A Resource dependence perspective

In their 1978 book “the external control of organisations” (re-released in a new edition in 2003) Pfeffer and Salancik introduce the “resource dependence perspective”, which has since been widely used for understanding organisational behaviour and management.

There is evidence that this approach has recently proved particularly popular amongst researchers, as Pfeffer writes in the preface to the 2003 edition of the book:

110 | P a g e

“As of the spring of 2002, there were 2321 citations to The External Control of Organisations... Some 58% of the total citations received since the book’s publication in 1978 had been received in the most recent 10 year period.”

Pfeffer and Salancik (2003, pxvi)

The core of the theory can be explained quite simply:

“To survive, organisations require resources. Typically, acquiring resources means that the organisation must interact with others who control those resources. In that sense, organisations depend on their environments.”

Pfeffer and Salancik (2003, p258)

Where organisations must acquire resources they do not possess in and of themselves, they cannot be seen as “...totally autonomous entities pursuing desired ends at their own discretion. Rather, organisations are constrained by the environment as a consequence of their resource needs.” (Froelich, 1999, p247)

The result of such resource dependence is that organisations enter exchanges with each other in order to acquire the resources they need (Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003, p258). The need for such exchanges, means that organisations in possession of resources other organisations need gain some ‘power’ over those organisations (Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003), which can be used in bartering over resource exchanges.

Pfeffer and Salancik (2003, p46) suggest that there are two elements to defining the importance of a resource exchange to an organisation: “the relative magnitude of the resource exchange” (the extent to which the organisation’s operations are defined by exchanges involving that resource,) and “the criticality of the resource” to the

organisation’s operations (defined by the ability of the organisation to keep functioning in the absence of that resource.) If one resource is needed in a large proportion of an organisation’s operations, and the resource is a critical component of those operations,

111 | P a g e

then resource exchanges involving that resource are of great importance to the organisation.

Where a resource is very important to an organisation, the extent to which another organisation has discretion over the allocation of that resource affects the extent to which the latter organisation wields influence over the former (Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003). Where there is ample supply of the resource, and multiple outlets from which it can be obtained, an organisation controlling distribution of a resource may have relatively little power over the organisation dependent on that resource. Where a few

organisations have dominant control over the resource, they are likely to have considerable power over the organisation reliant upon that resource. As Pfeffer and Salancik (2003, p259) put it “power organizes around critical and scarce resources”, and influence is therefore promoted by control of those resources. The authors go on to argue that “what is critical and scarce is itself open to change and definition” (Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003, p259). We may go further than this and argue that critical resources vary according to the area of influence within which they are being deployed.

To the extent to which organisations do not control sufficient resources to undertake key organisational functions, their autonomy, stability, and even their survival, may be threatened. Those other organisations or social actors who control the resources they need may be ‘undependable’ particularly in times of resource scarcity (Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003). This may make resource acquisition ‘uncertain’ (Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003) – as the authors put it:

“Interdependence is the reason why nothing comes out quite the way one wants it to”

Pfeffer and Salancik (2003, p40)

In order to reduce these uncertainties, organisations will undertake strategies for the best fulfilment of their resource needs. This may include strategies for reducing their reliance on other organisations for the fulfilment of those resource needs (their resource

dependencies), in order to obtain greater autonomy and stability. Pfeffer and Salancik suggest a number of ways in which organisations can do this:

112 | P a g e

1) To develop reserves of key resources so that the organisation can continue to operate in times of short supply (Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003, p108).

2) To control the ‘rules’ of the exchange (e.g. through market regulation- the authors give the example of protection from foreign competition in some areas of industry) (Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003, p108).

3) To ‘take control’ of the organisation providing the resource (Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003, p109). Casciaro and Piskorski (2005) argue that such ‘constraint absorption’ as a response to resource dependencies differs from the others, since it is the only response in which the dependent organisation secures ‘direct control’ over the resources they need.

4) To develop ‘substitutable exchanges’ in order to reduce the criticality of an exchange.

The ability of an organisation to ‘accept other inputs’ or to create other outputs, depends upon organisational knowledge and flexibility (Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003, p109).

