Too Red for Crowdfunding: The Legitimation and Adoption of Crowdfunding Across Political Cultures

Lewis, Alexander; Cordero, Arkangel Miguel; Xiong, Rachael

doi:10.1177/1042258720915574

Cited by 22 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 102 publications

(168 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This result suggests that countries where the management of the cultural system is centralised are more likely to adopt alternative funding. The coefficient performance of crowdfunding is positively and statistically significant at the 1% level, consistent with previous studies on the relationship between crowdfunding adoption and project success (Lewis et al, 2020 ). In Model 2, we include the welfare state variables in our empirical model.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 90%

Financing the cultural and creative industries through crowdfunding: the role of national cultural dimensions and policies

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The trend towards digitalisation and technological innovation has reshaped the cultural and creative industries (CCIs) by changing the existing funding models and structures. The aim of this article is to explore the impact of cultural dimensions and policies on the adoption of reward-based crowdfunding as a new form of finance for firms in the CCIs in 12 different European countries during the 2015–2019 period. Our results show that national cultural dimensions and policies significantly affect the demand for cultural and creative crowdfunding. Specifically, the adoption of crowdfunding is broader in individualistic countries and in societies characterised by higher uncertainty avoidance, indulgence, short-term orientation, and lower levels of discrimination between genders. Furthermore, we find that the liberal welfare state model, characterised by limited government interference, market orientation, privatisation and a focus on self-responsibility, and the Southern European welfare model, based on a weak and inefficient state, increase the adoption of crowdfunding in the CCIs. The presence of a central ministry with cultural competence also increases the adoption of crowdfunding in the CCIs. Our findings show a U-shaped relationship between European grants and the demand for crowdfunding, mainly driven by a high or low European involvement within these sectors. We also identify a moderation effect of EU grants on the relationship between cultural dimensions and crowdfunding adoption, suggesting that the magnitude of this relationship depends on the amount of EU grants awarded in a specific country. As a robustness check, we run a set of Poisson regressions with correlated random effects (CREs), confirming our main results.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 90%

Financing the cultural and creative industries through crowdfunding: the role of national cultural dimensions and policies

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Research on legitimacy, commonly defined as a ‘generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate’ (Suchman, 1995, p. 574), has become increasingly prominent in management and organization studies – and, in particular, in institutional theory (Harmon et al, 2015; Suddaby et al, 2017) – to the extent that legitimacy has been described as ‘perhaps the most central concept in institutional research’ (Colyvas and Powell, 2006, p. 308). The significant scholarly attention devoted to the topic is evidenced by the increasing flow of papers devoted to the analysis of legitimacy (e.g., Castello et al, 2016; Etter et al, 2018; Fisher et al, 2016; Haack et al, 2014; Hengst et al, 2020; Huy et al, 2014; Jacqueminet and Durand, 2019; Lewis et al, 2020; Scherer et al, 2013). This line of research stresses that through legitimacy, organizations acquire ideational and material support (e.g., access to financial and human resources) and increase their prominence and influence, all of which are fundamental to their growth and survival (Zimmerman and Zeitz, 2002).…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Legitimacy Revisited: Disentangling Propriety, Validity, and Consensus

Haack

Schilke

Zucker

2020

J Management Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research has conceptualized legitimacy as a multi-level phenomenon comprising propriety and validity. Propriety refers to an individual evaluator's belief that a legitimacy object is appropriate for its social context, whereas validity denotes an institutionalized, collective-level perception of appropriateness. In this article, we refine this multi-level understanding of legitimacy by adding a third, meso-level construct of 'consensus', which we define as the agreement between evaluators' propriety beliefs. Importantly, validity and consensus are distinct and can be incongruent, given that an institutionalized perception can hide underlying disagreement. Disentangling validity from consensus is a crucial extension of the multi-level theory of legitimacy, because it enables an improved understanding of the legitimacy processes that precede sudden and unanticipated institutional change. In particular, while previous works considered revised propriety beliefs as the starting point for institutional change, our account emphasizes that the disclosure of the actual (vs. merely assumed) belief distribution within a social context may instigate institutional change. To study the interplay of propriety, validity, and consensus empirically, we propose a set of experimental designs specifically geared towards improving knowledge of the role of legitimacy and its components in institutional change.

show abstract

“…Many types of platform exist (e.g., Baldwin and Woordward, 2009), and useful typologies are provided in the literature. These include collaboration platforms , where members cooperate to produce goods (Cusumano, in press; Gallus, 2017; O’Mahoney and Ferraro, 2007); exchange platforms , in which parties buy, sell, or swap products or services (Gerwe et al, in press; Lewis et al, in press; Reuber and Fischer, 2009; Taeuscher, 2019) or even digital assets (Benkler, 2006); and innovation platforms , where parties introduce complementary innovations (Boudreau and Lakhani, 2009; Nambisan et al, 2018; Srinivasan and Venkatraman, 2018). Cusumano et al (2019, p. 20) define transaction platforms as ‘intermediaries or online marketplaces that make it possible for people and organizations to share information or to buy, sell, or access a variety of goods and services’.…”

Section: What Is the Sharing Economy?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Distinctive Domain of the Sharing Economy: Definitions, Value Creation, and Implications for Research

Markman

Lieberman

Leiblein

et al. 2021

J Management Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this special issue is to expand our understanding of the sharing economy. To this end, we consider how the sharing economy can be demarcated and provide a definition that distinguishes the sharing economy from other forms of economic organization and resource orchestration. Specifically, the sharing economy entails multisided platforms that facilitate user access to – rather than ownership of – assets that are rivalrous in their use, and that are not owned by said platforms. Using this definition, we identify and show how the sharing economy creates and distributes economic value among participants and we summarize the six articles in the special issue. All in all, this introduction and the six studies clarify how the sharing economy and its three main constituencies – sharing platforms, asset providers, and users – reduce commercial friction by increasing trust, facilitating interaction, easing resource access and orchestration, and maximizing ecosystem‐wide value.

show abstract

Too Red for Crowdfunding: The Legitimation and Adoption of Crowdfunding Across Political Cultures

Cited by 22 publications

References 102 publications

Financing the cultural and creative industries through crowdfunding: the role of national cultural dimensions and policies

Financing the cultural and creative industries through crowdfunding: the role of national cultural dimensions and policies

Legitimacy Revisited: Disentangling Propriety, Validity, and Consensus

The Distinctive Domain of the Sharing Economy: Definitions, Value Creation, and Implications for Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About