During the 1970s,scholars became in- What began next was an exploration of terested in two other questions:How does product and labor markets.Scholars studied the structure of jobs affect individual mo- concrete cases and attempted to apply these bility patterns and what is the actual pro- tools to account for what had emerged.The cess through which people are matched to sociology of markets has been used to ex- jobs?Sociologists answered these questions plain many aspects of markets.Some scholars by considering the role of firms in the hir- have demonstrated how the social relation- ing process and social relationships in the ships in markets produce more stable prices matching process.The new structuralism (Baker 1984,Uzzi 1997,Uzzi Lancaster modeled how firms affect the distribution of 2004).Others have focused on how the social rewards(Baron Bielby 1980,Hodson 1983,structuring of markets has affected the birth Kalleberg Griffin 1980).White's (1970) and death of small firms(Stuart et al.1999, Chains of Opportunity elaborated how vacancy Stuart Sorenson 2003).Still others have chains of jobs helped produce the distribu- observed the innovation and spread of new tion of workers and rewards.Granovetter's market strategies such as new products,finan- (1974)Getting a Tob took on the question of cial innovations,or changes in organizations how people got matched to jobs.He intro-such as the diversification of products,geo- duced the idea that social networks mediate graphic expansion,and vertical integration,as the links between employers and employees. well as changes in which subunit controls the Both White and Granovetter championed firm(Ahmadjian Robinson 2001;Beckman network analysis as a way to understand et al.2002;Davis 1991;Davis et al.1994;Fiss the social structure linking employers and Zajac 2004;Fligstein 1985,1991;Gulati employees. Westphal 1999;Haunschild 1993;Hirsch 1986;Ocasio Kim 1999;Westphal Zajac 1998;Zom2004;Zuckerman1999,2000). AGREEMENTS IN THE The exploration of all possible link- SOCIOLOGY OF MARKETS ages between firms,suppliers,customers, At the core of the sociology of markets is the governments,and workers pushed scholars attempt to insert sociologists into the study to postulate a plethora of mechanisms for of the economic realm by bringing social the- embeddedness.The literature groped with ory and the way social life works in general trying to generalize these cases and began to into firms,markets,and industries.As our re- elaborate different ways of thinking about the view suggests,the theoretical pieces for the problem of the social embeddedness of mar- construction of the sociology of markets were kets.Krippner(2001)has argued that the term in place by 1983.Firms,the social structures embeddedness has become vaguely defined. that defined their relationships to competi- We argue that this was the case from the very tors,and the social structures that linked them beginning.Scholars who were coming at the to suppliers,customers,workers,and govern-problem from very different points of view ments were already theorized to exist and to examined different ways in which economic vary across markets,historical time periods,transactions were socially structured. and countries.Granovetter's declaration that The variety of approaches has made pro- economic life was always embedded in social viding a sociological definition for markets life has proven to be the intellectual frame that difficult.For neoclassical theory,markets justified opening a floodgate of research and simply imply exchange between actors for brought a massive set of scholars armed with goods or services.These exchanges are usu- sociological ideas into studying market activ- ally thought to be fleeting,with price (i.e., ity and,even more importantly,engaging one the amount of a commodity that is exchanged another in discourse. for another using a generalized medium of 12 ligstein·DauterANRV316-SO33-06 ARI 24 May 2007 10:6 During the 1970s, scholars became in￾terested in two other questions: How does the structure of jobs affect individual mo￾bility patterns and what is the actual pro￾cess through which people are matched to jobs? Sociologists answered these questions by considering the role of firms in the hir￾ing process and social relationships in the matching process. The new structuralism modeled how firms affect the distribution of rewards (Baron & Bielby 1980, Hodson 1983, Kalleberg & Griffin 1980). White’s (1970) Chains of Opportunity elaborated how vacancy chains of jobs helped produce the distribu￾tion of workers and rewards. Granovetter’s (1974) Getting a Job took on the question of how people got matched to jobs. He intro￾duced the idea that social networks mediate the links between employers and employees. Both White and Granovetter championed network analysis as a way to understand the social structure linking employers and employees. AGREEMENTS IN THE SOCIOLOGY OF MARKETS At the core of the sociology of markets is the attempt to insert sociologists into the study of the economic realm by bringing social the￾ory and the way social life works in general into firms, markets, and industries. As our re￾view suggests, the theoretical pieces for the construction of the sociology of markets were in place by 1983. Firms, the social structures that defined their relationships to competi￾tors, and the social structures that linked them to suppliers, customers, workers, and govern￾ments were already theorized to exist and to vary across markets, historical time periods, and countries. Granovetter’s declaration that economic life was always embedded in social life has proven to be the intellectual frame that justified opening a floodgate of research and brought a massive set of scholars armed with sociological ideas into studying market activ￾ity and, even more importantly, engaging one another in discourse. What began next was an exploration of product and labor markets. Scholars studied concrete cases and attempted to apply these tools to account for what had emerged. The sociology of markets has been used to ex￾plain many aspects of markets. Some scholars have demonstrated how the social relation￾ships in markets produce more stable prices (Baker 1984, Uzzi 1997, Uzzi & Lancaster 2004). Others have focused on how the social structuring of markets has affected the birth and death of small firms (Stuart et al. 1999, Stuart & Sorenson 2003). Still others have observed the innovation and spread of new market strategies such as new products, finan￾cial innovations, or changes in organizations such as the diversification of products, geo￾graphic expansion, and vertical integration, as well as changes in which subunit controls the firm (Ahmadjian & Robinson 2001; Beckman et al. 2002; Davis 1991; Davis et al. 1994; Fiss & Zajac 2004; Fligstein 1985, 1991; Gulati & Westphal 1999; Haunschild 1993; Hirsch 1986; Ocasio & Kim 1999; Westphal & Zajac 1998; Zorn 2004; Zuckerman 1999, 2000). The exploration of all possible link￾ages between firms, suppliers, customers, governments, and workers pushed scholars to postulate a plethora of mechanisms for embeddedness. The literature groped with trying to generalize these cases and began to elaborate different ways of thinking about the problem of the social embeddedness of mar￾kets. Krippner (2001) has argued that the term embeddedness has become vaguely defined. We argue that this was the case from the very beginning. Scholars who were coming at the problem from very different points of view examined different ways in which economic transactions were socially structured. The variety of approaches has made pro￾viding a sociological definition for markets difficult. For neoclassical theory, markets simply imply exchange between actors for goods or services. These exchanges are usu￾ally thought to be fleeting, with price (i.e., the amount of a commodity that is exchanged for another using a generalized medium of 112 Fligstein · Dauter Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:105-128. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by Shanghai Jiaotong University on 02/04/15. For personal use only