Professional Documents
Culture Documents
org
Access provided by Universidad de Buenos Aires on 06/02/16. For personal use only.
February 3, 1997
13:42
Annual Reviews
AR035-00
AR35-FrontisP
P1: ARK/MBL/mkv P2: MBL/vks QC: MBL/Anil T1: MBL
June 4, 1997 9:13 Annual Reviews AR035-01
Arthur L. Stinchcombe
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1997.23:1-18. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
ABSTRACT
Institutions are staffed and are created to do the job of regulating organizations.
This staffing, and all the creative work that is involved in financing, governing,
training, and motivating institutional actions by that staff in organizations, has
been lost in recent institutional theorizing. This staffing was central to the old
institutionalism, which is why it looked so different. The argument is exemplified
by applying the insights of classical institutionalists to the legitimacy of court
decisions as determined by the law of evidence, to the legitimacy of competition
and the destruction of other organizations by competition, to the noncontractual
basis of contract in commitments to maintain competence to do the performances
required in contracts, and to the failure of institutions of capitalist competition and
the substitution of mafia-like enforcement of contracts in postcommunist Russia.
The institutions of the new institutionalism do not have enough causal substance
and enough variance of characteristics to explain such various phenomena.
Introduction
I was recruited into sociology by the institutional economists, especially by
Thorstein Veblen; sociologists at Central Michigan College of Education read
Veblen, while economists there did not. I started with The Theory of the
Leisure Class (1934 [1899]), and then whatever of the Veblen corpus was
in the CMCE library. I went on before graduate school to Karl Marx, Joseph
Alois Schumpeter, and Max Weber, then in graduate school to John Maurice
Clark, Clark Kerr, John R Commons, and many historians of law (because most
economic institutions eventually make their way into the courts). I became a
1
0360-0572/97/0815-0001$08.00
P1: ARK/MBL/mkv P2: MBL/vks QC: MBL/Anil T1: MBL
June 4, 1997 9:13 Annual Reviews AR035-01
2 STINCHCOMBE
tricity and fertilizer production, as well as public versus private land tenure;
Union Democracy (Lipset et al 1956) was about a form of appropriation of skill
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1997.23:1-18. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
monopolies; Work and Authority in Industry (Bendix 1956) about one way to
develop institutions of small-firm manufacturing of textiles. Selznick, Lipset,
and Bendix were, whatever else they also were, institutional economists.
Institutions, I learned then, shaped the creation and functions of units in
market and the relations between them. But unlike the institutions of mod-
ern institutionalism, people ran these institutions by organizing activities on
their behalf. Institutions were, in the first instance, created by purposive people
in legislatures and international unions, and in pamphlets of business ideol-
ogists in Northern England. Modern institutionalism, to create a caricature,
is Durkheimian in the sense that collective representations manufacture them-
selves by opaque processes, are implemented by diffusion, are exterior and
constraining without exterior people doing the creation or the constraining.
The purpose of this essay then is to take some selected problems of modern
economic sociology, and some theoretical generative principles of the old insti-
tutionalism, and to show there is life in the old bones yet. In the background of
the essay is a contrast between the old institutionalism in which people built and
ran institutions, and the new Durkheimian institutionalism in which collective
representations operate on their own. My primary purpose is generative rather
than critical, so the picture I draw of the new institutionalism is contentious. But
I hope that caricature is a stylized version of the central thrust of the newness
of the new institutionalism, and particularly of the newness of its faults.
This is then a review by contrast of new institutionalist economic sociology.
Its main purpose is to revive some central mechanisms from the old institution-
alism, and to use that revivification to throw light on the broad contours of our
present difficulties.
