Bank Control, Owner Control, or Organizational Dynamics: Who Controls the Large Modern Corporation?
- 1 September 1992
- journal article
- research article
- Published by University of Chicago Press in American Journal of Sociology
- Vol. 98 (2) , 280-307
- https://doi.org/10.1086/230009
Abstract
There has been a long-standing debate over who controls the large American corporation. The results presented here indicate that existing power relations within the firm, the conception of control that dominates the firm's actions, and the actions of competitors account for the economic actions undertaken by large firms, while the differences in manager or owner or bank control and the presence of bank interlocks do not. A sociology of markets is therefore more likely to account for the courses of actions of large firms by considering these relations, rather than focusing on the construction of interests by bankers, owners, or board interlocks.This publication has 12 references indexed in Scilit:
- Eclipse of the Public CorporationSSRN Electronic Journal, 1999
- Market Networks and Corporate BehaviorAmerican Journal of Sociology, 1990
- What's in a Name? Reputation Building and Corporate StrategyThe Academy of Management Journal, 1990
- Similarity of Political Behavior Among Large American CorporationsAmerican Journal of Sociology, 1989
- A Longitudinal Study of the Formation of Interlocking DirectoratesAdministrative Science Quarterly, 1988
- The Economics and Politics of Structure: The Multidivisional Form and the Large U.S. CorporationAdministrative Science Quarterly, 1987
- The Intraorganizational Power Struggle: Rise of Finance Personnel to Top Leadership in Large Corporations, 1919-1979American Sociological Review, 1987
- The Spread of the Multidivisional Form Among Large Firms, 1919-1979American Sociological Review, 1985
- The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational FieldsAmerican Sociological Review, 1983
- Broken Ties: Interlocking Directorates and Intercorporate CoordinationAdministrative Science Quarterly, 1983