Advertisement

Joint ‘Anormative’ Regulation from Status Inconsistency: A Multilevel Spinning Top Model of Specialized Institutionalization

  • Emmanuel LazegaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Social Morphogenesis book series (SOCMOR)

Abstract

From a neo-structural perspective, the link between anormative regulation and morphogenesis (Archer MS. Anormative social regulation: an attempt to cope with social morphogenesis. In: Archer M (ed) Morphogenesis and the crisis of normativity. Springer, Dordrecht, 2016) has far-reaching implications. This chapter argues that this link sheds a strong critical light on joint regulatory processes co-driven by the two most powerful actors in contemporary organizational societies: states and businesses. It does so by looking at how specific institutional entrepreneurs, who are part of collegial oligarchies mixing public and private elites, use procedural law as ‘weak culture’ (Breiger 2010) to produce, rank and promote specialized norms. Our empirical setting is the emergence of the European Unified Patent Court, and the institutional entrepreneurs are intellectual property judges assembled by corporate lawyers to build and frame the new institution. This multilevel regulatory process is represented by the heuristic image of a multilevel spinning top and is shown to be close to institutional capture.

Keywords

Joint regulation Weak culture Networks Institutional framing Spinning top model Collegial oligarchy Transnational institution Intellectual property 

References

  1. Amable, B. (2003). The diversity of modern capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Archer, M. S. (1982). Morphogenesis versus structuration: On combining structure and action. British Journal of Sociology, 35, 455–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Archer, M. S. (Ed.). (2013). Late modernity: Trajectories towards morphogenic society (Vol. II). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Archer, M. S. (Ed.). (2014). The generative mechanisms transforming late modernity. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Archer, M. S. (2016). Anormative social regulation: An attempt to cope with social morphogenesis. In M. Archer (Ed.), Morphogenesis and the Crisis of Normativity. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Berends, H., Van Burg, E., & van Raaij, E. M. (2011). Contacts and contracts: Cross-level network dynamics in the development of an aircraft material. Organization Science, 22, 940–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brailly, J., & Lazega, E. (2012). Diversité des approches de la modélisation multiniveaux en analyses de réseaux sociaux et organisationnels. Mathématiques et Sciences Humaines, 198, 5–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Braithwaite, J. (2005, October). Neoliberalism or regulatory capitalism. RegNet Occasional Paper N° 5, Australian National University: Regulatory Institutions Network.Google Scholar
  10. Braithwaite, J. (2008). Regulatory capitalism. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Breiger, R. L. (1974). The duality of persons and groups. Social Forces, 53, 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Breiger, R. L. (2010). Dualities of culture and structure: Seeing through cultural holes. In J. Fuhse & S. Mützel (Eds.), Relationale Soziologie: Zur kulturellen Wende der Netzwerkforschung (pp. 37–47). Berlin: VS Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Edelman, L. B., & Suchman, M. C. (2007). The legal lives of private organizations. Ashgate: The International Library of Essays in Law and Society.Google Scholar
  14. Favereau, O., & Lazega, E. (Eds.). (2002). Conventions and structures in economic organization: Markets, networks and hierarchies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  15. Flemming, R. B. (1998). Contested terrains and regime politics: Thinking about America’s trial courts and institutional change. Law & Social Inquiry, 23, 941–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Flood, J. (2002). Capital markets, globalisation and global elites. In M. Likosky (Ed.), Transnational legal processes – globalisation and power disparities. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  17. Flood, J. (2007). Lawyers as sanctifiers of value creation. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 14, 35–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frank, R. H. (1985). Choosing the right pond: Human behavior and the quest for status. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Franzosi, M. (1997). Worldwide patent litigation and the Italian Torpedo. European Intellectual Property Review, 19, 382–385.Google Scholar
  20. Grossetti, M. (2011). ‘L’espace à trois dimensions des phénomènes sociaux. Echelles d’action et d’analyse’. Sociologies. http://sociologies.revues.org/index3466.html
  21. Hellman, J., Jones, G., & Kaufmann, D. (2000). Seize the state, seize the day: State capture, corruption and influence in transition. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper N° 2444.Google Scholar
  22. Jettinghoff, A. (2011). The quest for a transnational patent system in Europe: A preliminary reconstruction. Recht der Werkelijkheid (Journal of Socio-Legal Studies), 32(3), 52–65.Google Scholar
  23. Katz, J. (1977). Cover-up and collective integrity. Social Problems, 25, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lazega, E. (1994). Les conflits d’intérêts dans les cabinets américains d’avocats d’affaires: Concurrence et auto-régulation. Sociologie du Travail, 35, 315–336.Google Scholar
  25. Lazega, E. (2001). The collegial phenomenon: The social mechanisms of cooperation among peers in a corporate law partnership. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lazega, E. (2009). Theory of cooperation among competitors: A neo-structural approach’. Sociologica. http://www.sociologica.mulino.it/main [Italian Journal of Sociology Online, N° 1/2009. With Comments by Luigi Burroni, Sophie Mützel and Harrison White and a “Short response to Luigi Burroni, Sophie Mützel and Harrison White”, same URL.]
  27. Lazega, E. (2011). Pertinence et structure. Swiss Sociological Review, 37, 127–149. Google Scholar
  28. Lazega, E. (2012). Time to shrink to greatness? Networks and conflicts of interests in large professional firms. Revue für post-heroisches Management, 10, 68–77.Google Scholar
  29. Lazega, E., & Favereau, O. (2002). Introduction. In O. Favereau & E. Lazega (Eds.), Conventions and structures in economic organization: Markets, networks and hierarchies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  30. Lazega, E., & Mounier, L. (2002). Interdependent entrepreneurs and the social discipline of their cooperation: A research program for structural economic sociology in a society of organizations. In O. Favereau & E. Lazega (Eds.), Conventions and structures in economic organization: Markets, networks and hierarchies (pp. 147–199). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  31. Lazega, E., & Mounier, L. (2012). Networks of institutional capture. In B. Vedres & M. Scotti (Eds.), Networks in social policy problems (pp. 124–137). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lazega, E., Lemercier, C., & Mounier, L. (2006). A spinning top model of formal structure and informal behaviour: Dynamics of advice networks in a commercial court. European Management Review, 3, 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lazega, E., Jourda, M., Mounier, L., & Stofer, R. (2008). Catching up with big fish in the big pond? Multi-level network analysis through linked design. Social Networks, 30, 157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lazega, E., Jourda, M.-T., & Mounier, L. (2013). Network lift from dual alters: Extended opportunity structures from a multilevel and structural perspective. European Sociological Review, 29, 1226–1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mair, P. (2013). Ruling the void: The hollowing of western democracy. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  36. McIntosh, W. V., & Cates, C. L. (1997). Judicial entrepreneurship: The role of the judge in the marketplace of ideas. Westport: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  37. Merton, R. K. (1959). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  38. Quack, S. (2007). Legal professionals and transnational law-making: A case of distributed agency. Organization, 14(5), 643–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reynaud, J.-D., & Reynaud, E. (1996). La régulation des marchés internes du travail. Revue Française de Sociologie, 37, 337–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sellers, C. (1991). The market revolution: Jacksonian America 1815–1846. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. Evanston: Row, Peterson & Co.Google Scholar
  42. Vedres, B., & Stark, D. (2010). Structural folds: Generative disruption in overlapping groups. American Journal of Sociology, 115, 1150–1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. White, H. C. (1970). Chains of opportunity: System models of mobility in organizations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations