January 1991
·
35,306 Reads
·
4,461 Citations
This page lists works of an author who doesn't have a ResearchGate profile or hasn't added the works to their profile yet. It is automatically generated from public (personal) data to further our legitimate goal of comprehensive and accurate scientific recordkeeping. If you are this author and want this page removed, please let us know.
January 1991
·
35,306 Reads
·
4,461 Citations
January 1991
·
6,024 Reads
·
191 Citations
June 1987
·
93 Reads
·
340 Citations
Administrative Science Quarterly
October 1985
·
2,787 Reads
·
343 Citations
Existing theories of the nature of the state in Western capitalist democracies have been mostly propounded from one of three major theoretical perspectives, each emphasising a particular aspect of the state: the 'pluralist', which emphasises its democratic aspect: the 'managerial', which emphasises its bureaucratic elements: and the 'class', which focuses on its capitalistic aspect. Each of these theoretical perspectives has contributed something to our understanding of the state, but each also has its limitations. In this book, Alford and Friedland evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each perspective and present a new, synthetic framework for a more comprehensive theory of the state. Impartially reviewing the major historical and empirical works within each theoretical tradition, they reveal how empirical study has been shaped by theoretical assumptions. They agree that each perspective has a distinctive 'power' to understand part of the reality of the modern state, although it is powerless to explain other parts. In each case, the part that can be explained is the perspective's 'home domain', or the aspect of the state that it emphasises, while other aspects are either rejected or reinterpreted. The authors argue that the state cannot be adequately understood unless full account is taken of each of these home domains, and they suggest how the contributions of each perspective to the explanation of its own domain can be integrated into a new, and more powerful, theory.
... A theoretical view combining institutional logics and economies of worth Institutional logics greatly influence on the way social actors evaluate the organizations and projects that surround them in that they dictate the legitimacy of behaviours, actions and discourses (Pache & Santos, 2010). Introduced in 1985 by Alford and Friedland (1985), the concept of institutional logics is commonly understood as "the socially constructed, historical pattern of material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules by which individuals produce and reproduce their material subsistence, organize time and space, and provide meaning to their social reality" (Thornton & Ocasio, 1999: 804). ...
October 1985
... The underpinning theory for this work is drawn from recent research exploring accounting procedures and the circular economy amidst varying institutional logics theory [22]. Institutional logics theory examines how individuals and organizations operate within institutional environments shaped by dominant belief systems, norms, and practices [34,72]. Several perspectives could be assessed when considering the intersection of institutional logics theory with sustainable development goals (SDGs), circular economy, and accounting innovation. ...
January 1991
... According to Alford and Friedland (1985), institutionalization approach focuses on the difference in belief systems. He points out that there is no consensus on which beliefs are true for which behavior in belief system, just as there cannot be harmony among different organizations. ...
June 1987
Administrative Science Quarterly
... The institutional concept of logic (Friedland & Alford, 1991;Ocasio, 2011;Thornton, 2002;Thornton et al., 2012) offers a useful path for understanding the link between work and disability. Logics focus attention on the societal assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules that have defined this relationship in different historical periods. ...
Reference:
From Charity to Human Rights
January 1991