Institutional change is typically studied at the organizational field level; we leverage political culture to examine how the context in which these fields are embedded influence processes of institutional change within such fields. Specifically, we look at the effect of conservative political culture on legitimation and adoption of crowdfunding in the United States. We find that crowdfunding is less popular and more slowly legitimated in conservative regions. However, we also find that crowdfunding’s legitimacy is more important in these regions and that once a legitimacy threshold is reached, the adoption of crowdfunding in conservative regions surpasses that in liberal regions.
AcockA. C. (2013). Discovering structural equation modeling using Stata: Revised edition. Stata press.
2.
AgrawalA.CataliniC.GoldfarbA. (2015). Crowdfunding: Geography, social networks, and the timing of investment decisions. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 24(2), 253–274.doi:10.1111/jems.12093
3.
AhlersG. K. C.CummingD.GüntherC.SchweizerD. (2015). Signaling in equity crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(4), 955–980.doi:10.1111/etap.12157
4.
AmodioD. M.JostJ. T.MasterS. L.YeeC. M. (2007). Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism. Nature Neuroscience, 10(10), 1246–1247.doi:10.1038/nn197917828253
AndersonT. W.HsiaoC. (1981). Estimation of dynamic models with error components. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 76(375), 598–606.doi:10.1080/01621459.1981.10477691
7.
ArellanoM.BondS. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277–297.doi:10.2307/2297968
8.
BattilanaJ.LecaB.BoxenbaumE. (2009). How actors change institutions: towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 65–107.doi:10.5465/19416520903053598
9.
BelleflammeP.LambertT.SchwienbacherA. (2014). Crowdfunding: Tapping the right crowd. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(5), 585–609.doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.07.003
10.
BeugreC. D. (2014). The legitimacy of crowdfunding: An institutional theory perspective. InAcademy of management proceedings (Vol. 2014, No. 1, p.10611). Academy of Management.doi:10.5465/ambpp.2014.10611abstract
11.
BitektineA.HaackP. (2015). The “macro” and the “micro” of legitimacy: Toward a multilevel theory of the legitimacy process. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 49–75.doi:10.5465/amr.2013.0318
12.
BrutonG.KhavulS.SiegelD.WrightM. (2015). New financial alternatives in seeding entrepreneurship: Microfinance, crowdfunding, and peer‐to‐peer innovations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(1), 9–26.doi:10.1111/etap.12143
13.
CalicG.MosakowskiE. (2016). Kicking off social entrepreneurship: How a sustainability orientation influences crowdfunding success. Journal of Management Studies, 53(5), 738–767.doi:10.1111/joms.12201
14.
CameronA. C.TrivediP. K. (2010). Microeconometrics using Stata (Revised ed.). Stata Press.
15.
ChowdhuryF.AudretschD. B.BelitskiM. (2019). Institutions and entrepreneurship quality. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(1), 51–81.doi:10.1177/1042258718780431
16.
ChristensenD. M.DhaliwalD. S.BoivieS.GraffinS. D. (2015). Top management conservatism and corporate risk strategies: Evidence from managers’ personal political orientation and corporate tax avoidance. Strategic Management Journal, 36(12), 1918–1938.doi:10.1002/smj.2313
17.
CialdiniR. B.TrostM. R.NewsomJ. T. (1995). Preference for consistency: The development of a valid measure and the discovery of surprising behavioral implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(2), 318–328.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.2.318
18.
CorleyK. G.GioiaD. A. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution?Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12–32.doi:10.5465/amr.2009.0486
19.
DavisB. C.HmieleskiK. M.WebbJ. W.CoombsJ. E. (2017). Funders’ positive affective reactions to entrepreneurs’ crowdfunding pitches: The influence of perceived product creativity and entrepreneurial passion. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(1), 90–106.doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.10.006
20.
DeephouseD. L. (1999). To be different, or to be the same? It’s a question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 147–166.
21.
DeLeonR. E.NaffK. C. (2004). Identity politics and local political culture: Some comparative results from the social capital benchmark survey. Urban Affairs Review, 39(6), 689–719.
22.
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.doi:10.2307/2095101
23.
DushnitskyG.MatusikS. F. (2019). A fresh look at patterns and assumptions in the field of entrepreneurship: What can we learn?Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 13(4), 437–447.doi:10.1002/sej.1324
24.
EriksonR. S.McIverJ. P.WrightG. C. (1987). State political culture and public opinion. American Political Science Review, 81(3), 797–813.doi:10.2307/1962677
25.
FaircloughS.MicelottaE. R. (2013). Beyond the family firm: Reasserting the influence of the family institutional logic across organizations. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 39B, 63–98.
26.
FernandesD.MandelN. (2014). Political conservatism and variety-seeking. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(1), 79–86.doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2013.05.003
GelfandM. J.NishiiL. H.RaverJ. L. (2006). On the nature and importance of cultural tightness-looseness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1225–1244.doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.122517100480
29.
GreenwoodR.DíazA. M.LiS.LorenteJ. C. (2010). The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses. Organization Science, 21(2), 521–539.doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0453
30.
GlynnM. A.AbzugR. (2002). Institutionalizing identity: Symbolic isomorphism and organizational names. Academy of Management journal, 45(1), 267–280.
31.
GreenwoodR.HiningsC. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1022–1054.
32.
GreenwoodR.SuddabyR.HiningsC. R. (2002). Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management journal, 45(1), 58–80.
33.
GrossmannM.HopkinsD. A. (2015). Ideological Republicans and group interest Democrats: The asymmetry of American party politics. Perspectives on Politics, 13(1), 119–139.doi:10.1017/S1537592714003168
34.
GulerI.GuillénM. F.MacphersonJ. M.GuillenM. F. (2002). Global competition, institutions, and the diffusion of organizational practices: The international spread of ISO 9000 quality certificates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2), 207–232.doi:10.2307/3094804
35.
HaackP.SiewekeJ. (2018). The legitimacy of inequality: Integrating the perspectives of system justification and social judgment. Journal of Management Studies, 55(3), 486–516.doi:10.1111/joms.12323
36.
HaackP.SiewekeJ. (in press). Distinguishing first-order judgments from second-order judgments: A commentary on Bitektine and colleagues. Academy of Management Discoveries.
37.
HannanM. T.CarrollG. R. (1992). Dynamics of organizational populations: Density, legitimation, and competition. Oxford University Press.
38.
HannanM. T.FreemanJ. (1988). The ecology of organizational mortality: American labor unions, 1836-1985. American Journal of Sociology, 94(1), 25–52.
39.
HargadonA. B.DouglasY. (2001). When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(3), 476–501.doi:10.2307/3094872
40.
HarringtonJ. R.GelfandM. J. (2014). Tightness-looseness across the 50 United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(22), 7990–7995.doi:10.1073/pnas.131793711124843116
41.
HildebrandT.PuriM.RochollJ. (2017). Adverse incentives in crowdfunding. Management Science, 63(3), 587–608.doi:10.1287/mnsc.2015.2339
42.
HeugensP. P. M. A. R.LanderM. W. (2009). Structure! agency! (and other Quarrels): A meta-analysis of institutional theories of organization. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 61–85.
43.
HirshJ. B.DeYoungC. G.XuX.PetersonJ. B. (2010). Compassionate liberals and polite conservatives: Associations of agreeableness with political ideology and moral values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(5), 655–664.doi:10.1177/014616721036685420371797
44.
HofstedeG. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage.
JonssonS. (2009). Refraining from imitation: Professional resistance and limited diffusion in a financial market. Organization Science, 20(1), 172–186.doi:10.1287/orsc.1080.0370
47.
JosefyM.DeanT. J.AlbertL. S.FitzaM. A. (2017). The role of community in crowdfunding success: Evidence on cultural attributes in funding campaigns to “Save the local theater”. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(2), 161–182.doi:10.1111/etap.12263
48.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375.doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.33912784934
49.
JostJ. T.HunyadyO. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(5), 260–265.doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00377.x
50.
JostJ. T.NapierJ. L.ThorisdottirH.GoslingS. D.PalfaiT. P.OstafinB. (2007). Are needs to manage uncertainty and threat associated with political conservatism or ideological extremity?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(7), 989–1007.doi:10.1177/014616720730102817620621
51.
KacperczykA.YounkinP. (2017). The paradox of breadth: The tension between experience and legitimacy in the transition to entrepreneurship. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(4), 731–764.
52.
KemmelmeierM.DanielsonC.BastenJ. (2005). What’s in a grade? Academic success and political orientation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(10), 1386–1399.doi:10.1177/014616720527608516143670
53.
KennedyM. T.FissP. C. (2009). Institutionalization, framing, and diffusion: The logic of TQM adoption and implementation decisions among U.S. hospitals. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 897–918.doi:10.5465/amj.2009.44633062
54.
KimK.HannI.-H. (2019). Crowdfunding and the democratization of access to capital—An illusion? Evidence from housing prices. Information Systems Research, 30(1), 276–290.doi:10.1287/isre.2018.0802
55.
KostovaT.RothK.DacinM. T. (2008). Institutional theory in the study of multinational corporations: A critique and new directions. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 994–1006.doi:10.5465/amr.2008.34422026
56.
LaminA.ZaheerS. (2012). Wall street vs. main street: Firm strategies for defending legitimacy and their impact on different stakeholders. Organization Science, 23(1), 47–66.doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0631
57.
LawrenceT. B.SuddabyR. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. InCleggS. R.HardyC.LawrenceT. B.NordW. R. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organization studies (2nd ed., pp.215–254). SAGE.
58.
LieskeJ. (2010). The changing regional subcultures of the American states and the utility of a new cultural measure. Political Research Quarterly, 63(3), 538–552.doi:10.1177/1065912909331425
59.
LongJ. S.FreeseJ. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata (Revised ed.). Stata Press.
60.
LounsburyM. (2007). A tale of two cities: Competing logics and practice variation in the professionalizing of mutual funds. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 289–307.doi:10.5465/amj.2007.24634436
61.
MairJ.MartiI. (2009). Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study from Bangladesh. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 419–435.doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.04.006
62.
McCraeR. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), 323–337.doi:10.1037/0033-2909.120.3.3238900080
63.
McKennyA. F.AllisonT. H.Ketchen JrD. J.ShortJ. C.IrelandR. D. (2017). How should crowdfunding research evolve? A survey of the entrepreneurship theory and practice editorial board. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(2), 291–304.doi:10.1111/etap.12269
64.
MicelottaE.LounsburyM.GreenwoodR. (2017). Pathways of institutional change: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1885–1910.doi:10.1177/0149206317699522
65.
McKnightB.ZietsmaC. (2018). Finding the threshold: A configurational approach to optimal distinctiveness. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(4), 493–512.
66.
MollickE. (2014). The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(1), 1–16.doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.06.005
67.
NailP. R.BedellK. E.LittleC. D. (2003). Should president Clinton be prosecuted for perjury? The effects of preference for consistency, self-esteem, and political party affiliation. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(8), 1821–1831.doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00032-1
68.
NichollsA. (2010). The legitimacy of social entrepreneurship: Reflexive Isomorphism in a Pre-Paradigmatic field. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 611–633.
69.
OkimotoT. G.GrometD. M. (2016). Differences in sensitivity to deviance partly explain ideological divides in social policy support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(1), 98–117.doi:10.1037/pspp000008026571208
70.
PaikY.KangS.SeamansR. (2019). Entrepreneurship, innovation, and political competition: How the public sector helps the sharing economy create value. Strategic Management Journal, 40(4), 503–532.doi:10.1002/smj.2937
71.
PollockT. G.RindovaV. P. (2003). Media legitimation effects in the market for initial public offerings. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 631–642.
72.
RadcliffB. (1994). Turnout and the democratic vote. American Politics Quarterly, 22(3), 259–276.doi:10.1177/1532673X9402200301
73.
RaffaelliR.GlynnM. A. (2015). Institutional Innovation: Novel, Useful. InShalleyC. E.HittM. A.ZhouJ., (Eds). In: The Oxford Handbook of creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship (pp.407–420). Oxford Library of Psychology..