5) To ‘diversify’ into “different lines of business...using different resources, supplying different markets, and facing different competitors” (Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003, p109).

The importance of resources to the campaigning of Third Sector Organisations has been discussed throughout this chapter, and particularly in section 1.1. The significance of organisational environments (such as other organisations working in the sector, and the public attitudinal environment), to organisational resources have also been addressed. It is clear from this that the resource dependence perspective could offer a useful approach to understanding Third Sector campaigning practices.

The importance of organisational resources to Third Sector Organisations working on poverty in the UK was also highlighted in the previous chapter. It was noted in the chapter 3 that throughout its history, efficient and effective resource use has been a key theme for understanding Third Sector action for the relief of poverty. For example, early in this chapter it was discussed how the dissolution of the monasteries, and increases in secular philanthropy, promoted changes in the efficiency of philanthropic donations for

113 | P a g e

the purposes of supporting the poor; later it was noted how, in the 19^th century, the COS undertook what it saw as the vital task of promoting efficient uses of resources amongst charities.

A resource dependence perspective has been used by a number of authors to understand the strategic working of Third Sector Organisations. The perspective has been used, for instance, to explore inter-organisational collaboration amongst non-profit organisations (e.g. Guo and Acar, 2005), and the diversification of Third Sector funding strategies to avoid resource dependence (Froelich, 1999). Helmig et al. (2004) suggest the approach is of obvious interest to understanding TSOs because of their high dependence on donors for finances, and because they are “unable to access capital markets for funding” (Helmig et al., 2004, p107).

Saidel (1991) examined resource dependencies between State agencies and nonprofits;

with the State potentially depending on nonprofits for service delivery capacity,

information and political support/legitimacy, whilst nonprofits depend on the State for revenues, information, access, and political support/legitimacy. Similarly, Gamson and Wolfsfeld (1993) address resource dependencies between campaign groups and the media, arguing that campaigners rely upon the media to get their message to the public, to validate their messages, and to draw new people or organisations into discussing the issue. On the other hand, the media need actors (such as campaign groups) to provide

‘copy’.

The analysis sections of this project will test the applicability of a resource dependence perspective to understanding to Third Sector campaigning on child poverty in the UK.

This will include exploration of a number of key questions, including; What resource dependencies exist within UK campaigning on child poverty? How do campaign groups trade resources they possess, for resources they need but do not control, in order to maximise their impact upon public policy? To what extent do TSOs seek to increase their key resources, and reduce their reliance on resources they do not control?

114 | P a g e

In the first part of this chapter, it was seen how a number of factors affect Third Sector campaigning. From a resource dependence perspective, many of these factors may be interpreted as ‘resources’ used in campaigning. These include the ‘concrete’ resources of wealth, membership, staff etc; but it also includes more intangible resources such as knowledge, access to policymakers, public support, and the ability to produce persuasive campaign materials.

It may be hypothesised that during the campaign process, campaign groups ‘trade’ the resources they possess with other agents within the campaign environment, for other key resources they require but do not possess for themselves.

This may include campaign groups trading resources with one another in order to create effective campaign networks. It is also likely to include campaign groups trading

resources with policymakers to obtain access to, and impact on, the policymaking process. Finally, it may also include TSOs trading resources with the media and the public, in order to gain the power and legitimacy they possess within the policy process.

Based on a resource dependence perspective, it may also be expected that organisations will use opportunities to increase their key resources, and to reduce their reliance on resources they do not control.

Previous analysis has tended to focus on resource dependencies between nonprofits and one particular trading partner (other TSOs, the State or the media have been noted). This analysis develops previous work, by exploring the different resource dependencies

between TSOs and the many and varied groups with which they exchange resources during the campaign process. This more holistic approach allows exploration of how the resources which organisations control for themselves, and the nature of the campaign environment, affect which other organisations they are likely to ‘trade’ with, and how they go about such resource exchanges.

