ABSTRACT
Objective: The objective of this study is to investigate contractual relationships in organizations and their impact on economic and social development, with the aim of exploring how the transactional and relational expectations of individuals are configured and how they impact the social and organizational structure.
Theoretical Framework: Institutional theory and the psychological contract, along with institutional political economy, explore the relationships between globalization, inequality, and governance.
Method: The methodology adopted for this research is documentary, since it allows an exhaustive and systematic review of the existing information and knowledge on the subject of study.
Results and Discussion: By integrating Bourdieu's concept of habitus, it is possible to better understand how social practices and institutional structures interact to shape behavior and reproduce power relations in society.
Research Implications: Integrating the analysis of habitus, institutional norms, and psychological contract can improve understanding of how organizational structures and social practices influence individual and collective behavior, facilitating strategies for aligning personal and institutional goals in pursuit of economic development.
Keywords: Institutionalism, Psychological Contract, Habitus and Organizations.
RESUMO
Objetivo: O objetivo deste estudo é investigar as relações contratuais nas organizações e seu impacto no desenvolvimento económico e social, com o objetivo de explorar como as expectativas transacionais e relacionais dos indivíduos se configuram e como impactam a estrutura social e organizacional.
Referencial Teórico: A teoria institucional e o contrato psicológico, juntamente com a economia política institucional, exploram as relações entre globalização, desigualdade e governança.
Método: A metodologia adotada para esta pesquisa é documental, pois permite uma revisão exaustiva e sistemática das informações e conhecimentos existentes sobre o tema de estudo.
Resultados e Discussão: Ao integrar o conceito de habitus de Bourdieu, é possível entender melhor como as práticas sociais e as estruturas institucionais interagem para moldar comportamentos e reproduzir relações de poder na sociedade.
Implicações da Pesquisa: A integração da análise de habitus, normas institucionais e contrato psicológico pode melhorar a compreensão de como as estruturas organizacionais e as práticas sociais influenciam o comportamento individual e coletivo, facilitando estratégias para alinhar objetivos pessoais e institucionais na busca do desenvolvimento econômico.
Palavras-chave: Institucionalismo, Contrato Psicológico, Habitus e Organizações
RESUMEN
Objetivo: El objetivo de este estudio es analizar las relaciones contractuales en las organizaciones y su impacto en el desarrollo económico y social, con el objetivo de explorar cómo se configuran las expectativas transaccionales y relacionales de los individuos y cómo estas impactan en la estructura social y organizacional.
Marco Teórico: La teoria institucional y el contrato psicológico, junto con la economia politica institucional, exploran las relaciones entre globalización, desigualdad y gobernanza.
Método: La metodología adoptada para esta investigación la documental ya que permite una revision exhaustiva y sistemática de la información y el conocimiento existente sobre el tema de estudio.
Resultados y Discusión: Al integrar el concepto de habitus de Bourdieu, es posible comprender mejor cómo las prácticas sociales y las estructuras institucionales interactúan para moldear el comportamiento y reproducir las relaciones de poder en la sociedad.
Implicaciones de la investigación: Integrar el análisis del habitus, las normas institucionales y el contrato psicológico puede mejorar la comprensión de cómo las estructuras organizacionales y las prácticas sociales influyen en el comportamiento individual y colectivo, facilitando estrategias para alinear objetivos personales e institucionales en pos del desarrollo económico.
Palabras clave: Institucionalismo, Contrato Psicológico, Habitus y organizaciones.
1 INTRODUCTION
Institutions can be conceived as the covering that houses and gives order to social structures. From this conception, and from a sociological point of view, it is irrefutable to understand how societies and cultures have developed without considering the derivations that occur between the way in which social relations are adopted in a system of regularities and their coherence in relation to the contractual relations necessary for the construction of cultural identity, which allows the historical linkage of society with which it is progressively transformed.
The concept of psychological contract has been analyzed since the 1970s (Kotter, 1973). It describes the tacit and non-formalized expectations that are established between employees and employers in the work context (Dunahee & Wangler, 1974) . Later, the term was developed in greater depth by Radford & Larwood, (1982) , who analyzed the mutual expectations between both parties within the organizational dynamics, highlighting how these implicit agreements influence labor relations and behavior within organizations.
The concept experienced а new impetus with the contributions of Rousseau, (1989), who formally defined it as the individual beliefs about the terms and conditions of a reciprocal exchange with his or her organization. Additionally, he underlines the importance of this unwritten contract in the management of expectations and how its non-compliance can lead to a breakdown in the employment relationship, affecting factors such as commitment and job satisfaction (Rousseau, 1990) .
Institutionalism has evolved significantly since the twentieth century, beginning with descriptive theoretical approaches and inductive analysis, in which institutions were seen as mechanisms of the economy that influenced decision-making processes (Greenwood & Hinings, 1996; March & Olsen, 1983; Zucker, 1987) . As these studies progressed, the need to analyze institutions as key determinants of governance became evident (Pierson, 2000) . This approach led to the emergence of new institutionalism, which introduces rational dimensions within an increasingly contested State and in complex organizational contexts, where institutions, conceived as units of analysis, interact in heterogeneous and asymmetric environments (Hallett & Ventresca, 2006) . Under this framework, institutions establish formal and informal rules with the aim of generating a social order that guides individuals towards a common process of transformation, guided by the laws of society (Bachmann, 2001) . However, it is not enough to state that institutions determine the processes of social transformation; it is essential to also consider the contractual problems that emerge (Campbell, 2020; Kostova et al., 2020) . These problems show that, while the structures formed can influence the evolution of society, the complexity of social relations has the capacity to alter or unbalance these institutions, which challenges the structures of the State (Echeverri-Gent, 2023) .
Added to this is the position of habitus, a concept constructed by Bourdieu (1983) with which he alludes to the fact that, in the social sphere, the meaning of the game of actors and roles is faced with dichotomies between the individual and society; for this reason, he differentiates the external social structures from the internal ones, the first ones being related to fields of social positions (referring to economic, political and other systems) that have been configured to explain the evolution of the same. And the second ones, related to how these fields act in different scenarios: perceptions, thought and actions, which he called habitus . (Bourdieu, 2000) . With the above, a kind of rational and relational interests are explained that determine social practices in a context where social relations can be determined in front of a defined structure and act under the rules of this or the same social practices that have been the product of a social system under differential conditions that led to its explanation (Bourdieu, 2017).
For the above, this document aims to explore and articulate two theoretical aspects as the focus of the analysis: the first, the institutional theory to understand the elements of contractual relationships in organizations as a contemporary unit of analysis and, the second, related to the concept of the psychological contract that is circumscribed subjectively and objectively, at the same time, between the parts of the organization. With the above, the analysis relates the concepts coined by Bourdieu, (1983) in relation to the dichotomies between the individual and society, and social practices ( habitus ) as a determinant of the relationships that build the social structure.
This review is thus structured in four parts, with this introduction being the first of them. In the second part, trends in related analysis are identified from the institutional perspective and the concept of the psychological contract based on a review of the literature; in the third part, a theoretical-conceptual approach to institutionalism and the psychological contract is made from the epistemology of contractual relations that determine the social structure within the framework of the habitus ; and, finally, a relational reflection is offered regarding the habitus caused by the psychological contract and the rules of the game (institutions) established to determine an objective social order.
2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The overview mentioned below aims to show, on the one hand, a sample of the approaches with which some study phenomena have been treated within the framework of institutional theory and the analysis proposals for their rationalization and application; and on the other hand, some contributions will be indicated regarding the understanding of the approaches with which research has been developed within the framework of the psychological contract perspective and how, in the institutional context, the contractual relationship in organizations transcends the labor to subjective dimensions that affect the individual (Bhasin, 2016; Rousseau, 1989) .
In this order, from the perspective of institutional theory and from a critical approach from the institutional economy, Campbell, (2007) makes an analysis of the different implications that rational choice, transaction costs, agency theory and moral danger have on the institutions in charge of economic, social and political development. In this sense, the concepts of Greenwood & Hinings, (1996); Hoskisson et al., (2000); Seo & Creed, (2002) are used , which, in short, define institutions as the set of formal and informal rules of the game that preexist to dynamize the relationships between individuals and organizations; additionally, in the socioeconomic order, institutions as abstract entities are those that affect economic development and consequently, organizations are concrete realities that use resources to achieve objectives.
