The Mini-Conference theme proposals were incredibly strong for our 2014 meeting. Read on to learn more about this year's Mini-Conference theme tracks...
Submissions to the SASE conference must be made through one of the Mini-Conferences below (or through a research Network). Paper and session abstracts, as well as full papers for grant, prize, and stipend applications, must be submitted to a Network or Mini-Conference by February 3, 2014. Candidates will be notified by March 3, 2014. Please note that Mini-Conferences require an extended (~1,000 word) abstract, and ask that you submit a full paper by June 1, 2014. For further information, please contact the organizer of the mini-conference to which you are submitting.
Mini-conferences are based around a selected number of focused themes, and have open submissions for panels and papers, based on an extended abstract (approx. 1000 words). Each mini-conference will consist of 2 to 6 panels. Each panel will have a discussant, meaning that selected participants must submit a completed paper by June 1st. If a paper proposal cannot be accommodated within a mini-conference, organizers will forward it to the program committee, who will pass it on to one of the networks as a regular submission. Click the title of each mini-conference for a full description of the theme.
1: Domesticizing Financial Economies: Knitting Fibers of Transaction, Algorithm and Exchange
Social scientists looking for the institutional foundations of capitalism have often missed the way in which market economies, of all sorts, rely on the particular ways in which monetary transactions are knitted together with a range of other agents. This mini conference focuses its attention on the everyday encounters with monetary devices, commercial circuits, algorithms and financial assessment and exchange. By doing so it aims to bridge two stimulating areas in current social research. The first is the move within the social study of finance away from the trading floor to the highly specific ways in which monetary transactions are made, thought about and experienced. The second includes studies following how "big" transactional data is not only becoming a means for visualizing, assessing and targeting specific groups, but is also enabling the transaction itself to become a crucial site of global economic production.
Papers with varied disciplinary backgrounds discussing the following issues are welcome:
- The intimate dimensions of monetary and financial transactions, whether in the moment of exchange itself, or before and after;
- The ways in which household finances become entangled with and affected by a range of socio-technical devices;
- Emerging financial products and services (e.g. subprime lending, credit score management services, department store credit cards, pawn shops and new way of banking) targeting domestic finance that are re-shaping the financial ecologies faced by consumers;
- New transactional technologies (e.g. algorithms, databases, payment cards) and their new ways of sorting, screening and valuing financial consumers;
- Domestic financial products and their entanglement with “high” finance and broader economic chains;
- Controversies, matters of concern, new affected groups, publics and commercial circuits being co-produced with contemporary domestic financial landscapes.
Organizers: Jeanne Lazarus, Mariana Luzzi, and José Ossandón
- switch to list view stand1
Jeanne Lazarus is CNRS research fellow at the CSO in Sciences Po, Paris. Her research has focused on relationships between bankers and customers in French retail banks. She published L’Epreuve de l’argent in 2012. Jeanne has also conducted research on the sociology of money and the consumption and monetary practices of the impoverished. She is currently studying the making of a “responsible” financial market for individuals, in particular via education programs aimed at improving financial literacy, directives, and regulations regarding the commercialization of financial products and credit.
Mariana Luzzi is Professor of Sociology at the University of General Sarmiento (Argentina). She received a Ph.D. from École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales. Her research explores the social construction, and questioning, of trust in money and social disputes over money meanings and politics. She has studied the conflicts about bank deposits, credits and regional currencies during the Argentine crisis of 2001 and is currently working on the reparation politics for the victims of state terrorism in Argentina. She has also conducted research on the creation and use of social currencies. She published Réinventer le marché? Les clubs de troc face à la crise en Argentine.
José Ossandón is Assistant Professor in the Department of Organization, Copenhagen Business School and received his PhD from Goldsmiths, University of London. His main areas of interest are the enactment of finance objects, how markets are organized, evaluated and tamed, and broad contemporary social theory. His Ph.D. thesis focused on the history of private health insurance in Chile and is currently studying the consumer credit industry. José founded the research network http://estudiosdelaeconomia.wordpress.com/ and has recently co-edited the books Adaptación. La empresa chilena después de Friedman and Disturbios Culturales.
2: Opening the Black Box of Financial Institutions
The recent financial crisis has furthered a growing interest in sociology of finance. Studies have focused mainly on the causes or consequences of the crisis, investigating issues related to sociology of knowledge or to the functioning of financial institutions and their regulation. In the proposed session, we would be interested in contributions that open the black box of financial institutions, studying financial actors at work. Who are those “greedy bankers” who triggered so much public anger during the crisis? How are they recruited, trained, and promoted? How is their work environment organized? What is the ethos prevailing in financial institutions and their sub-divisions? We welcome studies that illuminate financial actors’ personal and professional trajectory, their status hierarchies, their norms and modes of cooperation and restraint, and their worldviews more generally. Financial actors could belong to different kinds of institutions, from investment banks to credit rating agencies to regulatory agencies. We welcome both qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Papers for this session could address questions such as the following:
- A. Value and values on Wall Street
- How is economic cooperation and restraint enforced on Wall Street?
