Denise D. Bielby
Among the many transformations in the world economy during the last quarter-century is the expanded trans-nationalization of cultural production. The industry trade publication The Hollywood Reporter (Turner 2008) reported that in 2007 the major US studios alone generated an estimated $6 billion in international program sales, and as a singular measure this figure is but one small indicator of how the robust production and distribution of cultural products that include film, radio, television, books, music, and new media now constitute an overwhelmingly vibrant global economic sector. Although world markets are not new, what has changed is the rapid acceleration of the globalizing world economy, and, in particular, the organizational arrangements that underlie it. As organizations have become increasingly transnational in scope, industrial arrangements of production and distribution have become more complex. Social theorists (Weber 1978 [1921]) recognized that globalization of industrial forms would be the end-point of modernity, itself the outgrowth of scientific technology and industrial production that has yielded a world of economic markets, legal settings, and political organizations in which social institutions operate under rational organizational principles. In the study of these arrangements, however, organization scholars found that when firms expand into less familiar cultural locales, they are often confronted with ambiguous marketplaces and no clear route to success, and it is within those contexts that firms collectively develop conceptualizations of how their market is structured along lines of, for example, competitive strategies (Fligstein 1996), labor relations (Dobbin et al. 1993), and organization boundaries (Davis et al. 1994) to augment familiar institutional strategies for action. Strategic corporate leaders play a pivotal role in this process (Fligstein 2001).
According to neo-institutionalists (Scott and Meyer 1994), the global spread of organizational forms leads to growing interdependencies among countries, with social institutions eventually resembling one another through worldwide adoption of shared cultural understandings of economic and legal systems. These claims pertain to some extent to the production of cultural products in a global context, but their applicability is less straightforward. As global theorists have observed, incorporating the concept of culture, “the signifying system through which necessarily (among other means) a social order is communicated, reproduced, experienced, and explored” (Williams 1981: 13), into understanding societal, national, or organizational levels of development is complicated by the many ways in which culture itself is understood as a focus of study (Pieterse 2006). Concepts such as national identity and national culture, for example, are no longer regarded as unitary, and likely never could be (van Elteren 1996). Although discussions among globalization theorists themselves about the theoretical adequacy or utility of their own conceptualizations of culture (see Connell 2007, for example) are beyond the scope of this chapter, such discussions do affect how we understand the significance of an increasingly globalizing industrial system of cultural production because, while cultural products are circulated by powerful corporations, the symbolic creativity they organize, produce, and distribute is not immune from the inequalities of class, gender, and ethnicity present in the industries of contemporary capitalist societies; in addition, cultural products are increasingly significant as sources of wealth and employment in many economies (Hesmondhalgh 2007).
Because cultural production as an industrial system encompasses “outputs [that] are marked by high levels of aesthetic and semiotic content in relation to their purely practical uses” (Scott 2000: 2), and symbolic content plays an increasingly important role in how countries, nations, regions, and cultures interconnect on organizational levels, this chapter addresses what sociologists understand about globalization and cultural production, that is, the trans-national institutional arrangements that are associated with the creation or execution, reproduction, circulation, and exhibition of cultural products.
The political economic perspective is perhaps the best known scholarly approach to understanding how global cultural production is embedded in economic systems that are interrelated with political, social, and cultural life. Insights by scholars who assume an overtly critical stance about the consequences of these interconnections have tended to dominate this approach to the field, especially in the study of media (e.g. Miller et al. 2005; McChesney 2004): they have deeply influenced broader interpretations of the interplay between cultural production and global markets, nations, and development. A perhaps unintended consequence of an overtly critical perspective is that it can encumber empirical approaches to the study of cultural production at the global level (Scott 2005: chap. 6), although that is less the case in scholarship on national industries, especially of those in the US, Europe, and Australia. That research, which focuses on local contexts of cultural production, offers keen insights from the study of cultural industries, organizations, and markets, and about the social organization of the creative labor of art worlds that contributes to cultural production at the global level (e.g. Cunningham and Jacka 1996). Yet even as the research has much to say, others have observed how the characteristically democratizing thrust of US scholarship, in particular, in its aim to contextualize the contribution of creative workers adequately, has muted understanding of the ways in which the work of cultural industries intersects with issues of power and structure (Hesmondhalgh 2007). Taking these considerations into account, at this juncture, I characterize the field of globalization and cultural production as a composite of scholarship that on the one hand consists of grounded empirical work, usually at the national level, whose implications for understanding the political economic contexts of globalization and cultural production are under-theorized, and on the other hand relies upon top-heavy conceptual perspectives that over-theorize the hegemony of cultural industries in a world economy (see also Guillen 2001).
Increasingly, however, scholars in the US, Australia, and Europe, especially those who study the television, film, and music industries, have begun to call for middle-range theoretical approaches that bridge this divide by targeting meso-level conceptualization, evidence, and analysis (Bielby and Moloney 2008). This intermediate approach emphasizes the importance of grounded analysis of institutional logics—the cultural determinants of organizational decisions (Douglas 1986), alongside production logics— the social contexts and historical contingencies that shape markets and mediate the effect of concentration and competition on product homogeneity (Dowd and Blyler 2002). Analysis of institutional logics focuses on, for example, which organizational issues and problems stakeholders attend to in order to survive, or what answers and solutions are available or deemed appropriate (Thornton 2004), while examination of production logics considers, for example, how new technologies transform markets and how successful strategies toward technology (rather than the technologies themselves) are what prompt market changes (Dowd 2002).
Although studying institutional and production logics of markets as such is very important to better understand the mechanisms by which they operate, it is also increasingly necessary to bring evidence of organizational, institutional, or economic issues into cultural explanations. Scholars seeking a middle ground, where matters such as technological development or institutional transformation are placed alongside aspects of the political economy rather than subordinated to it, have also been increasingly turning to an explicitly cultural emphasis in traditional organizational and institutional analysis (Friedland and Mohr 2004). Granovetter’s (1985) seminal insight, that market action is influenced by its embeddedness in a web of networked social roles and relations, was important to launching this line of thinking. More recently, economic sociologists Biggart and Beamish (2003) have extended Granovetter’s insights, arguing that it is also necessary for the study of market arrangements to focus on how institutional and organizational structures, practices, customs, and modes of operation in market contexts are themselves socially and culturally constructed—an approach that redirects attention to the agency of institutional actors in marketplaces and the factors that account for their actions. In sum, a shift to a middle-range theoretical approach to global cultural production would invite a different set of questions, ones that would advance an empirically grounded understanding of the mechanisms and dynamics as well as the structures that constitute the vibrant economic sector of global cultural production.
Nearly four decades ago, organizational sociologist Paul Hirsch (1991 [1972]) identified the distinctive characteristics of the organizations that make up cultural-products industries. Today, understanding the social organization and dynamics of the creative worlds in which cultural production takes place is crucial to achieving a more nuanced and empirically informed approach to the study of global cultural production. Cultural products are shared significance embodied in form (Griswold 2000), meaning that they are expressive in nature and may be transcendent in effect. Hirsch himself described them as embodying live, one-of-a-kind performances and/or containing a unique set of ideas (Hirsch 1991 [1972]). Such products originate from art worlds (Becker 1982), which are themselves organized around shared understandings among artists and their associates about materials, performance, expertise, criteria for evaluation, quality of production, and so forth. Thus, the properties of cultural products, unlike strictly utilitarian ones, encompass aesthetic or expressive functions that differentiate them from other manufactured ones. Because of this character, products flow in and out of fashion due to the changing tastes, preferences, and patronage of consumers, creating unpredictable cycles of demand and tremendous business uncertainty as a result. Although Hirsch’s particular focus at the time was national-level industries, his insights are just as relevant to those at the level of global cultural production.
