and the attainment of legitimacy (Aldrich & Fiol, 1994;Granovetter & McGuire, 1998;Ventresca & Porac, forthcoming). However, these accounts tend to neglect how the fate of industries is bound up in broader field-level political struggles over meanings and resources (Zelizer, 1979;Stryker, 1994;Schneiberg and Bartley, 2001;Lounsbury and Ventresca, 2002). We develop the case of the rise of the recycling industry in the U.S. solid waste field to contribute to the development of a broader and more dynamic approach to socioeconomics that takes the study of cultural processes seriously.We build on recent efforts to bridge ideas in institutional analysis and social movement theory in sociology (e.g. Clemens, 1997;Rao, 1998;Strang & Soule, 1998), and introduce the 4 concept of "field frame" to focus attention on how cultura...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social movements, field frames and industry emergence: a cultural-political perspective on US recycling

Lounsbury¹,

Ventresca²,

Hirsch³

2003

Socio-Economic Review

673

497

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Davis and colleagues' studies of shareholder movements nicely document how success may hinge on the institutional context (Davis & Thompson 1994;Davis & Greve 1997;Davis & McAdam 2000;Vogus & Davis 2005). During the 1980s, shareholder activists mobilized to promote new conceptions of the corporation, transform the markets for corporate control, and break the hold of vested managerial interests over large US firms.…”

Section: Institutional Fields As Contexts For Movementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Movements and Institutional Analysis

Schneiberg¹,

Lounsbury²

2008

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism

230

160

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Moreover, although a number of studies suggest that the institutionalization of organizational forms is a contested process (DiMaggio 1988;Clemens 1997;Davis and Thompson 1994;Fligstein 1996;Rao 1998;Schneiberg and Bartley 2001), a number of gaps remain in the literature. First, recent work has shown how social movements underpin the emergence of new organizational forms (e.g., Davis and McAdam 2000;Rao, Morrill, and Zald 2000;Carroll and Swaminathan 2000). But little has been said about social movements that arise to attack an incumbent organizational form and how this generates countermobilization from members of the incumbent form.…”

Section: -National Association Of Retail Druggists Journalmentioning

confidence: 99%