- How do financial actors frame their obligations towards their peers, their clients, and/or society in general?
- B. Personal and professional trajectories
- How do career paths and compensation practices on Wall Street affect individuals’ conception of their work? How is compensation distributed and perceived internally?
- The revolving door and its consequences on regulation: myth or reality?
- C. The organization of the work environment
- How is the work of valuation (in its various manifestations) organized?
- How do spatial and technological arrangements shape interactions and coordination?
Submissions for panels will be open to all scholars on the basis of an extended abstract. The mini-conference will be composed of 2 to 3 panels, depending on the quality of the submissions. Selected participants must submit a completed paper to discussant and organizers by June 1, 2013. If a paper proposal cannot be accommodated within the mini-conference, it will be forwarded to the most appropriate research network as a regular submission.
Organizers: Olivia Nicol and David Stark
- switch to list view stand1
David Stark is Arthur Lehman Professor of Sociology and International Affairs at Columbia University where he directs the Center on Organizational Innovation. His most recent book, The Sense of Dissonance: Accounts of Worth in Economic Life, was published by Princeton University Press in 2009. Stark studies how organizations and their members search for what is valuable. Dissonance – disagreement about the principles of worth – can lead to discovery. To study the organizational basis for innovation, he has carried out ethnographic field research in Hungarian factories before and after 1989, in new media start-ups in Manhattan before and after the dot.com crash, and in a World Financial Center trading room before and after the attack on September 11th. Stark’s current research employs large datasets to study the social sources of creativity. Supported by a major grant from the National Science Foundation (with Co-PI Balazs Vedres), his research team is developing network analysis to examine the historical structures whereby teams assemble, disassemble, and reassemble. They are currently analyzing data on every commercially released video game (some 28,000 video games involving an estimated 310,000 unique individuals) and approximately 40,000 jazz recording sessions involving some 400,000 musicians).
Olivia Nicol is a PhD candidate in sociology at Columbia University. Her dissertation focuses on attribution of responsibility for the financial crisis in the United States (2007-2010). She analyzes both media excerpts and interviews to explore the production of - and response to - a discourse of accusation for the crisis. She built a dataset of 5600 blaming ties derived from three main national newspapers (The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and USA Today), which she analyzes combining network, statistical and textual analysis. She also conducted 33 in-depth interviews in three major banks in Wall Street from Fall 2008 to Spring 2010. She shows that in a complex and collective failure, such as the financial crisis, a multiplicity of actors can be blamed, in a never ending causal chain. This situation is socially explosive, and paves the way for an intense blame game, which finds its resolution with the establishment of a party as the most guilty of all. A blame game is a mechanism to reestablish a disrupted social order.
3: The Institutional Foundations of Distributed and Open Innovation
Like economic behavior in general corporate innovation activities rest upon institutionalized rules, norms, routines and practices. Institutions are formative for the generation, distribution and allocation of knowledge and therefore essential for understanding innovation systems. For a long time innovation systems have predominantly been characterized by companies organizing their innovation activities in-house in order to utilize their exclusive, proprietary knowledge to gain competitive advantages. On the societal level, these corporate strategies were embedded in a corresponding institutional framework. Now, for several reasons firms increasingly strive to integrate external resources into their processes of innovation and knowledge creation. Instead of concentrating on internal R&D processes they open up their innovation processes to make use of external sources of knowledge or take part in distributed knowledge production. Such innovation strategies, for instance, may include networking with other companies or cooperation with lead users in product development processes, utilization of user experience to develop new applications, or joint efforts in external communities.
The mini-conference focuses on institutional preconditions and consequences of such distributed or open innovation strategies. Open innovation strategies force companies to reorganize their innovation processes in a more dynamic and application-oriented way raising organizational challenges since established strategies are put into question. In particular, companies have to re-define the conditions for knowledge transfer as well as the interfaces between internal and a broad variety of external resources and actors, be it other companies and individuals or new actors and new contexts of knowledge production like networks and communities. The increasing relevance of distributed knowledge (production) raises the question of how companies attempt to frame and coordinate distributed innovation processes and inter-organizational knowledge transfer. This question does not only point to organizational conditions but also to the institutional foundations of innovation systems. Hence, the mini-conference invites papers – empirically or theoretically informed – that address the following questions:
- Which new actors and forms of collaboration in knowledge production do emerge? How do internal and external actors’ roles, orientations and patterns of behavior change?
- How does the increasing incorporation of external actors (like customers and communities) into product development affect the companies’ strategies? How do they go along with an on-going or even increasing competition between firms?
- To what extent do existing institutions enable or constrain distributed and open innovation processes? How do they change? How do corporate as well as external actors re-define and re-interpret existing institutions?
- Which new institutions facilitating distributed knowledge creation and transfer between internal and external actors do emerge?
Organizers: Klaus-Peter Buss, Patrick Feuerstein, Heidemarie Hanekop, and Jürgen Kädtler
- switch to list view stand1
Jürgen Kädtler is executive director of the Sociological Research Institute (SOFI) at the Georg-August-University of Göttingen and extraordinary professor at the Georg-August-University of Göttingen. He has worked on labor sociology, industrial relations and innovation for many years, with a special focus on the implications of globalization and financialization in these fields. Besides several papers on financialization and corporate strategies he recently published a book on employee participation in innovation processes (“Mitbestimmte Innovationsarbeit” (2013), with Hans-Joachim Sperling, Volker Wittke, and Harald Wolf). He is currently heading a research project on collaborative forms of innovation and distributed knowledge creation in the IT industry.
Heidemarie Hanekop is senior researcher at the Sociological Research Institute (SOFI) at the Georg-August-University of Göttingen and the Göttingen Center of Digital Humanities (GCDH). She studied Sociology and Computer Science. For more than fifteen years she has been working on internet enabled innovations. In various empirical studies she has analyzed diffusion and adoption processes of Internet technologies from a sociological perspective. Her special emphasis is on user-driven innovations and the new role of users and customers as co-producers on the internet.
She is author of several articles and book chapters on internet and user-driven innovations, open source, user-generated web 2.0 services and the new of role of customers. Recent publications include “Customers working for customers: Collaborative Web 2.0 services” (in Dunkel & Kleemann (eds.)(2013): Customers at Work, Palgrave MacMillan) and “New Forms of Collaborative Innovation and Production on the Internet” (University Press Goettingen, 2011, with Volker Wittke). Her current research project is on collaborative forms of innovation and distributed knowledge creation in the IT industry with a special interest in open source ecosystems.
Patrick Feuerstein is lecturer and research associate at the Institute for Sociology at the Georg-August-University Göttingen. Previously, he worked as research associate at the Sociological Research Institute (SOFI) Göttingen. Patrick Feuerstein received his doctorate from the Georg-August-University Göttingen in 2011 for his research on emerging forms of work organization and control in the globalizing IT industry.
His research interests include the sociology of work and employment with a special focus on the effects of distributed modes of production and innovation on work organization and labor. His latest article “Patterns of Work Reorganization in the Course of the IT Industry’s Internationalization” was published in Competition & Change 17/1 (2013). He is currently working on a research project on collaborative forms of innovation and distributed knowledge creation in the IT industry.
Klaus-Peter Buss is senior researcher at the Sociological Research Institute (SOFI) at the Georg-August-University of Göttingen. For his thesis about the corporate development of successful business models and competitive strength in the transformation process of the East German industry he received his doctoral grade in sociology from the University of Göttingen. For a long time, he has been working on issues of institutional change and industrial development in Germany as well as in internationally comparative perspective. His research covered topics like the transformation of East German industry, the development of the German apprenticeship system or the organization of innovation processes in high tech industries. Recently, he has finished a research project on the role of work councils and management actors in setting up corporate age management policies in large German industrial firms. He is currently working on a research project focusing on processes of inter-company knowledge creation and knowledge transfer in the IT industry.
4: Young People, Precarious Work, and Trade Unionism
The transition of young people into employment is fraught with considerable difficulties in finding stable and well-paid employment when compared to older workers. Young workers have been particularly affected by the wider changes in global economic conditions, as such changes have seen an increase in employee insecurity and instability. Low-paid, low-status and insecure work is predominantly carried out by young workers and as the position of young workers in the labour market is increasingly precarious, one may expect them to join unions for protection. However, with trade union membership in a state of flux, it is important to assess union strategies to engage with and recruit young precarious workers.
We welcome abstract and paper submissions from diverse theoretical and methodological perspectives such as sociology, economics, employment relations, public policy and law on the following themes:
- The way in which young people are affected by precarious employment across different nations, regions and sectors.
- The roles of different labour market institutions in enabling and/or preventing precarious work.
- Trade union responses to the rise in precarious employment particularly amongst young people.
- Trade union engagement with young people and youth issues more generally.
Organizers: Andy Hodder and Lefteris Kretsos
- switch to list view stand1
Lefteris Kretsos is a Senior Lecturer of Industrial Relations at University of Greenwich, Book Review Editor of Labor History and Member of the ESRC Peer Review College. Earlier in his career, Lefteris lectured and worked on various research projects at the Aberdeen Business School, which is part of the Robert Gordon University, and at Coventry University.
His research is focused on the rising trends and patterns of precarious employment, especially among young workers in the context of economic crisis. Lefteris has been involved in 22 research projects for the European Commission, ESRC, and the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions and trade union organisations. He is currently co-editing a book on Radical Unionism in Europe and he is heavily involved in the completion of a project funded by the European Research Council, 2013-2016 on the effects of marketization into European societies.
Andy Hodder is a Teaching Fellow in Management at the University of Birmingham. Andy joined Birmingham Business School in September 2012 after completing a PhD at Keele University. His PhD looked at trade union organising within the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) during a period of civil service modernisation.