In the first part of the analysis, I treat particularly John Henry Wigmore, who
studied the relation between the institutions of evidence law and the functioning
of American and British courts as organizations. It is a peculiarity of such
courts that they produce legitimate decisions, and so legitimacy is absolutely
central to their survival, and that in order to produce legitimate decisions they
P1: ARK/MBL/mkv P2: MBL/vks QC: MBL/Anil T1: MBL
June 4, 1997 9:13 Annual Reviews AR035-01
OLD INSTITUTIONALISM 3
4 STINCHCOMBE
which other elements of the firm have a competitive advantage over outside
firms providing the same services or goods in the market, because of lesser
transaction costs. Schumpeter is the classic source on the relation to the larger
competitive structure of capitalism of that monopoly advantage that comes from
a firms having superior productivity. All three writers are interested in the form
of institutions that makes the competitive structure of capitalism possible, given
what that structure is, namely the competition of firms that can do something
better than anyone else.
The impoverished view of modern institutional theorists (especially in the
Access provided by Universidad de Buenos Aires on 06/02/16. For personal use only.
form for that population. This conception leaves out many aspects of what
the traditional institutional theorists actually thought about competition. The
transaction costs literature (e.g. Williamson 1975) preserves more of this con-
tent, except that it does not study legitimacy of the market itself, and so it has
a vacuous description of what firms (as hierarchies) are contrasted to. The
conceptions of Commons and Schumpeter of how competitive markets came
to be legitimate are not vacuous.
The second part of this chapter concentrates on how contracts in the market
come to be legitimate by the way they are constituted, by the mutual belief of the
contracting parties that each is committed to the line of action promised in the
contracts. We emphasize especially the commitment of a firm to be competent
in the future to carry out the activities specified in the contracts. Contracts are
what markets centrally consist of, so their legitimacy is central to the legitimacy
of marketsa fact well known to institutional economists in the past. Coase
then analyzes what it is about the firm that is the noncontractual basis of con-
tracts, namely its special competencies. Commons analyzes these as they are
embedded in working rules, while Schumpeter treats them as innovations that
have specific kinds of effects on the capital market and therefore on business
cycles. Selznick treats the processes by which commitment to competencies
are built into organizations.
The third section treats the problem of the legitimacy in the law of market
competition as a system, and its relation to the legitimacy of being able to do
things better than competitors as a moral and legal claim on the profits of such
competence.
The fourth section is an analysis of a classic formulation of the failure of in-
stitutions by Edward Banfield, especially in his The Moral Basis of a Backward
Society (1967 [1958]). Banfields basic argument is that institutions, and com-
mitment to institutions, are essential to the creation of public goods. In turn,
2 The firms are assumed to be identical, each firm counting as one, in most applications.
P1: ARK/MBL/mkv P2: MBL/vks QC: MBL/Anil T1: MBL
June 4, 1997 9:13 Annual Reviews AR035-01
OLD INSTITUTIONALISM 5
6 STINCHCOMBE
ation of public goods (e.g. higher income from economic development) fail to
operate. Then only mafias, with the kind of consent they elicit, create even a
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1997.23:1-18. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
OLD INSTITUTIONALISM 7
Thus it is only because we imagine that justice will be served that we set
up the whole apparatus of appealsof judges guessing what each other will
sayto demand that they obey the legitimizing formal procedures that Meyer
& Rowan specify and Wigmore on Evidence (1983 [1940]) describes. In short,
the acceptance of the idea that the appellate court was a ritual would destroy
its legitimacy. And it is clear that the written opinions of appellate courts are
central to the allegation that it is not just a ritual, which could as well have
been dispensed with by allowing the court of original jurisdiction to specify
what was legitimate under the Constitution and to make its own guess about
Access provided by Universidad de Buenos Aires on 06/02/16. For personal use only.
the Supreme Court; and the Supreme Court could in its turn merely send back
a yes or no, without majority and minority and concurring opinions.
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1997.23:1-18. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
8 STINCHCOMBE
outside the canonical order, than if students never learned to treat geometrical
problems with algebra?
In short, why is formality never enough for legitimacy, without some convic-
tion that the formality is just a more abstract form of the substance? Why is it,
for example, that a principle of legitimacy of a contract is (d) The court shall
determine whether the writing was intended by the parties as a final expression
of their agreement with respect to such terms as are included therein [California
Code of Civil Procedure (as amended in 1978), as quoted in Wigmore (1983
[1940]) p. 75n]? The institutional rule here relies on a substantive determi-
Access provided by Universidad de Buenos Aires on 06/02/16. For personal use only.
nation about the wills of the parties, rather than just a formal reading of the
content of the writing.