As symbolic forms that connote, suggest, or imply expressive elements that may be appropriated for creation of social meanings, cultural products not only face demand uncertainty, their innovation can be uncertain as well. This added dynamic has implications for understanding cultural production at the level of the organization, whether it occurs at the global or the local level: the oversight of artistic origination, creation, and production is difficult to regulate bureaucratically because it relies upon intangible expertise—a situation akin to craft administration (Stinchcombe 1959), where the quality of the work cannot be unambiguously evaluated based on technical and measurable features of the finished product. Instead, the quality of the work and the competence of its creator are evaluated post hoc based on the acceptance and success of the work within the marketplace—an arrangement that significantly complicates the implementation of the rational bureaucratic organizational form and its control over the creative labor of employees.
The production-of-culture perspective, which is the prevailing conceptual approach to studying contexts of production (Peterson and Anand 2004), points to the importance of the effect of market structure (Dowd 2004a), embeddedness of organizations (Dowd 2004b), industry transformation (Jones and Thornton 2005), and classification of cultural industries (Janssen et al. 2008) as central determinants of product range and diversity. Although this perspective has been widely utilized for the study of national industries and contexts, it has yet to be extensively applied to analyses of cultural production at the global level. In particular, there is a need to study the cultural spaces of creative labor, especially how access to collaborative arrangements is formulated and interacts with the conduct of day-to-day work practices (McRobbie 2004).
In describing just how uncertain the demand for cultural products is, Hirsch (1991 [1972]) highlights the complexity of organizational control over the process of distribution. Manufacturers overproduce and from that abundance selectively sponsor large-scale promotion of new items in order to surmount the uncertainty of the market, an aspect of culture industry systems that necessitates specialized, labor intensive approaches to product dissemination. Other scholars expand on this insight in specifically cultural ways. Because cultural products are symbolic and expressive, and their complex aesthetic properties resonate differently in different contexts, their marketing is based upon establishing meaningful social relationships that utilize personalized or charismatic strategies (Biggart 1989), which are more effective at revealing the potential personal utility (i.e. the pleasure, transcendence, or resonance) of such products (Hirschman 1983). However, as particularistic transactions, they introduce vast interorganizational complexities into the mix. These go beyond mere interconnections and interdependencies among firms and individuals comprising culture-industry systems and extend to the contribution of individuals in key roles and the actions they take at the “input” and “output” boundaries of organizations (Hirsch 2000).
Observing such interorganizational dependencies associated with distribution of cultural products, especially at the global level, can be a challenge because they may include activity that is not readily visible to outside observers. This might encompass, for example, intra-organizational product modification following manufacturing—which can fundamentally transform a product from its original form to another for use in other locales (Bielby and Harrington 2008)—or complicated co-production agreements between firms from different countries. Such arrangements are intended to reduce uncertainty by anticipating the tastes of consumers in different nations, but they still can fail miserably (see Hubka 2002). Conglomerates may modify product repertoires for different locales (Negus 1999), but ever shifting tastes may overtake the market, circumventing well-developed corporate strategies altogether. In short, although enterprising producers and distributors of cultural products can come to dominate a nation, global region, or even the global market itself, cultural production and dissemination do not occur in an unfettered way. Although these complexities in cultural production were not directly anticipated in Hirsch’s seminal contribution, his work continues to make possible keen insights about the organization of cultural industries.
Consideration of further constraints to cultural production adds yet another layer to the conceptual and empirical complexities that a middle-range theoretical approach can bring to the field. Peterson (1982) pointed out that cultural production at the national level is constrained by at least five factors—law, technology, market, organizational structure, and occupational careers. By identifying these hurdles, Peterson explicitly intended to problematize the production-of-culture perspective, organizational analysis, and institutional or economic perspectives, which do not always recognize such limits or constraints as central to the analysis of production in cultural industries. Important work by others adds factors to Peterson’s list, a pivotal one being cultural policy per se (Crane 2002). As the location where social power writ large is brought into the mix of global cultural production (Pieterse 2006), cultural policy is the site where national interests are developed and enacted as formal instruments to facilitate cultural standing and to protect cultural authority within and across national borders or regions. In arguing for its inclusion when studying globalization and cultural production, Crane (2002) identifies three observable strategies or lines of action available to national governments, urban governments, and cultural organizations for preserving, protecting, and enhancing their cultural resources on the international level—protecting the country’s culture, creating and maintaining images, and developing and protecting international markets and venues.
