The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Systems of Exchange
Abstract
We develop a classification scheme of systems of exchange using concepts from network analysis, economics, and cultural sociology. This classification illustrates that the “free market ” is but one possible type of economy and that other types are not best understood as imperfections. This classification helps to distinguish analytically among qualitatively different types of exchange arrangements and suggests bases from which to develop theories about the organization of markets and exchange systems of various types. Thirty years ago, organization theorists fo-cused largely on the internal organization of firms and other bureaucratic structures. In re-cent years, however, they have turned increas-ingly toward trying to understand the economic context within which firms operate. Prompted especially by the development of networked markets in Asia, organization scholars have rec-ognized that market organization, not only firm organization, is a crucial factor in explaining the activities and character of firms and other economic actors. When organization analysts turned toward the examination of markets, the prevailing con-ceptualization of a market came from econom-ics. Being a parsimonious construct, the eco-nomic idea of a market failed the needs of many empirically oriented organization analysts, par-ticularly those rooted in anthropological and so-ciological traditions. Subsequently, in a flurry of writings, scholars promoted alternative ways of conceptualizing market organization. Two sets of ideas about the nature of markets emerged. One conceptualizes markets as structures of so-cial relations and focuses on the organization of market roles into status hierarchies and net-
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Burt, R. S. (1992) · doi:10.4159/9780674029095 · Cited by 9,093
Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology
Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393988 · Cited by 8,499
Embeddedness and Immigration: Notes on the Social Determinants of Economic Action
Portes, A., & Sensenbrenner, J. (1993) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/230191 · Cited by 3,493
A transaction costs theory of equity joint ventures
Hennart, J. (1988) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250090406 · Cited by 1,843
Layder, D. (1998) · doi:10.4135/9781849209946 · Cited by 585 · cited 5×
“The result is a system typology (Layder, 1998) that facilitates the codification of exchange and provides the basis for subsequent analysis, prediction, and explanation.”
BackgroundInfluential
Cited by
International business responses to institutional voids
Doh, J., Rodrigues, S., Saka-Helmhout, A., & Makhija, M. (2017) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/s41267-017-0074-z · Cited by 596
Reinecke, J., Manning, S., & von Hagen, O. (2012) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840612443629 · Cited by 513
Editors' Comments: Styles of Theorizing and the Social Organization of Knowledge
(2013) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2013.0085 · Cited by 271
Self-citationEditor's Comments: The Craft of Writing Theory Articles—Variety and Similarity in AMR
Smithey Fulmer, I. (2012) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2012.0026 · Cited by 77
Metadata
- Authors
- Biggart, N. W., & Delbridge, R.
- Venue
- The Academy of Management Review
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2004-01-01
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 28
- ISSN
- 0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2131665896
- Cited by
- 197
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 27.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Systems of Exchange. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/20159007
- The paper
- Biggart, N. W., & Delbridge, R. (2004). Systems of Exchange. The Academy of Management Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159007
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.