Emerging Framework and Model
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.
- Latour, B. (1996). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications. Soziale Welt, 47, 369–381.Google Scholar
- Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- Lounsbury, M. (2002). Institutional transformation and status mobility: The professionalization of the field of finance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 255–266.Google Scholar
- Virmani, A. (2005). Institution governance & policy reforms: A framework for analysis. Economic and Political Weekly, 40(22), 2341–2350.Google Scholar