Crane’s suggestions are important when considering the study of globalization and cultural production because nations vary in the degree to which they subscribe to a cultural policy—if one even exists. The US, for example, offers minimal oversight of forms of high culture, whereas other nations such as France are vigorous in protecting encroachment upon their national cultural identity. As of 2006, there were several dominant international policy agencies, each with its own membership and agenda: the European Union (EU), North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA), Mercado Commun del Sur (MERCOSUR), Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), World Trade Organization (WTO), and General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) (Hesmondhalgh 2007). All were created to encourage free (or freer) trade between member countries but also in some instances to set quotas on the export of content to forestall overwhelming one nation or a set of nations. How such associations foster trade that creates advantages for wealthier nation-members is an empirical question. These organizations notwithstanding, there are other less formal but equally concerted strategies within nations that are intended to manage cultural products at the local level. These, according to Crane (2002), include the process of culturally “reframing” aspects of specific national urban and historical sites so that they are more (or less) accessible to non-locals. Such strategies can blunt national efforts to maintain a balance between local and global exposure (Tinic 2006).
Work by cultural geographers holds promise for advancing middle-range sociological approaches to globalization and cultural production. To some geographers, global production occurs through seemingly straightforward ties between manufacture and distribution—so-called commodity chains, which are the networks of labor, production, trade, and service activities that yield commodities (Hopkins and Wallerstein 1986: 159). Transnational chains array components of the production process across the world economy by relying upon key nodes of operation in different locations in the production process (Gereffi 1992: 94). Within the chain structure, business transactions and intrafirm transfers contribute or “add” the value that moves production along to conclusion (Appelbaum and Gereffi 1994).
While the imagery of a chain structure is a very useful mechanism for organizing understanding of how elements of cultural production flow across borders, for some who study cultural industries it is just a starting point because of the vastly more complicated nature of cultural products with complex aesthetic properties. To some geographers, especially those whose focus is the industries of television and film, basic concepts such as commodity chains are supplanted by the importance of geographic regions to sustaining synergies among workers with the creative skills necessary for the creation, production, and distribution activities that make up cultural industries. As sites of economic activity, geographic regions shape how development (the process of building and rearranging economic resources in the interests of enhanced productivity) and growth (the expression of that enhancement in terms of increments to gross product) actually occur (see Scott 2002). Because of the interconnections among creative workers in art worlds, regional economies exhibit “efficiency promoting properties” among transactions at the local level, and particularly successful regions can effectively “push” national development and growth because of their strong network structure of production, technology systems, local labor markets, and regional business cultures (Storper 1997). Hollywood is a particularly successful example of regional agglomeration, as is France’s film industry, Latin America’s telenovela production, and India’s Bollywood. The concept of agglomeration—the concentration of capital and labor comprising modern production systems—is crucial here. According to Scott, the synergy of agglomeration—coupled with strong industry marketing and distribution capabilities sustained by the influx of capital and labor to magnet-like metropolises such as Milan, Vancouver, Paris, Miami, or Hong Kong—is what accounts for a region’s unshakable competitive advantage despite an increasingly dispersed, polycentric global media commodity chain and strong national and regional industries elsewhere around the globe (Scott 2004). In short, the concept of regional agglomerations of cultural production offers considerable explanatory power for understanding globalization and cultural production in the absence of a culture industry’s ability to bureaucratically manage creative labor or control the conventions that organize and sustain art worlds where creative production takes place.
