Institutionalizing Inequality: Field Conditions, Institutional Belonging, and the Distribution of Identities

Abstract

The institutionalization of inequality represents an important research focus in various strands of the social sciences. Much theory has emerged within organizational studies and economic sociology, and within intersectionality research. However, there has, as yet been only limited work on the micro-processes by which institutions create and perpetuate inequality at the individual level. This article addresses this issue in terms of a new conceptual model that combines institutional theory on field conditions and Amartya Sen’s capability approach. We describe how inequality is institutionalized in terms of the distribution of identity positions and opportunities at the individual level. Specifically, we suggest that the institutionalization of inequality is a product of various types of institutional belonging that leads to (cumulated) disadvantaged identity positions for the individual. Our work connects Senian theory on conversion factors, multiple identities, and opportunity with established organization theory on fields and institutionalization processes to offer news insights into how patterns of inequality persist and may change.

Keywords:

• governance
• cultural norms
• networks
• identity
• institutional theory
• power

JEL Classification Codes:

• B15
• D02
• D30
• I30
• O17
• Z13

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 We use “governance mechanisms” here, referring to the social movements literature. This is different from “governance” intended as “government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, political stability, control of corruption, and voice and accountability to citizens” (cf. Kaufmann, Kraay, and Mastruzzi 2010).

2 Compare Clegg, Courpasson, and Phillips (2006, 21) seeing Nietzsche’s “influence” in Foucault’s (1977) work on disciplinary knowledge.

3 Institutional control (systemic, “top-down”) is distinguished from institutional agency (bottom-up, episodic) in Lawrence, Winn, and Jennings 2001. Lukes (1989, referring to Bachrach and Baratz 1963) comprises coercion, influence, authority, force, and manipulation.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Nadia von Jacobi

Nadia von Jacobi is at the University of Trento. Alex Nicholls is at Oxford University.

Alex Nicholls

Nadia von Jacobi is at the University of Trento. Alex Nicholls is at Oxford University.