Advertisement

Financialization, Fields, and Change

  • Philipp Golka
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, Golka develops his theoretical argument on the use of field theory for the study of financialization processes. Golka compares the explanatory horizon of prominent sociological field theories, particularly neo-institutional theories and Fligstein and McAdam’s strategic action fields theory, for the case of financialization. His analysis reveals the merits of strategic action fields theory over other field theories, but also shows how its lack of a mechanism to explain the emergence of cooperative ties as a result of skilled social action severely constrains the theory’s explanatory potential. To address this void, Golka draws on recent theorizing of pragmatist mechanisms.

References

  1. Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2011). Toward a general theory of strategic action fields. Sociological Theory, 29(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansell, C. K. (2001). Schism and solidarity in social movements: The politics of labor in the French third republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aoki, M. (2001). Towards a comparative institutional analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baron-Cohen, S. (2002). The extreme male brain theory of autism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(6), 248–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing: Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). How actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 65–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beckert, J. (1996). What is sociological about economic sociology? Uncertainty and the embeddedness of economic action. Theory and Society, 25(6), 803–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beckert, J. (2003). Economic sociology and embeddedness: How shall we conceptualize economic action? Journal of Economic Issues, 37(3), 769–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beckert, J. (2010). How do fields change? The interrelations of institutions, networks, and cognition in the dynamics of markets. Organization Studies, 31(5), 605–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Beckert, J. (2011). Die sittliche Einbettung der Wirtschaft. Von der Effizienz-und Differenzierungstheorie zu einer Theorie wirtschaftlicher Felder. Berliner Journal für Soziologie, 22(2), 247–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Beckert, J. (2016). Imagined futures. Fictional expectations and capitalist dynamics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 611–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  15. Blyth, M. (2010). On setting and upsetting agendas. In A. Gofas & C. Hay (Eds.), The role of ideas in political analysis: A portrait of contemporary debates (pp. 167–186). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006). On justification: Economies of worth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Botzem, S., & Dobusch, L. (2017). Financialization as strategy: Accounting for inter-organizational value creation in the European real estate industry. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 59, 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bourdieu, P. (1998). The state nobility: Elite schools in the field of power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Coates, J. M., & Herbert, J. (2008). Endogenous steroids and financial risk taking on a London trading floor. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(16), 6167–6172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Crouch, C. (2011). The strange non-death of neo-liberalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  22. De Tocqueville, A. (1856). L’ancien Régime et la Révolution. Paris: Michel Lévy.Google Scholar
  23. Deeg, R., & Jackson, G. (2007). Towards a more dynamic theory of capitalist variety. Socio-Economic Review, 5(1), 149–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dewey, J. (1922). Human nature and conduct: An introduction to social psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
  25. Diaz-Bone, R. (2015). Die “Economie des conventions”: Grundlagen und Entwicklungen in der neuen französischen Wirtschaftssoziologie. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. DiMaggio, P. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations (pp. 1–21). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  27. DiMaggio, P. (1991). Constructing an organizational field as a professional project: U.S. art museums, 1920-1940. In M. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dobbin, F. (2009). Inventing equal opportunity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dowling, E., & Harvie, D. (2014). Harnessing the social: State, crisis and (big) society. Sociology, 48(5), 869–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Edelman, L. B. (1992). Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: Organizational mediation of civil rights law. American Journal of Sociology, 97(6), 1531–1576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Eisenegger, C., Haushofer, J., & Fehr, E. (2011). The role of testosterone in social interaction. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(6), 263–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Eisenstadt, S. N. (1980). Cultural orientations, institutional entrepreneurs, and social change: Comparative analysis of traditional civilizations. American Journal of Sociology, 85(4), 840–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Eisinger, P. K. (1973). The conditions of protest behavior in American cities. American Political Science Review, 67(1), 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Feist, M., & Fuchs, D. (2014). Was heißt hier nachhaltig? In M. Heires & A. Nölke (Eds.), Politische Ökonomie der Finanzialisierung (pp. 225–240). Wiesbaden: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, E. J. (2004). The diffusion of ideas over contested terrain: The (non) adoption of a shareholder value orientation among German firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(4), 501–534.Google Scholar