Although some would agree with these arguments, others would question the strength of their claims by pointing to evidence of the counterbalancing effect of cultural and political policies upon local, regional, and national economies. Scott acknowledges these factors as relevant but secondary to his emphasis on the concept of agglomeration as a fundamental explanation for the strength of regional production centers. An analysis relevant to this unresolved matter is found in Curtain’s (2005) study of how the institutional logics of politics, market, and cultural production and distribution in China thwarted Rupert Murdoch’s attempt to completely penetrate that country with his STAR satellite system of television distribution. In spite of neighboring Hong Kong’s unquestionable influence as a regional center of cultural production—a robustness that is due to its unique position at the periphery of China and its strong links to the West, primarily Europe—China’s openness to Hong Kong’sinfluence did not extend to an acceptance of STAR’s organizational mechanisms (its business strategy for growth, expansion, and development), which were fundamentally disrupted by China’s culturally distinct expectation that the market be subordinate to political institutions and ideologies. In this instance, Western conventions about the interconnections between the market and corporate growth were not shared because the cultural assumptions underlying transnational co-orientation were absent, miscommunicated, out of reach, unknown, or unattainable. In short, the business plan could not proceed as Murdoch intended because it ran counter to China’s practice of subordinating the business of its economy to government interests. Further work that counterposes these important lines of research is clearly necessary.
The study of globalization and cultural production is ready for a focused theoretical integration. Such a project will necessarily bring evidence of organizational, institutional, or economic issues into cultural explanations, consistent with the “cultural turn” in sociology. Studies of organizations and institutions ably document the forms and structure of conglomerates and consolidation, but it is those who study the structure of markets and the cultural specificities that affect them who often come closest to conceptually engaging what is most relevant to theoretical integration—particularly when they go beyond strictly national-level interests. Such efforts frequently entail reading across disciplinary boundaries. Although media scholars may be more inclined to consider topics of particular relevance to globalization and cultural production, such as industry concentration, they can just as easily overlook the relevance of market context and institutional forms for understanding the phenomenon under consideration.
Empirical study of the impact of cultural policy on globalization and cultural production is crucial to advancing theoretical integration, but it remains to be seen how useful the valorization of the local–global dichotomy and attention to top–down effects of media institutions can be in moving the field forward. Moreover, in order to more effectively address the connections between globalization, cultural production, and political economy, scholars will need to reconsider Western assumptions that saturate thinking about modern organizational forms in light of challenges by religious nationalisms, differences in business relationships (such as Asian expectations that they be based on personal networks and relations of mutual obligation—guanxi), and political cultures that foreground policy over institutional mandates (Gessner et al. 2001).
With a revised agenda in mind, Hesmondhalgh (2007: 51–79) offers several useful questions to guide our thinking as the field of globalization and cultural production develops. To what extent, he asks, have the cultural industries become increasingly important in national economies and local business? What are the implications of the further commodification of culture? To what extent have changes in conglomeration and integration led to recognizably new and distinct forms of ownership and structure? What are the effects of the growth in size and power of cultural industry corporations on cultural production and wider society? To what extent have international cultural flows changed sufficiently for us to speak of a new era in cultural production and circulation? To what extent does the increasing global reach of the largest firms mean an exclusion of voices from cultural markets? Finally, given the emergence of new media, are we in a new era of cultural production?
Appelbaum, Richard and Gereffi, Gary. 1994. “Power and Profits in the Apparel Commodity Chain.” In Edna Bonacich, Lucy Cheng, Norma Chinchilla, Nora Hamilton, and Paul Ong, eds., Global Production: The Apparel Industry in the Pacific Rim. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Becker, Howard. 1982. Art Worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bielby, Denise and Harrington, C. Lee. 2008. Global TV: Exporting Television and Culture in the World Market. New York: NYU Press.
