Abstract
Terming his alternative model as ‘institutional social change’, Patnaik gets down to the brass tacks and lucidly describes the ‘how’ of change in Indian rural ecosystem. He identifies eight bases of power asymmetries—economic, political, social, cultural, informational, technology and skills, opportunities, and capabilities—that the institutional champion or change agent/catalyser works on to usher in the desired change. Patnaik’s institutional champion destroys the prevailing ‘power symmetry octagon’, through a 15-stage process of institutional convening that begins with the identification and problematization of the change and culminates with its ‘maintenance and succession’ over a period of time. The author further emphasizes that for the champion to be successful, he/she needs to have attributes such as embeddedness, involvement, selflessness, empathy and organizational ability.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Battilana, J. (2006). Agency and institutions: The enabling role of individuals’ social position. Organization, 13(5), 653–676.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Latour, B. (1996). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications. Soziale Welt, 47, 369–381.
Latour, B. (1999). On recalling ANT. The Sociological Review, 47(S1), 15–25.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Latour, B., & Callon, M. (1992). Don’t throw the baby out with the bath school! A reply to Collins and Yearley. Science as Practice and Culture, 343, 368.
Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5(4), 379–393.
Lounsbury, M. (2002). Institutional transformation and status mobility: The professionalization of the field of finance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 255–266.
Lounsbury, M., & Crumley, E. T. (2007). New practice creation: An institutional perspective on innovation. Organization Studies, 28(7), 993–1012.
Ostrom, E. (1986). An agenda for the study of institutions. Public Choice, 48(1), 3–25.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Virmani, A. (2005). Institution governance & policy reforms: A framework for analysis. Economic and Political Weekly, 40(22), 2341–2350.
Wijen, F., & Ansari, S. (2007). Overcoming inaction through collective institutional entrepreneurship: Insights from regime theory. Organization Studies, 28(7), 1079–1100.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Patnaik, A. (2019). Emerging Framework and Model. In: Institutional Change and Power Asymmetry in the Context of Rural India. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1301-1_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1301-1_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-1300-4
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-1301-1
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)