IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/urbstu/v48y2011i4p811-825.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

External Legitimacy, Goal Congruence and Collective Resistance

Author

Listed:
  • Chang Bum Ju
  • Shui-Yan Tang

Abstract

This paper examines two cases of collective resistance involving partnerships between local grassroots organisations and external environmental NGOs against government-sanctioned land use policies in South Korea. In both cases, the partnerships used apparently similar strategies of resistance in response to similar institutional pressures in similar physical circumstances, but the outcomes of the two collective movements differed. In the case of Daeji, the resistance movement succeeded by transforming its local cause into a broader environmental one, appealing to stakeholders in the larger society. Reinforced by goal congruence between the partnering organisations, the movement was able to gain regulative legitimacy through co-optation and influence strategies for normative and cognitive legitimacy from the larger society. In the case of Won-Dong, plagued by a lack of goal congruence between partnering organisations, the resistance movement failed to secure the necessary regulative legitimacy in the absence of normative and cognitive legitimacy.

Suggested Citation

  • Chang Bum Ju & Shui-Yan Tang, 2011. "External Legitimacy, Goal Congruence and Collective Resistance," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 48(4), pages 811-825, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:48:y:2011:i:4:p:811-825
    DOI: 10.1177/0042098009360686
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0042098009360686
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0042098009360686?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Janet A. Weiss, 1987. "Pathways to cooperation among public agencies," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(1), pages 94-117.
    2. Yong-Duck Jung & Daniel Mazmanian & Shui-Yan Tang, 2009. "Collaborative Governance in the United States and Korea: Cases in Negotiated Policymaking and Service Delivery," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(0), pages 1-11, March.
    3. Shui-Yan Tang & Ching-Ping Tang, 2004. "Local Governance and Environmental Conservation: Gravel Politics and the Preservation of an Endangered Bird Species in Taiwan," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 36(1), pages 173-189, January.
    4. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    5. Williamson, Oliver E, 1988. "The Logic of Economic Organization," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(1), pages 65-93, Spring.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fain, Nusa & Wagner, Beverly & Kay, Neil, 2018. "Driving innovation through ambidextrous service provision — long life cycle products in manufacturing contexts," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 3-13.
    2. Henri A. Schildt & Markku V.J. Maula & Thomas Keil, 2005. "Explorative and Exploitative Learning from External Corporate Ventures," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 29(4), pages 493-515, July.
    3. Giuliani, Elisa & Martinelli, Arianna & Rabellotti, Roberta, 2016. "Is Co-Invention Expediting Technological Catch Up? A Study of Collaboration between Emerging Country Firms and EU Inventors," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 192-205.
    4. Insoo Cho & Peter F. Orazem, 2021. "How endogenous risk preferences and sample selection affect analysis of firm survival," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1309-1332, April.
    5. Son K. Lam & Thomas E. DeCarlo & Ashish Sharma, 2019. "Salesperson ambidexterity in customer engagement: do customer base characteristics matter?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 659-680, July.
    6. Bruneel, Johan & Clarysse, Bart & Bobelyn, Annelies & Wright, Mike, 2020. "Liquidity events and VC-backed academic spin-offs: The role of search alliances," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(10).
    7. Anne Corcos & Yorgos Rizopoulos, 2011. "Is prosocial behavior egocentric? The “invisible hand” of emotions," Post-Print halshs-01968213, HAL.
    8. Freeman, Steven F., 1997. "Good decisions : reconciling human rationality, evolution, and ethics," Working papers WP 3962-97., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    9. Zhang, Feng & Jiang, Guohua & Cantwell, John A., 2015. "Subsidiary exploration and the innovative performance of large multinational corporations," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 224-234.
    10. Liu, Zhiqiang & Yan, Miao & Fan, Youqing & Chen, Liling, 2021. "Ascribed or achieved? The role of birth order on innovative behaviour in the workplace," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 480-492.
    11. Boeker, Warren & Howard, Michael D. & Basu, Sandip & Sahaym, Arvin, 2021. "Interpersonal relationships, digital technologies, and innovation in entrepreneurial ventures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 495-507.
    12. Keegan, A. & Turner, J.R., 2000. "Quantity versus Quality in Project Based Learning Practices," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2000-55-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    13. Carolina Rojas-Córdova & Amanda J. Williamson & Julio A. Pertuze & Gustavo Calvo, 2023. "Why one strategy does not fit all: a systematic review on exploration–exploitation in different organizational archetypes," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(7), pages 2251-2295, October.
    14. Robert P. Garrett Jr. & Jeffrey G. Covin, 2015. "Internal Corporate Venture Operations Independence and Performance: A Knowledge–Based Perspective," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 39(4), pages 763-790, July.
    15. Marco Valeri & Rodolfo Baggio, 2021. "A critical reflection on the adoption of blockchain in tourism," Information Technology & Tourism, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 121-132, June.
    16. Sarv Devaraj & Robert F. Easley & J. Michael Crant, 2008. "Research Note ---How Does Personality Matter? Relating the Five-Factor Model to Technology Acceptance and Use," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 93-105, March.
    17. Daniel Reimsbach & Bastian Hauschild, 2012. "Corporate venturing: an extended typology," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 71-80, September.
    18. Li, Mingxiang, 2021. "Exploring novel technologies through board interlocks: Spillover vs. broad exploration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    19. Sadovnikova, Anna & Pujari, Ashish & Mikhailitchenko, Andrey, 2016. "Radical innovation in strategic partnerships: A framework for analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1829-1833.
    20. Thomas Bolli & Martin Woerter, 2013. "Technological Diversification and Innovation Performance," KOF Working papers 13-336, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:48:y:2011:i:4:p:811-825. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/urbanstudiesjournal .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.