Bielby, Denise D. and Moloney, Molly. 2008. “Considering Global Media: Sociological Contributions.” Pp. 269–300 in Ron Rice, ed., Media Ownership: Research and Regulation. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Biggart, Nicole. 1989. Charismatic Capitalism: Direct Selling Organizations in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Biggart, Nicole and Beamish, Thomas. 2003. “The Economic Sociology of Conventions: Habit, Custom, Practice, and Routine.” Annual Review of Sociology 29: 443–64.
Connell, Raewyn. 2007. “The Northern Theory of Globalization.” Sociological Theory 25(4): 368–85.
Crane, Diana. 2002. “Culture and Globalization: Theoretical Models and Emerging Trends.” Pp. 1–25 in Diana Crane, Nobuko Kawashima, Kenichi Kawasaki, eds., Global Culture: Media Arts, Policy, and Globalization. New York: Routledge.
Cunningham, Stuart and Jacka, Elizabeth. 1996. Australian Television and International Mediascapes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Curtain, Michael. 2005. “Murdoch’s Dilemma, or ‘What’s the Price of TV in China?’” Media, Culture, and Society 27(2): 155–75.
Davis, G.F., Diekmann, K.A., and Tinsley, C.H. 1994. “The Decline and Fall of the Conglomerate Firm in the 1980s.” American Sociological Review 59: 547–70.
Dobbin, Frank, Sutton, John, Meyer, John, and Scott, Richard. 1993. “Equal Opportunity Law and the Construction of Internal Labor Markets.” American Journal of Sociology 99: 396–427.
Douglas, Mary. 1986. How Institutions Think. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Dowd, Timothy. 2002. “Culture and Commodification: Technology and Structural Power in the Early U.S. Recording Industry.” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 22(1/2/3): 106–40.
——. 2004a. “Concentration and Diversity Revisited: Production Logics and the U.S. Mainstream Recording Industry, 1940–90.” Social Forces 82(4): 1411–55.
——. 2004b. “Introduction: The Embeddedness of Cultural Industries.” Poetics 32(1): 1–3.
Dowd, Timothy and Blyler, Maureen. 2002. “Charting Race: The Success of Black Performers in the Mainstream Recording Market, 1940 to 1990.” Poetics 30(1–2): 87–110.
Fligstein, Neil. 1996. “Markets as Politics: A Political-Cultural Approach to Market Institutions.” American Sociological Review 61: 656–73.
——. 2001. “Social Skill and the Theory of Fields.” Sociological Theory 19(2): 105–25.
Friedland, Roger and Mohr, John. 2004. “The Cultural Turn in American Sociology.” Pp. 1–68 in Roger Friedland and John Mohr, eds., Matters of Culture: Cultural Sociology in Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gereffi, Gary. 1992. “New Realities of Industrial Development in East Asia and Latin America: Global, Regional, and National Trends.” Pp. 85–112 in Richard Appelbaum and Jeffrey Henderson, eds., States and Development in the Asian Pacific Rim. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gessner, Volkmar, Appelbaum, Richard, and Felstiner, William. 2001. “Introduction: The Legal Culture of Global Business Transactions.” Pp. 1–36 in Richard Appelbaum, William Felstiner, and Volkmar Gessner, eds., Rules and Networks: The Legal Culture of Global Business Transactions. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Granovetter, Mark. 1985. “Economic Action and Social Structure.” American Journal of Sociology 91(X): 481–510.
Griswold, Wendy. 2000. Cultures and Societies in a Changing World. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Guillen, Mauro F. 2001. “Is Globalization Civilizing, Destructive, or Feeble? A Critique of Five Key Debates in the Social Science Literature.” Annual Review of Sociology 27: 235–305.
Hesmondhalgh, David. 2007. The Cultural Industries, second edition. London: Sage Publications.
Hirsch, Paul M. 1991 (1972). “Processing Fads and Fashions: An Organization-Set Analysis of Cultural Industry Systems.” Pp. 313–34 in Chandra Mukerji and Michael Schudson, eds., Rethinking Popular Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.
