1. Thursday, April 29 and Friday, April 30, 2010, Radisson University Hotel, Minneapolis, MN Social Movements for a Green Economy: Panel on Institutional Theory and Innovation Andy Van de Ven & Joel Malen Carlson School of Management University of Minnesota

2. Institutional DiffusionCollective Action Zoom Out on Multiple Actors at Inter-Org Field Focus Zoom In on Single Actor Institutional AdaptationInstitutional Design Mode of Change ReproductionConstruction Models of Institutional Change Source: Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2004 Purposeful social construction & strategies by an actor to create/change an institution to solve a problem or correct an injustice Bounded agency: Affordance and partisan mutual adjustment Old institutional literature Political action among distributed, partisan & embedded actors to solve a problem or issue by changing institutional arrangements Framing processes, mobilizing structures & political opportunities Social movements & industry emergence literature Reproduction, diffusion or decline of an institutional arrangement in a population or organizational field Evolutionary processes of variation, selection, and retention (isomorphism) Organizational institutional ecology literature Organizational efforts to achieve legitimacy by adapting to institutional environmental pressures & regulations Coercive, normative & mimetic processes New organizational institutional literature

3. Collective Action Model: Social Movement Theory Political Opportunities Structure Institutional Arrangements -How/where institutional infrastructure facilitates & constrains change Mobilizing Structures Institutional Actors & Resources -groups, organizations, networks -entrepreneurs, activists, insurgents Framing Processes -social construction of ideas, issues, concerns, ideology Collective Action -emergent action & form -partisan mutual adjustment -political tactics & campaigns Doug McAdam, John McCarthy, and Mayer Zald (eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures and Cultural Framings, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996

4. Collective Action: Social Movement on Electricity Feed-in Tariffs Political Opportunity Structures Dominant utilities prevent change through market RE advocates pursue political change Mobilization Structures Environmental Groups: Friends of the Earth Germany, Greenpeace Professional Organizations: Institute of Ecology; German Assn for Promotion of Solar Power Eurosolar, Solar Energy Industries Association Framing Processes RE alternative to fossil fuels (fight climate change) RE alternative to dangerous nuclear energy RE minimizes negative social externalities Collective Action/ Political Behavior Issue Awareness Mobilization/demonstrations against nuclear/climate change Electoral support for pro- renewable candidates/parties Promote new ideas to facilitate/support RE diffusion

5. Collective Action: Dialectics of Electricity Feed-in Law (1990) adapted from Hargrave and Van de Ven (2006) Thesis (RE Opposition) Government support for coal and nuclear electricity generation No support to immature energy technologies Anti-Thesis (RE Support) Government support for renewable energy generation Feed-in law to provide grid access and favorable rates to producers Conflict German federal legislature debates proposed Feed-in Law Synthesis Electricity Feed-in Law adopted (1990) Utilities must provide grid access to RE producers Utilities must purchase electricity from RE producers Rates based on percentage of retail price Power (RE Opposition) Utilities focused on newly integrated East Germany Do not view small scale of legislative proposals as significant threat Despite overall power within German POS, fail wield their power in conflict Power (RE Support) RE supporters have substantial power in legislature it conflict Political support for Feed-in Law from parties across political spectrum

6. 6/24/2015 Participants are Distributed, Partisan & Embedded  Distributed: Different actors play key roles  No single actor controls any developmental path  Partisan: Actors participate from own frames  Interests of producers, regulators, investors, etc. are not the same  Solutions through partisan mutual adjustment  Embedded: Actors become dependent on paths they create.  Many learning opportunities occur as process unfolds  Process of partial cumulative syntheses

7. 6/24/2015 Conclusions  If social movement, pay attention to: o Political structure, mobilizing actors & framing processes o Collective action: conflict, power & political tactics o Dialectics of thesis, antithesis & synthesis  Politically-savvy innovators will outperform technically- savvy innovators. o Technical savvy is necessary but not sufficient; also need political savvy  Innovators who “run in packs” will be more successful than those that go it alone. o the liability of unconnectedness (Baum & Oliver, 1992)

8. 6/24/2015 Technical & Institutional Changes Resemble Social-Political Movements