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1997.23:1-18. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
OLD INSTITUTIONALISM 9
long pull, lawyers favored rules that used the reason and good sense of judges,
rather than formal rituals of correctness.
For example, one observes in the law of evidence that the criteria of evidence
are applied much more strictly when a hearing deals with substantive rights than
with the formalities of the course of an issue through the court system, so that
hearings on a change of venue have very informal rules of evidence. Further,
the law is more painstaking when the rights at stake are more serious, as in
criminal cases compared to civil cases (e.g. exclusions of evidence because it
was illegally obtained are much more common in criminal cases), in criminal
Access provided by Universidad de Buenos Aires on 06/02/16. For personal use only.
trials as opposed to grand jury indictment hearings (e.g. the grand jury rather
than the defendant decides what evidence the defendant can offer), in habeus
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1997.23:1-18. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
corpus hearings than bail bond hearings, in cases of child custody rather than
child support levels, in search and seizure of evidence rather than discovery
hearings [Wigmore on Evidence (1983 [1940]) vol. 1A, pp. 25332 gives a
summary of variations in the law of evidence according to jurisdictions].3 The
more justice matters, in short, the greater the formality of the application of the
law of evidence.
This point is crucial to our differences with the new institutionalism. We want
to predict when the institution will demand more formality, not when the orga-
nization will more enthusiastically adopt the institutions standards, as Meyer
& Rowan (1977) do. It is precisely because the behavior of institutional author-
ities in enforcing standards varies that it is important to notice that institutions
are staffed, rather than being merely collective representations.
Similarly, votes in academic departments are counted much more carefully,
and the votes are more likely to be by secret ballot and kept confidential (the
doctrine being that one gets honest opinions only with immunity of the voter),
when the issue is a crucial matter such as a tenure case. Another academic
example: Graduate students are sent ritually out of the room when their dis-
sertation defense is being debated and voted on, but not in a seminar where
their contribution to discussion is to be debated. The criteria and procedure for
examinations and their grading are often discussed in the syllabus and in fac-
ulty handbooks, whereas when the professor will actually appear for his office
hours, as opposed to what is announced, is more informally discussed by angry
students outside his or her door. In short, the more a judgment of academic
3 When substantive rights are dealt with in administrative hearings (e.g. hearings on welfare
rights) or by agreed arbitration, more informal laws of evidence apply. Here we would predict
that the more important the substantive right, the more formal the rules of evidence compared to
other administrative hearings or arbitration proceedings. Similarly Jerome Skolnick argues (1975
[1966], pp. 155161) that the bigger the case, the more careful police are to follow the dictates of
the law of evidence as well as other determinants of the quality of evidence (e.g. policemen make
better witnesses than drug dealers), because they know evidence will be evaluated more strictly.
P1: ARK/MBL/mkv P2: MBL/vks QC: MBL/Anil T1: MBL
June 4, 1997 9:13 Annual Reviews AR035-01
10 STINCHCOMBE
the rules that make evidence legitimate increases. As the career consequences
of an academic judgment increase in importance, the greater the formality of
the specification of what is to be judged, the more likely committee rather than
individual judgment, the larger the number of stages, and the more the rights
of appeal. As a negotiation of a contract proceeds, so increases the degree of
formality of judgment about what has been agreed to, whether the agreement
is final, and whether the terms have been made clear either during the process
of negotiation or by reference to the practice in a trade.
Formality and ritualization, then, increase with the substantive importance
of the issue, because in general the reason for having things institutionalized
and ritualized is that they matter. Or to put it the other way around, when the
value system informing an institution ranks something as of high priority, it is
more likely that the keepers of the institution will formalize conformity with
the institution in a ritual designed to monitor, enforce, and enact the value of
that something. The higher the priority, the higher the formality and ritual.
The more ritualized a thing is in an institution, the less it is merely a ritual,
because the more substantively important it is. Or to return to our example of
evidence law, the more justice depends on a bit of evidence, the more formal
evidence law there is about the introduction of that evidence.
