This paper is looking at the Danish independent labels and their relation to the music industry in general. Meaning that it is the interplay between the local and the institutional which lies at the heart of this paper. The local is the single independent label, and the institutional is actually both the independent labels as an organizational field and the music industry as an organizational field. The paper looks at more than one organizational field and discusses that in relation to institutional theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991 and Rowan & Meyer, 1991). Institutional theory has a tendency to look at only one organizational field – at least at a time. The paper opposes that in relation to the Danish independent labels, where more than one organizational field seems to be at play at the same time, fighting for legitimacy (another important concept in institutional theory). The paper discusses organizational fields and legitimacy in the world of the independent Danish labels in relation to institutional theory, in order to get an understanding of the interplay between these labels and the institional forces in the music industry. This discussion leads the way for criticising institutional theory for lacking the sophistication of an organization being part of more than one institutional field at the time and being analysed as such. The purpose of this paper is to gain an understanding of the interplay between the local and the institutional for the independent labels in the Danish music industry. To gain such an understanding the paper explores the interplay between the single Danish independent label (the local) and the organizational fields of both the independent labels and the music industry (the institutionel), this is done to be reflecsive upon this interplay related to the Danish independent labels.
|Place of Publication||Frederiksberg|
|Publisher||Institut for Organisation og Arbejdssociologi. Handelshøjskolen i København|
|Number of pages||16|
|Publication status||Published - 2003|
|Series||Working Paper / Institut for Organisation og Arbejdssociologi (IOA). Copenhagen Business School|
Paper from project 1.1