Andy has conducted research into the relationship between young workers and trade unions in the UK and is currently continuing to work with PCS on issues associated with union organising. He is also looking at job intensification and work-life balance within the British civil service with Dr Steve French (Keele University) as well as examining the possibilities for trade union involvement in Corporate Social Responsibility with Dr Geraint Harvey (University of Birmingham).
Andy is a member of the British Academy of Management, the British Sociological Association and the Society for the Advancement of Socio-Economics. Andy is also on the Executive Committee of the British Universities Industrial Relations Association.
5: Green Capitalism? Re-Embedding Nature in the Age of Globalization
The perspective of a socio-ecological ‘greening’ of global capitalism has persistently gained in relevance due to phenomena such as climate change. Yet the corresponding notion of ‘green capitalism’ may seem like a contradiction in terms, given the Polanyian thesis that the prevalence of the market system is incompatible with a sustainable utilization of natural resources. Indeed, proponents of a ‘greening’ of capitalism promote the causes of sustainability and de-carbonization by hinting at diverse regulative measures. These include both market-constraining instruments and market-promoting instruments. However, such an inherently contradictious combination of market and non-market components adds to the question whether ‘green capitalism’ can be understood as a coherent and sustainable model for the organization of economic life. In view of these issues, the SASE Mini-Conference “Green Capitalism? Re-Embedding Nature in the Age of Globalization” highlights the following sets of questions and related problems in the wider domain of political economy and economic sociology: In how far is the ‘greening’ of capitalist market economies to be perceived as a feasible way out of the current undermining of the natural foundations of human society on a global scale? How may contradictions between the formation of a sustainable pattern of capitalist growth and the underlying tendencies of commodification and marketization be dealt with? What strategies and mechanisms are available to promote a re-embedding of the natural environment in non-market types of economic affairs and social relations? What is the actual relationship between market and non-market instruments in this regard? How can diverse sets of actors from the national, regional and international terrain as well as from the public and private sectors interact in proceeding with these re-embedding efforts? What kind of governance mechanisms and strategic coalitions are to be observed in corresponding processes of adaptation? In exploring these questions, the Mini-Conference calls for both theoretically and empirically oriented papers from all fields of the social sciences. Particular interest is dedicated to papers which utilize the analytical perspectives of the comparative capitalisms literature in order to explore national, regional or international endeavors in the socio-ecological transformation of capitalist market economies.
Organizer: Alexander Ebner
- switch to list view stand1
Alexander Ebner is Professor of Political Economy and Economic Sociology at Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität in Frankfurt am Main. Previously, he was an Associate Professor of Political Economy at Jacobs University Bremen. His ongoing research highlights the institutional and technological dynamics of modern capitalism with a particular emphasis on the matter of entrepreneurship, innovation, governance and public policy. Corresponding research projects address issues such as the ‘greening’ of innovation regimes in the formation of low-carbon economies, the institutional transformation of industrial and technology policies, and the evolution of new modes of government-business relations that are approached in terms of an entrepreneurial state. He has co-edited the volume “The Institutions of the Market: Organizations, Social Systems and Governance” with Oxford University Press (2008). The monograph “Embedded Entrepreneurship: The Institutional Dynamics of Innovation” is forthcoming with Routledge.
6: The Political Economy of Work and Labor Markets: Workplace Regimes in Comparative Perspective
Workplace regimes are the complexes of formal and informal relations and institutions that structure the organisation of work in modern societies. A comparative understanding of their structure and significance is indispensable to socio-economics, for the organisation of work shapes not only the experience of life on the job but the material conditions and competitive prospects of workers and firms, the interests underpinning macro-level political bargains, and the prospects for social solidarity more generally. It is impossible to understand the varieties of capitalism, or their non-capitalist rivals and predecessors, without a firm understanding of the politics and practices of workplace regimes. But sociologists of work and comparative political economists tend to talk past each other, leaving potentially profitable opportunities for mutual dialogue unexploited.
This mini-conference is designed to bridge the gap between micro analyses of the workplace and macro political economy by fostering dialogue across disciplinary and sub-disciplinary boundaries. We invite papers that address different aspects of workplace organization (e.g. working time, security, pay, career ladders, the labor process, collective action, etc), their connections with macro-political institutions and actors, and adopt a comparative perspective. Submissions may use a range of methodological approaches (including case studies, quantitative methods, and qualitative comparative analysis), operate at different levels (national, regional, sectoral, corporate, etc.),and explore a wide variety of relevant topics including:
How is ‘labor’ constructed in different industries, workplaces and worlds of capitalism (e.g. in relation to gender, age, ethnicity, race, etc.) within and across different regions such as Asia, Europe, North and South America?
How do workplace regimes enable and constrain the strategies of key actors in the political economy (employers, unions, state agencies, transnational corporations, political elites, etc.)? And, how are workplace institutions and practices shaped themselves by these macro-political actors?
How can we best understand the dynamic nature of workplace relations, using comparative analysis to go beyond the imputation of interests based on structural locations or labor market assets?
How do political, economic, and technological transformations (e.g. globalization, financialization, tertiarization, neoliberalism, etc.) change the organization of labor?