OLD INSTITUTIONALISM 11
only if the airlines in their turn believe they themselves will still be able to
compete in selling traveling and express shipping services.
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1997.23:1-18. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
In particular, airlines will have to sell airline services better than Boeing,
Lockheed, or McDonnell-Douglas, for if the manufacturers were better at run-
ning airlines as well as at building airplanes, the airlines would merely be
financing their competition. Bankers only believe the futures contracts between
airlines and airframe manufacturers if they think the manufacturer can and will
build a better airplane, and the airlines will still be there to buy it when the
contract comes due. It is an immediate derivation of Coases theory that part,
at least, of the noncontractual element of contract has to be mutual belief in
each others future superior competence. Much of ones transaction cost has
to do with trying to guarantee by contractual means the future competence of
the counterparties, without giving over to them the rent of ones own superior
future competence in ones own business. The nature of this system of mutual
belief in each others competence becomes particularly clear when a great deal
of money, now and in the future, has to pass between three different kinds of
firms, each relying on the success of the relation between the other two.
The expected return of all the transaction costs of these development, manu-
facturing, and loan contracts ultimately depends on the faith of all three parties
that the manufacturer will show devotion to building better, cheaper, and safer
airplanes. Unless there is competence and will behind that transaction-cost
boundary, unless Boeing or Lockheed or McDonnell-Douglas can really do
some things better than they (or anyone else) can buy on the market, the whole
web of contracts comes crashing down. Likewise unless the airlines behind
their firms equilibrium boundary can do their job, there will be no money to
pay for the better plane, so in turn no money for the manufacturer to pay the
banker. The same, changing the changeable parts, holds for the banker pricing
risks responsibly for the capital market, and using banking equity to back other
contracts that split up the risks for appropriate parts of the capital market.
Transaction costs are worth paying, then, only when there are two (or in this
case at least three) firms believably trying to be and do what it takes to be best
at their own business. Only if a firm can be believed will any other firm prefer
P1: ARK/MBL/mkv P2: MBL/vks QC: MBL/Anil T1: MBL
June 4, 1997 9:13 Annual Reviews AR035-01
12 STINCHCOMBE
it to internal activities, thus creating the boundary between the two firms and
the necessity of a contract.
Similarly, a university contracts out its janitoring and waste removal tasks,
but keeps its research and teaching in-house, because it has a believable com-
mitment to scholarship, and no noticeable commitment to clean buildings. It
is the universitys commitment to research and teaching that ultimately makes
the waste management firm believe it will be paid for its contract, for the uni-
versitys overhead costs will be paid only if students and grant-givers believe
the university can and will do its job. Similarly the hospital buys a CATSCAN
Access provided by Universidad de Buenos Aires on 06/02/16. For personal use only.
machine rather than build one itself, with the income or credit derived from
its credibility to a client who thinks he may have had a stroke. If the client
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1997.23:1-18. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
chooses the wrong hospital, that does not know enough to buy a CATSCAN
machine, he might not get a second choice. And the CATSCAN manufacturer
that sells to a hospital that cannot attract stroke patients will not be paid for the
machine.
The hierarchy (Williamson 1975) that lies outside the market, protected
by transaction costs barriers, has to be a thing that produces reliably on into
the future, so that its predicted future competence justifies paying transaction
costs now. The transaction cost (a cost of risk) of going into the emergency
room of a hospital when one is perhaps having a stroke will only be paid if one
thinks the medical workers care enough to be competent and to stay competent,
to work even through their daughters seventh birthday party if necessary, to
triage mainly on the degree of urgency, to buy a CATSCAN machine before
one has even had the stroke, and so on.
Of course, the degree to which organizations create their distinctive compe-
tencies by moral commitments is a variable. And the exact definition of what
we would mean by that variable is difficultpresumably managerial commit-
ment is more important than the commitment of hewers of wood and drawers
of water, for example. But I imagine that we will define that variable more
exactly by extracting indicators of it from Selznicks Leadership in Adminis-
tration (1957) than by abstracting them from Oliver Williamson (1975), because
Selznick was primarily developing a theory of the distinctive competence of
an organization, its ability to realize values in a way no other organization could.
