Institutional fields are not static, they undergo times of fragmentation and times of settlement. Neo-institutional research has long explained the settlement of fields as either the effect of political manoeuvring of actors, or of discursive activity influencing cultural codes, narratives and symbols. But can these processes really be considered in isolation? In this paper, we propose to adopt a comprehensive view on fields’ dynamics, one that embraces the interaction of political and discursive manoeuvring to explain how fragmented fields manage to settle. To do so, we build on the Gramscian concept of hegemonic practices as discursive and political processes that integrate cultural equivalence among actors with political alliances based on aligned interests. Hegemonic practices align actors in a new historical bloc (a new settlement). Through this lens, we interpret the case of the Italian State steel privatization (1984–1995) and propose a process model explaining what yields fields’ dynamics from fragmentation to settlement. The model highlights the action of diffused agency in field dynamics, thus overcoming the obsolete challenger/incumbent view, and the need of becoming a historical bloc for alliances to stabilize a field.

Mollona, E., Pareschi, L. (2020). A gramscian perspective on field dynamics. The case of the privatization of Italian steel industry. SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, 36(4) [10.1016/j.scaman.2020.101128].

A gramscian perspective on field dynamics. The case of the privatization of Italian steel industry

Pareschi, Luca
2020-01-01

Abstract

Institutional fields are not static, they undergo times of fragmentation and times of settlement. Neo-institutional research has long explained the settlement of fields as either the effect of political manoeuvring of actors, or of discursive activity influencing cultural codes, narratives and symbols. But can these processes really be considered in isolation? In this paper, we propose to adopt a comprehensive view on fields’ dynamics, one that embraces the interaction of political and discursive manoeuvring to explain how fragmented fields manage to settle. To do so, we build on the Gramscian concept of hegemonic practices as discursive and political processes that integrate cultural equivalence among actors with political alliances based on aligned interests. Hegemonic practices align actors in a new historical bloc (a new settlement). Through this lens, we interpret the case of the Italian State steel privatization (1984–1995) and propose a process model explaining what yields fields’ dynamics from fragmentation to settlement. The model highlights the action of diffused agency in field dynamics, thus overcoming the obsolete challenger/incumbent view, and the need of becoming a historical bloc for alliances to stabilize a field.
2020
Pubblicato
Rilevanza internazionale
Articolo
Esperti anonimi
Settore SECS-P/10 - ORGANIZZAZIONE AZIENDALE
English
Discursive opportunity structure; Political opportunity structure; Field; Fragmentation; Settlement; Institutional change; Gramsci; Hegemony; Historical bloc; Neo-institutionalism; Content analysis; Agency
Mollona, E., Pareschi, L. (2020). A gramscian perspective on field dynamics. The case of the privatization of Italian steel industry. SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, 36(4) [10.1016/j.scaman.2020.101128].
Mollona, E; Pareschi, L
Articolo su rivista
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
A_gramscian_perspective.pdf

solo utenti autorizzati

Tipologia: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: Copyright dell'editore
Dimensione 3.03 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
3.03 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2108/259717
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 2
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact