制度套利:行动者如何利用制度差异

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
M. Perkmann, N. Phillips, R. Greenwood
{"title":"制度套利:行动者如何利用制度差异","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":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"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\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221090313\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221090313","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

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。
Institutional Arbitrage: How Actors Exploit Institutional Difference
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
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