Advertisement

Emerging Framework and Model

  • Amar Patnaik
Chapter

Abstract

Terming his alternative model as ‘institutional social change’, Patnaik gets down to the brass tacks and lucidly describes the ‘how’ of change in Indian rural ecosystem. He identifies eight bases of power asymmetries—economic, political, social, cultural, informational, technology and skills, opportunities, and capabilities—that the institutional champion or change agent/catalyser works on to usher in the desired change. Patnaik’s institutional champion destroys the prevailing ‘power symmetry octagon’, through a 15-stage process of institutional convening that begins with the identification and problematization of the change and culminates with its ‘maintenance and succession’ over a period of time. The author further emphasizes that for the champion to be successful, he/she needs to have attributes such as embeddedness, involvement, selflessness, empathy and organizational ability.

References

  1. Battilana, J. (2006). Agency and institutions: The enabling role of individuals’ social position. Organization, 13(5), 653–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Latour, B. (1996). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications. Soziale Welt, 47, 369–381.Google Scholar
  4. Latour, B. (1999). On recalling ANT. The Sociological Review, 47(S1), 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Latour, B., & Callon, M. (1992). Don’t throw the baby out with the bath school! A reply to Collins and Yearley. Science as Practice and Culture, 343, 368.Google Scholar
  7. Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5(4), 379–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lounsbury, M. (2002). Institutional transformation and status mobility: The professionalization of the field of finance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 255–266.Google Scholar
  9. Lounsbury, M., & Crumley, E. T. (2007). New practice creation: An institutional perspective on innovation. Organization Studies, 28(7), 993–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ostrom, E. (1986). An agenda for the study of institutions. Public Choice, 48(1), 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Virmani, A. (2005). Institution governance & policy reforms: A framework for analysis. Economic and Political Weekly, 40(22), 2341–2350.Google Scholar
  13. Wijen, F., & Ansari, S. (2007). Overcoming inaction through collective institutional entrepreneurship: Insights from regime theory. Organization Studies, 28(7), 1079–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amar Patnaik
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Government and Public AffairsXavier UniversityBhubaneswarIndia

Personalised recommendations