Globalization as a double process of institutional change and institution building

Globalization is a word that suffers from overuse. Still, behind the overstretched concept lies the reality of an economic world that is not fully contained nor constrained by national boundaries. Economic organization and coordination increasingly reach across national borders and the impact is being felt both within the transnational sphere and, through rebound and indirect impact, at the national level as well. We started this book by acknowledging the need to take into account this transnational reality and its potentially quite significant impact. We now want to point, however, to its full complexity. [First paragraph]

[1]  Neil Fligstein,et al.  FROM THE TRANSFORMATION OF CORPORATE CONTROL , 2021, The New Economic Sociology.

[2]  Mauro F. Guillén,et al.  Is Globalization Civilizing, Destructive or Feeble? A Critique of Five Key Debates in the Social Science Literature , 2001 .

[3]  H. James.  The End of Globalization: Lessons from the Great Depression , 2001 .

[4]  G. Morgan.  Transnational communities and business systems , 2001 .

[5]  Elisabeth S. Clemens and,et al.  POLITICS AND INSTITUTIONALISM: Explaining Durability and Change , 1999 .

[6]  A. Ainamo,et al.  The Coevolution of New Organizational Forms in the Fashion Industry: a Historical and Comparative Study of France, Italy, and the United States , 1999 .

[7]  Marie-Laure Djelic,et al.  Exporting the American Model , 1998 .

[8]  John L. Campbell.  Institutional analysis and the role of ideas in political economy , 1998 .

[9]  John W. Meyer,et al.  The Structuring of a World Environmental Regime, 1870–1990 , 1997, International Organization.

[10]  John W. Meyer,et al.  World Society and the Nation‐State , 1997, American Journal of Sociology.

[11]  R. Thietart,et al.  Action, Structure and Chaos , 1997 .

[12]  Barry Eichengreen,et al.  Politics and Institutions in an Integrated Europe , 1995 .

[13]  Mark S. Granovetter.  Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness , 1985, American Journal of Sociology.

[14]  W. Powell,et al.  THE IRON CAGE REVISITED: , 1983, The New Economic Sociology.

[15]  John W. Meyer,et al.  Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[16]  Karl Polanyi,et al.  The Great Transformation , 1944 .

[17]  Luciano Vandelli,et al.  The End of the Nation-State , 2003 .

[18]  J. Bensedrine,et al.  Globalization and its limits: The Making of International Regulation , 2003 .

[19]  Pauline Jones Luong.  Institutional Change and Political Continuity in Post-Soviet Central Asia: Note on Transliteration , 2002 .

[20]  F. Nielsen,et al.  1 PATTERNS OF COOPERATION AMONG REGIONAL OFFICES IN BRUSSELS : HOMOPHILY , COMPLEMENTARITY , AND NATIONAL EMBEDDEDNESS , 2001 .

[21]  J. Wiseman,et al.  Globalization and its discontents , 2000 .

[22]  Kitschelt Herbert,et al.  CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN AND POSTCOMMUNIST ECONOMIC REFORM , 2000 .

[23]  Herbert Kitschelt,et al.  Continuity and Change in Contemporary Capitalism , 1999 .

[24]  Ronald Dore,et al.  National diversity and global capitalism , 1996 .

[25]  Vincent di Norcia.  Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution , 1991 .