OLD INSTITUTIONALISM 13
political elites who wanted to govern first, profit from government afterwards.
Schumpeter perhaps fits uncomfortably with Selznick as a comember of an old
institutional school. But one of the positions he holds in common with the old
institutionalists is that the form of competition among organizations is histor-
ically variable, depending a good deal on the values of the governing classes
and their challengers.
In Schumpeters argument the ruling institutions affected organizational ecol-
ogy, and in particular what he called creative destruction (Schumpeter (1964
[1939]), 1942). In the long run, the big competitors of an earlier population of
Access provided by Universidad de Buenos Aires on 06/02/16. For personal use only.
true that the oxygen atmosphere of earth was created by the first chlorophyll-
using anaerobic populations, causing the long-run shift to oxygen-breathing
animals and creatively destroying most anaerobic strains, then biological
evolution has powerful analogies to Schumpeters reasoning. Thus to ana-
lyze the within-species or withinorganizational population competition is
to miss the big story of evolution and of economic development: interspecies
competition.
Thus Schumpeter was primarily interested in the institutions that allowed the
peaceful4 destruction of whole populations of organizations. To put it another
way, he wanted to know how modern society created such precarious legitimacy
for a given type of organization that the jobs, profits, or community-sustaining
contributions of whole industries could be destroyed. If someone else built a
better mousetrap, all the accumulated legitimacy that accounted for the first
part of the climb of the old population of cat breeders up the Gompertz curve
was not apparently enough. Schumpeter regarded this precariousness of the
legitimacy of old populations of organizations as remarkable, and he therefore
regarded the institutions that allowed such destruction of peoples livelihood as
precarious. He argued that it was such creative destruction that caused depres-
sions (Schumpeter 1964 [1939]), and he was political scientist enough to know
that governments and the economy were confronted with challenges to their
legitimacy when they allowed such destruction and its accompanying depres-
sions. He thought the remarkable institutions facilitating competition between
species of organizations were extraordinarily precarious.
But I think the definitive analysis of what these institutions were is John R
Commonss (1974 [1924]), especially his careful definition of the legal protec-
tion of competition (1974, pp. 83134). Commons starts his analysis of what
legitimate competition means for capitalism by distinguishing the legal defense
4 At least Schumpeter preferred peaceful destructionhe knew that organizations and institu-
tions were often created and destroyed by conquest, but he thought that was bad for economic
development. As does Gambetta (1993).
P1: ARK/MBL/mkv P2: MBL/vks QC: MBL/Anil T1: MBL
June 4, 1997 9:13 Annual Reviews AR035-01
14 STINCHCOMBE
pp. 153157), it produces a going concern value, and the institutional pro-
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1997.23:1-18. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
OLD INSTITUTIONALISM 15
In many East European countries the populations have decided that they have
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1997.23:1-18. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
tried capitalism and it does not work, so they are voting their old communist
leaders back in. In the old institutionalism, the failure of capitalism to work
in southern Italy was also argued by Edward Banfield, in The Moral Basis of
a Backward Society (1967 [1958]). The basic idea of that book was that some
sorts of institutions undermine capitalist organizations, and that they do so by
failing to provide integrity in the achievement of public goods (law and order
especially civil law, city organization, roads, or economic development offices
facilitating factory and firm foundation).
Banfields basic notion was that if the nuclear family was so set up that its
solidarity and interests invariably overrode those of other institutions, then those
other institutions could not do their job. Institutions that depend on generosity
of spirit and attention to collective welfare are especially vulnerable. Part of
institutions job was legitimating the fulfillment of occupational and leadership
obligations in firms and in economically significant government operations.
Large-scale corruption then in arenas requiring integrity in the pursuit of public
goods is an outcome of a particular way of institutionalizing families. The
Mafia and Cosa Nostra are in a certain sense not institutions because they are
in the business of corrupting whatever institutions get in the way of short-run
maximization of nuclear family interests (on the Sicilian Mafia, see especially
Gambetta 1993).
