Case Study on Infra-political dimensions of resistance to international business

Description
Case Study on Infra-political dimensions of resistance to international business: A Neo-Gramscian approach:- International business comprises all commercial transactions (private and governmental, sales, investments, logistics,and transportation) that take place between two or more regions, countries and nations beyond their political boundaries.

Case Study on Infra-Political Dimensions of Resistance to International Business: A Neo-Gramscian Approach
Summary This paper contributes to critical understandings of how international business is resisted. It develops a Neo-Gramscian approach that emphasizes the importance of informal or 'infra-political' processes. Current conceptualizations demonstrate how international business is challenged via formal and organized political strategies in the firm, the state and civil society. The infra-political dimension is understated. This paper develops a theory of 'articulation' that broadens our understandings of how international business is resisted in both formal and informal ways.

Introduction
International business has been a contested terrain ever since the Europeans set their feet on the American continent, unleashing a long and violent history of coloni- alism and anti-colonial struggle. Above we have given three well-known examples of contemporary actors articuE lating their discontent about the way increasingly powerful.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
170 multinational firms affect the lives of people across the world. While protests against the WTO, IMF, World Bank and the so-called 'Washington Consensus' more generally do not necessarily implicate particular multinational companies directly, they are part of a wider discursive assault on an emerging global order that is seen to be dominated by global business interests (Klein, 2000; Starr, 2001). Hence, the three examples of our Preamble are part of a far larger set of challenges to multinational firms, articulated by a wide range of groups in different international contexts (Danaher & Marks, 2003). These significant and ongoing challenges have caught the eye of social scientists (Starr, 2001), journalists (Klein, 2000), and policy makers (Rodrik, 1997). Indeed, the activities of international business (IB) organi- zations have become one of the central political issues of our time (Crouch, 2004). Given the pressing importance of understanding these struggles and con?icts, and given that there have been numerous engagements with issues of power, politics and resistance in the wider realms of management studies (e.g. Diamond, 1986; Hyman, 1989; Jermier, Knights, & Nord, 1994; Thomas & Davis, 2005; Willmott, 1993), it is curious to find that the specific field of IB studies has had very limited discussions about how multinational companies are resisted in manifold ways. As Rodriguez, Siegel, Hillman, and Eden argue, ''historically much of the research on IB and politics has focused on MNE-host government negotiations at the time of initial entry into a country'' (2006, p. 735). Here, politics is associated with formal institutions, such as governments —while it is worth noting that the importance of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) has recently been highlighted (Teegen, Doh, & Vachani, 2004). Yet, the political dimension of IB research seems to clearly focus on the formal bargaining with governmental and non-govern- mental actors in order to ultimately win them over (Boddewyn & Brewer, 1994), while informal and clandestine actions against IB practices are not considered. In this paper we focus on a small but growing stream of research in IB studies that is concerned with critical interpretations of resistance to IB. Taking its cue from labour process theory (LPT) (e.g., Ackroyd & Thompson, 1999; Knights & Willmott, 1989) and critical management studies (Alvesson & Willmott, 2003), this scholarship is informed by the assumption that IB involves asymmetrical power relations, struggles for resources and often unjust social outcomes. Our starting point is based on an understanding that IB practices are part of a wider discursive field of power relations involving companies, governments, NGOs and other civil society actors. Resis- tance to IB practices can occur in any part of this asymmetrical field of power relations. We therefore challenge the optimistic image of pluralist bargainingpresented in much IB research. Of particular interest in our paper is the popular application of the Gramscian notions of 'hegemony' and the 'war of position' to describe this resistance (Levy, 2008; Levy & Egan, 2003; Levy & Newell, 2002; Levy & Scully, 2007). Research using a NeoGramscian analysis has proved insightful for clarifying how groups resist multinational corporations, state policies associated with globalization and so forth. However, this scholarship does tend to conceptualize resistance as largely formal mechanisms, . and thus understates the important role of informal 'infra- politics' (Scott, 1990). Emphasis is placed on the formal spheres of professionally and hierarchically organized labour groups, NGOs 1 (Teegen et al., 2004) and organizational bargaining rather than the infra-political activities asso- ciated with decentralized, nonhierarchical, grassroots- based social movements. The examples given in the above preamble all show how resistance against IB is often articulated in informal ways using 'direct action' and other clandestine resistance strategies. This paper points to the importance of under- standing these informal, infra-political dimensions of resis- tance against IB. The aim of this paper is to develop a framework that supplements Gramscian analyses of resis- tance to IB by examining the importance of infrapolitics. In particular, we introduce Laclau and Mouffe's (1985) concept of articulation in order to make sense of the ways in which (a) the very boundary between oft-cited spheres of action (the firm, state and civil society) are socially constructed and (b) informal political activities are crucial aspects of both organized and unorganized resistance processes. Towards this end, we identify three types of infra-politics that we feel will further our knowledge of resistance to IB from a Neo-Gramscian perspective: informal organizational resistance (e.g., workplace misbehaviour), informal state resistance (e.g., guerrilla groups) and informal civil society resistance (e.g., new social movements). However, building on our previous work (Spicer & Bo ¨hm, 2007), the key contribution of this paper is to show how different informal as well as formal ways of resistance against IB combine and interconnect in order to articulate counter-hegemonic discourses.

Power and resistance in management and international business studies
It is now acknowledged that the management of IB involves both economic and political activities (Boddewyn, 1988; Boddewyn & Brewer, 1994). This has led IB and management researchers to consider the political dynamic of multi- national firms. There have been at least four broad approaches to the understanding of political struggles in the management of IB. It is seen as a dynamic of bargaining between the management of multinationals and 'noneconomic' agents; a product of institutions that constrain what the firm and resistance groups can do; an expression of workplace antagonisms produced in the labour process; and an attempt to challenge deeply embedded hegemonic structures that limit what actors can achieve. In what follows we will argue that underlying each of these
As one of the reviewers pointed out, there can sometimes be confusion about the term non-governmental organization or NGO. NGOs are often seen to refer to almost any type of organization outside the business and state sectors. On the other hand, the term 'social movement' tends to be used to refer to a network comprising many NGOs pursuing a similar (if not common) agenda. However, for us, an NGO is distinct from a social movement because of its more formal, professional and hierarchical organization. In this paper we argue that social movements tend to be more grassroots-based, nonhierarchical networks, as opposed to more formally and profession- ally organized NGOs.
1

ARTICLE IN PRESS
171

Table 1

Existing theories of power and resistance in management and international business studies. Political bargaining Institutional Labour process theory Neo-Gramscian perspective International business and management as hegemony and domination Economy, state and civil society Social antagonisms

Politics in the management of international business Analytic focus

Managing political risks or bargaining over location factors

Establishing rules of the game for business

Workplace struggles involving classes and subjectivities

Firms-state bargaining

Triangular diplomacy

Firms and the workplace Workplace antagonisms

Underlying conception of power Theory of resistance

Capacity of actor to take action despite resistance Capacity to refuse action by powerful actors Resistance groups' egotistical interests are violated

Management of issues and non-issues

Ability to alter the agenda of issues and non-issues Mutually agreed upon institutions are violated by multinational

Workplace struggles over resources and subjectivities Antagonisms are surfaced in the workplace

Struggles in a 'war of position'

Resistance emerges wheny

Antagonisms between the firm, state and civil society are surfaced

approaches are different theories of power and resistance apropos multinational firms and management processes in IB (see Table 1). In what follows we unpack these perspectives in more detail.

