The Evolution of the Car Business: A Sociological and Institutional Perspective

International Academy
Oct 23
8 min read

Abstract

The global car business has evolved from a small craft industry in the late nineteenth century into one of the largest and most complex economic systems in modern history. This article traces the historical trajectory of the automobile business as both a technological and sociological phenomenon. Using theoretical lenses such as Pierre Bourdieu’s field theory, institutional isomorphism, and world-systems analysis, it examines how economic, cultural, and symbolic forms of capital have shaped the structure of the automotive industry across time. The article identifies four key historical phases—pioneering, mass-production, globalization, and digital transformation—each representing a distinct configuration of capital, institutional norms, and power relations. Findings reveal that the car business developed its own global “field,” where competition for legitimacy, efficiency, and innovation continuously reproduced dominant structures. The paper concludes that the industry’s current digital-mobility phase continues to reflect deep institutional continuity even amid technological disruption.

1. Introduction

The automobile business has long symbolized the intersection of technological innovation, industrial power, and social transformation. It is not only an economic activity but a reflection of global modernity. From Henry Ford’s assembly lines to the rise of electric and autonomous vehicles, the evolution of the car business captures the changing face of capitalism, global supply chains, and cultural consumption.

In contemporary times, automobiles are no longer merely transportation devices—they are nodes in global systems of energy, software, logistics, and identity. However, much of the literature on the car industry focuses primarily on economics or engineering. This article adopts a sociological and institutional approach to examine how the car business became an organized global field.

To achieve this, the study applies three theoretical frameworks:

Bourdieu’s field and capital theory, explaining competition and hierarchy among car companies;
Institutional isomorphism, explaining why organizations converge on similar structures and business models; and
World-systems theory, explaining how global inequalities shape the distribution of production and profit in the automobile field.

By integrating these perspectives, the study reveals how economic and symbolic power shaped not only the success of particular firms but also the legitimacy of the entire field.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1 Bourdieu’s Concept of Field and Capital

Pierre Bourdieu described society as composed of various fields—structured arenas of struggle where actors compete for specific forms of capital. In the car business, these capitals can be understood as:

Economic capital: factories, financial investment, patents, and production capabilities;
Cultural capital: technological expertise, design knowledge, and management skill;
Symbolic capital: brand reputation, heritage, and perceived legitimacy;
Social capital: networks with suppliers, governments, and distributors.

Throughout history, the automotive field has been characterized by constant competition among actors to accumulate these capitals and to impose their definition of what counts as “success” or “quality” in the industry.

2.2 Institutional Isomorphism

The theory of institutional isomorphism, developed by DiMaggio and Powell (1983), states that organizations in similar environments tend to adopt similar structures and practices due to three types of pressure:

Coercive pressures (laws, regulations, standards);
Normative pressures (professional norms and expectations);
Mimetic pressures (copying successful models).

The car business illustrates all three. Governments impose safety and emission standards (coercive), management and engineering professions develop norms for production and quality (normative), and smaller companies imitate the practices of dominant ones such as Ford, Toyota, or Volkswagen (mimetic).

2.3 World-Systems and Global Value Chains

World-systems theory, as articulated by Immanuel Wallerstein, views the global economy as a hierarchy of core, semi-peripheral, and peripheral nations. The car business perfectly mirrors this: core countries like the United States, Germany, and Japan control high-value activities such as design, branding, and R&D, while semi-peripheral or peripheral regions supply components, assembly, or raw materials. The result is an unequal global division of labor that reinforces existing hierarchies.

3. Methodology

This article employs a historical-qualitative approach, reviewing the evolution of the car business over four main phases:

The Pioneering Era (1890s–1910s)
The Mass-Production Era (1920s–1960s)
The Global Expansion Era (1970s–2000s)
The Digital-Mobility Era (2010s–present)

Each phase is analyzed using the above theoretical frameworks. The method involves interpretive synthesis of historical data from established academic sources in business and industrial history, combined with sociological interpretation. The goal is not to recount every technological event but to reveal the deeper institutional logic of the car business across time.

