635/Administrative Science Quarterly, 54 (2009): 635–667
© 2009 by Johnson Graduate School,
Cornell University.
0001-8392/09/5404-0635/$3.00.
•
We thank Peter Roberts, Brandon Lee,
David Strang, William Sonnenstuhl,
Elizabeth Hiatt, ASQ associate editor Jerry
Davis, Linda Johanson, and three
anonymous reviewers for their com-
ments. We also thank seminar partici-
pants at Cornell, the University of Illinois
at Urbana–Champaign, the University of
California at Los Angeles, and Erasmus
University for their helpful criticism of
earlier versions of this paper. We acknowl-
edge fi nancial support from the Johnson
Graduate School of Management, the J.
Thomas Clark Professorship in Entrepre-
neurship and Personal Enterprise, INCAE,
and the Cornell School of Industrial and
Labor Relations. Finally, appreciation goes
to the fi rst-author’s great grandfather,
C. B. Rutherford, whose pioneering work
in the U.S. soft drink industry inspired
this study.
From Pabst
to Pepsi: The
Deinstitutionalization of
Social Practices
and the Creation of
Entrepreneurial
Opportunities
Shon R. Hiatt
Cornell University
Wesley D. Sine
Cornell University
Pamela S. Tolbert
Cornell University
In this paper, we examine the dual role that social
movement organizations can play in altering organiza-
tional landscapes by undermining existing organizations
and creating opportunities for the growth of new types of
organizations. Empirically, we investigate the impact of a
variety of tactics employed by the Woman’s Christian
Temperance Union (WCTU), the leading organizational
representative of the American temperance movement,
on two sets of organizations: breweries and soft drink
producers. By delegitimating alcohol consumption,
altering attitudes and beliefs about drinking, and
promoting temperance legislation, the WCTU contributed
to brewery failures. These social changes, in turn, created
opportunities for entrepreneurs to found organizations
producing new kinds of beverages by creating demand
for alternative beverages, providing rationales for
entrepreneurial action, and increasing the availability of
necessary resources. •
One of the foundational tenets of institutional theory is that in
order to prosper, organizations must be congruent with their
institutional environment (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Meyer and
Scott, 1983), their structures and services aligned with the
“cultural-cognitive belief systems and regulatory and normative
structures that prevail in a given organizational community”
(Baum and Rao, 2004: 51). Such alignment promotes the
success and survival of organizations by increasing the
commitment of internal and external constituents to
organizations and their activities, allowing them to obtain
necessary resources (Stinchcombe, 1965; Meyer and Rowan,
1977). By extension, the viability of organizational populations
also depends on the extent to which the structures and
activities that defi ne the population are in line with the
demands and expectations of the institutional environment
(Hunt and Aldrich, 1998; Lee and Pennings, 2002).
It is easy to focus on the conceptual machineries of
institutions (Kraatz and Zajac, 1996; Hinings and Tolbert, 2008)
and forget that defi nitions of reality, of how things should be
done, have their foundations in the actions of individuals and
groups (Berger and Luckmann, 1966; Leblebici et al., 1991;
Kennedy and Fiss, 2009). Historically, social movement
organizations have played a critical role in reshaping such
defi nitions (Turner and Killian, 1987), producing some of the
most signifi cant cultural changes in the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries, including the abolition of slavery, the
extension of voting and other political rights to women, formal
elimination of racial segregation, and the creation of
protective legislation for the environment (McAdam and
Scott, 2005). Research suggests that most of the enduring
consequences of social movement organizations arise
through their effects on organizations, either by changing
policies and practices of extant organizations (Davis and
Thompson, 1994; Wade, Swaminathan, and Saxon, 1998;
Haveman, Rao, and Paruchuri, 2007) or by giving rise to new
forms of organization (Haveman and Rao, 1997; Lounsbury,
Ventresca, and Hirsch, 2003; Schneiberg, King, and Smith,
2008; Swaminathan and Wade, 2001; Rao, 2009). For
example, Tolbert and Zucker (1983) showed how Progressive
636/ASQ, December 2009
reform organizations contributed to the diffusion of civil
service procedures that signifi cantly changed municipal
governments, while Sine and Lee (2009) documented the
impact of environmental movement organizations on the
founding of new forms of power-producing organizations.