How can workplace studies contribute to our understanding of diverse macro political economies, lending insight into debates over varieties of capitalism, welfare and production regimes, and development models?
In what ways do different workplace regimes and worlds of capitalism produce different outcomes in terms of individual and institutional capabilities, inequalities, and economic performance?
Organizers: Rossella Ciccia, Seán Ó Riain, and Andrew Schrank
- switch to list view stand1
Andrew Schrank received his PhD from the University of Wisconsin in 2000 and is currently Professor of Political Science and Sociology at the University of New Mexico. He studies the organization, regulation, and performance of industry—especially in Latin America. He has received grants and fellowships from the Social Science Research Council, the National Science Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the MacArthur Foundation; served as a board member at the American Journal of Sociology, Politics and Society, and Latin American Politics and Society; consulted for the World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, United States Department of Labor, and several United Nations agencies; and carried out fieldwork in the US, Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean. His articles have appeared in a number of different academic and popular periodicals including the American Journal of Sociology, the Journal of Politics, Socio-Economic Review, and Social Forces. Andrew is currently a member of the SASE Executive Council.
Seán Ó Riain
Seán Ó Riain is Professor of Sociology at the National University of Ireland Maynooth. His research interests are in the sociology of work and employment, comparative political economy, inequality and social change and the global information economy. Seán is the author of The Politics of High Tech Growth: Developmental Network States in the Global Economy (Cambridge, 2004) and of The Rise and Fall of Ireland’s Celtic Tiger: Liberalism, Boom and Bust (Cambridge, 2014). He is currently directing New Deals in the New Economy, a five year study of workplace bargains in Europe, incorporating survey analysis of the EU27 countries from 1995-2015 and a comparative case study analysis of three different sectors in each of Ireland and Denmark (www.nuim.ie/newdeals). This research is funded by a European Research Council Consolidator Grant, awarded in 2011. Seán earned his Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of California, Berkeley in 1999 and taught at the University of California, Davis from 1999-2003 before joining NUI Maynooth.
Rossella Ciccia is postdoctoral fellow at the National University of Ireland Maynooth. She is currently working on the ERC New Deals project, comparing workplace regimes in Europe. She was previously postdoctoral researcher at the political science department at Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands, working on a project analyzing gender equality and care policies across European economies. Her publications and research focus on the political economy of labour markets, its connection to welfare states and family policies, comparative methods and the application of configurational approaches in macro comparative research.
7: Multi-Level Institutions and the Changing Global-Local Dynamics of Production in a Context of Crisis
This mini-conference explores institutional attempts – at supra-national, national and local levels - to mediate the effects of the changing global dynamics of production on local economies. It seeks contributions examining the interactions and tensions between globalising forces and local systems of production, innovation, labour regulation and political exchange, in the context of global economic crisis.
It promotes dialogue between different forms and levels of analysis, including: between institutional economics and societal institutionalism; analyses of global value chains and the multinational corporation; studies of innovation and of work/employment; and analyses of global, national and local institution-building.
It consists of five mini-panels.
PANEL A: The role of institutions and policy in redesigning global production
This panel explores what policies and actions governments are considering and endorsing to re-connect their domestic productive economies to global value chains. To what extent, and how, are governments re-discovering industrial policy? What options are open to policy-makers? What are the roles of national and local spaces in attempts to pursue growth and prosperity? What are the effects of changing global balances of productive power, e.g. the changing role of China?
PANEL B: Multinational corporations and local economic space
This panel examines relations between the multinational firm and sub-national institutional actors. What resources do actors in regional business systems attempt to deploy in dealing with geographically mobile firms? What is the role of subsidiary unit managers and workers in the above relationships? Is it useful to talk of ‘embeddedness’ when discussing the relations between foreign direct investors and local economic systems?
PANEL C: The dynamic re-configuration of global production and innovative activities
This panel explores the changing relationships between the ownership and location of production and innovation. In particular: to what extent have recent changes in the global economy re-configured the locations of innovative activities related to global production? What are the roles of global and local institutions, both in shaping these reconfigurations and in attempting to respond to them?
PANEL D: Global-local dynamics of production and the eroded foundations of labour protection
This panel examines the impact of re-configurations of global production on labour agency. How are different actors (trade unions, labour activists, private multi-stakeholder groups, grass roots organizations etc) at different levels responding to the consequences of global restructuring? What accounts for successes and failures in these responses? Is there scope for institutional innovation, re-design and/or demise in the evolving landscape of production and innovation?
PANEL E: Social and territorial foundations of comparative institutional advantage
This panel asks what comparative institutional advantage means in the current global economic context. Can historically established, place-specific, patterns of coordination be defended, reconfigured, recombined, or renewed in a context of crisis, in order to permit both economic and social renewal? What is the contemporary valency of sub-national institutional variety in shaping comparative institutional advantage?