On the other hand, it is specified that the approach of institutional economics, on development, is made from two theoretical perspectives, the theory of imperfect information and the comparative analysis of development processes, which underpin institutional arrangements (Kostova et al., 2020; Pacheco et al., 2010) . From this point, the analysis is directed from the new approach of institutional political economy that considers, unlike the predominant orthodox current, social phenomena between institutions as well as elements of corporate culture, among others, and the qualities of coordination between them that determine legal relations and economic development (Cuervo-Cazurra & Li, 2021) .
Within this framework, the development of the study conceives the rationality of the agents from the concept of rational choice, and it is there where, under the economic assumption that the actors make strategic decisions to maximize their own interests, different types of rationality are assumed that probably demonstrate reality (Cabantous & Gond, 2011; Gmytrasiewicz & Durfee, 2000) . Indeed, it is mentioned that empirical evidence has shown that when actors make decisions, under the assumption of rationality, the results differ from the assumptions of utility maximization, self-interest and wealth maximization, aspects that are disarticulated by the bets or institutional guidelines related to market behavior and, therefore, to government intervention (Chetty, 2015) .
Another important aspect of the study is the analysis offered from the relationships between globalization and inequality, civil society and globalization, governance and politics, institutions and neo-institutionalism , which include aspects that differ between economic agents, political actors and institutional projections; however, reference is made to the economic order for the satisfaction of needs under the consideration that the actors are those who determine how the rules of the game, in search of economic development, must be fulfilled in accordance with a historical ideology that has been configured in the process of globalization. Therefore, the reconfiguration of doctrines and the reflection on the reduction of transaction costs make the effectiveness and justice of transactions in the free market through contracts, norms and standardized procedures to obtain economies of scale, determine certain behaviors of the actors that distort the relationships between institutions-market-society.
Transaction costs are closely linked to the quality of institutions and their ability to facilitate interactions between market actors (Gereffi et al., 2005) . In any case, these costs are associated with the risks that permeate the framework of governance due to the shared values that reflect a system of beliefs that legitimize institutions; for this reason systematic adjustments are made that can increase uncertainty and, in this way, the modification of the system until it collapses (Hoskisson et al., 2000) . In this same context, the approach of the new institutional economics expands its analysis and questions that the analysis of transaction costs does not meet its objective mainly because institutions are incomplete in any society; and that social capital can reduce transaction costs by involving economic relations in social relations, which confirms that the new forms of organization and relations between the state and individuals are complex and subject to market purposes (Graham & Harvey, 2001) .
3 THEORETICAL-CONCEPTUAL APPROACH
While the debate regarding the theories or approaches of institutionalism and the psychological contract involves multiple multidisciplinary positions, basically, these positions obey the analysis method that is applied from the different disciplines or sciences to explain different attention phenomena (March & Olsen, 1983; Raja et al., 2004) . In this sense, the affinity between theories and concepts, both from the predominant (or orthodox) currents and the contemporary ones (complex, subjective, heterodox) occurs to the extent that the relationships and social structures of individuals as citizens depend on different relational systems that lack understanding and consensus to determine the best process and progress of society, on the one hand, and, on the other, to understand the behavior of organizations and their social, political and economic interaction (Ostroff & Bowen, 2016) .
In this way, the relational intention of this part is to consider the configuration of social structures based on perceptions, values, legal elements, organizational structures and elements that relate the concepts of equity and equality, in a framework of meanings that necessarily compromise social, political and economic actors or agents in a context where market dynamics and the interests of economic activities predominate over an ideology of economic development within the framework of globalization. To this perspective, the concept of habitus is added as a cause and expander of the social structure in what has been defined as fields of social positions (Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008) . With this, we will have an intermediate position between the subjective and the objective, close to Bourdieu's analysis that supports and relates some coincident elements between one approach and another to precisely determine a starting point for a relational analysis.
3.1 INSTITUTIONALISM
Conceived as a social science approach, it attempts to understand societies from the dynamics of formal and informal institutions (Schmidt, 2008) . Indeed, in the first half of the 20th century, institutionalism took on a descriptive orientation and used inductive reasoning; thus, it can be inferred that, in the context where institutions are considered the rules of the game in a society, institutions are the bases for fostering cooperation, and must provide or carry out information management and monitoring actions to ensure distributive development (Steinmo, 2008) . In this way, it can be said that at the heart of institutional analysis are conflict, power and politics in institutional change, and that a characteristic of such analysis is the separation between the public and private spheres, and between the administrative and the political (Capoccia & Kelemen, 2007) .
Thoenig (2013) mentions that institutionalism has evolved towards the historical, normative, economic and sociological perspectives; added to this, institutionalism is supported by research that contributes to the construction of theories and methodologies for the study, understanding and explanation of phenomena related to institutionalization processes, cognitive aspects, the dynamics of social systems, norms and the behavior of agencies, among others.
Institutional theories with a perspective on economics and institutional political economy consider institutions as humanly designed schemes, norms and regulations that allow and constrain the behavior of social actors (Kostova et al., 2008) . The new institutional theories make the concept of the institution more flexible towards complex scenarios where the social and the political are positioned as transversal and interdisciplinary components for the analysis of the phenomena that lead to the transformation of institutions (Owen et al., 2021) . Although historical, legal, neoliberal and sociological institutionalist approaches appear, the latter have been related to the behavior of the organization to understand them as institutions configured with meaning, values and legitimacy by their collaborators and leaders (Kostova et al., 2020) .
Based on the above, different assumptions are raised for its approach; for example, for Mantzavinos et al., (2004) institutional economics is dedicated to the study of transaction costs, the economy of property rights, the theory of the principal agent, the approaches of constitutional economics and public choice. With this rational or economic approach, it is considered that actors optimize benefits through their behavior based on their preferences and an incentive structure. However, institutional and organizational arrangements guide individual and collective actions in economic activities; some authors such as Parsons, (2013) mention that the technicality of organizations contributes to the fulfillment of institutional arrangements through the rational dynamics of organizations for efficient production. In this context, it is Townley (2002) who alludes that the effects and impacts of changes in rationalities (both of organizations and individuals) must be the object or dimension of study of institutional theory, with this his analysis provides determining elements to redirect organizational arrangements, their convergence, progress and change, as well as conflict.
In summary, it can be mentioned that the different approaches to institutionalism consider three forms of analysis: rationalist, culturalist and actor-centered; and each of them can be addressed by the different classical and contemporary paradigms offered by the social sciences (Schmidt, 2010) . Thus, in general terms, institutional theory analyzes the structural phenomena that generate the discrepancies between the power capacities of States over institutions. In economic terms, the creation of new institutions that eliminate transaction costs, promoting relationships of trust, is suggested. In this sense, the capacity of certain social structures (power) is the basis of individual and collective actions that influence the development of institutional theory (Finnemore, 1996) .
From an organizational point of view and based on neo-institutionalism , Alasuutari, (2015); Arndt & Bigelow, (2000); Kostova et al., (2008) focused on the role of formal structures in allowing or containing organizational behavior in a way that explains organizational similarity or isomorphism effects, presenting a change in the level of analysis that went from the organization to the organizational field and its networks, with emphasis on the diffusion of norms and practices between organizations. Powell & Bromley (2015) define formal structures as organizations within a context governed by norms and rules of action. Likewise, they argue that the configurations translated into formal structures in them are the reflection of the beliefs and ideas formed in the institutional environment that really the activities themselves defined in the context of the norms and rules established for the defined work effects. For these authors, the legitimacy of unregulated actions becomes rational practices viewed appropriately and incorporated into the organizational and institutional structure.
Faced with institutional changes, which can determine legitimate behaviors in the organizational field, Seo & Creed (2002) mention that, based on institutional agreements as a legitimate short-term process and the isomorphism of institutions that increases legitimacy as a survival mechanism, the agreements probably reflect the ideas and objectives of the most powerful participants, and it is unlikely that the formation and reproduction of these agreements satisfy the divergent interests of all actors and/or agents, so this divergence of interests and power 1s the subject of study in institutional change. In this same scenario, Lawrence & Suddaby, (2006) identify rules and symbols as mechanisms of institutional maintenance or conservation. Rules are defined as techniques that transform social practices; in turn, they are related to the normative aspects of institutions; so that symbols are also related to the culturalcognitive elements of institutions and the reproduction of their values and meanings. All of the above, considered as institutional mechanisms, are variables that in one way or another end up affecting organizations, and, by the same legitimate way, organizations affect the institutional agreements for which they operate (Zietsma & Lawrence, 2010).
