[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
2004, Ingram et al. 2005), in turn affecting as social structures. Some take the unitary or-
the opportunities for firms to expand and ganization of the firm as a starting point, but
survive. The role of government and law most agree that organizations have complex
in the production of markets has been ac- internal dynamics that are important for or-
knowledged by the population ecology, insti- ganizational form and for the strategies they
tutionalist, and, of course, political economy use to solve the problems of competition and
camps. These theory groups understand that exchange. They have pointed to competition
governments can both open up opportuni- within the firm, culture, and power struggles,
ties and set up constraints for markets. For in addition to environmental influence, as im-
example, Hannan & Freeman (1987) show portant to understanding a firm s strategy and
how the legalization of union activities af- thus the structure of markets (Fligstein 1990,
fected the founding and survival of those or- Ocasio & Kim 1999, Pfeffer 1981, Pfeffer &
ganizations. Ranger-Moore et al. (1991) show Salancik 1978).
116 Fligstein Dauter
by LINKOPINGS UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/09/09. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:105-128. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
ANRV316-SO33-06 ARI 24 May 2007 10:6
The study of the internal dynamics of firms ics and interorganizational competition and
and how firms relate to their environments exchange.
is rooted in organization theory. Although Probably the most studied mechanism
much of the empirical work in the sociol- theorized to pass strategies and structures
ogy of markets treats firms as unitary, soci- from one firm to another is the board inter-
ologists are generally committed, at least the- lock (Mizruchi 1996). Board interlocks influ-
oretically, to viewing the internal dynamics of ence the spread of different kinds of struc-
the firm as important (Bourdieu 2005). The tural and strategic innovations (Burt 1980b,
two key aspects of firms with which organiza- Davis 1991, Gulati & Westphal 1999, Rao
tional scholars have been most concerned are & Sivakumar 1999). Sociologists tend to see
strategy and structure (Miles & Snow 1978). board interlocks as mechanisms for coopting
The design of the organization is its structure. various kinds of resource dependencies, for
This includes lines of authority and the for- generating trust, sharing information, medi-
mal and informal relationships between posi- ating competition, and forming political al-
tions in the firm. Meanwhile, strategy refers liances (here, one can make the link back to
to the means the organization employs to political economy).
achieve its goals. The central questions sur- The social structuring of markets is gen-
rounding these aspects of organizations have erally in response to the problems of compe-
been where they come from and how they are tition and exchange. The sociology of mar-
related to market structures. kets does not posit that these problems will
Although economistic explanations for always be solved. But it does imply that where
various strategies and structures generally stable markets emerge, such structures will
center on transaction costs, agency costs, or appear as firms figure out how to resolve their
aspects of the technology the firm uses in problems. By establishing social relationships
production (Chandler 1962, Fama & Jensen not just with competitors, but also with cus-
1983, Williamson 1985), sociologists have tomers, suppliers, and employees, firms can
emphasized the contingent nature of the goals establish trust and guarantee access to scarce
of the firm and how culture and managers resources. By responding to directives from
backgrounds influence the firm s strategy and the government and trying to coopt govern-
structure. This emphasis makes the existing ment agencies, firms can also secure their
divisions within the firm and the career paths futures. All these social mechanisms make it
of managers important. The way the firm di- possible for firms to juggle their resource de-
vides up functions, how the firm promotes pendencies and survive. One can conclude
from within, and political struggle determine that despite the varying theoretical perspec-
who manages the firm and thus the perspec- tives and differing language and data analysis
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]