74.
Ranger-MooreJ.Banaszak-HollJ.HannanM. T. (1991). Density-Dependent dynamics in regulated industries: Founding rates of banks and life insurance companies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(1), 36–65.
75.
RockM. S.Janoff-BulmanR. (2010). Where do we draw our lines? Politics, rigidity, and the role of self-regulation. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1(1), 26–33.doi:10.1177/1948550609347386
76.
RossmanG. (2014). The diffusion of the legitimate and the diffusion of legitimacy. Sociological Science, 1, 49–69.doi:10.15195/v1.a5
77.
SchneibergM.ClemensE. S. (2006). The typical tools for the job: Research strategies in institutional analysis. Sociological Theory, 24(3), 195–227.doi:10.1111/j.1467-9558.2006.00288.x
78.
SchwienbacherA.LarraldeB. (2012). Crowdfunding of small entrepreneurial ventures. InCummingD. (Ed.), Handbook of entrepreneurial finance. Oxford (pp.1–23). Oxford University Press.
79.
ShortJ. C.Ketchen JrD. J.McKennyA. F.AllisonT. H.IrelandR. D. (2017). Research on crowdfunding: Reviewing the (very recent) past and celebrating the present. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(2), 149–160.doi:10.1111/etap.12270
80.
SimonsD. J.ShodaY.LindsayD. S. (2017). Constraints on generality (COG): A proposed addition to all empirical papers. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1123–1128.doi:10.1177/174569161770863028853993
81.
SoublièreJ.-F.GehmanJ. (2019). The legitimacy threshold revisited: How prior successes and failures spill over to other Endeavors on Kickstarter. Academy of Management Journal.doi:10.5465/amj.2017.1103
82.
SuchmanM. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.doi:10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331
83.
SuddabyR.BitektineA.HaackP. (2017). Legitimacy. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 451–478.doi:10.5465/annals.2015.0101
ThorntonP. H.OcasioW.LounsburyM. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford University Press on Demand.
86.
Tina DacinM.GoodsteinJ.Richard ScottW.DacinT.ScottW. (2002). Institutional theory and institutional change: Introduction to the special research forum. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 45–56.doi:10.5465/amj.2002.6283388
87.
TolbertP. S.ZuckerL. G. (1983). Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform (pp.1880–1935).
88.
TostL. P. (2011). An integrative model of legitimacy judgments. Academy of management review, 36(4), 686–710.
89.
TraceyP.PhillipsN.JarvisO. (2011). Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: A multilevel model. Organization Science, 22(1), 60–80.doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0522
90.
Walthoff-BormX.SchwienbacherA.VanackerT. (2018). Equity crowdfunding: First resort or last resort?Journal of Business Venturing, 33(4), 513–533.doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.04.001
91.
WejnertB. (2002). Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: A conceptual framework. Annual Review of Sociology, 28(1), 297–326.doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141051
92.
WestphalJ. D.GulatiR.ShortellS. M. (1997). Customization or conformity? An institutional and network perspective on the content and consequences of TQM adoption. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 366–394.doi:10.2307/2393924
93.
WhettenD. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution?Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490–495.doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4308371
94.
WilsonG. (1973). The psychology of conservatism. Academic Press.
95.
WrightJ. P.BeaverK. M.MorganM. A.ConnollyE. J. (2017). Political ideology predicts involvement in crime. Personality and Individual Differences, 106, 236–241.doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.062
ZacharakisA. L.ShepherdD. A.CoombsJ. E. (2003). The development of venture-capital-backed internet companies: An ecosystem perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 217–231.
98.
ZeldtichM.WalkerH. (1984). Legitimacy and the stability of authority. Advances in Group Processes, 1, 1–25.
99.
ZietsmaC.GroenewegenP.LogueD. M.(Bob) HiningsC. R. (2017). Field or fields? building the scaffolding for cumulation of research on institutional fields. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 391–450.
100.
ZuckermanE. W. (1999). The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1398–1438.doi:10.1086/210178
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
