Skip to main content

Discussion and Conclusion

  • 218 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-06100-5_9
  • Chapter length: 13 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-06100-5
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Notes

  1. 1.

    Source: Stephen Cook, ‘Profit with purpose’: the dispute over doing well while doing good, Third Sector, December 18th 2014, http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/profit-purpose-dispute-doing-doing-good/social-enterprise/article/1326694, accessed April 29th 2017.

References

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006). On justification: Economies of worth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Burawoy, M. (2005). For public sociology. American Sociological Review, 70(1), 4–28.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Cole, S. (Ed.). (2001). What’s wrong with sociology? New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Crouch, C. (2015). The knowledge corrupters: Hidden consequences of the financial takeover of public life. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deeg, R., & Jackson, G. (2007). Towards a more dynamic theory of capitalist variety. Socio-Economic Review, 5(1), 149–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113(1), 1–40.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2012). A theory of fields. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Forst, R. (2015a). Normativität und Macht. Zur analyse sozialer Rechtfertigungsordnungen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstone, J. A., & Useem, B. (2012). Putting values and institutions back into the theory of strategic action fields. Sociological Theory, 30(1), 37–47.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gross, N. (2009). A pragmatist theory of social mechanisms. American Sociological Review, 74(3), 358–379.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1981). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns band 1: Handlungsrationalität und gesellchaftliche Rationalisierung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (2001). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streeck, W., & Thelen, K. A. (2005). Beyond continuity: Institutional change in advanced political economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tavory, I., & Timmermans, S. (2014). Abductive analysis: Theorizing qualitative research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Vaisey, S. (2009). Motivation and justification: A dual-process model of culture in action. American Journal of Sociology, 114(6), 1675–1715.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Vedres, B., & Stark, D. (2010). Structural folds: Generative disruption in overlapping groups. American Journal of Sociology, 115(4), 1150–1190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Golka, P. (2019). Discussion and Conclusion. In: Financialization as Welfare. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06100-5_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06100-5_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-06099-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-06100-5

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)