Markets and institutional fields: foundational concepts and a research agenda

Abstract

We borrow the notion of field from institutional theory to think through how markets and their ‘outsides’–or at least one particular manifestation of an ‘outside’–stand in a dynamic and interactive relationship. We distinguish the field and the market in terms of issues versus exchange and identity versus position. We argue that the lack of clarity as to how fields and markets differ, relate, overlap, and are bounded, jeopardizes our ability to address important societal debates concerning the roles of markets within and across other areas of social life. It also hinders a consolidation of insights across different approaches to studying markets, even though researchers from different disciplines often address similar concerns. Key questions for which both conceptual and analytical clarity are essential include how markets and their ‘outsides’ (here: fields) intersect; whether and how diverse sets of actors interact, work, and migrate between fields and markets; and what dynamics may be observable between field and market. We provide four illustrative examples of field/market relationships and a theoretical, methodological, and empirical research agenda for future research into markets and their ‘outsides’.

Towards a flatter ontology of institutional logics: How logics relate in situations of institutional complexity

“…In healthcare, a democratic ideology is vocalized using words such as ‘transparency’, ‘patient rights’ and ‘public debate’ underpinned by citizens, patient, media and interest group entitlements to healthcare service quality and efficiency data (Blomgren & Waks, 2015, p. 95). It seeks to ‘give patients “more choice” in the drugs they can access’ (Currie & Guah, 2007, p. 238), in effect seeking to merge the healthcare field with the healthcare market (Mountford & Geiger, 2021). Such public choice comes up against professionalism, which public choice theorists claim ‘distorts the operation of markets, promotes rising costs, and encourages “producer capture” of services’ (Kitchener, 2002, p. 401).…”

“…In healthcare, (Blomgren & Waks, 2015, p. 95). It seeks to 'give patients "more choice" in the drugs they can access' (Currie & Guah, 2007, p. 238), in effect seeking to merge the healthcare field with the healthcare market (Mountford & Geiger, 2021). Such public choice comes up against professionalism, which public choice theorists claim 'distorts the operation of markets, promotes rising costs, and encourages "producer capture" of services' (Kitchener, 2002, p. 401).…”

The cultural underpinnings of platformization: How social movement organizations helped form the category of the sharing economy

“…The cultural emergence of the sharing economy category and its concurrent technologization, carry important implications for the cultural study of platformization. The discursive strategies we outline helped establish the sharing economy as an expansive socio-economic field (Mountford and Geiger, 2021) tethered to relevant social and environmental concerns. By articulating a powerful macro-market category, by infusing it with social meaning and aspiration, and by framing platform technology as an enabler of positive social change, SMOs helped numerous platforms achieve normative and socio-cognitive legitimacy (Humphreys, 2010; Suchman, 1995) as members of the up-and-coming sharing economy.…”

“…The cultural emergence of the sharing economy category and its concurrent technologization, carry important implications for the cultural study of platformization. The discursive strategies we outline helped establish the sharing economy as an expansive socio-economic field (Mountford and Geiger, 2021) tethered to relevant social and environmental concerns.…”