When Exchange Logics Collide

Abstract

The introduction of money into previously non-monetary, alternative economies can lead to many socio-cognitive tensions, if money is perceived as having been imposed from the ‘outside’, and disconnected from traditional ways of life. In this paper, we employ the lens of institutional theory to frame the phenomenon of money-use in remote Indigenous Australia. Through an immersive study in two remote communities, we develop themes of socio-cognitive tensions that arise as a result of disparity in exchange logics governing marketplace exchange in monetary marketplaces vis-a-vis historically non-monetary alternative economies. We draw upon emergent insights, and derive macro-marketing implications for the design of marketplace-literacy education, aimed at alleviating these tensions and enhancing well-being.

Analisis Motivasi Lembaga Pemeringkat ESG (Yayasan Kehati) Dalam Proses Perumusan ESG Index: Institutional Logics

“…Perumusan SOP dan ESG Index yang dihasilkan merujuk kepada kearifan lokal. Temuan ini didukung oleh penelitian sebelumnya yang dilakukan oleh Davies & Doherty (2019) dan Grassl (2011) yang mencatat bahwa organisasi dipengaruhi berbagai logika dapat menghasilkan sebuah cara-cara inovatif dalam menciptakan nilai, karena organisasi tersebuat merekonsiliasi logika pasar dan non-pasar ke dalam model bisnis mereka sehingga menghasilkan sebuah model bisnis yang unik (Godinho et al, 2017). Hal ini tentu akan mengakibatkan indeks ESG yang dihasilkan berbeda dibandingkan lembaga pemeringkat lain mengingat unsur subjebtivitas digunakan dalam proses perumusan SOP hingga penentuan emiten yang berhasil terdaftar ke dalam Indeks Kehati dalam proses perumusan Indeks Kehati.…”

The institutional work of a social enterprise operating in a subsistence marketplace: Using the business model as a market‐shaping tool

“…Similarly, Godinho et al . 's (2017) study of the introduction of a monetized economy to an aboriginal community demonstrates the challenges of institutional work. These hunter‐gatherer communities were confronted with competing priorities–the new monetized economy institutionalized individualistic and accumulative practices for managing resources–which negatively disrupted other social institutions in communal life.…”

“…North (1991, 97) describes markets, as institutions, as “humanly devised constraints that structure political, economic and social interaction.” Institutions impose both informal constraints (such as sanctions, taboos, customs, traditions, and codes of conduct) and formal rules (such as laws and property rights; Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006; Rivera‐Santos et al ., 2012). Thus, markets enact both the formal and informal “rules of the game” and maintain the key organizing principles that reduce the uncertainty of market exchange (North, 1991; Thornton and Ocasio, 2012; Godinho et al ., 2017). The entry of a new social enterprise into a subsistence marketplace has the potential to disrupt such institutional norms and lead to the innovation and transformation of that market (cf.…”

Special section – The moral legitimatisation of money and debt in consumer society

“…This isomorphic tendency has been clearly articulated also in other work depicting consumers attempting to collectively form alternative modes of exchange (Hietanen et al, 2016; Kozinets, 2002). As a notable exception to the hegemonic taken-for-grantedness of money, Godinho and colleagues’ (2017) study of indigenous Australians foregrounds the idea of money as a destructive, external threat as indigenous participants comment on the incommensurability of their traditional modes of social intercourse and the money logic, which forces them to accept Anglo-European norms. In comparison, Vikas and colleagues (2015) offer another striking example where participants embraced market exchange to actively contest caste hierarchies.…”