Political bargaining
IB studies has largely approached multinational enterprises as economic entities (Hennart, 2001). From this perspec- tive, the multinational firm is a structure that co-ordinates interdependencies and rationally allocates economic re- sources across international boundaries. The co-ordination and allocation of resources is explained by the organiza- tional advantages of a firm, the locational advantages of specific places where firms invest, and the firm's propensity to engage in foreign direct investment or alliances rather than trade as a means of internationalizing foreign economic activity (Dunning, 1995). One important aspect of the 'locational' factors are the political limitations that states place on IB (Dunning, 1998; Rugman & Verbeke, 2001). Some approach these limitations as relatively uncontrollable 'political risks' (Kobrin, 1982). Others have argued that political factors are the target of intense bargaining by managers of IBs (Boddewyn, 1988). According to Boddewyn and Brewer (1994), political bargaining involves nonmarket actors such as states attempting to advance their selfinterest. They do this through con?ict and partnership, as well as non-bargaining behaviour such as compliance, avoidance or circumvention. This bargaining largely takes place between the multinational and host country govern- ments (Doz & Prahalad, 1980; Fagre & Wells, 1982; Kobrin, 1987; Lecraw, 1984; Murtha & Lenway, 1994; Vernon, 1971). Resistance to IB is part of the firm's bargaining process with nation states as each side seeks to preserve their self-interest.

One of the central insights of studies of political bargaining is that IB attempts to accumulate power as well as profit. According to this approach, power is ''the capacity of social actors to overcome the resistance of other actors'' (Boddewyn & Brewer, 1994, p. 120). Relying on Weber (1978) and Dahl (1957), studies of political bargaining assume that: power is a possession of an individual or collective social actor; this actor is more or less rational in their exercise of power; their capacity to exercise power is quantifiable and measurable; and power can be observed in actual, concrete behaviours. According to this approach, a multinational firm has power to the extent that it is able to undertake an activity, such as instituting favourable regulations, despite the resistance of others. Resistance is therefore conceptua- lized as an obstacle that must be overcome during attempts to exercise power. Groups will resist the management activities of IB when their egotistical interests are under threat. The ability of a group to resist the managerial initiatives of IB would be tempered by the amount of power held by resistance groups in comparison to the amount of power held by the managers of the multinational firm. The 'amount' of power held by a resistant group would be tempered by factors such as the authority given by their official position (Weber, 1947), their control over scare resources (Salanick & Pfeffer, 1974), and their position at strategic points in a social network (Burt, 1992).

Institutional approaches
Studies of political bargaining conceptualize resistance as opposition to activities of multinational business that violate a resistance group's egotistical interests. This misses how different parties do not ruthlessly pursue their self-interest in all situations. Rather, political bargaining is often chan- nelled and constrained by mutually accepted institutions

ARTICLE IN PRESS
172 (Keohane, 1984). These are regularized, supra-individual patterns of social life that may take the form of externally imposed rules and norms as well as internalized cognitive frameworks (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991). A vital target of the political activities around the multinational is the legitimacy of the firm. This is constructed through compliance with local institutions as expressed in rules, norms and cognitive schemas (Kostova & Zaheer, 1999). Building and maintaining legitimacy is a particularly difficult task for the management of IB as each nation state typically has a very different configuration of institutions (Gullien, 2001; Harzing & Sorge, ´ 2003; Kogut, 1991). Firms therefore need to develop radically different patterns of legitimation in each nation. In some cases there are multinational 'regimes' that regulate and constrain the management activities of IB (Keohane, 1984). These include environmental regimes (Hass, Keohane, & Levy, 1993), trade regimes (Ostry, 2006), and accountancy regimes (Strange, 1996). Regimes result from a process of 'triangular diplomacy' (Stopford &Strange, 1991) where negotiations take place between states and firms, states and states, and firms and firms. At the core of this process is the attempt to establish the rules of the game under which firms and states engage in political bargaining. These rules constrain and shape what each political stakeholder can legitimately ask for. Institutionalist interpretations of the politics of multi- national enterprises are underpinned by a different theory of power. Instead of focusing on how power is manifest through immediate political bargaining, institutionalists show how power also works through a set of institutions that limit what can and cannot be discussed and exactly how these issues can be discussed. This corresponds with Bachrach and Baratz's (1962, 1963) 'second face of power' which functions through rendering some issues 'non-deci- sions'. Institutions act to prevent ''potentially dangerous issues from being raised'' (Bachrach & Baratz, 1962, p. 952) by developing a set of mutually agreed upon rules, norms and cognitive schemas that limit the scope of issues which are up for debate. Power is not necessarily a characteristic of individual or collective actors, but is moulded to existing institutions. This view is echoed by recent work that sees institutions as discursive regimes that construct legitimate behaviours and identities through norms, symbols and routines (Phillips, Lawrence, & Hardy, 2004). Because these institutional norms and routines are mutually agreed upon, resistance would arise when a multinational violates an established institutional order. Here, the ability to resist is not just the result of the immediate power of an actor, but also a characteristic of established institutions which render some actions illegitimate and others as legitimate. This would lead us to expect significant resistance to IB in cases when the activities of the multinational do not match the local institutions. . by mutually agreed upon regimes. However, the institutional view still assumes that IB organizations and resistance groups can in fact create mutually agreed upon institutions which, if managed well, make it possible to fairly mediate between the demands made by con?icting groups. However, some researchers taking a more critical stance have challenged this view. Korten (2001) and Jones and Fleming (2003) argue that the multinational firm is embedded in antagonistic power relations, which cannot be resolved through developing mutually beneficial institutions. Multinational firms should therefore be understood as a vehicle of domination (Hymer, 1979) and imperialism (Cowling &Sugden, 1987; Jenkins, 1987; Radice, 1985). The critical approach to IB can be related to the work of a growing number of researchers who work within the field of Critical Management Studies (see Alvesson & Willmott, 2003; Four- nier & Grey, 2000; Zald, 2002). There are many different conceptions of critique that are used by critical management scholars (Fournier & Grey, 2000). One of the most in?uential approaches to understanding power and resistance in relation to management has been labour process theory (LPT). The starting point for LPT is that resistance against management is the product of structural class antagonisms between capital and labour, which can first and foremost be observed in the workplace, as this is the prime location for the struggle over economic resources (Thompson, 1990; Thompson & Ackroyd, 1995; Thompson & Smith, 2001). Labour process theorists have studied a range of resistance strategies in the workplace, such as luddite protests (Thompson, 1967), official strikes (Hyman, 1989) and wildcat strikes (Gouldner, 1954). Besides these more formal or semi-formal resistances, there is a voluminous literature that highlights the informal resistances in the workplace. Going back to the pioneering work of Burawoy (1979), Ditton (1972) and Roy (1958), contemporary labour process theorists, such asAckroyd and Thompson (1999), provide an account of a whole range of informal resistance activities in the workplace—which they name 'organizational misbehaviour'—including, rule bending, cynicism, time-wasting, sabotage and theft of products. For these labour process theorists resistance against management is primarily ex- pressed in the workplace, as this is the prime location for the structural antagonisms that IB is embedded in. There have been a range of critiques of such under- standings of power and resistance from within LPT. Authors who have taken their inspiration from Foucault (e.g., Knights & MacCabe, 2003; Knights & Willmott, 1989; Thomas & Davis, 2005) argue that power and resistance is not only the expression of structural class antagonisms but indeed involves a range of 'micro-political' strategies aiming at the subversion of dominant discourses of management and the construction of alternative subject positions. The focus of these Foucauldian studies is to explore the possibilities for resisting managerially imposed identities through a range of identity politics and other informal strategies in the work- place (e.g., Collinson, 1992; Knights & MacCabe, 2003; Thomas & Davis, 2005). While Foucauldian labour process theorists stress the need to broaden LPT's focus on the restricted concerns of economic class antagonisms in the workplace, Foucauldian studies of resistance still concen- trate their predominant theoretical and empirical energies on the workplace (Bo ¨hm, 2006).

