Diffusion is one of the most broadly studied topics in the social science; yet, this concept is under-theorized because studies ignore what happens when institutional principles and practices that originated elsewhere arrive at an organization or society. Translation is the most important mechanism involved, and theorizing translation requires understanding to institutional conditions and the actors involved: Their motivation and interests and the relationships among them. This article focuses on corporate law reform in Israel, specifically questioning why the new corporate law does not refer to business groups, which form a salient part of the Israeli big-business economy. This article suggests that the Americanization of the Israeli legal culture was materialized via local actors who imported U.S. ideas while adapting them to existing legal culture. However, this process was not the result of a non-conflicting diffusion of ideas; rather, it was caused by manifest conflicts with non-state actors over desirable legal arrangements and economic and political interests.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbbottAndrew. 1988. The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
AbramovKobiZookYuval. 1999. “The Holding Groups in Traded Corporations.”This Month in the Tel-Aviv Stock Exchange: 3–9. [in Hebrew].
3.
AguileraRuth V.Cuervo-CazurraAlvaro. 2004. “Codes of Good Governance Worldwide: What is the Trigger?”Organization Studies25:415–43.
4.
AntunesJose Engracia. 1994. Liability of Corporate Groups: Autonomy and Control in Parent-Subsidiary Relationships in US, German and EU Law. Deventer, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers.
5.
BabbSarah L.2001. Managing Mexico: Economists from Nationalism to Neoliberalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6.
Ben-YairMichael. 1993. “Lifting the Corporate Veil in Group of Companies.” Pp. 1–15 in Company Law, edited by Hebrew University Law Graduate Association. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Faculty of Law. [in Hebrew].
7.
BlumbergPhillip I.1994. “The American Law of Corporate Groups.” Pp. 305–42 in Corporate Control and Accountability, edited by McCaheryJ.PicciottoS.ColinS., Oxford: Clarendon Press.
8.
CallonMichelLatourBruno. 1981. “Unscrewing the Big Leviathan: How Actors Macro-Structure Reality and How Sociologists Help Them to Do So.” Pp. 277–303 in Advances in Social Theory and Methodology, edited by Knorr-CetinaK.CicourelV. A., London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
9.
CampbellJohn L.2004. Institutional Change and Globalization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
10.
CampbellJohn L. Forthcoming. “What's New? General Patterns of Planned Macro-Institutional Change.” In Innovation, Science and Institutional Change, edited by HageJeraldMeeusMarius. New York: Oxford University Press.
11.
CampbellJohn L.PedersonOve K., 2001. “Introduction: The Rise of Neoliberalism and Institutional Analysis.” Pp. 1–23 in The Rise of Neoliberalism and Institutional Analysis, edited by CampbellJ. L.PedersonO. K., Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
12.
CasperSteveHanckeRobert. 1999. “Global Quality Norms within National Production Regimes: ISO 9000 Standards in the French and German Car Industries.”Organization Studies20:961–85.
13.
CzarniawskaBarbaraSevonGuje. 1996. “Introduction.” Pp. 1–12 in Translating Organizational Change, edited by CzarniawskaB.SevonG., Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
14.
DiMaggioPaul J.PowellWalter W., 1991. “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.” Pp. 63–82 in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, edited by PowellW. W.DiMaggioP. J., Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15.
DineJanet. 2000. The Governance of Corporate Groups. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
16.
DjelicMarie-Laure. 1998. Exporting the American Model: The Postwar Transformation of European Business. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17.
EdelmanLauren B.StrykerRobin. 2005. “A Sociological Approach to Law and Economy.” Pp. 527–51 in Handbook of Economic Sociology, 2nd ed., edited by SmelserN. J.SwedbergR., Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
18.
EisenbergMalvin A.1999. “The Conception That the Corporation is a Nexus of Contracts, and the Dual Nature of the Firm.”Journal of Corporate Law24:819–36.
19.
FligsteinNeil. 2001. The Architecture of Markets: An Economic Sociology of Twenty-First-Century Capitalist Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
20.
FrenkelMichal. 2005. “The Politics of Translation: How State-Level Political Relations Affect the Cross-National Travel of Management Ideas.”Organization12:275–301.
21.
GranovetterMark. 1994. “Business Groups.” Pp. 453–75 in The Handbook of Economic Sociology, edited by SmelserN. J.SwedbergR., Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22.
GranovetterMark. 2005. “Business Groups and Social Organization.” Pp. 429–50 in Handbook of Economic Sociology, 2nd ed., edited by SmelserN. J.SwedbergR., Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23.
GuillenMauro F.2001. “Is Globalization Civilizing, Destructive or Feeble? A Critique of Five Key Debates in the Social-Science Literature.”Annual Review of Sociology27:235–60.
24.
GulerIsinGuillenMauro F.MacphersonJohn Muir. 2002. “Global Competition, Institutions, and the Diffusion of Organizational Practices: The International Spread of ISO 9000 Quality Certificates.”Administrative Science Quarterly47:207–32.
25.
