SOSYAL SERMAYENİN KURUMSAL, KAYNAK BAĞIMLILIĞI VE İŞLEM MALİYETİ KURAMLARI CEPHESİNDEN ALGILANIŞI
Abstract
Bu çalışmanın amacı, sosyal ağlar yardımı ile
sosyal sermaye oluşturma çabalarının ilişki kurma ve geliştirme maksadıyla
gerçekleştirildiğini, kurulan ilişkilerin temelinde meşruiyet kazanma, kıt
kaynaklara erişim, bilgiye ve teknolojik yeniliklere erişim ve paylaşım ve
işlem maliyetlerinin minimize edilmesi gibi amaçların yattığını kuramsal olarak
ortaya koymaktır. Birey ve toplulukların birbirleri ile olan bağlantılarını (ağ
yapılanmalarını/kimi tanıdığınızı) ve bu bağlantılar sayesinde kaynaklara
erişimlerini vurgulayan sosyal ağ kuramı kapsamındaki sosyal sermayeye olan ilgi
gün geçtikçe artmaktadır. Özellikle de konunun esasının kurumsal kuram, kaynak
bağımlılığı kuramı ve doğal sonucu olan güç mücadelesi ile işlem maliyet
kuramıyla olan şaşırtıcı ilişkisi ve bütünleşmeler dikkat çekmektedir. Sonuç
olarak, sosyal ağların hangi amaçlarla kurulmak istendiği kavramsal olarak
ortaya konulmakta ve kuramsal öneriler sunulmaktadır.
Keywords
References
- Adler, P.S. ve Kwon, S.W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27, 17-40. Avey, J.B., Wernsing, T.S. ve Luthans, F. (2008). Can positive employees help positive organizational change? Impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevant attitudes and behavior. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44 (1), 48-70.Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17 (1), 99-120. Baum, J.A.C. ve Oliver C. (1991). Institutional linkages and organizational mortality. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 187-218.Beckert, J. (2003). Economic sociology and embeddedness: How shall we conceptualize economic action? Journal of Economic Issues, XXXVII (3), 769-787.Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. İçinde: J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (s. 241-258). New York: Greenwood. Bourdieu, P. ve Wacquant, L.J.D. (1992). An invitation to reflective sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Bueno, E., Salmador, P.M. ve Rodriguez, O. (2004). The role of social capital in today’s economy: Empirical evidence and proposal of a new model of intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5 (4), 556-574.Burt, R.S. (1992). Structural holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Burt, R.S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 339-365. Burt, R.S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. İçinde: B.M. Staw ve R.I. Sutton (Ed), Research in Organizational Behavior (s.345-423). New York: Elsevier Science.Burt, R.S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. The American Journal of Sociology, 110 (2), 349-399.Chattopadhyay, P., Glick, W.H., ve Huber, G.P. (2001). Organizational actions in response to threats and opportunities. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (5), 937-955.Chisholm, A.M. ve Nielsen, K. (2009). Social capital and the resource-based view of the firm. International Studies of Management & Organization, 39 (2), 7-32. Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.Çakar, M. ve Danışman, A. (2012). Kurumsal kuram. İçinde: H.C. Sözen ve H.N. Basım (Ed.), Örgüt Kuramları (s. 241-269). Ankara: Beta Basım AŞ.Çetin, M. (2006). Bölgesel kalkınmada sosyal ağların rolü: Silikon Vadisi örneği. D.E.Ü.İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 21 (1), 1-25.Daft, R.L. (2007). Organization theory and design. Ohio: Thomson South-Western.Dimaggio, P.J. ve Powell, W.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48 (2), 147-160.Dimaggio, P.J. ve Powell, W.W. (1991). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. İçinde: W.W. Powell ve P.J. Dimaggio (Ed.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (s. 63-82). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Donaldson, L. (1996). The normal science of structural contingency theory. İçinde: S.R. Clegg, C. Hardy ve W.R. Nord (Ed.), Handbook of Organization Studies (s. 57-76). London: Sage Publications Ltd.Donaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. London: Sage Publications, Inc.Donaldson, L. (2008). The conflict between contingency and institutional theories of organizational design. İçinde: R.M. Burton, B.H. Eriksen, D.D. Håkonsson, T.Knudsen ve C.C. Snow (Ed.), Designing Organizations: 21st Century Approaches (s. 3-20). New York: Springer Science + Business Media.Dutton, J.E. ve Jackson, S.E. (1987). Categorizing strategic issues: Links to organizational action. Academy of Management Review, 12 (1), 76-90.Emirbayer, M. ve Goodwin, J. (1994). Network analysis, culture, and the problem of agency. The American Journal of Sociology, 99 (6), 1411-1454. Fraedrich, J., Ferrell, O.C. ve Ferell, L. (2013). Ethical Decision Making in Business: A Managerial Approach. Canada: South-Western, Cengage Learning, Nelson Education.Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. London: Hamish Hamilton.Galaskiewicz, J. ve Wasserman, S. (1989). Mimetic and normative processes within an interorganizational field: An empirical test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 454-479. Gibbons, R. (2010). Transaction-cost economics: Past, present, and future? The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 112 (2), 263-288.Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481-510. Granovetter, M. (1992). Economic institutions as social constructions: A framework for analysis. Acta Sociologica, 35, 3-11.Greenwood, R. ve Hinings, C.R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21 (4), 1022-1054. Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 293-317. Gulati, R., Nohria, N. ve Zaheer, A. (2000). Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (3), 203-215.Hagedoorn, J. (2006). Understanding the cross-level embeddedness of interfirm partnership formation. Academy of Management Review, 31 (3), 670-680.Hamel, G. (1991). Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 83-103.Hasselbladh, H.ve Kallinikos, J. (2000). The project of rationalization: A critique and reappraisal of neo-institutionalism in organization studies. Organization Studies, 21 (4), 697-720.Hosmer, L.T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20 (2), 379-403. Hurlbert, J.S., Haines, V.A. ve Beggs, J.J. (2000). Core networks and tie activation: What kinds of routine networks allocate resources in nonroutine situations? American Sociological Review, 65, 598-618. Kannan, G. ve Aulbur, W.G. (2004). Intellectual capital measurement effectiveness. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5 (3), 389- 413.Keeley, B. (2007). Human capital: How what you know shapes your life. OECD Insights, ISBN: 9789264029088.Lawrence, P.R. ve Lorsch, J.W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12 (1), 1-47.Leana, R.C. ve Buren, V.H.J. (1999). Organizational social capital and employment practices. Academy of Management Review, 24 (3), 538-555. Lin, N. (2000). Inequality in social capital. Contemporary Sociology, 29, 785-795.Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Luthans, F. (2002a). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior 23, 695-706.Luthans, F. (2002b). Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological strengths. Academy of Management Executive, 16 (1), 57-72.Luthans, F., Luthans, K.W. ve Luthans, B.C. (2004). Positive psychological capital: Beyond human and social capital. Business Horizons, 47 (1), 45-50.Luthans, F. ve Youssef, C.M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of Management, 33 (3), 321-349.Macher, J.T. ve Richman, B.D. (2008). Transaction cost economics: An assessment of empirical research in the social sciences. Business and Politics, 10 (1), 1-63.Marin, A. ve Wellman, B. (2014). Social network analysis: An introduction. İçinde: J. Scott ve J.P.J. Carrington (Ed.), Social Network Analysis (s. 11-25). California: Sage Publications. Meydan, C.H. (2010). Kaynak bağımlılığı, işlem maliyetleri, örgütsel ağ ve yeni kurumsal kuram ile örgütlerin ittifak oluşturma sebepleri üzerine bir inceleme. Kara Harp Okulu Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi, 9 (2), 17-40.Meyer, J.W. ve Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology, 83 (2), 340-363.Meyer, J.W. ve Scott, W.R. (1983). Organizational environments-rituals and rationality. Beverly Hills-CA: Sage. Monge, P.R. ve Contractor, N.C. (2001). Emergences of communication networks. İçinde: F.M. Jablin ve L.L. Putnam (Ed.), The New Handbook of Organizational Communication: Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods (s. 440-501). California: Sage Publications. Noteboom, B. (2007). Social capital, institutions and trust. Review of Social Economy, 65 (1), 29-53. Nahapiet, J. ve Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23 (2), 242-266.Ocasio, W. (1995). The enactment of economic diversity: A reconciliation of theories of failure-induced change and threat- rigidity. İçinde: L.L. Cummings ve B.M. Staw (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior (s. 287-331). Greenwich: JAI Press. Ocasio, W. (2002). Organizational power and dependence. İçinde: J.A.C. Baum (Ed.), Blackwell Companion to Organizations (s. 363-385). Oxford: Blackwell.Oğuz, F. (2010). Örgüt iktisadı: Ekonomi, hukuk ve örgüt ilişkileri. İçinde: A.S. Sargut ve Ş. Özen (Ed.), Örgüt Kuramları (s. 193-235). Ankara: İmge Kitabevi Yayınları. Oliver, C. (1990). Determinants of interorganizational relationships: Integration and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 15 (2), 241-265.Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (9), 697-713.Parkhe, A., Wasserman, S. ve Ralston, D.A. (2006). New frontiers in network theory development. Academy of Management Review, 31, 560-568.Paxton, P. (1999). Is social capital declining in the United States? A multiple indicator assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 105 (1), 88-127.Pescosolido, B.A. (1992). Beyond rational choice: The social dynamics of how people seek help. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1096-1138.Pfeffer, J. ve Salancik, G.R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row. Pfeffer, J. (1997). New directions for organization theory. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.Podolny, J.M. (2001). Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. The American Journal of Sociology, 107 (1), 33-60. Polanyi, K. (1944). The great transformation. Boston: Beacon Press.Polanyi, K. (1992). The economy as an instituted process. İçinde: M. Granovetter ve R. Swedberg (Ed.), The Sociology of Economic Life (s. 29-51). New York: Westview Press. Putnam, R.D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.Riordan, M. ve O. Williamson. (1985). Asset specificity and economic organization. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 3, 365-378.Rodrigues, J. (2004). Endogenous preferences and embeddedness: A reappraisal of Karl Polanyi. Journal of Economic Issues, 38 (1), 189-200.Salancik, G.R. ve Pfeffer, J. (1977). Who gets power- and how they hold on to it: A strategic- contingency model of power. Organizational Dynamics, 5 (3), 3-21.Sargut, A.S. (2003). Kurumsal alanlardaki örgüt yapılarının oluşmasında ve ekonomik işlemlerin yürütülmesinde güvenin rolü. İçinde: F. Erdem (Ed.), Sosyal Bilimlerde Güven (s. 89-124). Ankara: Vadi Yayınları. Sargut, A.S. (2006). Sosyal sermaye: yapının sunduğu bir olanak mı, yoksa bireyin amaçlı eylemi mi? Akdeniz İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 12, 1-13. Sargut, A.S. (2010). Kültürlerarası Farklılaşma ve Yönetim. Ankara: İmge Kitabevi Yayınları.Scott, W.R. (2003). Institutional carriers: reviewing modes of transporting ideas over time and space and considering their consequences. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12 (4), 879-894.Scott, J. ve Carrington, P.J. (2014). Social network analysis. California: Sage Publications.Seibert, E.S., Kraimer, I.M. ve Liden, C.R. (2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (2), 219-237.Shah, P.P. (2000). Network destruction: The structural implications of downsizing. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (1), 101-112.Simon, H. (1957). Administrative behavior. New York: Macmillan.Smith, E.B., Menon, T. ve Thompson, L. (2012). Status differences in the cognitive activation of social networks. Organization Science, 23 (1), 67-82.Sözen, H.C. (2007). Bağlam kapsamında örgütler arası ağdüzenekleri: Dayanıklı ev aletleri sektörü örneği. Başkent Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İşletme Anabilim Dalı, Yönetim ve Organizasyon Doktora Programı, Yayımlanmamış Dr. Tezi, Ankara.Sözen, H.C. ve Gürbüz, S. (2012). Örgütsel ağlar. İçinde: H.C. Sözen ve H.N. Basım (Ed.), Örgüt Kuramları (s. 301-325). Ankara: Beta Basım AŞ. Thompson, J.D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Tolbert, P.S. (1985). Institutional environments and resource dependence: Sources of administrative structure in institutions of higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 1-13. Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interim networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 35-67.Uzzi, B. (1999). Embeddedness in the making of financial capital: How social relations and networks benefit firms seeking financing. American Sociological Review, 64, 481-505.Uzzi, B. ve Lancaster, R. (2004). Embeddedness and price formation in the corporate law market. American Sociological Review, 69, 319-344.Üsdiken, B. (2010). Çevresel baskı ve talepler karşısında örgütler: Kaynak bağımlılığı yaklaşımı. İçinde: A.S. Sargut ve Ş. Özen (Ed.), Örgüt Kuramları (s. 77-133). Ankara: İmge Kitabevi Yayınları. Vaara, E. ve Tienari, J. (2008). A discursive perspective on legitimation strategies in multinational corporations. Academy of Management Review, 33 (4), 985-993.Whiteman, G. ve Cooper, W.H. (2000). Ecological embeddedness. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (6), 1265-1282.Williamson, O.E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York: Free Press.Williamson, O.E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: The Free Press.Williamson, O.E. (1988). The logic of economic organization. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 4, 65-93. Williamson, O.E. (1998). Transaction cost economics: How it works. De Economist, 146 (1), 23-58. Williamson, O.E. (2008). Transaction cost economics: The precursors. Economic Affairs, 28 (3), 7-14. Wright, T.A. (2003). Positive organizational behavior: An idea whose time has truly come. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 437-442.