The basic point can be illustrated if we consider the role of accreditation
associations in education, the field where Meyer & Rowan (1977, pp. 354356,
citing their 1975 paper) first observed the powerful role of institutions. Accred-
itation societies do not have many formal powers, nor resources to distribute;
they have only moral powers. One of the consequences is that they very gen-
erally ask for volunteers from several educational organizations to go inspect
another one. Now imagine a South Italian or Sicilian social organization as
described by Banfield sending out unpaid volunteers and making them hold to
educational standards of the sort Meyer wants to explain, but without making
an offer they cant refuse. Paying off the accreditors would surely make the
P1: ARK/MBL/mkv P2: MBL/vks QC: MBL/Anil T1: MBL
June 4, 1997 9:13 Annual Reviews AR035-01
16 STINCHCOMBE
formal report into even more cant and ritual than Meyer observes. A phrase
from Teamsters leader Jimmy Hoffa in a trade union debate over political ac-
tion occurs to me: There are two kinds of political action. You can make
speeches, or you can give money. We give money. If schools gave money for
accreditation, would the rituals of formal organization be convincing?
The extension of Banfields institutional argument to capitalism can most eas-
ily be seen by calling on a really old fashioned institutionalist, Emile Durkheim
(1933 [1893]). Durkheim held that the division of labor rested on the noncon-
tractual elements of contract, the commitment to values of commercial honesty,
Access provided by Universidad de Buenos Aires on 06/02/16. For personal use only.
read as asserting that both the contracts between firms, and between govern-
ments and firms, are not institutionalized under amoral familism.
Now back to the attempt to introduce capitalism in Eastern Europe. The
language describing Sicily is often used to describe the economic arrangements
in capitalist Russia; the mafia in Russia does not have to be imported from
Southern Italy. The legitimation of institutional relations under socialism was
by way of the purposes of government, as manifested in government measures
of outcome, government subsidies of production that was considered a public
good, and the like. The contract between a firm and the government was hardly
deeply theologically grounded, but it had noncontractual elements in the sense
that other parts of the government would back up the corporatist industry glavk
and help enforce conformity on the factory manager.
This central planning legitimation system for supply, quality control, mea-
surement of productivity, labor relations regulation, pricing and payment for
delivery of finished or semifinished goods, and so on, no longer legitimates.
Calvinism giving supernatural sanctions for commercial integrity seems to be
thin on the ground. The capacity of the population to create public goods, such
as industry standards-setting, credit extension and its credit-rating system, hon-
est brokerage in stock and bond markets, is crippled because that capacity used
to be all embedded in the central planning system. The lack of intermediate
corporate bodies with legitimacy of their own based on the expectation they will
live up to their own moral system then produces a condition like that Banfield
called amoral familism. And that is not good for capitalism in Russia or other
East European countries, any more than it was good for capitalism in Southern
Italy.
OLD INSTITUTIONALISM 17
want to give that money to a school that does not believe in algebra. Nor do
people want to give money to insurance companies that wont pay when they
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1997.23:1-18. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
die, nor do they want to buy portable hard disk drives from a company that
doesnt answer its technical help line,6 nor to trust most of the capital markets
in Eastern Europe. The combination of resources and believable commitment
can only be created, so the old institutionalists argued, if people believe that
the institutional enforcers themselves believe the values.
Only with that assumption, for example, can we explain why capitalism can
first legitimate the horse-and-buggy industry and then legitimate the automobile
industry that destroys it, without changing the basic institutions of capitalism.
And it takes the failure of the assumption that enforcers of commercial contracts
believe in honest dealing to see why the Russians and Ukrainians know so
well that capitalism does not work: the institutional enforcers do not believe
that commercial honesty is possible, so they do not bother to create it. The
assumption of transaction cost analysis is that one can go out on the market,
pay all the transaction costs, and (sometimes) get better performance than one
could produce oneself. It is only the contrast of that market contract with
what the firm can do better itself that makes the boundary around the firm
or hierarchy an equilibrium in Coases sense. But one cannot explain why
there is any there there unless one is willing to believe that transaction partners
will deliver the goods, will maintain the competence and responsiveness that
makes the suppliers work superior to what the firm can do itself, at least until
the contract is fulfilled. One pays the transaction costs by contracting with a
supplier with competence superior to ones own. Otherwise the equilibrium
firm size is the whole economy, perhaps as in the old USSR.