In line with institutional rules and symbols, Lounsbury et al., (2021) , conceive institutional logic as a social construct, historical patterns of symbols, culture and material practices, which include conceptions of values and beliefs through which individuals and organizations provide meaning to their daily activities, organized in time and space, reproducing their lives and experiences. On the other hand, this perspective is established as a metatheory that aims at the analysis between institutions, individuals and organizations in social systems. Levander, (2010) indicates that this perspective contributes to the analysis of organizations within a framework of institutional systems that are structured by rules and principles that determine individual and organizational behavior; in any case, inter-institutional systems comprise different social fields with which individuals are born and interact: family, State, religion, organizations, market, which in sum give them elements of the social construct and generate meaning and identity.
3.2 PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT
According to Linde & Gresse, (2014) the origin of the concept is attributed to Argyris and Levinson, Price & Munden who assume an individual position of the employee in front of his employer or organization and based on the theories of balance and social exchange, they demonstrate that in addition to the contractual elements defined in a legal document, this relationship is added to promises and/or subjective expectations between the parties that allow to sustain that the psychological contract is a psychosocial aspect in the organizational context. Kersting et al., (2015) mention that employees, despite having psychological contracts, demand actions and reactions for an implicit contract to occur and vice versa. The operation of this contract is relational and includes elements derived from the dyadic correlation between the employer and employee; for Weick, a psychological contract is built through continuity, reciprocity and the behavior of the employee and the employer in the face of a specific action. In this way, Rousseau, (1990) mention that the psychological contract is characterized by three specific factors. The acceptance of the company 's values , the willingness to make efforts on behalf of the company; and the desire to continue being an employee or employer.
Later, Alcover et al., (2017) mention that for more than 15 years, after the studies of Argyris 1960 and Levinson, the concept of psychological contract stagnated more or less until the late 70s. Later, the concept was taken up again, studies were developed but it was not until the 90s when Rousseau & Tijoriwala, (1998) , took up and built a concept with which the analysis of organizational behavior was strengthened, denoting it as the individual belief in reciprocal obligations between one person and another party, usually the employer. This belief is based on the perception that a promise has been made, such as employment or professional development opportunities, and that compensation has been offered in response, which binds both parties in a set of mutual obligations.
However, according to Alcover et al., (2017) the concept of the psychological contract presents differences but accepting that there are similar characteristics (implicit, subjective for example), mentioning that there is a unified concept for its analysis. In this sense, despite the heterogeneity of concepts, the convergence of the concept is characterized by the implicit appearance of a parallel reciprocity between the organization and the individual. Therefore, when organizations meet the expectations of employees and there is a fair and equitable reciprocity, the results will benefit the parties and will be compensated by economic and financial aspects for the parties.
Schalk & Roe, (2007) mention that the psychological contract is a mental model that, based on their expectations, beliefs and obligations, allows them to develop, in the best way, exchange relationships through actions and attitudes in the short, medium and long term. However, it can be inferred that this mental model is built under a social structure to which the individual belongs or in which the individual has participated in its social construction (De Vos et al., 2003).
Regarding the formation and development of the psychological contract, Andersson (1996) mentions that the process of formation, assessment and evaluation of the contract 1s iterative and structural based on its content; therefore, constructive, interpretive and corrective mechanisms are established for its fulfillment. However, individuals give meaning to the activities to be carried out and the goals they will meet through the work environment to which they are exposed. The author refers to the above as people entering an organization with a series of comprehensive expectations and from a construction of meaning (which must occur from the selection process), the structure of the psychological contract is built.
3.3 HABITUS
Bourdieu (1983) defines habitus as a system of enduring dispositions that guide the thinking, perceptions and actions of individuals based on their position in the social field. This concept refers to the internal schemes that people develop throughout their lives, influenced by their social and cultural experiences, and that guide their responses to different situations.
Furthermore, habitus is a product of the interaction between social structures and the individual's personal history, which gives it a flexible and adaptive nature. Unlike a mere mechanical repetition of behaviors, habitus allows for a certain creativity and variability in actions, although always within the limits established by the person's social position (Lizardo, 2004) . (Bourdieu, 2017) . Habitus not only shapes individual actions, but also the way individuals perceive and judge reality, meaning that two people with different habitus may interpret the same situation in different ways (Bourdieu, 2000) .
The concept of habitus also connects with other key elements of Bourdieu's theory, such as field and capital (Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008) . Habitus acts as a function of the field (the specific social environment, such as academic, artistic or economic) and is expressed through the different types of cultural, social, economic and symbolic capital that the individual possesses (Naidoo, 2004) . Thus, habitus is not a fixed structure, but a predisposition that conforms to the rules and expectations of the field in which the individual finds themselves. This perspective allows us to understand how individual actions are linked to broader social structures, evidencing the way in which power and social inequalities are reproduced at the everyday levels of social life (Lizardo, 2004) .
4 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
The review allows us to identify three interesting elements that can relate to analyze and offer a position that contributes to the comprehensive literature of organizational behavior . On the one hand, from the institutional perspective, the norms and rules of the game ( fundamental characteristics of the institutions ) that direct , towards common objectives of the society , are based in dynamics relationships made up of circles of beliefs that they unconsciously ignore the interaction of these relationships to understand and address the reality . However , the structures social that, historically , are formed as organized models where the society has coexisted for centuries , allows us to infer that the institutions are the most effective way to coordinate the actions social , from the summation of the elections individual rationales that seek a welfare common in a globalized environment.
The problem that arises from this synchronized utopia are the assumptions of social rationality , equity and justice that characterize the structural model of the institutions , mainly because the Organizations and the social relationships established between social , political and economic actors and agents , not always are in harmony , that which distorts or affects the coordination mechanisms and increases the transaction costs between the claims of the institutions and the interactions of the actors of the market in search of the economic development of the society .
On the other hand, they can be related the expectations of the individuals who, as actors or participants of the social structure, contribute to the social, political and economic system, and in sum are those who determine the harmonization of social relations so that the organizations comply with the objectives that are institutionally projected to be achieved he economic development. Here, the psychological contract is considered the element of analysis to identify and contrast actions, perceptions and others. ambiguities between the transactional and relational, since if the objective of the economic development, in any optics, it is the welfare common, which I would be he interest of each individual or group of individuals, within the structures organizational, to conceive scenarios out from the broad framework of well-being that are not considered determinants for the economic development ?
Yes ok Literature shows analysis qualitative with the which elements of the social order in light of rules and conditions framed in objective conceptions , basically guided by normative determinations that support he well-being , from institutionalism , the Questions do not revolve so much around the dynamics that generates the decision -making system but how they adapt and how Agents must and must not give compliance with the rules and regulations established by the same . Something similar happens with the studies related to the psychological contract because it is analyzed he individual and subjective behavior of the employees , but not the behavior of the organizations ( employers ) as objective structures of the institutional system.
Therefore , an alternative analysis is to include within this review Bourdieu's concept of habitus , which, although his Explanation is built from the relationship between the objective and the subjective , relationally understands the interactions social , economic, political and legal, the which will be the practices social that in one way or another make up the classes social and promote his reproduction . The question is in how to approach or understand the construction of the habitus (as a sum of internalized schemes that contribute to the construction of thoughts , perceptions and actions characteristic of a culture.
REFERENCIAS
Alasuutari, P. (2015). The Discursive Side of New Institutionalism. Cultural Sociology, 9(2), 162-184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1749975514561805
Alcover, C.-M., Rico, R., Turnley, W. H., & Bolino, М. С. (2017). Understanding the changing nature of psychological contracts in 21st century organizations: A multiple-foci exchange relationships approach and proposed framework. Organizational Psychology Review, 7(1), 4-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386616628333
Andersson, L. M. (1996). Employee cynicism: An examination using a contract violation framework. Human Relations, 49(11), 1395-1418. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679604901102
Arndt, M., & Bigelow, B. (2000). Presenting structural innovation in an institutional environment: Hospitals' use of impression management. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 494-522. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667107
Bachmann, R. (2001). Trust, power and control in trans-organizational relations. Organization Studies, 22(2), 337-365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840601222007
Bhasin, S. (2016). Institutional theory the logic of institutions. International Business Management, 10(22), 5422-5431. https://doi.org/10.3923/ibm.2016.5422.5431
Bourdieu, P. (1983). The field of cultural production, or: The economic world reversed. Poetics, 12(4-5), 311-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(83)90012-8
Bourdieu, P. (2000). Making the Economic Habitus: Algerian Workers Revisited. Ethnography, 1(1), 17-41. https://doi.org/10.1177/14661380022230624
Bourdieu, P. (2017). Habitus. In Habitus: A Sense of Place (pp. 43-49). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315253701-7
Cabantous, L., & Gond, J.-P. (2011). Rational decision making as performative praxis: Explaining rationality's éternel retour. Organization Science, 22(3), 573-586. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0534
Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946-967. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2007.25275684
