Advertisement

Discussion and Conclusion

  • Philipp Golka
Chapter

Abstract

In this concluding chapter, Golka discusses the contribution of his financialization perspective, the resonance space concept, and the empirical case study on social impact investing for social science scholarship. To conclude his work, Golka draws on his extensive analysis of social impact investing to address a question asked by many practitioners: whether social impact investing is morally good or bad, and how it can be improved. He invites scholars and practitioners to understand the politics, the polity, and the political economy of social impact investing and related social innovations when assessing their social and moral implications.

References

  1. Battilana, J., & D’Aunno, T. (2009). Institutional work and the paradox of embedded agency. In R. Suddaby & B. Leca (Eds.), Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations (pp. 31–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006). On justification: Economies of worth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie. (2015). INVEST – Zuschuss für Wagniskapital: Ein Programm für junge innovative Unternehmen und private Investoren. Retrieved from http://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Redaktion/PDF/Publikationen/invest-zuschuss-fuer-wagniskapital,property=pdf,bereich=bmwi2012,sprache=de,rwb=true.pdf
  6. Burawoy, M. (2005). For public sociology. American Sociological Review, 70(1), 4–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chiapello, E., & Godefroy, G. (2017). The dual function of judgment devices. Why does the plurality of market classifications matter? Historical Social Research, 42(1), 152–188.Google Scholar
  8. Cole, S. (Ed.). (2001). What’s wrong with sociology? New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Cornelissen, J. P., & Werner, M. D. (2014). Putting framing in perspective: A review of framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 181–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cornelissen, J. P., Durand, R., Fiss, P. C., Lammers, J. C., & Vaara, E. (2015). Putting communication front and center in institutional theory and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 10–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crouch, C. (2015). The knowledge corrupters: Hidden consequences of the financial takeover of public life. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  12. Deeg, R., & Jackson, G. (2007). Towards a more dynamic theory of capitalist variety. Socio-Economic Review, 5(1), 149–179.Google Scholar
  13. Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113(1), 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. European Commission. (2016). Capital markets union: New rules to support investment in venture capital and social enterprises [Press release]. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2481_en.htm
  15. Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2012). A theory of fields. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Forst, R. (2015a). Normativität und Macht. Zur analyse sozialer Rechtfertigungsordnungen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  17. Glänzel, G., & Scheuerle, T. (2016). Social impact investing in Germany: Current impediments from investors’ and social entrepreneurs’ perspectives. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(4), 1638–1668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldstone, J. A., & Useem, B. (2012). Putting values and institutions back into the theory of strategic action fields. Sociological Theory, 30(1), 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gross, N. (2009). A pragmatist theory of social mechanisms. American Sociological Review, 74(3), 358–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Habermas, J. (1981). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns band 1: Handlungsrationalität und gesellchaftliche Rationalisierung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  21. Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (2001). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2011). Institutional work: Refocusing institutional studies of organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 52–58.Google Scholar
  23. Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2009). Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study from Bangladesh. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 419–435.Google Scholar
  24. Mische, A. (2002). Cross-talk in movements: Reconceiving the culture-network link. In M. Diani & D. McAdam (Eds.), Social movement and networks: Relational approaches to collective action (pp. 258–280). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Streeck, W., & Thelen, K. A. (2005). Beyond continuity: Institutional change in advanced political economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Tavory, I., & Timmermans, S. (2014). Abductive analysis: Theorizing qualitative research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Vaisey, S. (2009). Motivation and justification: A dual-process model of culture in action. American Journal of Sociology, 114(6), 1675–1715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vedres, B., & Stark, D. (2010). Structural folds: Generative disruption in overlapping groups. American Journal of Sociology, 115(4), 1150–1190.Google Scholar
  31. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google 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