Institutional Arbitrage: How Actors Exploit Institutional Difference

IF 1.8 4区 管理学 Q3 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS
M. Perkmann, N. Phillips, R. Greenwood
{"title":"Institutional Arbitrage: How Actors Exploit Institutional Difference","authors":"M. Perkmann, N. Phillips, R. Greenwood","doi":"10.1177/26317877221090313","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we explore how actors benefit from bringing together incompatible institutional logics – an activity we call institutional arbitrage – and discuss why they do so despite the challenges it creates. We develop a taxonomy of four basic tactics of institutional arbitrage that are rooted in differences between logics in terms of resource valuation, purpose, practices and legitimacy. These tactics enable actors to create benefits by engaging with actors from fields adhering to different logics or integrating practices from other fields. We also discuss some of the factors that enable actors to deploy these tactics in particular institutional settings. We conclude with a discussion of some of the potential consequences of institutional arbitrage for actors, organizations and the broader organizational field within which arbitrage occurs.","PeriodicalId":50648,"journal":{"name":"Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221090313","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

In this paper, we explore how actors benefit from bringing together incompatible institutional logics – an activity we call institutional arbitrage – and discuss why they do so despite the challenges it creates. We develop a taxonomy of four basic tactics of institutional arbitrage that are rooted in differences between logics in terms of resource valuation, purpose, practices and legitimacy. These tactics enable actors to create benefits by engaging with actors from fields adhering to different logics or integrating practices from other fields. We also discuss some of the factors that enable actors to deploy these tactics in particular institutional settings. We conclude with a discussion of some of the potential consequences of institutional arbitrage for actors, organizations and the broader organizational field within which arbitrage occurs.
制度套利:行动者如何利用制度差异
在本文中,我们探讨了参与者如何从将不相容的制度逻辑(我们称之为制度套利的活动)结合在一起中受益,并讨论了为什么他们不顾挑战这样做。我们对制度套利的四种基本策略进行了分类,这些策略植根于资源估值、目的、实践和合法性方面的逻辑差异。这些策略使参与者能够通过与遵循不同逻辑的领域的参与者接触或整合其他领域的实践来创造利益。我们还讨论了使行为者能够在特定机构环境中部署这些策略的一些因素。最后,我们讨论了制度套利对行为者、组织和更广泛的组织领域的一些潜在后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory
Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS-MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
16.70%
发文量
14
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory provides an international forum for interdisciplinary research that combines computation, organizations and society. The goal is to advance the state of science in formal reasoning, analysis, and system building drawing on and encouraging advances in areas at the confluence of social networks, artificial intelligence, complexity, machine learning, sociology, business, political science, economics, and operations research. The papers in this journal will lead to the development of newtheories that explain and predict the behaviour of complex adaptive systems, new computational models and technologies that are responsible to society, business, policy, and law, new methods for integrating data, computational models, analysis and visualization techniques. Various types of papers and underlying research are welcome. Papers presenting, validating, or applying models and/or computational techniques, new algorithms, dynamic metrics for networks and complex systems and papers comparing, contrasting and docking computational models are strongly encouraged. Both applied and theoretical work is strongly encouraged. The editors encourage theoretical research on fundamental principles of social behaviour such as coordination, cooperation, evolution, and destabilization. The editors encourage applied research representing actual organizational or policy problems that can be addressed using computational tools. Work related to fundamental concepts, corporate, military or intelligence issues are welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信