4. Analysis

4.1 The Pioneering Era (1890s–1910s)

The automobile emerged in the late nineteenth century through experimentation by inventors such as Karl Benz, Gottlieb Daimler, and Henry Ford. In this period, the car industry was not yet an organized field—it consisted of small workshops, engineers, and entrepreneurs experimenting with mechanical mobility.

From a Bourdieusian perspective, the field was in formation. Economic capital was minimal and unevenly distributed. Symbolic capital came primarily from innovation and public fascination with technology. Cars were luxury items for elites, representing status and distinction. The absence of strong institutions allowed rapid experimentation: steam, electric, and gasoline vehicles competed for dominance.

Institutional isomorphism was weak. Each manufacturer developed its own designs, parts, and marketing approaches. Yet early forms of coercive pressure (road safety laws, basic quality standards) began to appear. World-systemically, production was concentrated in industrialized Europe and the United States, signaling the emergence of a “core” automotive region.

4.2 The Mass-Production Era (1920s–1960s)

The introduction of the moving assembly line by Henry Ford in 1913 transformed the car business from a craft industry into a system of mass production. The Ford Model T symbolized a new social order of standardized products, efficiency, and affordability. Between 1910 and 1930, car ownership in the United States expanded from a luxury to a mass necessity.

From a field perspective, Ford and General Motors accumulated enormous economic capital, allowing them to dominate the field. They also built symbolic capital through brand identity, worker management models, and modernity narratives. Competing firms around the world imitated their strategies, a clear case of mimetic isomorphism.

This period also saw the institutionalization of supply chains, dealership networks, and after-sales services. The automobile business matured into a complex organizational field governed by rules, norms, and hierarchies. The introduction of safety regulations, emission controls, and consumer standards increased coercive isomorphism, binding all firms into similar patterns.

World-systems dynamics solidified: the “core” (U.S., Western Europe, later Japan) led innovation and design, while peripheral regions provided raw materials such as rubber, oil, and steel. The car business became a central engine of industrial capitalism.

4.3 The Global Expansion Era (1970s–2000s)

After World War II, automobile production spread globally. Japanese firms like Toyota and Honda introduced lean manufacturing and total quality management, revolutionizing production efficiency. By the 1980s, these firms had challenged the dominance of U.S. automakers. Korean, Indian, and Chinese firms later followed.

In Bourdieu’s terms, the global field became transnational. The struggle for capital extended across borders. Economic capital diversified, and cultural capital (technical know-how, managerial systems) gained importance. Toyota’s kaizen philosophy became a new source of symbolic capital, representing precision and reliability.

Institutional isomorphism intensified. Governments harmonized safety and environmental regulations; professional associations standardized engineering qualifications. Multinational supply chains developed common practices. Firms became more similar globally—not only because of competition but because legitimacy required adherence to accepted templates.

In the world-system view, production shifted toward semi-peripheral countries. While design and R&D remained in core nations, manufacturing increasingly moved to lower-cost regions in Asia and Eastern Europe. Global value chains emerged, linking thousands of suppliers to final assemblers.

At the same time, consumer culture transformed. Owning a car became a global symbol of modern life. The car was not only a product but a social marker—embedding the industry deeply into everyday habitus, as Bourdieu would describe.

4.4 The Digital-Mobility Era (2010s–Present)

In the twenty-first century, the car business entered a new phase defined by electrification, connectivity, automation, and sustainability. Firms like Tesla, BYD, and Rivian emerged as disruptors, challenging incumbents with software-driven models. The traditional logic of the field—mechanical engineering and physical production—expanded to include digital capital.

From a field perspective, this is a moment of reconfiguration. New entrants hold high symbolic capital (innovation, sustainability) even when their economic capital is smaller than that of traditional firms. The hierarchy of the field is being re-negotiated: energy storage, data analytics, and software ecosystems now determine status and legitimacy.

