2. Organizational heterogeneity and the production of new forms: Politics, social movements and mutual companies in american fire insurance, 1900–1930

Risky Business? Entrepreneurship in the New Independent-Power Sector

“…In doing so, we extend the few institutional analyses that have focused on organizational heterogeneity (e.g., Clemens, 1997;Schneiberg, 2002) by investigating interactions between institutional processes and entrepreneurial action. We also answer Scott's (2001: 211) call to examine all three institutional pillars, their "interactions, conjoint effects, [and] conflicts."…”

Social Movements and Institutional Analysis

“…They also evoked supra-state or field-wide process in which courts and the professions endorsed regulation, promulgated model laws, and built field-wide administrative organs. Taken together, these institutional processes shifted the balance of power within states, crystallizing insurance around economic models and regulatory solutions that settled political struggles over industry governance (see also Schneiberg 1999Schneiberg , 2002Schneiberg & Bartley 2001). …”

“…Moreover, challenger movements are often carriers of new organizational forms, and can work around or outside established channels to build parallel, alternative systems of organizations (Rao, Morrill & Zald 2000;Carroll & Swaminathan 2000;Schneiberg 2002;Schneiberg, King & Smith 2008). These efforts may not be disruptive in intent.…”

“…At a minimum, documenting movement effects depends on credibly measuring the development, strength and activities of challenger movements. Existing research linking movements, organizations and institutions has made real progress here, using the presence of movement organization or chapters, counts of movement organizations, and the number of movement members to document movement emergence and strength (e.g., Lounsbury 2001;Schneiberg 2002;Soule & King 2006). It also suggests that future work can more directly tap such effects by measuring protests and other movement activity, or by using newspaper coverage, public hearings or other measures of controversy to assess whether movements have been able to force issues or new conceptions on the public agenda or call existing arrangements into question.…”

“…To address these difficulties, institutionalists have begun to revise both their conceptions of fields and their views of action. From a structural standpoint, some scholars increasingly view fields as comprising multiple logics, or by indeterminacy, ambiguities or contradictions, opening theoretical spaces for action (Scott, Ruef, Mendel, & Caronna 2000;Stryker 1994Stryker , 2000Seo & Creed 2002;Schneiberg 2002Schneiberg , 2007Lounsbury 2007;Marquis & Lounsbury 2007). Focusing more on agency, other scholars have brought new attention to actors and what they do, producing studies of 'institutional entrepreneurs' (Beckert 1999;Hwang & Powell 2005;McGuire Hardy & Lawrence 2004; Hardy & McGuire, Chapter 7 this volume) and institutional work (Lawrence and Suddaby 2006).…”