Details
Primary Language
Turkish
Subjects
-
Journal Section
Research Article
Authors
Cem Şen
This is me
0000-0002-7300-0170
Türkiye
Publication Date
October 15, 2019
Submission Date
June 25, 2019
Acceptance Date
September 9, 2019
Published in Issue
Year 2019 Volume: 28 Number: 2
APA
Şen, C., & Mert, İ. S. (2019). SOSYAL SERMAYENİN KURUMSAL, KAYNAK BAĞIMLILIĞI VE İŞLEM MALİYETİ KURAMLARI CEPHESİNDEN ALGILANIŞI. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 28(2), 163-178. https://doi.org/10.35379/cusosbil.582053
AMA
1.Şen C, Mert İS. SOSYAL SERMAYENİN KURUMSAL, KAYNAK BAĞIMLILIĞI VE İŞLEM MALİYETİ KURAMLARI CEPHESİNDEN ALGILANIŞI. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2019;28(2):163-178. doi:10.35379/cusosbil.582053
Chicago
Şen, Cem, and İbrahim Sani Mert. 2019. “SOSYAL SERMAYENİN KURUMSAL, KAYNAK BAĞIMLILIĞI VE İŞLEM MALİYETİ KURAMLARI CEPHESİNDEN ALGILANIŞI”. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 28 (2): 163-78. https://doi.org/10.35379/cusosbil.582053.
EndNote
Şen C, Mert İS (October 1, 2019) SOSYAL SERMAYENİN KURUMSAL, KAYNAK BAĞIMLILIĞI VE İŞLEM MALİYETİ KURAMLARI CEPHESİNDEN ALGILANIŞI. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 28 2 163–178.
IEEE
[1]C. Şen and İ. S. Mert, “SOSYAL SERMAYENİN KURUMSAL, KAYNAK BAĞIMLILIĞI VE İŞLEM MALİYETİ KURAMLARI CEPHESİNDEN ALGILANIŞI”, Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 163–178, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.35379/cusosbil.582053.
ISNAD
Şen, Cem - Mert, İbrahim Sani. “SOSYAL SERMAYENİN KURUMSAL, KAYNAK BAĞIMLILIĞI VE İŞLEM MALİYETİ KURAMLARI CEPHESİNDEN ALGILANIŞI”. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 28/2 (October 1, 2019): 163-178. https://doi.org/10.35379/cusosbil.582053.
JAMA
1.Şen C, Mert İS. SOSYAL SERMAYENİN KURUMSAL, KAYNAK BAĞIMLILIĞI VE İŞLEM MALİYETİ KURAMLARI CEPHESİNDEN ALGILANIŞI. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2019;28:163–178.
MLA
Şen, Cem, and İbrahim Sani Mert. “SOSYAL SERMAYENİN KURUMSAL, KAYNAK BAĞIMLILIĞI VE İŞLEM MALİYETİ KURAMLARI CEPHESİNDEN ALGILANIŞI”. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, vol. 28, no. 2, Oct. 2019, pp. 163-78, doi:10.35379/cusosbil.582053.
Vancouver
1.Cem Şen, İbrahim Sani Mert. SOSYAL SERMAYENİN KURUMSAL, KAYNAK BAĞIMLILIĞI VE İŞLEM MALİYETİ KURAMLARI CEPHESİNDEN ALGILANIŞI. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2019 Oct. 1;28(2):163-78. doi:10.35379/cusosbil.582053
Cited By
İŞLEM MALİYETLERİ TEORİSİ İÇİN FELSEFİ TEMELLENDİRME: DİYOJENİK YAKLAŞIM ÜZERİNE BİR DEĞERLENDİRME
Bingöl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi
https://doi.org/10.29029/busbed.1114945SOSYAL SERMAYE VE İNOVASYON: OECD ÜLKELERİ ÜZERİNE AMPİRİK BİR ANALİZ
Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi
https://doi.org/10.35379/cusosbil.1062703ÖRGÜTSEL YAŞAM EVRELERİ İNSANLARIN YAŞAM EVRELERİNE BENZERLİK GÖSTERİR Mİ?
Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi
https://doi.org/10.14520/adyusbd.1181062