Haviv-SegalIrit. 1999. Corporate Law in Israel, After the New Corporations ActTel Aviv: Al-Tech Publishers. [in Hebrew].
26.
JensenMichael C.MecklingWilliam H., 1976. “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure.”Journal of Financial Economics3:305–60.
27.
KerenMichael. 1995. Professionals against Populism: The Peres Government and Democracy. New York: State University Press.
28.
KlugHeinz. 2002. “Hybrid(ity) Rules: Creating Local Law in a Globalized World.” Pp. 276–305 in Global Prescriptions, edited by DezalayY.GarthB. G., Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
29.
LukesSteven. 1974. Power: A Radical ViewLondon: Macmillan Press.
30.
MajoneGiandomenico. 1997. “From the Positive to the Regulatory State: Causes and Consequences of Changes in the Mode of Governance.”Journal of Public Policy17:139–67.
31.
MamanDaniel. 2001. “The Organizational Connection: Social Capital and the Career Expansion of Directors of Business Groups in Israel.”Social Science Research30:578–605.
32.
MamanDaniel. 2002. “The Emergence of Business Groups: Israel and South Korea Compared.”Organization Studies23:737–58.
33.
MamanDaniel. 2004. “State-Corporate Relationships in an Era of Shifting Regime: The Case of Corporate Law Reform in Israel.”Qualitative Sociology27:317–42.
34.
MamanDanielRosenhekZeev. Forthcoming. “The Politics of Institutional Reform: The ‘Declaration of Independence’ of the Israeli Central Bank.”Review of International Political Economy.
35.
MautnerMenachem. 2002. “Law and Culture in Israel: The 1950s and the 1980s.” Pp. 175–214 in The History of Law in a Multi-Cultural Society: Israel 1917–1967, edited by HarrisR.KedarA.LahavP.LikhosvkiA., Aldershot: Dartmouth Ashgath.
36.
OgusAnthony I.1998. “Law-and-Economic from the Perspective of Law.” Pp. 486–92 in The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law, edited by NewmanP., London: Macmillan Reference.
37.
PolilloSimoneGuillenMauro F., 2005. “Globalization Pressures and the State: The Worldwide Spread of Central Bank Independence.”American Journal of Sociology110:1764–1802.
38.
ProcacciaUriel. 1989. Corporate Law in Israel: A Positive and Normative Analysis. Jerusalem: Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. [in Hebrew].
39.
ProcacciaUriel. 1995. “Corporate Law.” Pp. 193–212 in Introduction to the Law of Israel, edited by ShapiraA.DeWitt-ArarK. C., London: Kluwer Law International.
40.
ProcacciaUriel. 1996. “Crafting A Corporate Code from the Scratch.”Cardozo Law Review16:629–45.
41.
ProcacciaUriel. May 2, 1999. “Style, Substances and Method in the New Corporate Law.”Tel-Aviv Ha'aretz. [daily newspaper, in Hebrew].
42.
Minutes of the Knesset Subcommittee for the Corporate Law December 24, 1995. Jerusalem: Knesset. [in Hebrew].
43.
Minutes of the Knesset Subcommittee for the Corporate Law February 19, 1998, number 20. Jerusalem: Knesset. [in Hebrew].
44.
Minutes of the Knesset Subcommittee for the Corporate Law October 1, 1998. Jerusalem: Knesset. [in Hebrew].
45.
RogersEverett M.1995. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free.
46.
ScottRichard W.2002. Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
47.
ScottRichard W.2003. “Institutional Carriers: Reviewing Modes of Transporting Ideas Over Time and Space and Considering their Consequences.”Industrial and Corporate Change12:879–94.
48.
ShacharYoramHarrisRonGrossMyron. 1996. “Citation Practices of the Supreme Court: Quantitative Analyses.”Mishpatim27:19–217. [in Hebrew].
49.
ShapiroMartin. 1993. “The Globalization of Law.”Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies1:37–64.
50.
State of Israel. 1994. Report of the Committee for the New Corporate Law (Barak's Committee). Jerusalem: The Ministry of Justice. [in Hebrew].
51.
State of Israel. 1995. Companies Law. Pp. 2–124 in Reshomut: Hatza'ot Chok [Legislative Bills]. Jerusalem: The State of Israel. [in Hebrew].
52.
StrangDavidMeyerJohn W., 1993. “Institutional Conditions for Diffusion.”Theory and Society22:487–511.
53.
StrangDavidSouleSarah A., 1998. “Diffusion in Organizations and Social Movements: From Hybrid Corn to Poison Pills.”Annual Review of Sociology24:265–90.
54.
WejnertBarbra. 2002. “Integrating Models of Diffusion of Innovations: A Conceptual Framework.”Annual Review of Sociology28:297–326.
55.
WestphalJames D.GulatiRanjayShortellStephen M., 1997. “Customization or Conformity? An Institutional and Network Perspective on the Content and Consequences of TQM Adoption.”Administrative Science Quarterly42:366–94.
56.
WiegandWolfgang. 1991. “The Reception of American Law in Europe.”The American Journal of Comparative Law39:229–48.
57.
YinRobert K.1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