——. 2000. “Cultural Industries Revisited.” Organization Science 11: 356–61.
Hirschman, Elizabeth C. 1983. “Aesthetics, Ideologies and the Limits of the Marketing Concept.” Journal of Marketing 47: 45–55.
Hopkins, Terence K. and Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1986. “Commodity Chains in the World-Economy Prior to 1800.” Review X(1): 157–70.
Hubka, David. 2002. “Globalization and Cultural Production.” Pp. 233–55 in Diana Crane, Nobuko Kawashima, and Kenichi Kawasaki, eds., Global Cultures: Media, Arts, Policy and Globalization. New York: Routledge.
Janssen, Susanne, Kuipers, Gislelinde, and Verboord, Marc. 2008. “Cultural Globalization and Arts Journalism: The International Orientation of Arts and Cultural Coverage in Dutch, French, German, and U.S. Newspapers, 1955 to 2005.” American Sociological Review 73(5): 719–40.
Jones, Candace and Thornton, Patricia. 2005. “Transformation in Cultural Industries: Introduction.” In Candace Jones and Patricia Thornton, eds., Research in the Sociology of Organizations: Transformations in Cultural Industries. Greenwich, CT and London: JAI Press.
McChesney, Robert W. 2004. The Problem of the Media: U.S. Communication Politics in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Monthly Review Press.
McRobbie, Angela. 2004. “Making a Living in London’s Small-Scale Creative Sector.” Pp. 130–43 in Dominic Power and Allen J. Scott, eds., Cultural Industries and the Production of Culture. New York: Routledge.
Miller, Toby, Govil, Nitin, McMurria, John, Maxwsell, Richard, and Wang, Ting. 2005. Global Hollywood 2. London: British Film Institute.
Negus, Keith. 1999. Music Genres and Corporate Cultures. New York: Routledge.
Peterson, Richard A. 1982. “Five Constraints on the Production of Culture: Law, Technology, Market, Organizational Structure and Occupational Careers.” Journal of Popular Culture 16: 143–53.
Peterson, Richard A. and Anand, N. 2004. “The Production of Culture Perspective.” Annual Review of Sociology 30: 311–34.
Pieterse, Jan Nederveen. 2006. Development Theory: Deconstructions/Reconstructions. London: Sage.
Scott, Allen J. 2000. “French Cinema: Economy, Policy and Place in the Making of a Cultural-Products Industry.” Theory, Culture & Society 17(1): 1–38.
——. 2002. “A New Map of Hollywood: The Production and Distribution of American Motion Pictures.” Regional Studies 36(9): 957–75.
——. 2004. “The Other Hollywood: The Organizational and Geographic Bases of Television-Program Production.” Media, Culture, and Society 26(2): 183–205.
——. 2005. On Hollywood. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Scott, W. Richard and Meyer, John. 1994. Institutional Environments and Organizations: Structural Complexity and Individuality. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Stinchcombe, Arthur. 1959. “Bureaucratic and Craft Administration of Production.” Administrative Science Quarterly 4: 168–87.
Storper, Michael. 1997. The Regional World: Territorial Development in a Global Economy. New York: Guildford Press.
Thornton, Patricia H. 2004. Markets from Culture: Institutional Logics and Organizational Decisions in Higher Education Publishing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Tinic, Serra. 2006. “Global Vistas and Local Reflections: Negotiating Place and Identity in Vancouver Television.” Television & New Media 7(2): 154–83.
Turner, Mimi. 2008. “Broad Casting: U.S. Studios Looking Overseas for Growth.” The Hollywood Reporter, March 14–16: 1, 14–15.
van Elteren, Mel. 1996. “Conceptualizing the Impact of US Popular Culture Globally.” Journal of Popular Culture 30(1): 47–89.
Weber, Max. 1978 (1921). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretative Sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Williams, Raymond. 1981. Culture. London: Fontana.
——. 1992 (1974). Television: Technology and Cultural Form. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press.