Labour process theory
Institutional approaches represent a significant advance on political bargaining conceptions of resistance to IB. Instead of seeing resistance as a process of political bargaining between selfinterested actors, institutional perspectives recognize that power and resistance are often constrained

ARTICLE IN PRESS
173 We do recognize that within LPT attempts have been made to go beyond the narrow domain of the workplace, considering the wider economic and market relations within which changes in the labour process occur (e.g. Ezzamel, Willmott, & Worthington, 2001, 2004; McCabe, 2007). We also recognize the valuable research on gender (e.g. Collinson, 1992) and other social issues that clearly point to the wider inequalities in society. Whilst we acknowledge this work of some labour process theorists, we would maintain that, by and large, the starting point for these LPT discussions is still predominantly the workplace. This is to say that for LPT the social relations of the workplace still remain a certain kernel on which most analyses are centred. What we would like to problematize in this paper are the wider contested social relations of the state and civil society that sit side by side with workplace relations. the state and legitimatized by civil society (Bertramsen, Thomsen, & Torfing, 1991). All three of these spheres interact with each other to produce what Gramsci (1971) calls a 'hegemonic bloc'. Hegemony is a contingent and unstable social order that has achieved a momentary level of dominance, despite the antagonisms between super- ordinate and subordinate groups and between various ruling factions. Importantly, because of its contingency and unstable configuration a hegemonic regime will always give rise to resistance and counter-hegemonic forces, ''which may or may not be progressive'' (Gill, 2003, p. 37). While generally underexposed in the field of management studies, the Gramscian notion of hegemony has recently been taken up by a number of management scholars —and for further introductions to Gramsci's work and his usage of the concept of hegemony we refer the reader to the useful contributions by Contu and Willmott (2003, 2005), Brown and Coupland (2005), Elliott (2003), Ogbor (2001), Jones and Spicer (2005), Bo ¨hm (2006), Otto and Bo ¨hm (2006), Humphreys and Brown (2002), Brown and Humphreys (2006) and Haworth and Hughes (2003). Within the context of understanding resistance against IB, some of the most prominent engagements have been the neo-Gramscian analyses provided by David Levy and colleagues (Levy &Egan, 2003; Levy & Newell, 2002, 2005). In their study of a political strategy driving international pressures to curb carbon emissions, Levy and Egan (2003) argue, ''historical blocs rest on insecure foundations creating the potential for instability and change to arise endogenously as well as from external shocks'' (Levy & Egan, 2003, p. 807). The concept of a 'war of position' is especially highlighted as a way that the hegemony of IB can be undermined. As Levy and Newell (2002) put it in relation to environmental governance: The concept of ''war of position'' employed a military metaphor to suggest how subordinate groups might avoid a futile frontal assault against entrenched adversaries; rather, the war of position constitutes a longer term strategy, co-ordinated across multiple bases of power to gain in?uence in the cultural institutions of civil society, develop organizational capacity, and win new allies (Levy & Newell, 2002, p. 88). The use of the 'war of position' image to understand how resistant groups may confound the more inimical policies of a 'transnational historical bloc' (i.e., multinational enter- prises and compliant states) has been very useful for providing IB studies with a more critical theory of resis- tance. However, this literature tends to over-emphasize formal organizational practices. In their analysis of environ- mental politics in the US, for example, Levy and Egan (2003) ?ag the importance of the agency and strategy associated with formal structures of counter-veiling force (also see Levy, Alvesson, & Willmott, 2003). Gramsci's 'Modern Prince' or political party is the archetypical resistant agent. As such, ''actors seek to build coalitions of firms, govern- mental agencies, NGO's, and intellectuals who can establish policies, norms and institutions'' (Levy and Egan, 2003, p. 810). The main purpose of our paper is to argue that an analysis of resistance to IB from a neo-Gramscian perspec- tive requires attention to what Scott, (1990) calls 'infrapolitics'. By this we mean the informal elements of

Neo-Gramscian approaches
The contribution of LPT to the study of resistance to IB is to recognize the antagonistic relations of power, ideology and subjectivity in the capitalist workplace as well as point to the often informal resistance strategies used by members of organizations. However, because of their predominant focus on the complexities of power and resistance in the workplace, labour process theorists are often unable to account for the growing in?uence of IB organizations in the wider spheres of society and the processes of legitimation and consent that hold multinationals in their place. Accounts that look beyond the processes of power and resistance in the workplace are interested in how multi- national companies attempt to use their often immense power to shape the institutions and rules in which they are embedded (Kobrin, 1998; Levy & Egan, 2003; Monbiot, 2000; Spar, 2001). It seems multinationals are often able to dis- embed themselves from nation state institutions and there- by circumvent obligations to particular states (Sikka, 2003; Vernon, 1971). Additionally, IB organizations attempt to not only shape formal state structures but also wider cultural, social and other consent structures that legitimize IB practices (Gill, 2003). The view that IB organizations not only exercise power because of their dominant economic position but also because of the way they are able to shape structures of legitimation and consent in culture and society is based on the ideas developed by the Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci (1971). While his ideas are notoriously open to multiple interpretations, Gramsci argued that dominant groups in society rule through force and consent. The formal mechanism of rule relies upon the state, legal structure and other means of coercion associated with open control. But ruling groups also engender consent through a variety of methods—from straightforward ideological indoctrination (e.g., taking the principles of the market economy for granted), to moral leadership (the values of the day), to tactical negotiation and compromise. A ruling order that blends both force and consent Gramsci called 'hegemony' (see also Mumby, 1997). Hegemony is sustained in three spheres: the economy (or, for our purposes, the firm), the state and civil society. That is, IB is economically produced within the firm, bureaucratically controlled and governed by

ARTICLE IN PRESS
174 resistance associated with micro-level subversions, extragovernmental politics and civil society protest movements. By attending to the infra-political dimensions of resistance against IB, we are able to understand better the current wave of counterhegemonic struggles articulated in the spheres of the economy, state and civil society. . and operational mechanisms are publicly declared and accountable; it also involves a cadre of professional elites and formally recorded activities via written records (Weber, 1947). Attending to the level of organization allows us to identify two distinct types of resistance (Scott, 1990). The first is 'political' resistance against IB, identified by Levy and Egan (2003), Levy and Newell (2002) among others. This entails publicly declared and accountable action, a cadre of fulltime professional specialists whose task it is to exercise instrumental reason, and a bureau of formal record keeping. This is the zone of all activities we usually associate with politics such as trade unions orchestrating a strike (Hyman, 1989), governments attempting to legislate multinationals, and NGOs, such as Greenpeace, engaging in a campaign against IB operations (Tsoukas, 1999). In contrast, infra-politics is the dimension of resistance that takes on an informal dimension and occurs outside official politics (Scott, 1990). This informal dimension spans from spontaneous nonorganized actions to collectively organized protest events. The latter can nevertheless be regarded as an informal form of resistance, as many social movement groups involve nonprofessional actors who use a variety of techniques often handed down through oral traditions, and often keep no detailed record of their movement (Morrill, Zald, & Rao, 2003). This second type of resistance can therefore be both non-organized and orga- nized, involving everything from spontaneous resistances to groups using non-hierarchical, participatory principles in order to organize their protest. What distinguishes these informal types of resistance from the more formal forms is that the former involve decentralized, non-hierarchical, grassroots-based organizational networks, while the latter are often centralized, membership-based, formally incorporated organizations with clear reporting structures and a hierarchical chain of command. Informal forms of resistance include a vast hinterland of political activities including workplace pilferage (Mars, 1981), 'culture jamming' (Dery, 1993), guerrilla action (Holloway & Pelaez, 1998), and 'direct action' protests (Plows, 2006). As Melucci argues, these informal resistances can be seen as a move from the sphere of formal politics to the sphere of culture: Social movementsyseem to shift their focus from class, race, and other more traditional political issues towards the cultural ground. In the last thirty years emerging social con?icts in complex societies have not expressed themselves through political action, but rather have raised cultural challenges to the dominant language, to the codes that organize information and shape social practices y. The action of movements deliberately differentiates itself from the model of political organiza- tion and assumes increasing autonomy from political systems; it becomes intimately interweaved with everyday life and individual experience. (1996, pp. 8-9) This move from the realm of traditional political organizing to the realm of cultural infra-politics is seen by Melucci (1996) as a recent historical development that is connected to the new social movements that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s. However, from a Gramscian perspective one could suggest that these informal, cultural resistances have always played a vital role in the way capitalist hegemony

