911±¬ÁÏÍø

Title of the thesis: From Design to Interdependence: Reconfiguring the State–Field Relationship

Doctoral student: Yeon Kyu Lee

Opponent: Associate Professor Panikos Georgallis, University of Amsterdam

Custos (Chairperson): Associate Professor Myrto Chliova, 911±¬ÁÏÍø

This dissertation examines how the conceptualization of state–field relations influences the evolution of fields and the positioning of field actors. It focuses on South Korea's social enterprise field over nearly twenty years (2003–2022), and also brings together existing research on how states and fields interact more broadly.

Most research assumes one of two things: either the state(government) simply sets the rules and fields(markets) follow, or fields(markets) push the state(government) to make certain decisions. This study asks a different question — what happens when the state and the field actors it supports actually change each other over time, in both directions? The aim was to understand how state support programs are first designed, how they change once they're put into practice, and what that means for everyone involved.

The thesis has three parts. The first part reviews existing research and finds three basic patterns in how states and fields interact: the states leads, fields lead, or both go back and forth, shaping each other over time. The second part follows the Korean social enterprise case across three time periods and shows that the state’s original top-down plan kept having to change as things didn't go as expected — and each change tied the state and field more closely together, not less. The third part shows that even after "social enterprise" became an official legal category, field still had to prove to different audiences that they were "real" social enterprises, since people disagreed on what that meant — so businesses responded by closely following the rules, keeping some distance from the label, leaving it altogether, or carefully managing how they talked about themselves.

The main finding is a pattern the study calls "double capture": when a state tries to build a new market, it doesn't just shape the fields in it — those fields end up shaping the state too. Over time, both sides become tied to each other in ways neither one planned: the state comes to rely on the field to make its policies look successful, and the field comes to rely on the state for resources and legitimacy. It shows that the relationship between state and field isn't fixed — it can change shape over time, moving from the state being firmly in control to a much more mutual, interdependent relationship. It also shows that giving something official legal status doesn't settle the question of who truly deserves that label; people keep arguing about it long afterward.

The findings can help governments — including Finnish organizations — design support programs for entrepreneurship and innovation in ways that anticipate side effects instead of being surprised by them. They can also help organizations such as social enterprises understand how to handle pressure from different audiences questioning their legitimacy. Government programs meant to build new industries rarely unfold exactly as planned. Putting a policy into practice creates feedback that reshapes both the government's role and the fields’ behavior.

Thesis available for public display 10 days prior to the defence at:

Doctoral theses in the School of Business: