SEC proxy voting graphic

by Carl Gershenson

If economic sociologists can agree on anything, it’s that economic life is shaped by more than the pursuit of profits. The influence of culture and values is perhaps most apparent in markets that impinge on the sanctity of the human body: sperm and eggs, organs and plasma, even life insurance. By comparison, capital markets seem much closer to the textbook ideal of markets, where actors care little about the securities they are buying other than, “Will it make me a profit?”

This view of capital markets is clear in the popular opposition between Main Street and Wall Street. If Main Street is used to invoke businesses embedded in local communities, Wall Street invokes businesses that are part of no community, beholden to no one, and willing to do anything for a buck. But why is this view so widespread that we almost take it for granted? Why should capital markets be predisposed toward the unadulterated pursuit of profit? After all, 65% of Americans owned stock before the financial crisis hit. Why would this diverse group of Americans suddenly shed their multidimensional wants and values–to suddenly embody homo economicus–whenever they put on their shareholder hat?

I argue that profit-orientation is so common in the stock market because the state wants it that way. The state values capital markets because they encourage economic growth. According to economic theory, capital markets do this most efficiently when shareholders are able to pursue their own financial interests. In order to do so effectively, shareholders need strong shareholder rights. Without shareholder rights, management would be free to prioritize its own financial interests. However, these rights could also allow shareholders to pursue goals other than their own financial interest—political goals, social goals, and so forth.

Read More

Image: Celine Nadeau via Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

by Kevin Stainback, Sibyl Kleiner and Sheryl Skaggs

Sheryl Sandberg (COO of Facebook) may be the most well-known and influential woman in corporate America. Her 2010 TED talk entitled “Why we have too few women leaders” has been watched more than 6.1 million times. Her subsequent 2013 book, Lean in: Women and the Will to Lead, has been widely read, making both the New York Times and Amazon best sellers lists.

Sandberg argues that women “lean in” and work diligently at achieving what they want at work. In effect, regardless of the gendered biases and inequalities confronting women in the paid labor force, they should strive to do it all—a “make advances, not excuses” self-help approach. Sandberg acknowledges that women have a more difficult situation navigating both the work and the work-family nexus than men; and she hopes to inspire women to go after their ambitions despite structural obstacles.

Yet while Sandberg acknowledges some structural obstacles, the main argument of Lean In suggests that women should strive to overcome them to succeed.

Notwithstanding the criticism it has received and its overly agentic emphasis, Sandberg’s message is a powerful one—even if for no other reason than generating the fodder for conversations and debates that would otherwise be absent.

Although Sandberg and other women who have been successful in the corporate world have received enormous attention in the media, women’s representation in corporate leadership positions, such as executives and directors, remains incredibly low.

Read More

Image AWO Saarland via Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

by Irene Boeckmann, Joya Misra & Michelle Budig

Mothers earn less than fathers and childless men on average, but also less than women without children at home. Part of these earnings difference can be explained by the work experience mothers might lose due to employment interruptions or part-time work while caring for their families.

Even after taking differences in education, labor market experience, job characteristics, work hours, and marital status, mothers still earn significantly less than women without care responsibilities.

Indeed, in a study we recently published, we find that U.S. mothers pay an earnings penalty of 8% per child.

Read More

Tony’s Barber Shop (Yelp.com)

by Kristen Barber

The barbershop holds a special place in American culture. With its red, white, and blue striped poles, dark naugahyde chairs, and straight razor shaves, the barbershop has been a place where men congregate to shore-up their stubble and get a handle on their hair. From a sociological perspective, the barbershop is an interesting place because of its historically homosocial character, where men spend time with other men. In the absence of women, men create close relationships with each other. Some might come daily to talk with their barbers, discuss the news, or play chess. Men create community in these places, and community is important to people’s health and well-being.

But is the barbershop disappearing? If so, is anything taking its place?

In my study of high-service men’s salons—dedicated to the primping and preening of an all male clientele—hair stylists described the “old school” barbershop as a vanishing place. They explained that men are seeking out a pampered grooming experience that the bare-bones barbershop with its corner dusty tube television doesn’t offer. The licensed barbers I interviewed saw these newer men’s salons as a “resurgence” of “a men-only place” that provides more “care” to clients than the “dirty little barbershop.” And those barbershops that are sticking around, said Roxy, one barber, are “trying to be a little more upscale.” She encourages barbers to “repaint and add flat-screen TVs.”

Read More