  38. Fligstein, N. (1990). The transformation of corporate control. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Fligstein, N. (2001a). The architecture of markets: An economic sociology of twenty-first-century capitalist societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Fligstein, N. (2001b). Social skill and the theory of fields. Sociological Theory, 19(2), 105–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Fligstein, N. (2008). Fields, power and social skill: A critical analysis of the new institutionalisms. International Public Management Review, 9(1), 227–253.Google Scholar
  42. Fligstein, N. (2013). Understanding stability and change in fields. Research in Organizational Behavior, 33, 39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2012). A theory of fields. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Forst, R. (2015b). Noumenal power. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 23(2), 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Fourcade, M. (2007). Theories of markets and theories of society. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(8), 1015–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  47. Gamson, W. A. (1975). The strategy of social protest. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
  48. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Blackwell, Polity Press.Google Scholar
  49. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  50. Goffman, E. (1973). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Goldstone, J. A. (2004). More social movements or fewer? Beyond political opportunity structures to relational fields. Theory and Society, 33(3), 333–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Goodwin, J., & Jasper, J. M. (1999). Caught in a winding, snarling vine: The structural bias of political process theory. Paper presented at the Sociological forum.Google Scholar
  53. Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1022–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Gross, N. (2009). A pragmatist theory of social mechanisms. American Sociological Review, 74(3), 358–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Habermas, J. (1981). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns band 1: Handlungsrationalität und gesellchaftliche Rationalisierung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  56. Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (2001). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2010). Discourse, field-configuring events, and change in organizations and institutional fields: Narratives of DDT and the Stockholm convention. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1365–1392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Hedström, P., & Swedberg, R. (1998). Social mechanisms: An analytical approach to social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Hiß, S. (2006). Warum übernehmen Unternehmen gesellschaftliche Verantwortung? Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
  61. Hiß, S. (2013). The politics of the financialization of sustainability. Competition & Change, 17(3), 234–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Hoffman, A. J. (1999). Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the US chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 351–371.Google Scholar
  63. James, W. (1907/1975). Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Joas, H. (1996). The creativity of action (J. Gaines & P. Keast, Trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  65. Kingdon, J. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.Google Scholar
  66. Kluttz, D. N., & Fligstein, N. (2016). Varieties of sociological field theory. In S. Abrutyn (Ed.), Handbook of contemporary sociological theory (pp. 185–204). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Knoll, L. (2012). Über die Rechtfertigung wirtschaftlichen Handelns: CO2-Handel in der kommunalen Energiewirtschaft. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Knorr-Cetina, K. (2009). What is a financial market? In J. Beckert & C. Deutschmann (Eds.), Wirtschaftssoziologie (Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 49) (pp. 326–342). Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  69. Krippner, G. R. (2011). Capitalizing on crisis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Kurzman, C. (1996). Structural opportunity and perceived opportunity in social-movement theory: The Iranian revolution of 1979. American Sociological Review, 61(1), 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Langenohl, A., & Wetzel, D. (2011). Finanzmärkte und ihre Sinnformen: Handlungskoordination und Signalkommunikation. Berliner Journal für Soziologie, 21(4), 539–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (Eds.). (2009). Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2011). Institutional work: Refocusing institutional studies of organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 52–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Lazonick, W., & O’Sullivan, M. (2000). Maximizing shareholder value: A new ideology for corporate governance. Economy and Society, 29(1), 13–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Leifer, E. M. (1995). Making the majors: The transformation of team sports in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  76. MacKenzie, D. (2016). A material political economy: Automated trading desk and price prediction in high-frequency trading. Social Studies of Science, 47(2), 172–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2004). Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 657–679.Google Scholar
