Buying and selling housing is for most a very important event that can strongly affect their financial situation. At the same time homes are recognized as places with great importance above and beyond financial matters and in everyday talk and in the previous literature homes are described as safe-havens, status symbols, influencing networks of friends and acquaintances, canvasses for projecting identity, tied to gentrification, segregation and much more. Previous literature tends to separate and focus on either economic/financial aspects or more symbolic values in housing, and/or separate its analysis to either owners of homes or buyers of homes. This study bridges the restricted focus in the previous literature by analyzing both buying and selling housing from an economical sociological viewpoint. The market and case is buying and selling housing in the County of Stockholm and since often the same household appear on both sides of the market close in time, a switch-role activity, the notion of switching and how the two roles relate to one and the same actor is central to explain. The explanation provided is further warranted in that this type of market, understudied in all types of previous literature, is a type of market which, not at least via internet platforms, is growing in volume. By ethnographic work, interviews and observations, buyers and sellers of housing are studied and analyzed. The theoretical concept of modes is used to create an understanding and explanation of housing buyers’ and sellers’ actions. The three research questions; what buyers and sellers do, how they do it, and why they do it are tied to the mode apparatus. Buyers are found to be disperse as their mode displays are plenty and varied. Some buyers are committed and certain of what they want in the future home and what the right price is, while some are eager to learn and find out what a good housing deal is. Others display modes of dreaming of future homes, play shop or try to learn what the proper way to buy housing really is or should be. Sellers are found to be much more coherent as group and as one mode display. The relatively set way in which sellers are provided a script on what to do and how to do it make them remarkably conformist. Sellers are found to show great trust in the institutional practice of the housing market. The lack of personal and subjective displays of identity and taste stand out. Sellers are found to display a general mode of involution, where culture and style tends to be ever watered down. Comparing the two sides of the market, buying and selling housing are therefore understood as two very different activities housed under one roof. Many actors appear on both sides of the market, as both buyer and seller close in time, but what the actor subjectively value as buyer and what influence their mode display, is not relevant when switching to selling. What is won for the buyer in the sense of having a distinct subjective mode is lost in uncertainty about what is the best deal on a unit of housing. Sellers on the other hand have little ability to display any real image and identity in their home for sale. However, what is lost in not having a distinct subjective mode display is then won in the certainty that following the script will secure the best possible deal. The study’s results point towards the value of further empirical work on switch-role markets to provide an extended knowledge of what is found here. 

In Theorien des Ökonomischen wird die Frage nach der Entstehung von Märkten vergleichsweise randständig behandelt. Wie der Artikel zeigt, lassen sich die dominanten Erklärungsmuster in drei Gruppen zusammenfassen, die jeweils einem idealtypischen Leitkonzept der Marktgestaltung folgen: wechselseitige Anpassung, Organisation und soziale Felder. Während Theorien der wechselseitigen Anpassung von der quasi-natürlichen Genese von Märkten im Prozess reziproker Anerkennungsprozesse der Marktteilnehmer ausgehen, fokussieren Organisationstheorien die bewusste Gestaltung relevanter Institutionen, insbesondere, aber nicht nur durch den Staat. Die durch Bourdieu und Fligstein inspirierte Theorie sozialer Felder nimmt die außerökonomische Einbettung von Marktentstehungsprozessen in den Blick, liefert jedoch keinen genuinen Beitrag zur Interpretation solcher Prozesse im engeren Sinne. Der eingehende analytische Vergleich der jeweiligen Literatur zeigt die Anwendbarkeit der jeweiligen Erklärungsmuster. So betrifft das Phänomen der wechselseitigen Anpassung vor allem ungeplante Prozesse und Märkte mit starker Produktdifferenzierung, das Phänomen der Organisation hingegen vor allem „gerahmte“ Märkte für standardisierte Produkte sowie Wertpapiermärkte. Theorien sozialer Felder adressieren übergreifend den sozialen Kontext und die Machtkämpfe, in denen Märkte als politisch-kulturelle Strukturen ausgehandelt werden. Auf Basis dieser Beobachtung plädiert der Beitrag für eine integrierende Perspektive, die die Vorteile der jeweiligen Ansätze ohne Reduktion auf ein Paradigma in sich vereint.

The question of how markets emerge has gained comparatively little attention in economic theory. As the paper demonstrates, the dominant patterns of explanation can be distinguished into three groups, each of which representing an ideal-typical approach regarding market fashioning: mutual adjustment, organization, and fields. Whereas theories of mutual adjustment assume markets to emerge in a “natural” manner from market actors’ mutual orientation, theories of organization focus on the deliberate design of relevant institutions by the state and equivalent actors. Field theories of Bourdieu and Fligstein center on how processes of markets emerging are embedded into contexts, yet do not provide a genuine explanation of these processes in a narrower sense. Comparing the relevant literature permits identifying which processes each pattern serves to explain empirically. While mutual adjustment applies to undesigned processes and markets characterized by a vastly differentiated set of products, organization as a phenomenon can be found primarily in “framed” markets for standardized products and in the securities market. Social field theories address the overarching social contexts and power struggles concerning markets as political and cultural structures. Based on these observations, the paper argues for an integrating perspective which benefits from the advantages of each approach but rejects being pinned down to one single paradigm.

Dans les théories économiques, la question de l’émergence des marchés est traitée de manière relativement marginale. Comme le montre cet article, les modèles explicatifs dominants peuvent être classés en trois groupes en fonction du principe présidant à la formation des marchés: l’adaptation réciproque, l’organisation et les champs sociaux. Tandis que les théories de l’adaptation réciproque postulent une genèse quasi naturelle des marchés dans le cadre du processus de reconnaissance réciproque des acteurs du marché, les théories de l’organisation mettent l’accent sur la mise en forme consciente des institutions concernées, en particulier, mais pas seulement, par l’État. La théorie des champs sociaux inspirée de Bourdieu et Fligstein se penche sur le contexte extra-économique dans lequel les processus d’émergence des marchés s’inscrivent mais n’apporte cependant aucune contribution originale à l’interprétation de tels processus au sens strict. Une analyse comparative approfondie de la littérature met en évidence le champ d’application de chacun des modèles. Le phénomène de l’adaptation réciproque concerne avant tout les processus spontanés ainsi que les marchés caractérisés par une forte différenciation des produits; le phénomène de l’organisation concerne en revanche surtout les marchés « encadrés » où s’échangent des produits standardisés, tels que les marchés des titres. Les théories du champ social abordent de manière globale le contexte social et les luttes de pouvoir dans le cadre desquelles les marchés sont négociés en tant que structures politico-culturelles. Sur la base de ces observations, ce texte plaide en faveur d’une perspective intégratrice conjuguant les avantages de chacune de ces approches sans les réduire à un unique paradigme.

How do markets come about? This article offers a first systematic analysis of three different ideal types of market fashioning: mutual adjustment, organization, and fields. Although aspects of these are identifiable in most empirical markets, these three ideal types provide analytic tools for students of real markets and marketplaces. After going through this comprehensive literature, it is argued that mutual adjustment, which refers to non-planned processes, is affinity with markets in which products are differentiated, for example, producer markets. Organization refers to process driven by attempts to decide for others and shows affinity with markets for standardized and homogenous products, for example, stock exchanges. Organization also accounts for the making of marketplaces. The broader notion of fields does not refer to any specific process, but accounts for the context of market fashioning and its respective power struggles.