Call for Papers

Thinkers such as David Harvey or Henri Lefebvre have convincingly argued that capitalism – in any of its particular historical conjunctures – is constituted through a dynamic and often expansionary interrelationship of space and time (Harvey, 2001; Castree 2009). Any structures or institutions within it, such as markets, are likewise built on and through a diversity of spatio-temporal configurations. Thus, space-time becomes both a vector and an object of economic exchange processes, propelling, on the one hand, value extraction, capital accumulation and assetisation through space-time compression, but also giving rise to ‘alternative economies’, to speak with Gibson-Graham (2003), for instance in attempts to organize local exchange currencies based on time credits. Space and time can be obstacles to overcome in economic exchange; they give rise to frictions, for instance when exchange partners are not proximate or when market goods are highly perishable; one such space-time friction became evident in the breakdown of global supply chains when one container ship got stuck in the Suez Canal in 2021.
 
An understanding of the everyday workings of markets has been hampered by implicit assumptions about space and time, typically treated as mere backdrops or “contained surfaces” (Murdoch 2006) for market organization. Organizational research has started to unpack how temporality is not simply given but actively negotiated and shaped in different organizational processes (e.g. Granqvist and Gustafsson 2016). Studies have addressed the construction of future imaginaries (Augustine et al. 2019; Geiger 2020), promissory stories (Garud et al. 2014; Geiger and Finch, 2016), future-oriented expert knowledge (Pollock and Williams 2010) and fictional expectations in markets (Beckert 2021). A variety of temporal norms and orientations structure markets and both produce and contain temporal conflicts (Reinecke & Ansari, 2015). Moreover, different market settings are characterized by varying paces and, thus, a challenge in these settings is to synchronize “multiple temporal rhythms and experiences” (Garud et al. 2013: 793).
 
Importantly, the emphasis on temporality comes with an implicit suggestion that markets are temporal and spatial formations: markets ‘take place’ through time but also through geographical categories including scale, territory and proximity, all of which require temporal work to succeed. A separate body of research has attended to how space is framed as a relevant quality to take into account in market exchange (Chimenti and Kjellberg 2022). Novelty in markets often arises in interstitial and liminal spaces (Furnari 2014; Howard-Greenville et al. 2011), and studies have considered for instance the role of accelerators (Cohen et al. 2019) and field-configuring events (Schüssler et al., 2015) in market transformations. Market geographies also contribute to the unstable equilibration of global capital accumulation (Ashton and Christophers 2020); this became evident in the recent pandemic where both Covid-19 vaccine rollout and profiteering from vaccines were highly unequally distributed across the globe (Geiger and Gross, 2023). While the spatial characteristics of markets have been opened up by these inquiries, the role of temporality in the spatial development and expansion of markets often disappears from sight.
 
In this sub-theme, we are interested in drawing together the two dimensions of time and space into studies of markets – and, importantly, in exploring their their interconnections. We seek to build a deeper understanding of the spatio-temporal dimensions of markets and market-based phenomena (digital platforms, algorithms, social movements, processes of emergence etc.), but we also see these inquiries opening up an understanding of alternative modes of exchange (e. g. synchronous vs. asynchronous). The purpose of this sub-theme, then, is to shed light on market actors’ spatially and temporally dynamic shaping of markets. We invite both empirical and conceptual papers but are also open to discussions that evoke the unintended or secondary effects of the spatio-temporal organization of markets.
 
Studies in this sub-theme may include, but are not restricted to, the following topics:

• What are the spatio-temporal dimensions of markets? (How) are these organized?

• How do various forms of temporal organizing expand in and through space?

• How do synchronization and entrainment in markets occur across space and time? How about asynchronous forms of market organizations?

• What are the forms of temporal coordination to control market developments across spaces?

• How is spatio-temporality exploited for capital accumulation?

• What are the spatial and temporal conceptions of ‘alternative economies’?

• How do spatial futures influence contemporary markets?

• How is agency in markets embedded in spaces and temporalities, and how does agency shape these dimensions?

• How can various spaces, places and events contain and produce certain temporal norms and orientations?

• How are various understandings of temporality mobilized to re-organize, accelerate, synchronize or deliberately slow down market developments?

 
We encourage methodological and theoretical diversity in the study of the spatial, temporal, and spatio-temporal organization of markets and welcome papers that use conceptual approaches as well as qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods. We particularly encourage methodological and theoretical experimentation.
 

References

• Ashton, P., & Christophers, B. (2020). From the urbanization of capital to the capitalization of the urban. Market/Place: Exploring Spaces of Exchange. Newcastle: Agenda Publishing, 193-212.
• Augustine, G., Soderstrom, S., Milner, D., & Weber, K. (2019). Constructing a distant future: Imaginaries in geoengineering. Academy of Management Journal, 62, 1930-1960.
• Beckert, J. (2021). The firm as an engine of imagination: Organizational prospection and the making of economic futures. Organization Theory, 2 (2).
• Castree, N. (2009). The spatio-temporality of capitalism. Time & Society, 18 (1), 26-61.
• Chimenti, G., & Kjellberg, H. (2022). Mutable mobiles? Making space for an access-based car sharing market. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 54 (6), 1277-1296.
• Cohen, S. L., Bingham, C. B., & Hallen, B. L. (2019). The role of accelerator designs in mitigating bounded rationality in new ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64 (4), 810-854.
• Furnari, S. (2014). Interstitial spaces: Microinteraction settings and the genesis of new practices between institutional fields. Academy of management review, 39 (4), 439-462.
• Garud, R., Schildt, H. A., & Lant, T. K. (2014). Entrepreneurial storytelling, future expectations, and the paradox of legitimacy. Organization Science, 25 (5), 1479-1492.
• Garud, R., Tuertscher, P., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Perspectives on Innovation Processes. The Academy of Management Annals, 7, 775–819.
• Geiger, S. (2020). Silicon Valley, disruption, and the end of uncertainty. Journal of Cultural Economy, 13 (2), 169-184.
• Geiger, S., & Finch, J. (2016). Promissories and pharmaceutical patents: agencing markets through public narratives. Consumption Markets & Culture, 19 (1), 71-91.
• Geiger, S. & Gross, N. (2023): Tech sharing, not tech hoarding: Global vaccine equity and the failed responsibility of the pharmaceutical industry. Organization (online first).
• Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2003). An ethics of the local. Rethinking Marxism, 15 (1), 49-74.
• Granqvist, N., & Gustafsson, R. (2016). Temporal institutional work. Academy of Management Journal, 59 (3), 1009-1035.
• Harvey, D. (2001). Globalization and the “spatial fix”. Geographische Revue: Zeitschrift für Literatur und Diskussion, 3 (2), 23-30.
• Howard-Grenville, J., Golden-Biddle, K. & Mao, J. (2011). Liminality as cultural process for cultural change. Organization Science, 22 (2): 522-539.
• Murdoch J (2006): Post-Structuralist Geography. London: SAGE.
• Pollock, N., & Williams, R. (2010). The business of expectations: How promissory organizations shape technology and innovation. Social Studies of Science, 40 (4), 525-548.
• Reinecke, J., & Ansari, S. (2015). When Times Collide: Temporal Brokerage at the Intersection of Markets and Developments. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 618–648.
• Schüßler, E., Grabher, G., & Müller-Seitz, G. (2015). Field-Configuring Events: Arenas for Innovation and Learning. Industry and Innovation, 22 (3), 165-172.
•