2.2. ‘Social Fields’

115 | P a g e

The concept of a ‘field’ or ‘social field’ has been described as one of the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s most important ‘thinking tools’ (Jenkins, 2002). Highlighting the importance of the “matrices of relations, the relational contexts” (Emirbayer and Johnson, 2008) in which social actors (including organisations) are situated, it is used to describe “a social arena in which struggles or manoeuvres take place over specific resources or stakes and access to them” (Jenkins, 2002). Fields have been referred to as ‘markets’ or ‘games’, because participants compete over stakes by putting forward investments, and may be able to play ‘trump cards.’ (Everett, 2002)

In other words, as in a card game, ‘players’ compete over the ‘stakes’ of the game, by putting forward their ‘investments’ in order to play and improve their position (Everett, 2002). As with games and marketplaces, fields have their own ‘rules’ and ‘regularities’

(Wacquant, 2008) for competition.

The ‘stakes’ vary depending on the field, as do the ‘investments’ (or capital or resources).

The value of the stakes is created by the functioning of the field itself (Bourdieu in interview with Loic Wacquant, 1989). For instance, Bourdieu said of the ‘artistic’ and

‘economic’ fields:

“...the artistic field, or the religious field, or the economic field all follow specific logics: while the artistic field has constituted itself by refusing or reversing the law of material profit (Bourdieu 1983d), the economic field has emerged, historically, through the creation of a universe within which, as we commonly say, "business is business," where the enchanted relations of phylia, of which Aristotle spoke, of friendship and love, are excluded.”

(Bourdieu in interview with Loic Wacquant, 1989)

The ‘stakes’ of the artistic field do not have the same values within the economic field, and the stakes of the economic field do not retain the same values in the artistic field, since ‘value’ is defined in different ways in the different fields. And as the stakes change, the necessary investments (or resources) for working in the field also change (the value of resources for a businessman is defined by the profit which can be made from them, for an

116 | P a g e

artist it may be defined by the artistic beauty which can be produced.) Indeed, Bourdieu argues that ‘capital does not exist and function but in relation to a field’ (Wacquant, 1989). From this perspective, it may be argued that the ‘policy process’ is a distinct field, in which ‘political influence’ is at stake, and in which the value of resources is determined by their ability to control the development of policy.

Just as resources only exist in relation to a field, it may be argued that resource

dependencies are similarly defined in relation to a field. Since the value of resources to an organisation depend upon the objectives the organisation has in the deployment of those resources, their dependencies on their environment will also depend on the field at which they operate.

A social field has also been conceptualised as both a ‘force field’ and a ‘battlefield’. A force field because it imposes its rules and resource costs on those entering it (Wacquant, 2008). Wacquant gives the example of a scientist who, in order to succeed in her chosen field:

“...has no choice but to acquire the minimal “scientific capital” required and to abide by the mores and regulations enforced by the scientific milieu of that time and place.”

(Wacquant, 2008, p268)

But it is also a battlefield, because within the field, social actors compete over resources necessary for their operations, in order to achieve the stakes they are ‘playing’ for. As Wacquant puts it, a field is:

“an arena of struggle through which agents and institutions seek to preserve or overturn the existing distribution of capital”

(Wacquant, 2008, p268).

As well as broad fields themselves, Bourdieu and Bourdieusian authors also make reference to ‘sub-fields’ within fields. For example, Wacquant (2008) refers to the academic field as a sub-field within the “intellectual field”.

117 | P a g e

Using this framework, the policy process may be conceived of as a field (the political field) in which policy impact is the key stake, achieved through the deployment of various resources (the value of which is determined by their ability to impact upon policy). As such, social fields may provide a useful framework for understanding Third Sector campaigning on child poverty as part of the political field. In particular, it may be

hypothesised that Third Sector campaigning on child poverty can be conceptualised as a distinct subfield of this broad field, with its own ‘stakes’ (impact on child poverty policy), as well as specific resources which need to be mobilised in order to achieve them, and its own resource dependencies which organisations working in the field need to fulfil.