Campbell, J. L. (2020). Institutional Change and Globalization. In Institutional Change and Globalization. Princeton University Press. https://Www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.085195580041 &partnerID=40&md5=917b85289f2ce53edc6d806620345f5a
Capoccia, G., & Kelemen, К. D. (2007). The study of critical junctures: Theory, narrative, and counterfactuals in historical institutionalism. World Politics, 59(3), 341-369. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887100020852
Chetty, R. (2015). Behavioral economics and public policy: A pragmatic perspective. American Economic Review, 105(5), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20151108
Cuervo-Cazurra, A., & Li, C. (2021). State ownership and internationalization: The advantage and disadvantage of stateness. Journal of World Business, 56(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2020.101112
De Vos, A., Buyens, D., & Schalk, R. (2003). Psychological contract development during organizational socialization: Adaptation to reality and the role of reciprocity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(SPEC. ISS.), 537-559. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.205
Dunahee, M. H., & Wangler, L. A. (1974). The psychological contract: a conceptual structure for management/employee relations. Personnel Journal, 53(7), 518-526+548. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.00016211448 partnerID=408md5=c1b2a32f1618a4752009b47b513288c6
Echeverri-Gent, J. (2023). The State and the Poor: Public Policy and Political Development in India and the United States. In 7he State and the Poor: Public Policy and Political Development in India and the United States. University of California Press. https://Www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.085179272504&partnerID=40&md5=26187b8470ea5c051805S2a8f5360ecaf
Emirbayer, M., & Johnson, V. (2008). Bourdieu and organizational analysis. Theory and Society, 37(1), 1-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-007-9052-y
Finnemore, M. (1996). Norms, culture, and world politics: Insights from sociology's institutionalism. International Organization, 5002), 325-347. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300028587
Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., & Sturgeon, T. (2005). The governance of global value chains. Review of International Political Economy, 12(1), 78-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290500049805
Gmytrasiewicz, P. J., & Durfee, E. H. (2000). Rational Coordination in Multi-Agent Environments. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 3(4), 319-350. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010028119149
Graham, J. R., & Harvey, C. R. (2001). The theory and practice of corporate finance: Evidence from the field. Journal of Financial Economics, 602-3), 187-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(01)00044-7
Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21(4),
Hallett, T., & Ventresca, M. J. (2006). Inhabited institutions: Social interactions and organizational forms in Gouldner's Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. Theory and Society, 35(2), 213-236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-006-9003-z
Hoskisson, R. E., Eden, L., Lau, C. M., & Wright, M. (2000). Strategy in emerging economies. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 249-267. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556394
Kersting, L. M., Marley, R. N., & Mellon, M. J. (2015). The association between financial literacy and trust in financial markets among novice nonprofessional investors. Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal, 19(3), 201-216. https://Www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.084959365845&partner[ID=40&md5=d2a7b26e9e3a294b01bbd1207e331fe6
Kostova, T., Beugelsdijk, S., Scott, W. R., Kunst, У. E., Chua, С. H., & van Essen, M. (2020). The construct of institutional distance through the lens of different institutional perspectives: Review, analysis, and recommendations. Journal of International Business Studies, 51(4), 467-497. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-019-00294-w
Kostova, T., Roth, K., & Dacin, M. T. (2008). Institutional theory in the study of multinational corporations: A critique and new directions. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 994- 1006. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2008.34422026
Kotter, J. P. (1973). The Psychological Contract: Managing the Joining-Up Process. California Management Review, 15(3), 91-99. https://doi.org/10.2307/41164442
Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In The SAGE Handbook of Organization Studies (pp. 215-254). SAGE Publications Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608030.n7
Levander, U. (2010). Social Enterprise: Implications of emerging institutionalized constructions. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(2), 213-230. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2010.511815
Linde, B., & Gresse, W. (2014). Anticipatory psychological contracts of undergraduates management students: Implications for early career entitlement expectations. In PsychoSocial Career Meta-Capacities: Dynamics of Contemporary Career Development (pp. 277-292). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-006451 1
Lizardo, O. (2004). The cognitive origins of Bourdieu's Habitus. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 34(4), 375-401. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.2004.00255.x
Lounsbury, M., Steele, С. W. J., Wang, M. S., & Toubiana, М. (2021). New Directions in the Study of Institutional Logics: From Tools to Phenomena. Annual Review of Sociology, 47, 261-280. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-090320-111734
Mantzavinos, C., North, D. C., & Shariq, $. (2004). Learning, Institutions, and Economic Performance. Perspectives on Politics, 2(1), 75-84. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592704000635