Infra-political dimensions of resistance
As we outlined above, Gramsci's (1971) understanding of the concept of hegemony highlights that the domination of one social group over another is not only produced through coercion in the realms of the economy—as many labour process theorists seem to suggest. Instead, for Gramsci, ''coercion hasyto be ingeniously combined with persuasion and consent'' (Gramsci, 1971, p. 310) in all three spheres: the economy, state and civil society. Gramsci (1971, pp. 12-13) argues that intellectuals play a vital role in the way this consent is established across these three spheres, and it is through building sustained consent structures that, what he calls, a 'social hegemony' can be organized. This understanding of hegemony as something 'social' (Gramsci, 1971) is of great importance, as it highlights the need to establish consent structures throughout society, not just in the workplace. This involves, for example, cultural forms of domination. As Gill argues, ''problems of hegemony involve not only questions of power, authority, credibility and the prestige of a system of rule; they also involve the political economy and aesthetics of its representation in culture and its media.'' (2003, p. 61). This representation of a hegemonic system in the sphere of culture has to be understood as a process of struggle and contestation over signs, signification and meaning. Today, this process of representation clearly involves formal, corporate structures, such as billboard and TV advertising by multinational companies and Hollywood movie productions, as we are dealing with a well-organized cultural industry that represents and communicates a social hegemony (Herman & Chomsky, 1994). What is perhaps not emphasized enough in Herman and Chomsky's (1994) so- called 'propaganda model' is that the hegemony of international media companies, such as Murdoch's News Corporation, is also sustained and reproduced informally in the wider spheres of society. For example, there are probably hundreds of fan-clubs of the American TV series Friends and many other popular TV shows. These clubs are not coerced into existence and they are not formal civil society organizations; instead, they are informal gatherings of people who have their identities tied up with these TV shows. This is to give a simple example of Gramsci's (1971) point that a hegemonic regime is vitally dependent on cultural and social consent structures that are of both formal and informal nature. If the construction of a social hegemony not only involves formal but also informal organizational processes, then resistance to this hegemony will also have both formal and informal aspects. As mentioned above, a good deal of the Gramscian analyses of resistance to IB focuses on formal and organized politics. By formally organized we mean the extent that resistance to IB displays characteristics central to formal organization. These include the degree to which its policies

ARTICLE IN PRESS
175 is resisted. In fact, following Blaug (1998), who has used the example of disorganized, anarchic German hordes defeating a hierarchically organized army of Roman soldiers in the 9th century, we could argue that informal resistance movements have played a role throughout history. Nevertheless, what many commentators have highlighted is that ''in the places of our everyday lives, a new anti-institutional orientation is in evidence'' (Blaug, 1998, p. 34). That is, informal forms of resistance, which cannot only be seen as resistances against capitalist hegemony as such, but also as resistances against hierarchical, non-democratic and nonparticipatory organiz- ing principles, have gained in popularity in recent decades (Fournier, 2002). One factor that has supported the emergence of new informal resistance movements against IB is technology. New information and communication technologies, such as the mobile phone and the Internet, have aided the recent rise of informal, decentralized network forms of protest organization (Diani, 1995; Juris, 2005). Protest events against specific multinational companies or meetings of the World Economic Forum, IMF or the G8, are partly made possible because of mobile phone and Internet technologies enabling the horizontal organizing of vast resistance networks that are not led by a central organizing committee or leader. This is what Juris calls a 'cultural logic of networking', which, for him, has ''given rise to what grassroots activists call a new way of doing politics. While the commandoriented logic of parties and unions is based on recruiting new members, building unified strategies, political representation, and the struggle for hegemony, network politics involve the creation of broad umbrella spaces, where diverse movements and collectives converge around common hallmarks, while preserving their autonomy and specificity'' (Juris, 2005, pp. 256-257). This 'new way of doing politics' therefore involves a range of infra-political and informal forms of organization, which, we argue, play a vital role in the resistance against IB today.

Table 2

Types of resistance to international business.
Formal resistance

Formal firm resistance
(e.g. unions)

Formal state resistance
(e.g. political parties)

Formal civil society resistance
(e.g. non-governmental organizations) civil society

firm

state

Informal firm resistance
(e.g. organizational misbehavior)

Informal state resistance
(e.g. guerrilla action, mutiny)

Informal civil society resistance
(e.g. new social movements)

Informal resistance

two dimensions, and also to make clear the significance of our contribution regarding the distinctive importance of infrapolitics (Table 2).

Formal and informal firm resistance
These forms of resistance, which have been explored by labour process theorists extensively, take place in the sphere of the economy, particularly within the firm. Formal resistance strategies in the firm, which are normally articulated through different forms of union organizing, have been well documented (e.g., Haworth & Hughes, 2003; Hyman, 1989). Unions have traditionally targeted material resources such as wages, working hours and additional benefits using strategies such as strikes, go-slows, or demands for increased salaries. Collinson (1992) provides a germane example. He studied a UK automobile manufactur- ing plant that was taken over by a US multinational conglomeration. The plant's union took issue with new labour intensifying HRM practices and the forced redundan- cies that followed. Strikes and anti-corporate newsletters aimed to draw the company onto a politically tenuous terrain, highlighting the hardship and degradation of work- ers who might lose their livelihoods. In recent years, labour process theorists have also documented the manifold informal forms of resistance that aim to subvert or undermine managerial practices in firms, for example, sabotage, theft, cynicism, and absenteeism (Ackroyd & Thompson, 1999; Edwards, 1986; May, 1999). Informal firm resistance often involves clandestine actions that cannot be controlled by firms or even unions. Given their subversive and 'extra-legitimate' nature, many orga- nizations would rather eliminate than accommodate this type of informal resistance (Scott, 1985). Pena's (1997) account of factory politics in the Maquiladora on the US/ Mexico border provides a good example. In this free-trade zone, US owned companies exploit a large reserve of cheap manual labour. Many who work in these exceedingly unpleasant conditions are women who reside in nearby dormitories. Pena (1997) challenges the myth of passive feminine comportment by identifying the everyday informal resistances that disrupt the rhythms of production. Un-coordinated slow-downs (or tortuguismo, working at a turtles

Political and infra-political forms of resistance
By highlighting the informal, infra-political resistances against IB, we do not mean to devalue formal resistance strategies. In fact, what now needs to be examined more closely are the different ways informal as well as formal resistances can be articulated against IB. As the framework below reveals, formal resistance strategies are always accompanied and supplemented by informal, infra-political forms of resistance. This means that in reality formal and informal resistances are part of the same continuum. This is often downplayed in IB and management studies more generally, and Neo-Gramscian approaches specifically. Fol- lowing Gramsci's (1971) analysis of the spheres in which hegemony is constructed, each form described below relates to resistance in the spheres of the economy, state, and civil society. These are: formal and informal firm resistance, formal and informal state resistance, and formal and informal civil society resistance. While our intention is to develop an adequate account of the infra-political practices of resistance to IB from a neo-Gramscian perspective, we do so via comparisons with formalized modes of protest. We do this in order to maintain categorical integrity apropos the

ARTICLE IN PRESS
176 pace), failing to repair machines that could be repaired and simple absenteeism are frequent forms of resistance. As Ong's (1985) study of similar workers in Malaysia also demonstrates, such infrapolitical resistance does not change the power relations supporting IB, but does provide a space of respite from its more intolerable rhythms. . provide a particular service and polticize the more proble- matic practices of IB (Stonich & Bailey, 2000; Tsoukas, 1999). For example, the UK-based information network, OneWorld, functions as an interface for hundreds of NGOs that are concerned with poverty and human rights violations caused by transnational business activities. Its prime objective is to publicize injustices and transform public consciousness in civil society by harnessing the ''democratic potential of the Internet to promote sustainable development and human rights'' (Warkentin, 2001, p. 157). Maguire, Hardy, and Lawrence (2004) provide a Canadian example in relation to AIDS service organizations in Canada which contests the practices of multinational pharmaceutical companies. They found that the mobilization of strategic discourses in civil society was a vital means for these NGOs in their task of undermining the legitimacy of multinational drug companies. However, what is sometimes overlooked is that resistance in the spheres of civil society is often of informal, infra- political nature. For example, there are manifold social movement collectives that engage with particular ?ash - points outside the sphere of formal politics and the state (Christmann, 2004; Davis, McAdam, Scott, & Zald, 2005). The target of social movements, like NGOs, is the legitimacy of particular IB practices. Unlike NGOs, however, many social movements tend to use less formal resistance strategies since they do not have a firm bureaucratic base. Indeed, they will often form 'spontaneously' when the need arises (Crossley, 2003; Lounsbury, Ventresca, & Hirsch, 2004) employing a range of strategies of 'direct action' (Plows, 2006). There are many examples of new social movements being mobilized to resist IB. Perhaps the most obvious example is the so-called anti-globalization movement that has grown in prominence over the last 10 years or so. Protest events in Melbourne, Genoa, Seattle, Prague and Davos, to name but a few, were swiftly organized in an informal manner, creating a counter-narrative regarding the inimical effects of IB (Starr, 2000). Underground associations like the Dissent Network protest at IB meetings such as the WTO, G8 and the World Economic Forum in order to gain maximum media exposure for their critiques of the power associated with multinational companies. Another example is the World Social Forum, which has been a focal point for social movements concerned with international environmental issues, labour rights, fair trade, healthcare access and the protection of indigenous cultures without solidifying into a bureaucratized organizational form (Sen, Anand, Escobar, & Waterman, 2004).

