Abstract
AbstractInnovation does not just involve the creation of new products, but also includes the need for new kinds of processes and organizations. Field theory can help us understand why some innovations are more piecemeal and others more revolutionary. It explicitly links innovation to the process of the emergence, adjustment, and transformation of markets (conceived of as fields). To illustrate this perspective, the case of the transition in the U.S. from a mortgage market dominated by savings and loan banks to the emergence of mortgage securitization dominated by the government sponsored enterprises and the largest private banks, is explicated. Field theory helps us understand the logic of this transition and the myriad players and innovations that helped produce a large part of what we consider to be modern finance. The case also shows the limits of economic theories of financial innovation and the sociology of finance. I end with a discussion of how field theory can inform subsequent research on innovation.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference76 articles.
1. Anderson, N., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The routinization of innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 147–173.
2. Arndt, J. (1979). Toward a Concept of Domesticated Markets. Journal of Marketing, 43(4), 69–75.
3. Barth, J. (1991). The Great Savings and Loan Debacle. Washington D.C.: American Enterprise Institute.
4. Belk, R.W. (1988). Possessions and the Extended Self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2): 139-68.
5. Block, F., & Keller, M. (2011). The State of Innovation: The U.S. Government Role in Technology Development. London, UK: Routledge.
Cited by
14 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献