Hans Kjellberg

On the nature of markets and their practices

This article presents a conceptual model of markets as constituted by practice. Drawing on recent sociological research on the performativity of market theories, the article stresses the need to take seriously the role of ideas in the making of markets. Since extant studies of performativity focus on the role of economics in shaping markets, it is argued that marketing as an academic discipline is a particularly apt partner in expanding this endeavour. The conceptual model presents markets as the ongoing results of three interlinked types of practices: normalizing practices serving to establish normative objectives; representational practices serving to depict markets and/or how they work; and exchange practices serving to realize individual economic exchanges. The links between these practices, which are conceived as translations, are elaborated upon using a number of empirical studies. Finally, the model is used to illustrate differences in how markets are being continuously realized. This highlights the lack of studies on performativity in markets constituted by configurations of market practices in which marketing theories and techniques are likely to be important.

Market practices and forms: introduction to the special issue

In recent years there has been no shortage of calls for reforming marketing (Håkansson et al., 2004; Lusch and Vargo, 2006; Sheth and Sisodia, 2006). Despite the lack of a consensus on a direction for reform, a growing call for the study of markets can now be heard that connects both to classic marketing thought and current developments in social science. Venkatesh et al. (2006: 253), in particular, claim that: ‘In one of the stranger omissions of the discipline, the term market has not been employed with much seriousness or rigor’. A focus on markets rather than marketing, as Venkatesh and Peñaloza (2006: 147) note, implies that ‘markets are not universal, self-contained entities, but rather take on distinct discursive forms and material practices across various social contexts and over time’. Heeding these calls, this special issue advocates a practicebased approach to markets and marketing following parallel moves in other management disciplines and social sciences (see e.g. Bourdieu, 1977; de Certeau, 1984; Schatzki et al., 2001). We suggest that the genesis of a practice-based approach to markets can be located in Callon’s (1998a) influential volume The Laws of the Markets, which is receiving increased attention in Marketing. Callon (1998b) rejects the notion that markets are spontaneous creations, populated by self-interested agents whose make-up is calculative by nature, and which are aptly described by neoclassical economics. But he is equally dismissive of the notion that it is the social embeddedness (Granovetter, 1985) of markets that creates the supplementary norms and beliefs that allow calculating agents to

Reconnecting Marketing to Markets

The historical link between marketing and markets, prevalent until the 1960s, has given way to the view of marketing as a portable set of tools applicable to markets and non-markets alike. By re-establishing the connection between the two, this book examines the argument that marketing produces markets: marketing practices and theories play a very significant role in the production of markets and the kinds of entities and phenomena that populate markets. This interdisciplinary book brings together theoretical and empirical contributions from marketing and economic sociologists to analyse and develop novel approaches to interpreting the relationship between marketing theory, marketing practices, and markets across a variety of market settings and countries. Contributors to this volume - Luis Araujo, Lancaster University Management School Frank Azimont, EM Lyon Michel Callon, CSI, Ecole des Mines de Paris Franck Cochoy, University of Toulouse Sophie Dubuisson-Quellier, CNRS-Sciences Po, Paris John Finch, University of Strathclyde Liv Fries, Stockholm School of Economics Susi Geiger, University College Dublin Johan Hagberg, University of Gothenburg Hans Kjellberg, Stockholm School of Economics Lars-Gunnar Mattsson, Stockholm School of Economics Daniel Neyland, Lancaster University Management School Thomas Reverdy, Universite Pierre Mendes France, Grenoble Elizabeth Shove, Lancaster University Elena Simakova, University of Exeter

The configuration of actors in market practice

This paper addresses three conceptual challenges concerning actors and agency that arise when taking interest in market practice: i) how agency is awarded in practical situations, ii) how actors are preconfigured, and iii) how actors are represented. These issues are explored in three empirical scenes taken from a case study of the introduction of an e-procurement system at an international transport and logistics company. First, we suggest that practical interaction can be fruitfully regarded as a process of interdefinition involving prescriptions and subscriptions between acting entities, or actants . Second, we employ the term inscription to address efforts to affect in advance the configuration of such actants. Third, we suggest that actors are entities to which actions are ascribed, ex post. Through this secondary process a number of actants may be subsumed under a common actor label, thus offering a way of accounting for agency as part of a practice perspective. We conclude by discussing implications of the proposed vocabulary for multiplicity, reflexivity and market agency.

Market practices and over‐consumption

Three things are drawn together to form the basis for this article: the contemporary debates about excessive consumption, a theoretical interest in markets and consumption, and a set of sensivities concerning the study of social practices derived from the sociology of science and techniques. The purpose of the article is to elaborate on how current theorising about markets and consumption within interpretative consumer research and market studies may be furthered by insights from a practice approach. The challenges for marketing provided by the contemporary debates on rampant materialism and excessive consumption were chosen as a suitable site for this discussion. Specifically, the article addresses three issues that emerge at the intersection of market exchange and consumption in the face of uneconomic growth: 1) calculation – how do calculative practices, broadly defined, partake in generating over‐consumption? 2) performativity – what is the role of marketing in fuelling overconsumption? 3) agency – how are “over‐consumers” constituted in practice?

Shaping exchanges, building markets

This article provides a conceptual overview of theoretical approaches to the study of markets from across social science disciplines. These approaches are arranged according to the dimensions of socialization and materialization. While necessarily simplistic and non-exhaustive, such arrangement drives out some of the strengths and weaknesses of the frameworks considered. Particular attention is given to the emerging markets-as-practice approach, which loosely unites the contributions to this special issue. While the markets-as-practice framework has received considerable attention in the recent decade, much remains to be studied in and around markets. Some of the issues highlighted in this article, and explored across the five contributions in this issue, are multiplicity in markets, market changes and dynamics, the possibility of “managing” markets, and values, morals, and power in markets.

Exploring the performativity of marketing: theories, practices and devices

The academic discipline of marketing has been understood and, some may argue, has been designed to be performative. That is, the theories and models developed in marketing are typically intended to bring about effects, rather than simply to describe. Since its inception in the early 1900s,1 the discipline has concerned itself with developing theories and tools that can be picked up and put to work by marketing practitioners. Examples of such theories and tools include models of market segmentation, marketing communication, consumer behaviour, branding and marketing strategy frameworks, which can be found in most marketing textbooks. Its purportedly close link to practical business problems may have contributed to make marketing a popular subject, equipping students to make practical, valuable judgments about markets and marketing activities. However, over the past 20 years, the academic discipline of marketing has become increasingly concerned about a ‘practice-theory’ gap and the diminishing practical value and relevance of its theories, practices and devices.Calls for marketing scholars to turn their critical analysis onto themselves, their scholarly activities and the types and presentations of theory they produce, abound (Maclaran, Miller, Parsons, & Surman, 2009; Tadajewski, 2010). Such calls have questioned both the purpose of theorising and the relationship between theory and practice in marketing. Brownlie, Hewer, and Ferguson (2007) observe that accounts of the gap between marketing theory and practice typically employ the rhetoric of ‘distance’ between cultures: between the worlds of ‘scholarship’ and ‘practice’. By taking an interest in the performativity of marketing – how marketing theories not only describe reality but contribute to bring that reality about – this Special Issue presents one way of rethinking the relationship between theory and practice. It directs our attention to the concrete ways in which marketing ideas travel between actors (from marketing practitioners to marketing scholars and vice versa) and how such ideas become increasingly abstracted or concretised in that process (Czarniawska & Sevon, 1996; Latour, 1986, 1999). Brownlie et al. (2007) further point out that we have a very limited understanding of how ‘relevance’ might be accomplished and performed (also see, Maclaran et al., 2009). Here, a performative stance encourages us to empirically investigate how marketing theories are made to matter in specific situations. Studying the performativity of marketing offers a response to calls for marketing researchers to reflect on their roles during and after research encounters (Wallendorf & Brucks, 1993) by advancing reflexive resources beyond researcher introspection.This Special Issue, ‘Exploring the Performativity of Marketing: Theories, Practices and Devices’, tries to address these concerns by asking: ‘how is marketing theory performative?’ The individual contributions look at how marketing theories are used in practice and what this means for our understanding of the practicing–theorising landscape of marketing. The issue comprises 10 empirical studies that inquire into how, why and to what effect marketing theories are used and ‘performed’ in marketing practice. We begin this editorial by considering what performativity is and how this concept is used in the marketing literature. We then consider three themes concerning the performativity of marketing that emerge from the articles. Finally, we summarise the implications of these themes and sketch a few research areas for further developing our understanding of the performativity of marketing.