Formal and informal state resistance
While some have heralded the emasculation of the state in the face of globalization and the ever-permeability of national borders (Hardt & Negri, 2000; Ohmae, 1990), others have pointed to the state's continuing importance as a space in which IB activities are regulated and contested (Sassen, 1996). While state institutions are instrumental for providing the regulatory framework for IB activities, states should not be seen as homogeneous entities that are subsumed by IB interests. In fact, recent developments in Latin America show that state politics is still an important tool to resist the hegemonic power of multinational companies. In both Venezuela and Bolivia, for example, governments have been elected with a mandate to renationalize energy industries in order for these countries to exploit the wealth of their natural resources instead of handing them over to the profit interests of IB (Petras &Veltmeyer, 2005). The sphere of the state may also be used as a forum for informal resistance to IB. The participants of this type of resistance are those associated with non-bureaucratized political groups that attempt to in?uence state policy through various acts of insurgency. In terms of our frame- work, they attempt to impose clandestine regulation on IB activities, especially those that threaten local control of key resources. Because their activities are underground, they do not have nor seek the level of official accessibility to the state that mainstream political parties enjoy. The Zapatistas in Mexico are an exemplary case of informal state resistance to IB. Led by the enigmatic Subcomandante Marcos, the Zapatistas are a diffuse network of disenfranchized indigen- ous groups in the Chiapas district (including the Tzeltal, Mam, Chol, Zoque and Tojolobal peoples). While they have had considerable in?uence over certain governmental polices associated with IB, their revolutionary philosophy displays little interest in seizing formal state power (Burbach, Robinson, & Jefferies, 2001). The Mexican state and various dominant parties have been consistently frustrated by the Zapatistas' unwillingness to be subsumed into the formal institutions of the state. They are more concerned with creating what they call 'democratic room' in order to facilitate struggles against land privatization, transnational agribusiness and the machinations of the North American Free-Trade Agreement (The Zapatistas, 2002).

Articulations of resistance: a Neo-Gramscian perspective
The different forms of resistance to IB outlined above are best thought of as ideal types. By outlining these six forms of resistance we do not aim to construct an essentialist framework. We cannot stress enough that in reality there is much overlap and blurring between the formal and informal forms of resistance we have discussed. For example, a resistance movement, such as an anarchist network, will involve both informal and formal forms of resistance. Equally, union resistance does not only involve

Formal and informal civil society resistance
Resistance to IB in the spheres of civil society has typically received little attention in IB studies (Teegen et al., 2004), as it challenges questions of legitimacy rather than the distribution of material resources or regulation of firms. Formal types of resistance in civil society usually consist of various bureaucratized associations that have formed to

ARTICLE IN PRESS
177 bureaucratic organizational structures but also informal forms of resistance, such as 'weak ties' between people networks. Indeed, the most interesting recent develop- ments have involved links between different types of resistance against IB. Often these links do not appear organically. Rather, they are politically engineered and motivated. This process involves building hegemonic links between different types of resistance. As we have already argued, hegemony is a Gramscian concept that refers to a certain unity in interests and social formations. This unity results from the establishment of what Laclau and Mouffe (1985, p. 130) call 'chains of equivalence', a certain hegemonic sameness among resisting actors who articulate a united political identity (an 'us') as well as a common enemy (a 'them') (Mouffe, 1993, p. 7). What we highlight here is the contribution by Laclau and Mouffe (1985) who have further developed the Gramscian conception of hegemony, which current critical approaches to understanding resistance to IB often rely on (e.g., Levy &Egan, 2003; Levy & Newell, 2002, 2005). While Levy and his colleagues point to the way resisting actors are engaged in a 'war of position' that is fought out on a political stage, Laclau and Mouffe's (1985) contribution is to broaden our conception of resistance as an articulatory discourse (see also Contu & Willmott, 2003, 2005). For Laclau and Mouffe, resistance does not only occur at the political level —the level where multinationals, governments and NGOs, for example, are engaged in a 'war of position'— but involves infra-political, hidden transcripts that affect subjectivities and identities of resisting actors. For Laclau and Mouffe, resisting actors are engaged with each other in a process of articulation, which they define as ''any practice establishing a relation among elements such that their identity is modified as a result of the articulatory practice'' (Laclau &Mouffe, 1985, p. 105). Articulation is, for them, the practice of linking as well as differentiating resistance actions within certain discursive fields. These discursive fields try to fix certain meanings of struggle, which is when a hegemonic discourse arises. This fixation can, however, never be total, Laclau and Mouffe (1985, p. 111) argue, which means that articulation is an ongoing process of struggle. In this way, articulation should also not be seen as a kind of mediation that attempts to negotiate the values and interests between different resistance actors. On the contrary, articulation highlights that antagonistic relationships involving compet- ing subjectivities and identities cannot simply be resolved through certain dialogical or institutional attempts of mediation. In the context of this paper, Laclau and Mouffe's (1985) conception of resistance as articulation particularly high- lights the possibility of linking a range of different forms of resistance—whether they are formal or informal —in order to build alliances and solidarity among groups with different interests and political identities. Following them, we can say that a hegemonic discourse occurs when different resistance movements articulate common languages and strategies. The focus of this view on resistance is that this articulation process not only involves formal, political 'war of positions', but affects infra-political aspects of culture, subjectivity and identity. An example of resistance groups who have formed 'chains of equivalence' between different types of struggle to articulate a challenge to IB is CokeWatch (www.cokewatch. org), an international network that aims to keep an eye on The Coca-Cola Company and its IB practices. This network brings together a range of different resistance groups whose aim is to expose the malpractices of Coca-Cola's business practices in different national contexts. In Colombia, for example, Coca-Cola's employment relations are challenged. In India it is alleged that communities across India living around Coca-Cola's bottling plants are experiencing severe water shortages, directly as a result of CocaCola's massive extraction of water from the common groundwater re- source. The wells have run dry and the hand water pumps do not work any more. Studies, including one by the Central Ground Water Board in India, have confirmed the significant depletion of the water table (www.indiaresource.org). These national struggles against Coca-Cola's business malpractices do not exist in isolation. These struggles are increasingly articulated on an international stage, which involves many different formal and informal resistance strategies. That is, the international CokeWatch network shows that unions, NGOs as well as social movements often work together to articulate their political demands. As the example of the CokeWatch movement shows, building 'chains of equivalence' between various modes of resistance is a difficult yet vitally important political task for groups who seek to resist IB. These difficult dynamics remind us that it is not only dominant groups such as the IB elite (Levy & Egan, 2003; Levy & Newell, 2002), or management groups (Contu & Willmott, 2003) who attempt to develop hege- monic relations. Rather, resistant and challenger groups are also engaged in attempts to change these apparent hegemonic relations (Hensmans, 2003). This involves an attempt to resist and challenge the hegemony of IB. But in order to achieve this, it is necessary for resistant groups to attempt to develop hegemonic discourses within and between their own operations by articulating 'chains of equivalence', involving the construction of common ideol- ogies, identities and strategies. Within the framework developed in this paper, the articulation of 'chains of equivalence' can involve different formal as well as informal types of resistance. We now highlight a range of possible articulations of resistance to IB which show that alliances can be formed among a diverse set of resistance groups.