In short, the trouble with the new institutionalism is that it does not have
the guts of institutions in it. The guts of institutions is that somebody some-
where really cares to hold an organization to the standards and is often paid to
do that. Sometimes that somebody is inside the organization, maintaining its
6 Myadvice is to call the technical support number before buyingIomega has a wonderful
computerized phone system for giving a client in trouble the runaround.
P1: ARK/MBL/mkv P2: MBL/vks QC: MBL/Anil T1: MBL
June 4, 1997 9:13 Annual Reviews AR035-01
18 STINCHCOMBE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Brian Gran and Stephen Barley made detailed comments on a previous draft,
Carol Heimer disciplined my tendency to precious writing, and Richard Lempert
made detailed comments on the next-to-the-last draft.
Access provided by Universidad de Buenos Aires on 06/02/16. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1997.23:1-18. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Literature Cited
Banfield EC. 1967. (1958). The Moral Basis Newhouse J. 1982. The Sporty Game. New
of a Backward Society. New York: Free York: Knopf
Press Rothstein PF. 1981. Evidence in a Nutshell:
Bendix R. 1956. Work and Authority in Indus- State and Federal Rules. St. Paul: West. 2nd
try: Ideologies of Management in the Course ed.
of Industrialization. New York: Wiley/Ber- Schumpeter JA. 1964. (1939). Business Cycles:
keley: Univ. Calif. Press A Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical
Coase RH. 1937. The nature of the firm. Eco- Analysis of the Capitalist Process. [Abridged
nomica 4:386405 by Rindigs Fels]. New York: McGraw-Hill
Commons JR. 1974. (1924). Legal Founda- Schumpeter JA. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism,
tions of Capitalism. Reprinted by Univ. Wisc. and Democracy. New York: Harper Torch
Press and Arno Press; originally published by Books
Macmillan Selznick P. 1949. TVA and the Grass Roots.
Durkheim E. 1933. (1893). On the Division of Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Labor in Society. Transl./ed. G Simpson. New Selznick P. 1984. (1957). Leadership in Ad-
York: Macmillan ministration: A Sociological Interpretation.
Gambetta D. 1993. The Sicilian Mafia: The Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Business of Private Protection. Cambridge, Skolnick J. 1975. (1966). Justice without Trial:
MA: Harvard Univ. Press Law Enforcement in Democratic Society.
Hannan MT, Freeman M. 1989. Organizational New York: John Wiley. 2nd ed.
Ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Tobin J, Brainard WC. 1977. Asset markets
Press and the cost of capital. In Economic Progress:
Hannan MT, Freeman M. 1977. The popula- Private Values and Public Policy: Essays in
tion ecology of organizations. Am. J. Sociol. Honor of W. Fellner, ed. R Nelson, B Balassa,
82:92964 pp. 23562. Amsterdam: North Holland
Lipset SM, Trow MA, Coleman JS. 1956. Twining W. 1990. Rethinking Evidence: Ex-
Union Democracy. Glencoe, IL: Free Press ploratory Essays. Evanston: Northwestern
Meyer JW, Rowan B. 1977. Institutionalized Univ. Press
organizations: formal structure as myth and Veblen T. 1934. (1899). The Theory of the
ceremony. Am. J. Sociol. 83(2):34063 Leisure Class. New York: Modern Library
Meyer JW, Rowan B. 1975. Notes on the struc- Wigmore JH. 1983. (1940). Wigmore on Ev-
ture of educational organizations. Presented idence: [Peter] Tillers Revision. 10 vols.
at Meet. Am. Sociol. Assoc., San Francisco Boston: Little Brown
Nelson RR, Winter SG. 1982. An Evolution- Williamson O. 1975. Markets and Hierarchies.
ary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, New York: Free Press/London: Collier Mac-
MA: Belknap-Harvard Univ. Press millan