Other recent studies have also considered how broad,
large-scale social movements can facilitate the emergence of
new sectors and organizational forms. Schneiberg (2002)
linked social movement activity to the formation of new forms
of insurance companies; Haveman, Rao, and Paruchuri (2007)
demonstrated the effects of Progressive-era movement
organizations on the emergence of new types of thrift
organizations; and Lee (2009) examined the effects of the
organic food movement on the rise of alternative forms of
food production. But quantitative research in this area has
often relied on proxies of general social movement effects
(Haveman and Rao, 1997; Schneiberg, King, and Smith, 2008)
and has not fully considered how the different tactics social
movements use can destabilize extant sets of organizations,
unintentionally support the founding of new types of
organizations, and thus shape inter-population dynamics. Little
research has directly linked particular social movement
activities to changes in the institutional environment and to
organizational outcomes, including the decline of existing
organizational forms, the spread of new forms, and relations
between new and old forms.
To understand the effects of social movement organizations’
activities, it is useful to examine them in relation to the three
conceptually distinct dimensions of the institutional
environment—normative, cognitive, and regulative (Scott,
2001). The normative dimension refers to explicit espousals
of particular organizational practices, structures, and forms by
individual or collective actors who have recognized expertise
or credibility (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Scott and Davis, 2007;
Sine, David, and Mitsuhashi, 2007). Most studies examining
this dimension have focused on established actors, such as
professional or industry associations, that provide credentials
or endorsements of specifi c organizational arrangements (e.g.,
Baum and Oliver, 1991; Scott et al., 2000; Sine, Haveman,
and Tolbert, 2005; see also Marquis and Lounsbury, 2007).
But social movements can also be normatively powerful
advocates. For example, movements for corporate social
responsibility have encouraged investors to boycott
companies (King, 2008), lowered investors’ confi dence in
public corporations (King and Soule, 2007), and persuaded
consumers to purchase wood from companies that use
environmentally sound foresting methods (Bartley, 2007).
The cognitive dimension of the institutional environment
involves taken-for-granted assumptions of the utility and thus
the appropriateness of organizational practices or forms
(Berger and Luckmann, 1966; Meyer and Rowan, 1977;
Aldrich and Fiol, 1994; Tolbert and Zucker, 1996). As Suchman
(1995: 581) noted, this dimension is the “most subtle and
powerful” infl uence on organizations. Social movements may
try to infl uence this dimension through “teach-ins” or other
similar activities; these are particularly common among
student movements (Soule, 1997; Rojas, 2006). But because
From Pabst to Pepsi
637/ASQ, December 2009
changing this dimension involves infl uencing deep-rooted and
often non-conscious beliefs—bringing about such change is
usually a slow and intensive process—social movement
organizations typically focus their efforts on changing the
normative and regulative dimensions.
The regulative dimension entails “rule setting, monitoring,
and sanctioning activities” by powerful actors, such as the
state, that have the ability to defi ne certain organizational
practices and forms as acceptable and to enforce those
defi nitions, often by constraining organizational resources
(Scott, 1995: 35). This dimension is often the immediate
target of social movement organizations (McCarthy and Zald,
1977; Clemens, 1993; McAdam and Scott, 2005; Lee, 2009),
perhaps in part because it can provide a foundation for
changes in the other dimensions (Edelman, 1990; Schneiberg,
2002; Haveman, Rao, and Paruchuri, 2007), but the
organizational consequences of regulatory changes are not
always anticipated. For example, Perrata (2007) showed that
anti-discrimination legislation, by promoting the value of
gender equality, led to a sharp decline in both women’s and
men’s colleges, though the women’s movement often
supported the former.