  78. Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2009). Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study from Bangladesh. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 419–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Martin, J. L. (2003). What is field theory? American Journal of Sociology, 109(1), 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Martin, J. L. (2011). The explanation of social action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. McAdam, D. (1982). Political process and the development of black insurgency. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  82. McAdam, D., Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. (2001). Dynamics of contention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  84. Meyer, A. D. (1982). Adapting to environmental jolts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 515–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Meyer, J. W., & Scott, W. R. (1991). The organization of societal sectors: Propositions and early evidence. In M. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 108–140). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  87. Mische, A. (2009). Projects and possibilities: Researching futures in action. Sociological Forum, 24(3), 694–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Pacewicz, J. (2012). Tax increment financing, economic development professionals and the financialization of urban politics. Socio-Economic Review, 11(3), 413–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Podolny, J. M. (1993). A status-based model of market competition. American Journal of Sociology, 98(4), 829–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Quinn, S. L. (2010). Government policy, housing, and the origins of securitization, 1780–1968. (PhD), Berkeley, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
  91. Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2005). The recomposition of an organizational field: Health care in Alberta. Organization Studies, 26(3), 351–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Rule, J., & Tilly, C. (1975). Political process in revolutionary France: 1830-1832. In J. M. Merriman (Ed.), 1830 France (pp. 41–85). New York: New Viewpoints.Google Scholar
  93. Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(4), 493–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Scott, W. R. (1991). Unpacking institutional arguments. In W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 164–182). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  95. Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  96. Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  97. Seabrooke, L. (2010). Everyday legitimacy and institutional change. In A. Gofas & C. Hay (Eds.), The role of ideas in political analysis: A portrait of contemporary debates (pp. 78–93). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  98. Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1, 197–217.Google Scholar
  99. Sparsam, J. (2014). Wirtschaft in der new economic sociology: Eine Systematisierung und Kritik. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  100. Stark, D. (2011). The sense of dissonance: Accounts of worth in economic life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  101. Stinchcombe, A. L. (1998). Monopolistic competition as a mechanism: Corporations, universities, and nation-states in competitive fields. In P. Hedström & R. Swedberg (Eds.), Social mechanisms: An analytical approach to social theory (pp. 267–305). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Streeck, W. (2013). Gekaufte Zeit. Die vertagte Krise des demokratischen Kapitalismus. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  103. Swartz, D. (1997). Culture and power: The sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  104. Tarrow, S. (2011). Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Tavory, I., & Timmermans, S. (2014). Abductive analysis: Theorizing qualitative research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Tilly, C. (1978). From mobilization to revolution. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  108. Tilly, C. (2001). Mechanisms in political processes. Annual Review of Political Science, 4(1), 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1983). Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880-1935. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 22–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Turk, H. (1977). Organizations in modern life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  111. Van Den Bos, W., Golka, P. J., Effelsberg, D., & McClure, S. M. (2013). Pyrrhic victories: The need for social status drives costly competitive behavior. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 7, 1–11.Google Scholar
  112. Van der Zwan, N. (2014). Making sense of financialization. Socio-Economic Review, 12(1), 99–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Vedres, B., & Stark, D. (2010). Structural folds: Generative disruption in overlapping groups. American Journal of Sociology, 115(4), 1150–1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Vitols, S. (2002). Shareholder value, management culture and production regimes in the transformation of the German chemical-pharmaceutical industry. Competition and Change, 6(3), 309–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Warren, R. L. (1967). The interorganizational field as a focus for investigation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 397–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Weber, M. (1921/2002). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  117. White, H. C. (1970). Chains of opportunity: System models of mobility in organizations. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Wooten, M., & Hoffman, A. J. (2017). Organizational fields: Past, present and future. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. Lawrence, & R. Meyer (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 55–76). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Zucker, L. G. (1977). The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. American Sociological Review, 42(5), 726–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philipp Golka
    • 1
  1. 1.Sociology of Markets, Organizations and GovernanceFriedrich Schiller University JenaJenaGermany

Personalised recommendations