Our research investigates how the different actors of the local and complementary currencies (LCC) movement in France negotiated the categorization of the social innovation "LCC" in the highly institutionalized field of "money". Our research is informed by the literature on market categories. More precisely, we follow the path opened by Durand and Khaire (2017) on the study of category formation. They distinguish between category creation and category emergence. Category formation is a process that challenges the status ordering of actors in a given ecosystem – here the financial system and the categorization of payment means (Durand and Khaire, 2017). We follow the process through which the actors of the LCC movement in France developed strategies towards category creation, while the institutionalized field pushed towards category emergence – moving the LCC outside of the field’s own categorization of payment means. Therefore, our research question is: how can a new category change institutions ? We follow the different agents that initiated the process, controlled its unfolding and "owned" the categorization formed (Durand and Khaire, 2017). Through participant observation, interviews and collection of secondary data, we contribute to understand how social innovations negotiated their category in highly structured and institutionalized contexts, and what role categorization plays in the institutionalization process of social innovations.
Our focus is on the social innovation LCC and how the new category formed in the French context. To be able to research the development of this social innovation at the field level, we gathered information at the local level, at the social movement level, and at the national governmental level.
Our main source of data is the experience gathered by one of the authors who has been active in a LCC project for three years. Fieldwork requires "close engagement, rather than objective, distanced capture" (Ahrens and Chapman 2006). Through research action, we were able to gain access to the discourse and action among members of the field (Jonsson and Lukka 2007). On the other side, a second researcher was able to observe the field through a one-year period of observation, without "going native". The observation was conducted through attendance of 23 local meetings and four national movement meetings. We complemented our data gathering through 29 interviews with actors of the field in France. These interviews allowed to highlight processes and “how questions revealing the logic of actions” (Blanchet et al. 2007).
The findings develop around three temporalities. First, the LCC movement considered LCC's as a new category of payment mean within the existing financial system (category creation). However, the social movement of LCC's in France was quickly considered as a threat to the current financial institution. The central bank started discussion with the LCC movement to redefine the boundaries of this new category. Secondly, in 2014, the state created its own definition of what an LCC is and decided it did not belong under its supervision anymore (category emergence). Thirdly, we will analyze the consequence of this categorization process on the plural social movement of LCC's in France and the further development of new category in France, considering the recent arrival of a national digital complementary currency in 2016.
Our main argument is that despite the understanding that category emergence might seem more radical and disruptive, creating a category outside of an institutionalized field impede the social movement’s aim to transform the field. The interplay between the three main actors of the categorization process (the association MLCC, the association SOL and the state) demonstrates that a category formation is not homogenous in time. The ownership of the categorization process is key to the categorization outcome.
Our discussion will put this case study in perspective with two other social movements in France within the finance industry which have experienced different categorization processes: social responsible investment (Arjaliès and Durand, 2016) and solidarity finance (Château Terrisse, 2013). Indeed, a social movement aims at transforming an existing field. The categorization process and outcome has consequences on the transformation potential of the social movement that we need to further explore.
Main References
Ahrens, T., & Chapman, C. S. (2006). Doing qualitative field research in management accounting:Positioning data to contribute to theory.Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(8), 819–841.
Arjaliès, D-L. & Durand, R. (2016). The Moral Awakening of Product Categories:Defining Social Responsibility in the Investment Industry. Working paper.
Blanchet, A.; Gotman, A. & de Singly, F. (2007). L’entretien. Eds. Colin.
Chateau Terrisse, P. (2013). Les outils de gestion, transporteurs et régulateurs des logiques institutionnelles. Université Marne la Vallee, Paris.
Durand, R. & Khaire, (2017). Where Do Market Categories Come From and How? Distinguishing Category Creation From Category Emergence, Journal of Management, 43(1), 87-110.
Jonsson, S., & Lukka, K. (2007). There and Back Again:Doing Interventionist Research in Management Accounting. In C. S. Chapman, A. G. Hopwood & M. D. Shields (Eds.), Handbook of management accounting research. Amsterdam:Elsevier.
9. Social and solidarity economy, civil society and social movements