Articulations between formal forms of resistance
In the above framework we used the examples of unions, political parties and NGOs to illustrate formal types of resistance in the spheres of the economy, state and civil society, respectively, which are articulated through rela- tively institutionalized structures. Clearly, there are multi- ple links and alliances between unions, political parties and NGOs. Traditionally there are, for example, very close links between the union movements and left-wing political parties. Both are closely connected to the rise of industrial capitalism and the struggle for workers' rights and better working conditions (Berger & Broughton, 1995). Whereas traditionally unions would concentrate on firm-based resis- tances against management, wage bargaining and cam- paigning for better conditions, labour parties would provide the legal and economic frameworks for achieving the goals

ARTICLE IN PRESS
178 of the labour movement by participating in state and governmental politics. However, the neo-liberal project, with its heightened emphasis on enterprise, labour market ?exibility, privatization of public services, individual re- sponsibility, and the resulting cut of welfare services (Leys, 2003), has seen many traditional ties between unions and labour parties being challenged. In Britain, for example, many unions openly resist the neo-liberal and businessfriendly policies introduced or supported by New Labour (Osler, 2002). Labour politics is, however, no longer represented exclusively by unions and labour parties. Today there are manifold NGOs that address social justice issues related to the workplace. For example, in East London, UK, the Telco Citizens project (www.telcocitizens.org.uk) has engaged in a long Living Wage campaign that has sought to work with a variety of civil society organizations fighting for a living wage for thousands of low-paid workers (Wills, 2001). The Living Wage campaigners argue that the minimum wage, introduced by Britain's Labour Party in 1999, is not enough for many low-paid workers, such as cleaners and supermarket checkout staff, to make a living in high cost-of-living cities such as London. Recently, this campaign has had its first success by signing agreements with a number of multinational finance companies in the Canary Wharf district in East London to pay cleaners a living wage, which is significantly higher than the UK minimum wage. What this example identifies is that the historically separated spheres of union politics, political parties and civil society become increasingly blurred and challenges to IB practices are articulated across different resistance groups. . information can then be used by various social actors, as well as the state, to identify corporate malpractices.

Articulations between formal and informal forms of resistance
The third type of interaction possible regarding different types of resistance is between formal and informal forms of resistance. As we argued above, formal and informal resistance represent distinct patterns of social activity. However, this division also displays interconnections. In the sphere of the multinational firm, for example, studies show that some unions use tactics of organizational misbehaviour, such as humour and cynicism, which are traditionally associated with informal resistance (Rodrigues& Collinson, 1995). One can also point to the fact that, as unions become increasingly incorporated into, and co-opted by, the institutional processes of firms and states, union members increasingly engage in informal resistance, such as wildcat strikes and other forms of unofficial union action (Hyman, 1989). Moreover, in the light of declining union membership in many developed countries and the increasing popularity of new social movements, there is a call for unions to expand their horizon beyond their traditional political sphere, the workplace, to include civil society issues such as identity, education, and culture, as well as adopt less bureaucratic and hierarchical means of organizing (Clawson & Clawson, 1999). The garment workers justice movementsand community-based unionism focused around specific localities are examples of unions trying to adopt strategies associated with new social movements (Brecher & Costello, 1994).

Articulations between informal forms of resistance

Conclusions
As we discussed above, in contrast to formal forms of resistance, there are also a wide range of informal, infra- political strategies of resistance. We named examples such as organizational misbehaviour, grassroots guerrilla move- ments, and new social movements, which operate in the wider spheres of the economy, state and civil society, respectively. What these infra-political types of resistance have in common is that they occur outside of official and professional politics. They involve a wide range of nonprofessional actors who do not primarily seek to keep records of what they are doing. Instead, they engage in a range of direct actions and other grassroots activities. Again, there are clearly multiple links possible between these infra-political forms of resistance, not the least because they tend to share similar tactics, such as the use of humour, and whistleblowing. For example, the recent Enron scandal highlighted the importance of whistleblowing (see e.g. www.whistleblowers.org) as employees exposed corporate and managerial malpractices in multinational companies (Boje & Rosile, 2002). Whistleblowing is actively encouraged by civil society organizations, such as the Corporate Watch network, which hope that employees publicly disclose sensitive or confidential information about questionable corporate practices. Company employees can also use a range of Internet websites (e.g., www. fuckedcompany.com) to blow the whistle. This insider Resistance to IB, which is embedded in long histories of anticolonial struggles, can assume many forms, not least the recent high-profile anti-globalization protests and social forum summits. Given the panoply of struggles that are identifiable, it is easy to be overwhelmed by the phenom- enon as a research subject. Perhaps the contemporary reduction of resistance to IB to the broad category of 'anti- globalization' in both the popular media and academic accounts is symptomatic of this complexity. In this paper we have begun the much needed systematic inquiry into the phenomena of resistance to IB. We have done this in three ways. First, we have drawn attention to the phenomenon of resistance in the area of IB. We have argued it is vital to approach resistance as an important part of the manage- ment process of IB that is worthy of serious study. Second, we have developed a neo-Gramscian framework for making sense of the myriad of practices and forms of organization identifiable when studying resistance to IB. This provides researchers with a heuristic for understanding the char- acteristics of various forms of resistance to IB. The frame- work particularly highlights the value of informal or infra- political types of resistance. Whilst informal resistance has been the focus of a number of labour process and Foucauldian studies of workplace relations, we have pointed to the need to consider infra-political forms of resistance in arenas other than the workplace. Finally, the paper provides