However, it is possible to identify other sub-fields within the political field. Sub-fields need not only be issue areas within the field. Any area within a field with its own distinct resources, rules and stakes can be conceived of as social sub-field. In particular, it may be that different campaign strategies form distinct sub-fields of the political field. For

example, insider and outsider strategies, as already discussed in this chapter, could be sub-fields. Insider strategies focus on campaigns targeting policymakers directly, whilst outsider campaigns seek influence by working outside of the institutional policymaking processes.

The importance of recognising the sub-fields of the relationships between the Third Sector and the State and the Third Sector and the public has been highlighted in the previous chapter, where it has been shown how the changing relationships between the Third Sector and these two other sectors was a key determinant of the Third Sector’s role in the relief of poverty. For instance, during the creation of the welfare state, the

relationship between the Third Sector and the State went through substantial changes, as the State took over a number of activities, traditionally the preserve of the Third Sector, forcing the Third Sector to respond within this sub-field of their work on poverty relief.

However, the Third Sector has also had to respond to changing public attitudes towards their role in poverty relief - for example, 19^th century public attitudes towards the nature of poverty, and the social impact of ‘doles’, was crucial to defining the role of voluntary organisations in the relief of poverty.

118 | P a g e

It is notable that Wyn Grant, uses some of the language used in the discourse on ‘fields’ in his discussions of insider and outsider campaigns, noting in particular that ‘insider’

campaign groups:

“...implicitly agreed to abide by certain rules of the game. Failure could ultimately lead to political exclusion. The rules included always presenting an accurate well-researched case, neither exaggerated nor untruthful. An insider group needed to know how to bargain and this included a willingness to accept outcomes of the bargaining process. There was an expectation that group memberships would be told that the deal arrived at might not be all that was hoped for but was the best available.”

(Grant, 2004, p408-409)

Grant presents insider campaigners as playing a game, with associated rules, resources (ability to bargain, and to present a well researched case are noted in particular,) and stakes (political inclusion and through it, impact on the policy process.) Using a fields approach it may be argued that this is only one half of the story, and that both insider and outsider campaign ‘fields’ are their own ‘games’ or ‘marketplaces’ with associated rules, resources and stakes.

The analysis for this project will further assess the usefulness of social fields to

understanding Third Sector campaign strategies. In particular, addressing the extent to which ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’ campaign approaches be conceived of as sectors of the sub-field of ‘Third Sector campaigning on Child Poverty’.

The analysis chapters will further explore to what extent different resources are required within both insider and outsider campaign sub-fields, and how they are deployed in competition over different stakes. This issue itself suggests a further question for exploration in through the fieldwork and analysis- To what extent do organisational resource dependencies vary depending on whether they utilise an ‘insider’ or ‘outsider’

campaign strategy?

119 | P a g e

If insider and outsider campaign strategies are found to be distinct social fields, with different key resources used for competition over stakes, then organisational resource dependencies may also vary according to whether the organisation takes an insider or outsider campaign approach. One means of campaign ‘diversification’ would therefore be to change the direction of campaign strategy between insider and outsider campaign fields.

The analysis chapters will address the extent to which resource dependencies vary between insider and outsider campaign strategies, and if so, how organisations respond to these different resource dependencies.

The combination of a resource dependence perspective with a fields approach to understanding Third Sector campaigning is a new way of looking at campaigning. In particular, such an approach emphasises exploration of how different resources are of different values depending on whether they are traded in the ‘marketplace’ of insider or outsider campaigning.

2.3. An alternative framework for understanding Third Sector campaigning on Child Poverty – Policy Network Analysis

Resource Dependence and Social Fields perspectives, are not the only possible

approaches to understanding Third Sector campaigning on child poverty in the UK. In particular, one plausible alternative approach to understanding Third Sector campaigning, could be through the use of a Policy Network Analysis approach.

In many respects, Policy Network Analysis is closely connected to, and indeed has developed out of, the Resource Dependence Perspective. Indeed, one of the “classic”

definitions of a Policy Network (or policy sector), by Benson (1982) (reported in Hudson and Lowe, 2004) is as a:

‘…cluster or complex of organisations connected to each other by resource dependencies

‘…cluster or complex of organisations connected to each other by resource dependencies