production of markets.Scholars who use this pendence or mediate competition.But other approach have drawn on network or institu- scholars who view the links between produc- tional analyses (Baron et al.1999,Haveman ers and consumers as pivotal to the produc- Rao 1997).But population ecology has tion of markets emphasize the role of trust and not figured into the core of the sociology of culture(i.e.,commonly held meanings about markets,primarily because it has developed the product,its morality,and its usefulness) a vocabulary and set of methods that do not in those relationships as key to understand- easily translate into many of the current ap-ing market processes.Granovetter(1985)ar- proaches to social structure.This is unfortu- gued early on that the main purpose of em- nate because several developments in popula- beddedness in markets was that it increased tion ecology have paralleled those in the other the trust between buyers and sellers.Zelizer approaches.We show how many ideas in pop-has taken the relationship between produc- ulation ecology have been expressed in a dif-ers and consumers in a different direction. ferent language in the other points of view Her argument is that consumers must be con- and argue that the insights of population ecol-vinced not just of the utility of the products ogy should be added more explicitly to schol-they buy and the trustworthiness of those who arly thinking about the social structuring of sell them,but also of the morality of the prod- markets. uct(Zelizer 1983,1994,1997).Her more cul- After one notes the similar ideas that run tural approach alerts scholars to the problem through the literature,including the less rec-of framing products so that consumers find ognized areas of contribution,there remain them not just useful,but in concert with their a number of interesting problems that stem values. from theoretical differences.Scholars in the A third source of disagreement is that performative tradition have presented their some scholars view market structures as either perspective as a critique of the predominant emergent or in equilibrium,whereas others sociological modes of understanding markets. argue that markets are always changing.The Their basic idea is that economic action is possibility for a sociological definition of mar- about calculation,and that how the qualities ket equilibrium is intriguing.White(1981), of goods are calculated (i.e.,the amenability of for example,has defined a market as a"repro- goods to calculation,the calculative capacities ducible role structure."This idea implies that of actors,and the interaction between them the social processes that occur when a market in the act of exchange)is crucial to under-is formed are different from the social pro- standing market structure.These scholars ar-cesses that occur once a more stable set of so- gue that the tools actors have at their disposal cial relationships appear.Population ecology to interpret and define their economic worlds has an implied theory of what could be called and how they organize interaction over ex- punctuated equilibrium.At the beginning of change are created by and enact ideas about markets,there is often a period of turmoil how economic activity should and does oper-and change followed by some stasis and per- ate.We interpret the performative argument haps a second period of turmoil.The alterna- as an attempt to insert cultural understandings tive view is that markets are always fluid,with of actors into the core of the social construc- products,processes,and advantage constantly tion of markets. shifting.Here,equilibrium solutions to the A second disagreement focuses on link-problem of what other market actors will do ages between producers and consumers.Many never form (Nelson Winter 1982).These analyses of markets focus exclusively on pro- different views of market dynamics are impor- ducers and their competitive relationships. tant because they imply very different ways of Here,attention is given to how social struc- looking at the social structuring of a market. tures resolve the myriad forms of resource de- On the one hand,if actors trying to find a place Fligstein·DauterANRV316-SO33-06 ARI 24 May 2007 10:6 production of markets. Scholars who use this approach have drawn on network or institu￾tional analyses (Baron et al. 1999, Haveman & Rao 1997). But population ecology has not figured into the core of the sociology of markets, primarily because it has developed a vocabulary and set of methods that do not easily translate into many of the current ap￾proaches to social structure. This is unfortu￾nate because several developments in popula￾tion ecology have paralleled those in the other approaches. We show how many ideas in pop￾ulation ecology have been expressed in a dif￾ferent language in the other points of view and argue that the insights of population ecol￾ogy should be added more explicitly to schol￾arly thinking about the social structuring of markets. After one notes the similar ideas that run through the literature, including the less rec￾ognized areas of contribution, there remain a number of interesting problems that stem from theoretical differences. Scholars in the performative tradition have presented their perspective as a critique of the predominant sociological modes of understanding markets. Their basic idea is that economic action is about calculation, and that how the qualities of goods are calculated (i.e., the amenability of goods to calculation, the calculative capacities of actors, and the interaction between them in the act of exchange) is crucial to under￾standing market structure. These scholars ar￾gue that the tools actors have at their disposal to interpret and define their economic worlds and how they organize interaction over ex￾change are created by and enact ideas about how economic activity should and does oper￾ate. We interpret the performative argument as an attempt to insert cultural understandings of actors into the core of the social construc￾tion of markets. A second disagreement focuses on link￾ages between producers and consumers. Many analyses of markets focus exclusively on pro￾ducers and their competitive relationships. Here, attention is given to how social struc￾tures resolve the myriad forms of resource de￾pendence or mediate competition. But other scholars who view the links between produc￾ers and consumers as pivotal to the produc￾tion of markets emphasize the role of trust and culture (i.e., commonly held meanings about the product, its morality, and its usefulness) in those relationships as key to understand￾ing market processes. Granovetter (1985) ar￾gued early on that the main purpose of em￾beddedness in markets was that it increased the trust between buyers and sellers. Zelizer has taken the relationship between produc￾ers and consumers in a different direction. Her argument is that consumers must be con￾vinced not just of the utility of the products they buy and the trustworthiness of those who sell them, but also of the morality of the prod￾uct (Zelizer 1983, 1994, 1997). Her more cul￾tural approach alerts scholars to the problem of framing products so that consumers find them not just useful, but in concert with their values. A third source of disagreement is that some scholars view market structures as either emergent or in equilibrium, whereas others argue that markets are always changing. The possibility for a sociological definition of mar￾ket equilibrium is intriguing. White (1981), for example, has defined a market as a “repro￾ducible role structure.” This idea implies that the social processes that occur when a market is formed are different from the social pro￾cesses that occur once a more stable set of so￾cial relationships appear. Population ecology has an implied theory of what could be called punctuated equilibrium. At the beginning of markets, there is often a period of turmoil and change followed by some stasis and per￾haps a second period of turmoil. The alterna￾tive view is that markets are always fluid, with products, processes, and advantage constantly shifting. Here, equilibrium solutions to the problem of what other market actors will do never form (Nelson & Winter 1982). These different views of market dynamics are impor￾tant because they imply very different ways of looking at the social structuring of a market. On the one hand, if actors trying to find a place 108 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