An Organizational Perspective on Space and Place Branding

Clegg, SR; Kornberger, MM

An Organizational Perspective on Space and Place Branding

Clegg, SR

Kornberger, MM

Permalink

Publisher:: Palgrave Macmillan
Publication Type:: Chapter
Citation:: International Place Branding Yearbook 2010, 2010, 1, pp. 3 - 11
Issue Date:: 2010-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	2011001994OK.pdf		4.06 MB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Clegg, SR https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6083-4283	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Kornberger, MM	en_US
dc.contributor.editor	Go, FM	en_US
dc.contributor.editor	Govers, R	en_US
dc.date.issued	2010-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	International Place Branding Yearbook 2010, 2010, 1, pp. 3 - 11	en_US
dc.identifier.isbn	9780230279544	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/17531
dc.description.abstract	Today, it is commonplace to say that we live in what has been called a society of organizations (Perrow 1991), one in which questions of power and control exercised by organizations become crucial. One consequence of this is the ubiquity of theories of organization that focussed on what economists had glossed as the "firm" - without really attending too much to what actually transpired within the great variety of organizations that this term might cover - as well as those many organizations that it might not cover. Economics was interested in the idea of a free market. Initially, the firm was seen as the home of hierarchy - the alternative to markets (Williamson 1975). But the more society, economics and organizations were studied, the greater became the gloss on what occurred within the firm: to accommodate networks, alliances, communities of practice, human and non-human assemblages, rhizomes ... until the idea of free market exchange became the exception, not the norm. This shift in perspective has important implications: free market models, known as neoclassical economics, implied that rational actors made decisions based on economic calculations. The social and the political were eliminated from the economic, as well as the cognitive, limits that produce "bounded rationality" (Simon 1982). Against the sterility of the models thus produced, organization theory, which began its career fixated on bureaucracy, developed various antithetical models. Central to all of these are notions of nonnecessity and of choice.	en_US
dc.publisher	Palgrave Macmillan	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	International Place Branding Yearbook 2010	en_US
dc.title	An Organizational Perspective on Space and Place Branding	en_US
dc.type	Chapter
utslib.location	London	en_US
utslib.for	1503 Business and Management	en_US
utslib.citation.edition	1	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business/Management Discipline
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.consider-herdc	false	en_US
pubs.edition	1	en_US
pubs.place-of-publication	London	en_US

Abstract:

Today, it is commonplace to say that we live in what has been called a society of organizations (Perrow 1991), one in which questions of power and control exercised by organizations become crucial. One consequence of this is the ubiquity of theories of organization that focussed on what economists had glossed as the "firm" - without really attending too much to what actually transpired within the great variety of organizations that this term might cover - as well as those many organizations that it might not cover. Economics was interested in the idea of a free market. Initially, the firm was seen as the home of hierarchy - the alternative to markets (Williamson 1975). But the more society, economics and organizations were studied, the greater became the gloss on what occurred within the firm: to accommodate networks, alliances, communities of practice, human and non-human assemblages, rhizomes ... until the idea of free market exchange became the exception, not the norm. This shift in perspective has important implications: free market models, known as neoclassical economics, implied that rational actors made decisions based on economic calculations. The social and the political were eliminated from the economic, as well as the cognitive, limits that produce "bounded rationality" (Simon 1982). Against the sterility of the models thus produced, organization theory, which began its career fixated on bureaucracy, developed various antithetical models. Central to all of these are notions of nonnecessity and of choice.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/17531