Thus social movement organizations can change the cognitive,
normative and regulative environments of organizations in
several ways: by constructing and propagating shared beliefs
that make some structures and behaviors acceptable and
others unthinkable (Snow et al., 1986; Klandermans, 1997); by
persuading public fi gures to endorse and promote these
structures and behaviors (Turner and Killian, 1987); and by
advocating for the passage of laws and regulations that
promote new values and penalize activities in confl ict with
them (Zald, Morrill, and Rao, 2005). Any of these activities can
have intended and unintended effects.
In this paper, we investigate the intended and unintended
effects of one social movement organization, the Woman’s
Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), on two organizational
populations in the United States, breweries and soft drink
manufacturers, between 1870 and 1920. During this time the
WCTU grew from a small local organization to a major force in
both state and federal politics, becoming arguably the most
powerful social movement organization in the late 1800s,
creating a turbulent environment for alcoholic-beverage
producers (Gusfi eld, 1986). As the WCTU worked to spread
its anti-alcohol agenda, it had a dramatic effect on breweries,
an intended target, but also, inadvertently, on soft drink
manufacturers. Our paper documents the varied means
through which the temperance movement of the late
nineteenth century, and the WCTU in particular produced
changes in social norms and beliefs about drinking, as well as
in laws regulating the production and sale of alcohol, thereby
deinstitutionalizing breweries and creating opportunities for
entrepreneurs to found organizations producing new kinds of
beverages as a substitute for beer and other alcoholic drinks.
We describe the dramatic growth of the WCTU in the mid-
1800s and how it challenged one of America’s most accepted
and cherished social activities, the consumption of alcoholic
beverages.
1
1
The historical description below draws
on the Minutes of the Convention of the
National Woman’s Christian Temperance
Union, 1874–1920 (Chicago: Woman’s
Temperance Publication Association), the
Transactions of the American Medical
Association, 1869–1882 (Philadelphia:
Times Printing House), and the Journal of
the American Medical Association’s
“Proceedings of the House of Delegates,”
1883–1920.
638/ASQ, December 2009
DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION OF BREWERIES AND THE
CREATION OF ENTREPRENEURIAL OPPORTUNITIES
European settlers brought customs and habits from the Old
World, including regular consumption of alcohol, its
customary use in social circumstances, and acceptance of the
organizations that produce it (Jellinek, 1977; Gusfi eld, 1987).
When the ship Arabella , carrying the settlers of what would
become the Massachusetts Bay Colony, dropped anchor in
1630, its cargo included 10,000 gallons of beer, 120
hogsheads of malt for brewing more, and 12 gallons of
distilled spirits (Blocker, 1989). In addition to being a regular
part of social occasions, alcoholic beverages were also a
useful source of calories. Because fermenting enabled
American colonists to store fruits and grains in beverage form
throughout the year without spoilage, alcoholic beverages
were also a form of liquid nourishment. Thus both beer and
hard cider were commonly drunk at meals, social gatherings,
and community events.
American society’s acceptance of alcoholic beverages was
refl ected in the social role played by the breweries’ retail arm,
the tavern (or saloon, in the West). These establishments
became highly valued in politics, government, and business
in the nineteenth century. When new towns became
incorporated, the tavern was usually the only public structure
and was therefore used as the city hall and courtroom as well
as a place for business transactions (Asbury, 1950). Taverns
served as very important settings for campaigning and lobbying
as well. Political candidates and politicians frequented them,
and elections were often won or lost with the free distribution
of alcohol (Tyrrell, 1979). Political machines relied so heavily on
taverns to keep constituents loyal to the party that in many
cities it was said that the “most direct route to the city council
or the state legislature [often] ran through the barroom”
(Funderburg, 2002: 90). The growth of establishments selling
beer and other forms of alcohol ballooned in the latter half of
the nineteenth century, and in 1909, their number exceeded
the total number of libraries, schools, hospitals, parks, theaters,
and churches (Cashman, 1981).
