Search results

New and radically different forms of temporary organisations often have to attract audiences in organisational fields that are dominated by temporary organisations that conform to ‘taken-for-granted’ organising template. The authors argue that adopters of new temporary organisations must contend with the tensions that arise when audiences compare the new temporary organisational form to the temporary organisations that conform to the institutionalised organising template. The authors therefore argue that as new temporary organisations are introduced into new contexts, organisers often use legitimacy claims based on novelty in the context where the new temporary organisation emerged to counter the threat of illegitimacy. However, because the strength of legitimacy claims based on novelty declines in contexts that are further removed, organisers will modify the template of a new temporary organisation in these contexts. The authors examine this using the case of the so called ‘unconferences’: an alternative conference form that emerged within the software development community at the start of the millennium in conjunction with the Web 2.0 movement. The authors’ data comprise 228 distinct unconferences between 2004 – when the unconference was first launched, and 2015. The authors examine the influence of sector distance of unconferences from the original sector where it was first held, on the extent to which the pure unconference format is retained. The authors show that as adopters of the new form move away from the original sector, they are more likely to modify the unconference template. The authors conclude by identifying promising areas of research in new forms of temporary organising.

Temporary organisations are time-limited organisations that are created with a deliberate termination point. Temporary organisations can increase flexibility, allow for innovative and transformative activities with less resource commitment, and reflect a ‘Zeitgeist’ of acceleration and time limitation in society. They also give rise to tensions and paradoxes that require new adaptive and coordinative practices. Research on temporary organisations has moved from primarily exploring the distinction between temporary and permanent organisations to using temporary organisations to study a range of phenomena such as temporality, acceleration, identity, and attachment–detachment dilemmas. This volume reflects this new orientation. We map empirical phenomena along the lines of events, projects and networks, and explore three conceptual themes that run through the nine chapters that comprise this volume: (1) temporality in temporary organisations; (2) the interaction between temporary and permanent organisations; and (3) the strategies and practices that temporary organisation develop in response to tensions and paradoxes.

This paper furthers the analysis of patterns regulating capitalist accumulation based on a historical anthropology of economic activities revolving around and within the Mauritian Export Processing Zone (EPZ).

This paper uses fieldwork in Mauritius to interrogate and critique two important concepts in contemporary social theory – “embeddedness” and “the informal economy.” These are viewed in the wider frame of social anthropology’s engagement with (neoliberal) capitalism.

A process-oriented revision of Polanyi’s work on embeddedness and the “double movement” is proposed to help us situate EPZs within ongoing power struggles found throughout the history of capitalism. This helps us to challenge the notion of economic informality as supplied by Hart and others.

Scholars and policymakers have tended to see economic informality as a force from below, able to disrupt the legal-rational nature of capitalism as practiced from on high. Similarly, there is a view that a precapitalist embeddedness, a “human economy,” has many good things to offer. However, this paper shows that the practices of the state and multinational capitalism, in EPZs and elsewhere, exactly match the practices that are envisioned as the cure to the pitfalls of capitalism.

Setting aside the formal-informal distinction in favor of a process-oriented analysis of embeddedness allows us better to understand the shifting struggles among the state, capital, and labor.