Institutional isomorphism continues, but in new forms. Electric-vehicle standards, battery certifications, and cybersecurity regulations create new coercive pressures. Firms mimic successful models of vertical integration and online sales, reflecting mimetic isomorphism. The push for carbon neutrality introduces strong normative isomorphism—sustainability is now a moral and professional expectation.

World-systemically, power is shifting. China has become the largest car market and the leading producer of electric vehicles. Semi-peripheral nations with battery resources gain new strategic significance. Meanwhile, traditional core producers must adapt to remain competitive in a decarbonizing world.

5. Findings and Discussion

5.1 The Car Business as an Institutionalized Field

Across all four eras, the car business developed a stable internal logic of legitimacy and reproduction. To be recognized as a “real” automaker, a firm must adopt the industry’s dominant institutional forms—mass production in the twentieth century, digital integration and sustainability in the twenty-first. Legitimacy matters as much as efficiency.

5.2 Capital Competition and Reproduction

Economic capital enabled early leaders to dominate, but symbolic and cultural capital ensured their survival. Firms like Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, and Ford maintained global prestige not only by producing efficiently but by embodying values—luxury, reliability, or innovation. New entrants accumulate symbolic capital by projecting sustainability and digital prowess.

5.3 Isomorphic Convergence

The automobile industry illustrates how isomorphic pressures produce structural similarity across borders. Whether in Detroit, Tokyo, or Stuttgart, companies organize around similar production systems, safety standards, and supplier relations. Even disruptive start-ups are forced to conform to global standards to gain regulatory approval and consumer trust.

5.4 Global Hierarchies and the World System

The car business reflects global inequalities. Core countries retain control of intellectual property, advanced technologies, and brand capital, while peripheral regions depend on assembly or resource extraction. However, this structure is dynamic: emerging markets like China, India, and South Korea have moved upward in the hierarchy by accumulating capital and institutional legitimacy.

5.5 Digital Transformation and New Capitals

Digitalization introduces new forms of capital. Software capability, data management, and AI integration now carry as much weight as mechanical engineering once did. The boundary between car manufacturing and technology services is blurring. This transformation requires firms to rethink their positions within the field and to re-accumulate capital in new forms.

5.6 Institutional Continuity Amid Change

Despite apparent revolutions, the underlying institutional structure remains remarkably resilient. Each era transforms the tools but not the logic of the field: firms still compete for legitimacy, symbolic dominance, and economic control. Bourdieu’s theory explains why the car business, like other cultural fields, evolves through adaptation rather than rupture.

6. Conclusion

The history of the car business offers a unique window into the evolution of global capitalism and modern institutions. From its artisanal beginnings to its digital present, it has been shaped by the interplay of technological innovation, social legitimacy, and global power structures. Applying sociological theories helps reveal that these are not separate forces but intertwined dimensions of the same process.

The automobile field is a textbook case of how industries institutionalize themselves: through shared norms, power struggles, and collective belief in legitimacy. Whether it is Ford’s assembly line, Toyota’s kaizen, or Tesla’s digital disruption, each epoch redefines the field while maintaining its internal logic of capital accumulation and reproduction.

For future researchers, the car business can be studied not only as an economic system but as a living social field—where technological artifacts reflect deeper contests over meaning, authority, and the future of mobility. As the world moves toward electric, autonomous, and sustainable transportation, the historical dynamics identified here continue to shape how firms, consumers, and governments navigate the next frontier.

7. References (Harvard Style)

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Bourdieu, P. (1993). The Field of Cultural Production. New York: Columbia University Press.DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983). ‘The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.’ American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.Fligstein, N. (2001). The Architecture of Markets. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Koshar, R. (2001). ‘On the History of the Automobile in Everyday Life.’ Journal of Social History, 35(2), 345–370.Liker, J.K. (2004). The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s Greatest Manufacturer. New York: McGraw-Hill.Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Durham: Duke University Press.Weininger, E.B. (2002). ‘Foundations of Pierre Bourdieu’s Class Analysis.’ Sociological Theory, 20(1), 121–149.