The brewery industry fl ourished throughout the nineteenth
century, peaking at the turn of the century as the fi fth largest
U.S. industry, with almost a billion dollars in sales (Chidsey,
1969). Part of the industry’s success during this period can be
attributed to increases in immigration, especially from Ireland
and Germany, which led to a shift in consumers’ preferences
from fermented fruit beverages to those made from cereals
(Sechrist, 1986). In 1865, yearly per capita consumption of
beer totaled a little over three gallons, but by 1900, per capita
beer consumption had increased to sixteen gallons (Blocker,
1989).
Although breweries and beer were accepted by most
Americans from the time of the fi rst European colonies, there
was always a minority who objected to the use of alcohol.
One of the fi rst advocates in the U.S. of temperance was
Increase Mather, who in 1673 penned the strong sermon,
“Woe to Drunkards” (Mezvinsky, 1959). Widespread,
systematic opposition to drinking, though, had its origins in
From Pabst to Pepsi
639/ASQ, December 2009
the religious revivalism of the Second Great Awakening in the
early 1800s. One of the common threads that tied together
various expressions of Protestant religious fervor of this
period was a belief in the moral perfectability of humans, and
excessive drinking, as a manifestation of moral imperfection,
became a target of religious reformers (Szymanski, 2003).
Concern with drinking as a social problem was also fueled by
the connection between drinking and immigrant identity.
Growing numbers of Irish and eastern European immigrants
streamed into the U.S. throughout the nineteenth century,
feeding nativists’ hostility. The regular use of alcohol became
emblematic of these new immigrant groups; thus anti-
drinking sentiment was also driven in part by the broader
tensions and confl icts associated with the social assimilation
of different ethnic groups (Gusfi eld, 1955, 1986). An additional
force that fed temperance sentiments during this period was
the growing industrialization of the country, which increased
demand for a dependable and tractable workforce. Many
employers supported limits on alcohol use because they were
concerned that the consumption of alcohol undermined
employees’ thrift and hard work (Rumbarger, 1989).
All of these factors combined by the mid-nineteenth century
to produce organized efforts to reduce the consumption of
alcohol in the U.S. and several anti-drinking social movement
organizations were founded in the U.S. before the Civil War.
Most of these were relatively short-lived, however, as their
cause was eclipsed by the more passionate debate over
abolition. But because many of the same social conditions
that fueled antebellum anti-drinking sentiments persisted
after the war—tensions surrounding increasing rates of
immigration, industrialization, concerns with the continuing
improvement of society (as the religiosity of the early 1800s
morphed into a more secular form, Progressivism)—the
temperance movement began to grow once again in the late
nineteenth century. Several social movement organizations
developed to promote the aims of temperance, many of
which actively collaborated and had overlapping
memberships, but primary among these was the Woman’s
Christian Temperance Movement.
Founding of the WCTU
What was to become one of the largest and most powerful of
the anti-drinking social movement organizations was formed in
1874 (Mezvinsky, 1959): the Woman’s Christian Temperance
Union, or the WCTU. In the spring of that year, three
women—Jane Fowler Willing, Emily Huntington Miller, and
Martha McClellan Brown—jointly issued a call to women at
the National Sunday School Assembly in Chautauqua, New
York, to attend the fi rst planned convention of the Woman’s
Christian Temperance Union, aimed at mobilizing activist
women to campaign for political candidates and legislation that
favored temperance and women’s rights. In November of the
same year, 135 women representing 16 states assembled in
Cleveland, Ohio, to form the WCTU. Under the seventeen-year
leadership of Frances Willard, who ascended to the presidency
of the WCTU in 1879, the WCTU took aim at a variety of social
problems, including campaigning for eight-hour work days,
universal suffrage, industrial relations education, preschool