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. Р. (1983). The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life. American Political Science Review, 7833), 734-749. https://doi.org/10.2307/1961840
Naidoo, R. (2004). Fields and institutional strategy: Bourdieu on the relationship between higher education, inequality and society. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25(4), 457-471. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142569042000236952
Ostroff, C., & Bowen, D. Е. (2016). 2014 decade award invited article reflections on the 2014 decade award: Is there Strength in the construct of HR system strength? Academy of Management Review, 41(2), 196-214. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2015.0323
Owen, R., Pansera, M., Macnaghten, P., & Randles, $. (2021). Organisational institutionalisation of responsible innovation. Research Policy, 50(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104132
Pacheco, D. F., York, J. G., Dean, T. J., & Sarasvathy, S. D. (2010). The coevolution of institutional entrepreneurship: A tale of two theories. Journal of Management, 36(4), 974- 1010. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309360280
Parsons, N. (2013). Legitimizing Illegal Protest: The Permissive Ideational Environment and "Bossnappings" in France. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 51(2), 288-309. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2012.00899.x
Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251-267. https://doi.org/10.2307/2586011
Powell, W. W., & Bromley, P. (2015). New Institutionalism in the Analysis of Complex Organizations. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences: Second Edition (pp. 764-769). Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.32181X
L. M., & Larwood, L. (1982). A Field Study of Conflict in Psychological Exchange: The California Taxpayers' Revolt. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12(1), 60-69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1982.tb00849x
Raja, U., Johns, G., & Ntalianis, F. (2004). The impact of personality on psychological contracts. Academy of Management Journal, 473), 350-367. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159586
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2(2), 121-139. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01384942
Rousseau, D. M. (1990). New hire perceptions of their own and their employer's obligations: A study of psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11(5), 389-400. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030110506
Rousseau, D. M., & Tijoriwala, S. A. (1998). Assessing psychological contracts: Issues, alternatives and measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(SUPPL.), 679-695. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-1379(1998)19:1+<679:aid-job971>3.0.co;2-n
Schalk, R., & Roe, R. E. (2007). Towards a dynamic model of the psychological contract. Journal for the Theory of Social = Behaviour, 37(2),
Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 303-326. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060606.135342
Schmidt, V. A. (2010). Taking ideas and discourse seriously: Explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth 'new institutionalism." European Political Science Review, 2(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175577390999021X
Seo, M.-G., & Creed, W. E. D. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 222-247. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2002.6588004
Steinmo, S. (2008). Historical institutionalism. In Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective (pp. 118-138). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801938.008
Thoenig, J.-C. (2013). Institutional theories and public institutions: Traditions and appropriateness. In Handbook of Public Administration: Concise Paperback Edition (pp. 88-98). SAGE Publications Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857020970.n8
Townley, B. (2002). The role of competing rationalities in institutional change. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 163-179. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069290
Zietsma, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2010). Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: The interplay of boundary work and practice work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(2), 189-221. https://do1.org/10.2189/asqu.2010.55.2.189
Zucker, L. G. (1987). Institutional theories of organization. Annual Review of Sociology. Vol. 13, 443-464. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.13.080187.002303
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2024. This work is published under https://rgsa.emnuvens.com.br/rgsa/about/editorialPolicies#openAccessPolicy (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this study is to investigate contractual relationships in organizations and their impact on economic and social development, with the aim of exploring how the transactional and relational expectations of individuals are configured and how they impact the social and organizational structure. Theoretical Framework: Institutional theory and the psychological contract, along with institutional political economy, explore the relationships between globalization, inequality, and governance. Method: The methodology adopted for this research is documentary, since it allows an exhaustive and systematic review of the existing information and knowledge on the subject of study. Results and Discussion: By integrating Bourdieu's concept of habitus, it is possible to better understand how social practices and institutional structures interact to shape behavior and reproduce power relations in society. Research Implications: Integrating the analysis of habitus, institutional norms, and psychological contract can improve understanding of how organizational structures and social practices influence individual and collective behavior, facilitating strategies for aligning personal and institutional goals in pursuit of economic development.