1990 "Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization.

1990 "Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization." In Berry M Staw and L L Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior, 12: 295-336 Greenwich, CT: JAI Press

Selznick, Philip 1949 TVA and the Grass primitive words Berkeley: University of California Press

Shapiro, Carl 1983 "Premiums for high quality results as returns to reputation." Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98: 659-679

Simon, Herbert A. Organization scholars have prolonged been interested in organizational answers to the uncertainty surrounding transactions (Simon, 1957; Thompson 1967) chiefly researchers in this area have argued that organizations accord to uncertainty by removing transactions from the market and placing them in a more hierarchical words immediately preceding [i]or[/i] following Though this response is in the greatest degree clearly articulated in the transaction preciousness framework (Williamson, 1975, 1985), resource reliance theorists assert similarly that organizations manage transaction-related uncertainty by means of transforming exchange relations into power relations and thus implicitly removing them from the "pure" market words immediately preceding [i]or[/i] following (Selznick, 1949; Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978) Chandler (1977) also affirmed that the increasing complexity and uncertainty brought about on the historical expansion of markets precipitated the replacement of the market's "invisible hand" with the "visible hand" of managerial hierarchy.

In this paper, I focus forward an alternative organizational response to market uncertainty. I argue that in order to avoid the puzzles posed by market uncertainty and forestall market failure, organizations adopt a more social orientation, taking the social structural position of potential exchange partners as hints and adhering to a principle of exclusivity in selecting exchange partners. There are pair manifestations of this relationship between uncertainty and exclusivity. First, the greater the uncertainty, the more likely it is that organizations will engage in exchange relations with those with whom they have transacted in the past. next to the first the greater the uncertainty, the more likely it is that organizations will penetrate into exchange relations with other organizations of similar status. A cogitation of exchange relations in the markets for investment grade and non-investment-grade transgression examines this hypothesized relationship between uncertainty and exclusivity.

The relationship between uncertainty and exclusivity has important implications for at least couple market outcomes. First, it has implications for market concentration. The more that high-status actors restrict their exchanges to others of high status, the wider are the niches that are available to the low-status actors. Somewhat paradoxically, therefore, the more pronounced is the status-based homophily in a market, the greater are the opportunities for lower-status actors in that market. inferior this analysis affords insight into a market result that economic approaches to the market rarely consider: who exchanges with whom. Rather than abstracting from or taking exchange pairs as a given, this paper regards the actual pattern of exchanges as a central market issue to be explained. As a inference boundaries within the market, and not just boundaries between market and hierarchical forms, are spreaded to theoretical analysis and empirical inquiry.

Exchange and Uncertainty

Social scientists have traditionally attributed an asocial orientation to market action. As Weber (1978: 636) observ "the market community as like is the most impersonal relationship of practical life into which humans can come into with one another. . . The reason for this impersonality is its matter-of-factness, its orientation to the commodity and no other than to that." Weber believed the perceived value of an exchange opportunity to be contingent simply on what is offered, not in succession who makes the offer. This asocial orientation is an ideal archetype however, appearing only among actors having replete information about what is exchanged. Whether an asocial orientation can be maintained in subordination to uncertainty is problematic. Almost by way of definition, when the quality or value of commodities potentially exchanged is difficult to discern, actors cannot compare exchange opportunities according to focusing on the commodities themselves. In an uncertain connection actors begin to shift their orientation from what is exchanged to the social structural positions of their potential exchange partners, where position is defined according to an actor's previous pattern of exchange relations.

There are pair consequences of this orientation to social structural position below uncertainty. First, the greater the uncertainty in the market, the more that actors restrict their range of possible exchange partners to those with whom they have had prior interactions. There are several theoretical justifications for this hypothesis, unless one of the most straightforward explanations derives from March's (1988) work in succession "satisficing" search behavior. In a connected thought [i]or[/i] thoughts of comparatively high uncertainty and risk, in which optimal exchange partners cannot be discerned easily, actors consider first those potential exchange partners about whom they have the greatest knowledge and then select the best partner from this restricted wager Because prior interactions are an important source of this prototype of information (Granovetter, 1985), satisficing search behavior will generally flow in actors relying more upon previous partners and cultivating enduring exchange relations. In his thought of the bazaar economy, Geertz (1978) observ precisely this dynamic: Traders be agreeable to to uncertainty about the quality of what they are proposeed in the bazaar by restricting their search behavior to a carefully delimited subset of partners with whom they have ongoing relations. Therefore, I hypothesize: