Concurring with Barley's pessimism that we do neglect the study of how corporations seek to influence and perhaps have captured the State, this text suggests two starting points that can give theoretical and practical leverage to investigate those issues. Theoretically, the institutional perspective, which always had an interest in the influence of elite groups, is a highly appropriate platform to study those phenomena for three reasons. First, it focuses on interorganizational relations as the setting we have to consider. Second, it questions the taken-for-granted overarching “logics” by which we operate, thus allowing us to understand why and how the relationships between corporations and the State are tolerated and can be undermined. Third, it raises issues of language, including how political interests are concealed in legitimating rhetoric. Empirically, the text suggests that a useful starting point would be to investigate the role of referees of the system, such as audit firms, law firms, and investment banks.
Barley, S.R. (2007). Corporations, democracy, and the public good. Journal of Management Inquiry, 16(3), 201-215.
2.
Baron, J.N., Davis-Blake, A., & Bielby, W.T. (1986). The structure of opportunity: How promotion ladders vary within and among organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(2), 248-273.
3.
Baxter, V., & Lambert, C. (1990). The National Collegiate Athletic Association and the governance of higher education. Sociological Quarterly , 31(3), 403-421.
4.
Brint, S. (1994). In an age of experts: the changing role of professionals in politics and public life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5.
DiMaggio, P.J., & Powell, W.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
6.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7.
Dobbin, F., Sutton, J.R., Meyer, J.W., & Scott, W.R. (1993). Equal opportunity law and the construction of internal labor markets. American Journal of Sociology, 99(2), 396-427.
8.
Dobbin, F.R. (1992). The origins of private social insurance: Public policy and fringe benefits in America, 1920-1950. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1416-1450.
9.
Edelman, L.B. (1990). Legal environments and organizational governance: The expansion of due process in theAmerican workplace. American Journal of Sociology, 95(6), 1401-1440.
10.
Edelman, L.B. (1992). Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: Organizational mediation of civil rights law. American Journal of Sociology , 97(6), 1531-1576.
11.
Edelman, L.B., & Suchman, M.C. (1997). The legal environments of organizations. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 479-515.
12.
Fligstein, N. (1987). The intraorganizational power struggle: Rise of finance personnel to top leadership in large corporations, 1919-1979. American Sociological Review, 52(1), 44-58.
13.
Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C.R. (2002). Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 58-80.
14.
Greenwood, R.,Oliver, C.,Sahlin, K., & Suddaby, R. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of organizational institutionalism. London: Sage.
15.
Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2008). Institutional entrepreneurship. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), Handbook of organizational institutionalism. London: Sage.
16.
Hoffman, A.J. (1999). Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal , 42, 351-371.
17.
Hoffman, A. J., & Ventresca, M. J. (Eds.). (2002). Organizations, policy, and the natural environment. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
18.
Imershein, A.W., & Rond P.C. III, (1989). Elite fragmentation in health care: Proprietary and nonproprietary hospitals in Florida. Social Science Quarterly, 70(1), 53-71.
19.
Marquis, C., & Battilana, J. (in press). Acting globally but thinking locally? The influence of local communities on organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior.
20.
Mizruchi, M. (1982). The American corporate network, 1904-1974. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
21.
Mizruchi, M.S., & Fein, L.C. (1999). The social construction of organizational knowledge: A study of the uses of coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 653-683.
22.
Perrow, C. (2002). Organizing America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23.
Pfeffer, J., & Davis-Blake, A. (1987). The effect of the proportion of women on salaries: The case of college administrators. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(1), 1-24.
24.
Schneiberg, M., & Lounsbury, M.L. (2008). Social movements and institutional analysis. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), Handbook of organizational institutionalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
Stinchcombe, A. (1997). On the virtues of the old institutionalism. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 1-18.
26.
Tolbert, P.S., & Zucker, L.G. (1983). Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880-1935 . Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 22-39.
27.
Torres, D.L. (1988). Professionalism, variation, and organizational survival. American Sociological Review, 53(3), 380-394.
28.
Useem, M. (1984). The inner circle: large corporations and the rise of business political activity in the U.S. and U.K. New York: Oxford University Press.