Organizers: Phil Almond, Lisa De Propris, Maria Gonzalez Menendez, Gregor Murray, Christina Niforou, and Paulina Ramirez
- switch to list view stand1
Phil Almond is Professor of Comparative Employment Relations and leader of the Human Resource Management Research Group at Leicester Business School, De Montfort University, UK. His research interests cohere around the possibilities open to social actors within global capitalism, and the socio-political dimensions of local and national comparative advantage, from a broadly societal institutionalist perspective. His empirical research focuses mainly on the relationships between the multinational corporation and national and local business systems. He is the editor, with Anthony Ferner, of American Multinationals in Europe (Oxford University Press, 2006). He has recently led an internationally comparative project, with funding from the UK ESRC, on the relations between foreign multinationals and actors in regional business and employment systems, across Canada, Ireland, Spain and the UK. He also has published a range of more conceptual-focussed work on comparative industrial relations and human resource management, comparative methodology, and the varieties of capitalism debate.
Paulina Ramirez is a lecturer in International Business and Innovation at Birmingham Business School. Paulina’s research focuses on the relationship between national and regional innovation and business systems and global innovation networks. She is particularly interested in how national and regional institutions shape knowledge flows within global R&D networks and how this affects the upgrading capabilities of firms. She has worked on a number of research projects looking at the outsourcing and offshoring of R&D activities in the pharmaceutical industry; the impact of FDI on the science and technology system of the Republic of Ireland; as well as work on the role on national institutions in the Chilean salmon-farming global value chain. Paulina is also interested in how national institutional systems (e.g. corporate governance, science and technology systems) shape the emergence of new areas of science and technology.
Christina Niforou is currently a Lecturer in Human Resource Management at Birmingham Business School, UK. She holds a BSc in Economics from University of Piraeus, Greece and a Master and PhD from Warwick Business School, University of Warwick. She is interested in comparative employment relations and HRM, corporate social responsibility and global labour governance. She has received funding from the ESRC, the Onassis Public Benefit Foundation, Warwick Business School and ‘Trade Union related Research Institutes’ (TURI - a joint initiative of the European Trade Union Institute and the Hans Böckler Foundation). Her work has been published in highly regarded journals including the British Journal of Industrial Relations, Human Resource Management and Economic and Industrial Democracy.
Gregor Murray is a professor in the School of Industrial Relations at the University of Montreal (ERIUM) where he holds the Canada Research Chair on Globalization and Work. He is also director of the Interuniversity Research Centre on Globalization and Work (CRIMT). This interdisciplinary centre links more than 80 researchers in 40 universities and research institutes in 15 countries to a research program on the theoretical and practical challenges of actor and institutional renewal with regard to the regulation of work and employment. Gregor's particular research interests include international comparisons of employment relations, human resource practices, labour law and subsidiary embeddedness in multinational companies. He also works on union capacity and innovation, with a particular focus on the comparative analysis of workplace unions. He works extensively with labour market partners in Canada and beyond and CRIMT organizes a range of international conferences designed to bring labour market actors and university researchers into the co-construction of knowledge activities. Future activities include the new frontiers of citizenship at work (May 2014) and the social dynamics of comparative institutional advantage (May 2015).
Maria Gonzalez Menendez
María C. González Menéndez is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Oviedo, Spain. Her active research interests include workers’ participation, gender and employment, labour management, and the role of sub-national socioeconomic governance systems in the attraction and retention of multinational firms. These interests are united by a strong internationally comparative focus on the role of social and political institutions in shaping the quality of work and employment. Recent publications include the book Women on Corporate Boards and in Top Management. European Trends and Policy (Palgrave, 2012), co-edited with Colette Fagan and Silvia Gómez, and the handbook on HRM in Spain Gestión de Recursos Humanos: Contexto y Políticas (Thomson-Civitas, 2011), co-edited with Rodolfo Gutiérrez and Miguel Martínez Lucio. She is currently co-leader of the work package on Policy Transfer and Comparative Frameworks within the large scale FP7 project Strategic Transitions for Youth Labour in Europe.
Lisa De Propis
Lisa De Propris’ research interests focus on clusters, economic development and global value chains. In particular, her research has ranged from competitiveness in clusters and regions; innovation; clusters and foreign direct investment; onshoring and offshoring of manufacturing activities; high-value added manufacturing; knowledge economy to economic development policy. Her research has focused mostly on the European economies. Lisa De Propris leads the Global Value Chain research group in the Birmingham Business School in the University of Birmingham-UK.
8: What Is an Exchange? The Crumbling of One Foundation of Modern Capitalism
Braudel considered the stock exchange to be a “shortcut for the merchants’ world”. There took place power struggles to organize the mobilization of capital: financing states and enterprises; controlling means of production; reaping the profits of intermediation; and, eventually, speculating. Exchanges have long functioned as local monopolies, which generally constituted hybrid extensions of the public authority and of business interests, in order to organize the circulation of capital in a given territory. The organizational features of exchanges varied across time and location, but they all aimed at making instruments tradable and operations reliable, and, in fine, they defined a space for self-regulatory organization and informal coordination among financiers, who were part of the national elites and in relations to other international financial centres. Exchanges were flagship institutions (like national anthem, armies, universities…) of nation-states’ sovereignty.
