On Justification: Economies of Worth

By Ingrid Creppell. Perspectives on Politics, 2007

1,437 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/50c56d3f7d549595ca199337b9e98c40e0611f01

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

Citations in the corpus

Critical accounting research and neoliberalism (2017, methodology): “24 I use thisword here to translate the French term “épreuve”, whichwas translated as “test” in Boltanski and Chiapello (2006) and Boltanski and Thevenot (2006) and as “trial” in Bourguignon and Chiapello (2005) and Latour (1984, 1987).”
Marks of Distinction (2015, background): “, 2008); our study complements this line of research by showing how outcomes such as prestige and fame can be endogenously achieved in the interaction with one’s audience through a mix of resonance and distinctiveness (Boltanski and Thevenot, 2006).”
An Introduction to Market Devices (2007, background): “…in a number of recent contributions that have considered multiple regimes of worth or multiple conventions of valuation (eg, Beunza and Stark, 2004; Boltanski and Thévenot, 2006; Favereau, Biencourt and Eymard-Duvernay, 2002; Stark, 1999; Thévenot, 2000, 2001), that have examined practical…”
Geographies of markets: Materials, morals and monsters in motion (2011, background): “Key texts (ie, Boltanski and Chiapello, 2005; Boltanski and Thévenot, 2006 [1991]) inspired scholars across the social sciences to rethink the traditional division between ‘moral economies’ (values) and market economies (value) (Stark, 2009: 11).”
Capitalizing on the crowd: The monetary and financial ecologies of crowdfunding (2017, background): “Yet, a broad spectrum of ‘orders of worth’ (Boltanski and Thévenot, 2006) are likely to be present across diverse crowdfunding ecologies.”
The Organization of Markets (2015, background): “It is seldom legitimate in a market context, for example, to decide to create a monopoly (Boltanski & Thévenot, 2006).”
Social Entrepreneurship in Non-munificent Institutional Environments and Implications for Institutional Work: Insights from China (2017, neutral): “(2012a) argue that social entrepreneurs rely on specific orders of worth (Boltanski and Thévenot 2006) as anchors of value to justify their organizational models.”
Performance measurement, modes of evaluation and the development of compromising accounts (2013, methodology): “For further insight on the six orders of worth, see Boltanski and Thévenot (1999, 2006), and for their implications for accounting research, see Annisette and Richardson (2011) and Annisette and Trivedi (2013).”
Cents and Sensibility: Economic Valuation and the Nature of “Nature” (2011, neutral): “0002-9602/2011/11606-0001$10.00”
Creating value in ecosystems: Crossing the chasm between knowledge and business ecosystems (2014, background): “First, a diversity of organisational forms generates divergent standards and multiple kinds of rules, resulting in competing criteria for gauging success (Boltanski and Thévenot, 2006).”
Who Governs Socially-Oriented Voluntary Sustainability Standards? Not the Producers of Certified Products (2017, background): “Drawing on Boltanski and Thévenot (2006)’s conventions theory, Cheyns and Riisgaard (2014, pp. 411, 414) argue that this system privileges narratives around market competition and industrial efficiency, crowding out alternative value systems, and reifying traditional power relationships (see also…”
Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use : a literature review (2016, background): “Changing the current dominant ‘order of worth’ in research assessment (cf. Boltanski and Thevenot 2006; Linkova 2014; Stöckelová 2014) is therefore also a distributed responsibility.”
Financialisation of Valuation (2015, background): “3 Boltanski and Thevenot’s (2006) model makes it possible to identify the plurality of possible judgement principles, the worth attribution operations, and the different ‘‘tests’’ to which things and people are subjected in order to reach an agreement on relative worth.”
Making sense of sensemaking narratives (2008, background): “As ‘The issue of how agreements are reached is one of the fundamental issues [in] . . . the social sciences’ (Boltanski & Thevenot, 2006: 25), so considerable further research is required in order to deepen our knowledge of how individuals’ sensemaking is translated into processes of organizing.”
How three narratives of modernity justify economic inequality (2016, background): “Three central narratives of modernity Using the term ‘‘narrative,’’ the article positions itself in the constructivist camp and shares its interest in how ordinary citizens make sense of and justify society (e.g. Boltanski and Thévenot, 2006).”
Carrots and Rainbows: Motivation and Social Practice in Open Source Software Development (2012, background): “Cultural analysis in social sciences recently shifted to treating culture “as constitutive of a wide range of social processes rather than a regulative that works against other forces, such as interests or rationality” (Weber and Dacin 2011, p. 287; see also Boltanski and Thévenot 2006).”
Moving Institutional Logics Forward: Emotion and Meaningful Material Practice (2018, background): “…has a kinship with the evaluative reality “test” in Boltanski and Thévenot’s orders of worth approach in which “beings” are qualified as more or less worthy by the requisites of a regionalized justice and the requirements of qualification necessary to coordination (Boltanski & Thévenot, 2006).”