ARTICLE IN PRESS
179 a conceptual account of how different types of resistance might interact with each other. This last objective is important because it takes us beyond simple classification and surfaces the complex relationships that structure resistance to IB today. The notions of hegemony, developed by Gramsci (1971), and articulation, developed by Laclau and Mouffe (1985), help us make sense of this complexity. A neo-Gramscian account of resistance to IB provides a more realistic picture of the power and resistance relations present in the IB environment. As we discussed in this paper, the political bargaining perspective tends to see resistance as egotistical acts of engaging with individual power holders, while the institutional approach assumes the manageability of resistance within common agreed upon regimes. Labour process theory (LPT) provides us with useful insights into the formal and informal resistances articulated against the hegemony of management. However, given their main focus has been on studying resistances in the work- place, labour process theorists have often not taken into consideration the asymmetries of power between multi- national businesses and those who resist their activities in the wider realms of the state and civil society. The neo- Gramscian perspective goes beyond the restrictions of LPT by linking resistances expressed in the workplace to broader questions of social justice, democracy and participation. As Grey and Willmott (2005) suggest, critical approaches to business draw on a set of values associated with social democracy, in which the struggles of weaker individuals or groups against domination are given legitimacy and voice. Extending the neo-Gramscian perspective, which has been particularly developed by David Levy and colleagues, we highlight the importance of the infra-political or informal dimension to resistance, which so far has only been studied in relation to workplace struggles. By drawing attention to informal types of resistance in the firm as well as the wider realms of the state and civil society, we show how IB practices are often challenged by actors that do not have access to formal spaces of political engagement. What we have not achieved in this paper is to give a detailed account of the precise mechanics and processes of how informal and formal forms of resistance challenge the two aspects of hegemony, namely, force and consent. We therefore call for empirically driven research papers that study the different forms of resistance highlighted in our paper, in order to understand better how hegemonies and counter-hegemonic movements are constructed and main- tained over long periods of time.
Bertramsen, R. B., Thomsen, J. P. F., & Torfing, J. (1991). State, economy and society. Unwin Hyman: London. Blaug, R. (1998). The tyranny of the visible: Problems in the evaluation of anti-institutional radicalism. Organization, 6, 33-56. Boddewyn, J. J. (1988). Political aspects of MNE theory. Journal of International Business Studies, 19, 341-363. Boddewyn, J. J., & Brewer, T. L. (1994). International-business political behaviour: New theoretical directions. Academy of Management Review, 19, 119-143. Bo ¨hm, S. (2006). Repositioning organization theory: Impossibilities and strategies. Palgrave: Basingstoke. Boje, D. M., & Rosile, G. A. (2002). Enron whodunit? Ephemera: Critical Dialogues on Organization, 2, 315-327. Brecher, J., & Costello, T. (1994). Global village or global pillage: Economic reconstruction from the bottom up. Boston: South End Press. Brown, A. D., & Coupland, C. (2005). Sounds of silence: Graduate trainees, hegemony and resistance. Organization Studies, 26, 1049-1069. Brown, A. D., & Humphreys, M. (2006). Organizational identity and place: A discursive exploration of hegemony and resistance. Journal of Management Studies, 43(2), 231-257. Burawoy, M. (1979). Manufacturing consent. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Burbach, R., Robinson, B., & Jefferies, F. (2001). Globalization and postmodern politics: From zapatistas to high-tech robber barons. Pluto Press: London. Burt, R. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Christmann, P. (2004). Multinational companies and the natural environment: Determinants of global environmental policy standardization. Academy of Management Review, 47, 747-760. Clawson, D., & Clawson, M. A. (1999). What happened to the US labor movement? Union decline and renewal. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 95-120. Collinson, D. L. (1992). Managing the shop ?oor : Subjectivity, masculinity and workplace culture. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Contu, A., & Willmott, H. (2003). Re-embedding situatedness: The importance of power relations in learning theory. Organization Science, 14, 283-296. Contu, A., & Willmott, H. (2005). You spin me round: The realist turn in organization and management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 1645-1662. Cowling, K., & Sugden, R. (1987). Transnational monopoly capitalism. Brighton: Wheatsheaf. Crossley, N. (2003). Even newer social movements? Anti-corporate protests, capitalist crises and the remoralization of society. Organization, 10(2), 287-305. Crouch, C. (2004). Post-democracy. Cambridge: Polity. Dahl, R. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioural Science, 2, 201-205. Danaher, K., & Marks, J. (2003). Insurrection: The citizen challenge to corporate power. London: Routledge. Davis, G., McAdam, D., Scott, W. R., & Zald, M. (Eds.). (2005). Social movements and organization theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Dery, M. (1993). Culture jamming: Hacking, slashing and sniping in the empire of signs. Open Magazine Pamphlet Series, 25. Diamond, M. A. (1986). Resistance to change: A psychoanalytic critique of Argyris and Schon's contributions to organization theory and intervention. Journal of Management Studies, 23, 543-562. Diani, M. (1995). Green networks. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. In W. W. Powell, & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

References
Ackroyd, S., & Thompson, P. (1999). Organizational misbehaviour. Sage: London. Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (Eds.). (2003). Studying management critically. Sage: London. Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. (1962). Two faces of power. American Political Science Review, 56, 947-952. Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. (1963). Decisions and nondecisions: An analytical framework. American Political Science Review, 57, 641-651. Berger, S., & Broughton, D. (Eds.). (1995). The force of labour: The Western European labour movements and the working class in the twentieth century. Berg: Oxford.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
180
Ditton, J. (1972). Absent at work: Or how to manage monotony. New Society, 22, 679-681. Doz, Y., & Prahalad, C. K. (1980). How MNCs cope with host government intervention. Harvard Business Review, 58, 149-157. Dunning, J. H. (1995). Reappraising the eclectic paradigm in the age of alliance capitalism. Journal of International Business Studies, 26, 461491. Dunning, J. H. (1998). Location and the multinational enterprise: A neglected factor? Journal of International Business Studies, 29, 45-66. Edwards, P. K. (1986). Con?ict at work: A materialist analysis of workplace relations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Elliott, C. (2003). Representations of the intellectual: Insights from Gramsci on management education. Management Learning, 34, 411-427. Ezzamel, M., Willmott, H., & Worthington, F. (2001). Power, control and resistance in ''the factory that time forgot''. Journal of Management Studies, 38(8), 1054-1079. Ezzamel, M., Willmott, H., & Worthington, F. (2004). Accounting and management-labour relations: The politics of production. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29, 269-302. Fagre, N., & Wells, L. T. (1982). Bargaining power of multinationals and host governments. Journal of International Business Studies, 13(2), 923. Fournier, V. (2002). Utopianism and the cultivation of possibilities: Grassroots movements of hope. In M. Parker (Ed.), Utopia and organization. London: Sage. Fournier, V., & Grey, C. (2000). At the critical moment: Conditions and prospects for critical management studies. Human Rela- tions, 53, 732. Gill, S. (2003). Power and resistance in the new world order. Palgrave: Basingstoke. Gouldner, A. (1954). Wildcate strike: A study of worker-management relations. London: Harper-Torchbooks. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selection from prison notebooks. London: Lawrence & Wishart. Grey, C., & Willmott, H. (Eds.). (2005). Critical management studies: A reader. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Guillen, M. F. (2001). The limits of convergence: Globalization and ´ organizational change in Argentina, South Korea, and Spain. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2000). Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Harzing, A. W., & Sorge, A. (2003). The relative impact of country of origin and universal contingencies on internationalization stra- tegies and corporate control in multinational enterprises: Worldwide and European perspectives. Organization Studies, 24, 187-214. Hass, P. M., Keohane, R. O., & Levy, M. A. (Eds.). (1993). Institutions for the earth: Sources of effective international environmental protection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Haworth, N., & Hughes, S. (2003). International political economy and industrial relations. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 41, 665-682. Hennart, J.-F. (2001). Theories of the multinational enterprise. In A. M. Rugman, & T. L. Brewer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international business (pp. 127-149). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Hensmans, M. (2003). Social movement organizations: A metaphor for strategic actors in institutional fields. Organization Studies, 24, 355381. Herman, E., & Chomsky, N. (1994). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. London: Vintage. Holloway, J., & Pelaez, E. (Eds.). (1998). Zapatista: Reinventing revolution in Mexico. London: Pluto. Humphreys, M., & Brown, A. D. (2002). Narratives of organizational identity and identification: A case study of hegemony and resistance. Organization Studies, 23, 421-447.