Recently, the demutualization and listing of exchanges, combined with the rise of alternative trading venues, overhauled this institutional foundation of Western capitalism. From the 1980s, stock and derivatives exchanges gradually became limited companies. Then, at the start of the 21stcentury, many of them went public and even listed themselves on the markets they operate. They started to enter into mergers with other exchanges thus weakening their connection to national sovereignty and blurring their relations to local economy. At the same time, less-regulated trading venues, often backed by internationally-operating financial institutions, were allowed to directly compete with exchanges. The banks themselves put in place in-house systems to internalize the orders of their clientele or offer their best clients privileged access to restricted pools of liquidity. Such a trend towards private transactions on privatised trading venues culminated in the mid-Noughties, when the US Regulation NMS and the European Markets in Financial Instruments Directive were both promulgated. Consequently, stock exchanges officially morphed from hybrid-institutions organizing public competition between financial intermediaries into private companies competing with one another and with their main users to provide intermediation services.
This overhaul of stock exchanges forces to tackle the following questions, which all echo this broader paradox: the financialization of modern capitalism has profoundly weakened one of its crucial institutions.
- What are the common features of stock exchanges, beyond variations in time and locations? In what ways is an exchange different from a financial market, a trading venue?
- Under which conditions may an exchange contribute to the financing of states, local governments, firms and small and medium-sized enterprises?
- How come the setting-up of exchanges is still promoted to solve policy issues (i.a. Obamacare Health Insurance Exchanges, exchanges for greenhouse gas allowances) whereas their model has been seriously impaired in the financial world?
- What does the institutional crumbling of stock exchanges tell us about the contemporary transformations of modern capitalism?
The organizers are looking for contributions that will explore the economic history of exchanges, the political economy of their emergence, past and recent changes and the study of their organizations. In short, contributions which would enlarge our understanding of these typical and yet crumbling institutions of modern capitalism.
Organizers: Marie-Laure Djelic, Paul Lagneau-Ymonet, Angelo Riva, and Matthias Thiemann
- switch to list view stand1
Matthias Thiemann is an Assistant Professor for the Sociology of Finance, Banking and Money at the Goethe Universitaet Frankfurt am Main. His research focuses on the techniques of regulatory arbitrage in financial markets that manifested in the bank-based shadow banking sector and seeks to explain how these activities were allowed to go unfettered before the crisis. His current work is comparing the regulation of the shadow banking sector in the US and three EU countries from a political economy perspective as well as from a perspective of the sociology of knowledge, pointing to the detachedness of regulators from the interpretation of their regulation by the regulated as well as competitiveness concerns as main explanatory factors. Prior work has appeared in Competition and Change (2012), Soziale Systeme (2008), and as book chapters in several edited volumes.
Angelo Riva teaches finance at the European Business School where he is director of the research department of finance and he is associate researcher at the Paris School of Economics. His research interests include the organization of the stock exchange industry and the interactions between markets and (central) banks over the long run. He published several papers on the topic and he has recently published Histoire de la Bourse with Paul Lagneau-Ymonet, and “The Paris financial market in the XIXth century : complementarities and competition in microstructures” (Economic History Review, 2012) with Pierre-Cyrille Hautcoeur. He is the scientific supervisor of the Equipment of Excellence “Data for Financial History”.
Paul Lagneau-Ymonet is Associate Professor of Sociology at University Paris-Dauphine (IRISSO), Paris. His research interests include the organization of financial markets in historical and comparative perspective and the sociology of elites. He is the co-author of Histoire de la Bourse [History of the Paris Stock Exchange] (2012, with Angelo Riva). He has published in sociological, historical, economic and political economic journals.
Marie-Laure Djelic is Professor at ESSEC Business School, Paris, in the Management Department. . Her current research interests include the role of professions in the transnational diffusion of practices, the power and responsibility of corporations in historical and comparative perspective and the dynamics of global governance and transnational communities. She has published extensively in a broad range of journals on the historical and comparative development of capitalism and on globalization and its governance. She is the author of Exporting the American Model (1998), which received the 2000 Max Weber Award for the Best Book in Organizational Sociology from the American Sociological Association and has recently co-edited two volumes – Transnational Governance (2006 with Kerstin Sahlin-Andersson) and Transnational Communities (2010 with Sigrid Quack).
9: The Social Dimension of State Capitalism in the BRICs: Contentiousness and New Arenas of Concertation
One often neglected dimension of the debate about the BRICS is whether these countries' rising economic power can also trigger political and social aspects of a welfare state. There is a lot of contentiousness between strategic actors concerning the role and extension of social policies and improving working conditions as part of these countries' economic development. In such a way, it is crucial to discuss the emerging new arenas of concertation and its implications for the social dimension of this new type state capitalism.