The death of a salesman? Reconfiguring economic exchange in Swedish post‐war food distribution

How are economic orders established? Is there any point in singling out market exchange from other forms of exchange, or indeed, from social interaction at large? And if so, what is specific about markets? Is it the calculations that forego the transactions, or the type of transactions performed? This chapter addresses the close relationships between economic calculations, economic transactions, and economic agencies, all of which can be observed as part of economic ordering processes. This task will be accomplished through a detailed account of the introduction of the Hakon deal, a rationalization programme purporting to ‘economize’ the economic exchanges between a wholesaler, the Swedish firm Hakonbolaget, and its customers within the food retail trade in the late 1940s. The purpose of this programme was to realize a market without salesmen by introducing a mode of transacting based on written orders filled out by the retailers using a pre-printed goods catalogue. The account shows how the process of putting the new system into place was intimately connected to transformations in calculative practices. After presenting the empirical case, the chapter addresses three specific issues concerning the interrelation between calculative practices and economic organizing. First, I revisit the classic argument put forward by Coase concerning the transition between different economic orders. Based on the case, I argue that neither the available alternatives, nor the methods of calculating their respective benefits can be assumed at the outset of an inquiry into a process of economic organizing. Second, I critically assess the existing preoccupation with defining the market as a starting point for such (social scientific) inquiries. I argue that, despite appearances, the present case is not about de-marketization. Third, I discuss the practical shaping of calculative agencies, suggesting that there is a simultaneous paucity and abundance of such agencies, a paradox which is an important facet of the shaping of economic orders.

A new perspective on market dynamics: Market plasticity and the stability-fluidity dialectics

Several researchers have pointed out that if marketing is to develop as a discipline and contribute to solving complex business and societal challenges, it should question the neoclassical view of markets and develop its own theory of markets. Efforts in this direction indicate an emerging view of markets as dynamic, subjective, and subject to multiple change efforts. However, the neoclassical view of objective, detached, and deterministic market still influences the dominant models used to describe market change. We argue that in order to better understand market dynamics, both academics and practitioners need new concepts and constructs that go beyond existing linear process and development stage models. We seek to contribute to improved understanding of markets by studying a special characteristic of markets that enables market dynamics. Borrowing a term used by Alderson (1957: 277), we propose that markets are characterized by plasticity, that is, a “potentiality for being remolded and responding in a different way thereafter.” Even though the plasticity concept was introduced into the marketing literature nearly 60 years ago, the plastic character of markets remains underresearched. This article investigates the meaning and manifestations of market plasticity, drawing analogies from the physical, natural, and social sciences. We define market plasticity as the market’s capacity to take and retain form and propose that the dialectic between market stability and market fluidity lies at the heart of market change.

Introduction: Values and Valuations in Market Practice

Markets are sites where actors grapple with questions of value and valuation. Broadly speaking, the consummation of an economic exchange involves efforts to qualify the object that is exchanged (Callon et al. 2002; Beckert & Aspers 2011) and hence assess its value in certain dimensions. In some markets, notably financial markets, market participants have even been suggested to use the market to experiment and test their theories of (economic) value (Beunza & Stark 2005). But, the recent attention to markets in testing or performing economic models and theories has to some extent overshadowed the role of markets as venues where multiple social, cultural and political values are also at play. It is therefore welcome to see several recent studies investigating questions of value in other settings than the financial markets (where the performativity of economic theories admittedly is conveniently examined). These studies address how actors accommodate and mediate a wide variety of value registers as part of performing markets. Indeed, they illustrate that many markets are performed in settings where several social orderings overlap. We are thinking, for instance, of Ikiring Onyas’ (2012) study of the Ugandan coffee market, which shows how both farmers and traders align farming and processing techniques with valuation and calculation practices as they attempt to distinguish a market for sustainable coffee. Another example is the examination of how actors seek to reform the Swedish market for primary health care services aiming to construct rules that align a ‘special consideration to ... the care needs of underprivileged patients’ with values pertaining to free choice and competitive neutrality (Johansson Krafve 2012, p. 52). Other studies have illustrated the import of values and valuations in efforts to change markets in subsistence contexts (Lindeman 2012), in efforts to introduce ‘green’ values in markets (Reijonen & Tryggestad 2012), in efforts to co-create triple bottom line markets (Peñaloza & Mish 2011), and in the mundane management of retail markets (Azimont 2010). These studies are part of an emerging body of ‘market studies’ focusing on the ongoing practices related to markets and economic action in a wide range of settings (see also Araujo et al. 2010). This work stresses the importance of investigating the variety of settings in which markets and economic actions are configured and performed. As such, it provides support for the claim that it is detrimental from both scholarly and policy perspectives to give large financial markets too much of an iconic status regarding what is going on in and around markets. Moreover, it highlights the import of how we delineate what should count as economic action and values. The cited contributions serve both to