.
Hyman, R. (1989). Strikes. London: Fontana. Hymer, S. H. (1979). The multinational corporation: A radical approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Jenkins, R. (1987). Transnational corporations and uneven development: The internationalization of capital and the third world. London: Methuen. Jermier, J., Knights, D., & Nord, W. (Eds.). (1994). Resistance and Power in Organizations. London: Sage. Jones, C., & Spicer, A. (2005). The sublime object of entrepreneurship. Organization, 12, 223-246. Jones, M., & Fleming, P. (2003). Unpacking the complexity through critical stakeholder analysis: The case of globalization. Business and Society, 42(4), 430-454. Juris, J. S. (2005). Social forums and their margins: Networking logics and the cultural politics of autonomous space. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 5, 253-272. Keohane, R. O. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Klein, N. (2000). No logo: Taking aim at the brand bullies. London: Flamingo. Knights, D., & MacCabe, D. (2003). Governing through teamwork: Reconstituting subjectivity in a call centre. Journal of Manage- ment Studies, 40, 1587-1619. Knights, D., & Willmott, H. (1989). Power and subjectivity at work: From degradation to subjugation in social relations. Sociology, 23, 535558. Kobrin, S. J. (1982). Managing political risks assessment: Strategic responses to environmental change. Berkley, CA: University of California Press. Kobrin, S. J. (1987). Testing the bargaining hypothesis in the manufacturing sector in developing countries. International Organization, 41, 609-638. Kobrin, S. J. (1998). The MAI and the clash of globalizations. Foreign Policy, 111, 97-109. Kogut, B. (1991). Country capabilities and the permeability of borders. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 33-47. Korten, D. (2001). When Corporations rule the world. New York: Berrett-Koehler. Kostova, T., & Zaheer, S. (1999). Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 24, 64-81. Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democracy. London: Verso. Lecraw, D. (1984). Bargaining power, ownership and profitability of transnational corporations in developing countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 15, 27-43. Levy, D. L. (2008). Political contestation in global production networks. Academy of Management Review, forthcoming. Levy, D. L., & Egan, D. (2003). A Neo-Gramscian approach to corporate political strategy: Con?ict and accommodation in the climate change negotiations. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 803-830. Levy, D. L., & Newell, P. (2002). Business strategy and international environmental governance: Toward a Neo-Gramscian synthesis. Global Environmental Politics, 2, 84-101. Levy, D. L., & Newell, P. (2005). A Neo-Gramscian approach to business in international environmental politics: An interdisci- plinary, multilevel framework. In D. L. Levy, & P. Newell (Eds.), The business of global environmental governance (pp. 47-69). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Levy, D. L., & Scully, M. (2007). The institutional entrepreneur as modern prince: The strategic face of power in contested fields. Organization Studies, 28(7), 971-991. Levy, D. L., Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (2003). Critical approaches to strategic management. In M. Alvesson, & H. Willmott (Eds.), Studying Management Critically (pp. 92-110). London: Sage. Leys, C. (2003). Market-driven politics: Neoliberal democracy and the public interest. London: Verso.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
181
Lounsbury, M., Ventresca, M., & Hirsch, P. (2004). Social movements, field frames, and field frames: A cultural political perspective on the emergence of the US recycling industry. Socio-Economic Review, 1, 71-104. Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T. (2004). Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advo- cacy in Canada. Academy of Management Journal, 75(5), 1-23. Mars, G. (1981). Cheats at work: An anthropology of workplace crime. London: Counterpoint. May, T. (1999). From banana time to just-in-time: Power and resistance at work. Sociology, 33, 767-783. McCabe, D. (2007). Individualization at work? Subjectivity, teamworking and anti-unionism. Organization, 14(2), 243-266. Melucci, A. (1996). Challenging codes: Collective action in the information age. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Monbiot, G. (2000). The captive state: The corporate takeover of Britain. London: Macmillan. Morrill, C., Zald, M., & Rao, H. (2003). Covert political con?ict in organizations: The view from below. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 391-415. Mouffe, C. (1993). The return of the political. London: Verso. Mumby, D. K. (1997). The problem of hegemony: Rereading Gramsci for organizational communication studies. Western Journal of Communication, 61, 343-375. Murtha, T., & Lenway, S. (1994). Country capability and the strategic state: How national policies effect multinational corporations' strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 113-129. Notes from Nowhere (Ed.). (2003). We are everywhere: The irresistible rise of the global anti-capitalist movement. London: Verso. Ogbor, J. O. (2001). Critical theory and the hegemony of corporate culture. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 14, 590-608. Ohmae, K. (1990). The borderless world: power and strategy in the interlinked economy. London: HarperCollins. Ong, A. (1985). Sprits of resistance and capitalist discipline: Factory women in Malaysia. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Osler, D. (2002). Labour Party Plc: New labour as a party of business. Edinburgh: Mainstream. Ostry, S. (2006). The World Trading System: In the Fog of Uncertainty. In J. Henri, Barkey, & Janet Laible (Eds.), Contemporary studies in economic and financial issues, Volume 88: European responses to globalization: resistance, adaptation and alternatives. England, USA: Elsevier Publishing. Ross, A. (Ed.). (1997). No sweat: Fashion, free trade and the rights of garment workers. London: Verso. Roy, D. (1958). ''Banana Time'': Job satisfaction and informal interaction. Human Organization, 18, 158-168. Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2001). Location, competitiveness, and the multinational enterprise. In A. M. Rugman, & T. L. Brewer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international business (pp. 127-149). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Salanick, A., & Pfeffer, J. (1974). The bases and uses of power in organizational decision making: The case of a University. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 435-473. Sassen, S. (1996). Losing control? Sovereignty in the age of globalization. New York: Columbia University Press. Scott, J. C. (1985). Weapons of the weak. New Haven: Yale University Press. Scott, J. C. (1990). Domination and the hidden arts of resistance: Hidden transcripts. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press. Sen, J., Anand, A., Escobar, A., & Waterman, P. (Eds.), (2004). World social forum: Challenging empires. New Delhi: The Viveka Foundation; London: Global Books. Sikka, P. (2003). The role of offshore financial centres in globalization. Accounting Forum, 27, 365-399. Spar, D. L. (2001). National policies and domestic politics. In A. M. Rugman, & T. L. Brewer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international business (pp. 206-231). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Spicer, A., & Bo ¨hm, S. (2007). Moving management: Theorizing struggles against the hegemony of management. Organization Studies, 28(11), 1667-1698. Starr, A. (2000). Naming the enemy: Anti-corporate movements confront globalization. London: Zed Books. Starr, A. (2001). Naming the enemy: Anti-corporate social movements confront globalization. London: Zed. Stonich, S., & Bailey, C. (2000). Resisting the blue revolution: Contending coalitions surrounding shrimp farming. Human Organization, 59, 23-36. Stopford, J., & Strange, S. (1991). Rival states, rival firms: Competition for world market shares. Cambridge, UK: Cam- bridge University Press. Strange, S. (1996). The retreat of the state: The diffusion of power in the world economy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Teegen, H., Doh, J. P., & Vachani, S. (2004). The importance of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in global governance and value creation: an international business research agenda. Journal of International Business Studies, 35, 463-483. Thomas, R., & Davis, A. (2005). Theorizing the micro-politics of resistance: New public management and managerial identities in the UK public services. Organization Studies, 26, 683-706. Thompson, E. P. (1967). The making of the English working class. London: Penguin. Thompson, P. (1990). Crawling from the wreckage. In D. Knights, & H. Willmott (Eds.), Labour process theory. London: MacMillan. Thompson, P., & Ackroyd, S. (1995). All quiet on the workplace front? A critique of recent trends in British Industrial Sociology. Sociology, 29, 615-633. Thompson, P., & Smith, C. (2001). Follow the redbrick road: Re?ections on pathways in and out of the labor process debate. International Studies on Management and Organization, 30, 40-67. Tsoukas, H. (1999). David and Goliath in the risk society: Making sense of the con?ict between shell and Greenpeace in the North Sea. Organization, 6, 499-528. Vernon, R. (1971). Sovereignty at bay: The multinational spread of the US enterprise. New York: Basic Books. Vidal, J. (1997). McLibel: Burger culture on trial. London: Macmillian.

Otto, B., & Bo ¨hm, S. (2006). ''The people'' and resistance against international business: The case of the Bolivian ''water war''. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 2(4), 299-320. Pena, D. G. (1997). The terror of the machine: Technology, work, gender and ecology on the Mexican border. Austin: CMAS Books. Petras, J., & Veltmeyer, H. (2005). Social movements and state power: Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador. London: Pluto Press. Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B., & Hardy, C. (2004). Discourse and institutions. Academy of Management Review, 29(4), 635-652. Plows, A. (2006). Blackwood roads protest 2004: An emerging (re)cycle of UK eco-action? Environmental Politics, 15, 462-472. Radice, H. (Ed.). (1985). International firms and modern imperialism. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Rodriguez, P., Siegel, D. S., Hillman, A., & Eden, L. (2006). Three lenses on the multinational enterprise: Politics, corruption, and corporate social responsibility. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 733746. Rodrigues, S., & Collinson, D. (1995). Having fun? Humour as resistance in Brazil. Organization Studies, 16, 739-768. Rodrik, D. (1997). Has globalization gone too far?. Washington: Institute for International Economics.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
182
Warkentin, C. (2001). Reshaping world politics: NGOs, the Internet, and global civil society. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Free Press. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society. Berkley, CA: University of California Press. Willmott, H. (1993). Strength is ignorance; slavery is freedom: Managing culture in modern organizations. Journal of Manage- ment Studies, 30, 515-552.

.
Wills, J. (2001). Mapping low pay in east London. London: Queen Mary University of London. Zald, M. N. (2002). Spinning disciplines: Critical management studies in the context of the transformation of management education. Organization, 9(3), 365-385. Zapatistas. (2002). Zapatista encuentro: Documents from the 1996 encounter for humanity and against neoliberalism. Seven Stories Press Open Media Pamphlet Series.



doc_206389251.docx