The rationale for social dialogue between capital, labour, as well as government representatives can stem from three broad streams. One stream is related to the idea of social pacts to implement pro-market reforms in advanced industrial countries, after the crisis of fordist accumulation regime. Under the neoliberal tenets, competitiveness is enhanced mainly through labour costs reduction and labour rights retrenchment. The other stream for concertation has to do with labour rights enforcement associated to democratization processes in developing countries. The latter is much more akin to ILO initiatives concerning the enhancement of newly democratic countries. Compliance with ILO guidelines coupled with labour market regulation has contributed to national peak level negotiations involving employers and employees organizations.
However, a third stream for this type of concertation is more prone to play a strategic role. It is related to the coordination among strategic actors to enhance economic and, sometimes, social upgrading such as what has been taking place in BRICS. Some authors mention a new type of state capitalism in these countries, especially in the cases of China, India, Russia, but we would also include Brazil and South Africa. South Africa’s National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC), and Brazil’s Conselho de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social have contributed to the sustainability of the economic and social reform process over the past decade. NEDLAC has deepened democracy by creating new labour market institutions that have included constituencies that were previously excluded from the policy-making process. CDES played a key role in the Economic Growth Acceleration Program (PAC) and in the design of recent industrial policies in Brazil and their social implications. In both cases, neocorporatist peak level organizations were the most relevant actors.
Under a comparative capitalism framework and in the vein of the idea of a new type of organized capitalism, this mini-conference seeks contributions that examine institutional arrangements and their role in development strategies through policymaking related to industrial upgrading as well as social protection in BRICs, East Asia, Africa and Latin American countries. What kinds of strategies and policy options have predominated and with what impact? Which factors can explain differences across countries? What has been the role of corporatist arrangements and deliberative democracy in shaping specific policy options? What role have international organizations played with regard to the state in promoting social policy reforms such as the ILO? Are there new distributional coalitions underpinning current policy arrangements?
Organizers: Cristiano Fonseca Monteiro, Flavio Gaitán, Eduardo Gomes, and Andreas Nölke
- switch to list view stand1
Cristiano Fonseca Monteiro
Christiano Fonseca Monteiro is a Professor of Sociology at Fluminense Federal University, in the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. He obtained his Doctor’s degree in Sociology at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, with a dissertation on the state-market relations and the political dynamics of neoliberal reforms in the air transportation market in Brazil. He has published several articles and book chapters on these topics, including the article “Political dynamics and liberalization in the Brazilian air transport industry: 1990-2002” (Brazilian Political Science Review, 5/1, 2011). He has been the coordinator of the working group on Economic Sociology at the meetings of the Brazilian Society of Sociology since 2009 and he is currently coordinating a project on Economic Development and Sociopolitical action in Southern Rio de Janeiro.
Flavio Gaitan is a Post doctoral fellow IESP-UERJ (Institute of Social and Political Studies, State University of Rio de Janeiro), PhD IUPERJ (Research University Institute of Rio de Janeiro), Researcher of INCT-PPED (National Institute of Science and Technology “Public Policies, Strategies and Development”). He has published articles in Journals and book chapters. His areas of interest include developmental state, development strategies, social protection, articulation between production regime and welfare state and role of strategic elites in dynamics of development. Among his latest publications are Legacies of excludent development: inequality and poverty in peripheral South American capitalism (in Arzate Salgado, Gutierrez & Huamán, Poverty Reproduction in Latin America, CLACSO-CROP, 2011) and Politics and Development: Lessons from Latin America (with Renato Boschi, in Boschi & Santana,Development and semi-periphery, Anthem Press, 2012).
Eduardo Gomes is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Fluminense Federal University, in Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. He hold a Ph. D. in Political Science from the University of Chicago, with a dissertation on a failed project of turning Brazil into an exporter of manufactured products before the neoliberal reforms. He has been a Visiting Professor in a couple of colleges in the United States, including as a Fulbright Scholar in Residence. He was awarded the “Amos Chair of Eminent Professor of Latin American Studies” at Columbus University, Georgia. His fields of interests are Interest Politics, Political Economy, and Comparative Politics. He has conducted research on business politics, small business, corporate social responsibility, and comparative political economy of development, having published a number of articles and book chapters on these topics in Brazil and abroad. Currently, he is working on state capacities of emergent countries, focusing on advising councils and new arenas of public-private negotiations of the BRICS, as well as on tripartism in Latin America.
Dr. Andreas Nölke has published widely on topics such as financialization, transnational private self-regulation, the International Accounting Standards Board and the nature of capitalism in emerging economies, in journals such as the Review of International Political Economy, World Politics and the Journal of Common Market Studies. In addition to his current assignment as Professor of Political Science at Goethe University, he is working for the Amsterdam Research Centre for International Political Economy/ARCIPE. Andreas obtained his Master's degree in Public Administration at the University of Konstanz and he earned his doctorate in Political Science at the same university. Before joining Goethe University, he has taught at the universities of Konstanz, Leipzig, Amsterdam and Utrecht. Andreas also served as consultant in the field of development cooperation, mainly for the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ), but also for the European Commission and the World Bank.