谁从组织评级中获取价值?公立学校的证据

IF 2.9 Q2 MANAGEMENT Strategy Science Pub Date : 2024-03-26 DOI:10.1287/stsc.2023.0113
Sharique Hasan, Anuj Kumar
{"title":"谁从组织评级中获取价值?公立学校的证据","authors":"Sharique Hasan, Anuj Kumar","doi":"10.1287/stsc.2023.0113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ratings of organizations and firms have become ubiquitous. These ratings, often produced by intermediaries (including private and public organizations), are designed to aid consumers and other stakeholders in their decision making while guiding rated organizations toward performance improvement or compliance. In doing so, these intermediaries introduce new information to markets. However, disparities may exist in the ability to strategically capture the value from such ratings, often due to differential access to complementary assets among stakeholders. Consequently, this differential ability can lead to outcomes contrary to the rating institutions’ intentions. Reflecting on this dynamic, we analyze how widespread access to a prevalent type of rating—school performance information, often produced to enhance transparency and equity in educational access—has affected existing economic and social disparities in America. We leverage the staged rollout of GreatSchools.org school ratings from 2006 to 2015 to answer this question. Across various outcomes and specifications, we find that the availability of school ratings has accelerated the divergence in housing values, income distributions, education levels, and racial and ethnic composition across communities. Affluent and more educated families were better positioned to strategically leverage this new information to capture educational opportunities in communities with top schools. The uneven benefits we observe highlight how ratings can unintentionally deepen existing inequalities, thereby complicating their intended impacts. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0113 .","PeriodicalId":45295,"journal":{"name":"Strategy Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Who Captures the Value from Organizational Ratings?: Evidence from Public Schools\",\"authors\":\"Sharique Hasan, Anuj Kumar\",\"doi\":\"10.1287/stsc.2023.0113\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Ratings of organizations and firms have become ubiquitous. These ratings, often produced by intermediaries (including private and public organizations), are designed to aid consumers and other stakeholders in their decision making while guiding rated organizations toward performance improvement or compliance. In doing so, these intermediaries introduce new information to markets. However, disparities may exist in the ability to strategically capture the value from such ratings, often due to differential access to complementary assets among stakeholders. Consequently, this differential ability can lead to outcomes contrary to the rating institutions’ intentions. Reflecting on this dynamic, we analyze how widespread access to a prevalent type of rating—school performance information, often produced to enhance transparency and equity in educational access—has affected existing economic and social disparities in America. We leverage the staged rollout of GreatSchools.org school ratings from 2006 to 2015 to answer this question. Across various outcomes and specifications, we find that the availability of school ratings has accelerated the divergence in housing values, income distributions, education levels, and racial and ethnic composition across communities. Affluent and more educated families were better positioned to strategically leverage this new information to capture educational opportunities in communities with top schools. The uneven benefits we observe highlight how ratings can unintentionally deepen existing inequalities, thereby complicating their intended impacts. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0113 .\",\"PeriodicalId\":45295,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Strategy Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Strategy Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0113\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Strategy Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0113","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对组织和公司的评级已变得无处不在。这些评级通常由中介机构(包括私营和公共组织)做出,旨在帮助消费者和其他利益相关者做出决策,同时指导被评级组织提高绩效或遵守规定。在此过程中,这些中介机构为市场引入了新的信息。然而,往往由于利益相关者获取互补资产的能力不同,从战略上获取此类评级价值的能力也可能存在差异。因此,这种能力差异可能导致与评级机构意图相反的结果。为了反思这种动态,我们分析了一种普遍的评级类型--学校绩效信息的普及如何影响了美国现有的经济和社会差距。我们利用 GreatSchools.org 从 2006 年到 2015 年分阶段推出的学校评级来回答这个问题。在不同的结果和规范中,我们发现学校评级的可用性加速了不同社区在住房价值、收入分布、教育水平以及种族和民族构成方面的差异。富裕且受教育程度较高的家庭更有能力战略性地利用这一新信息,在拥有一流学校的社区抓住教育机会。我们观察到的利益不均衡现象凸显了评级如何在无意中加深了现有的不平等,从而使其预期影响复杂化。补充材料:在线附录见 https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0113 。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Who Captures the Value from Organizational Ratings?: Evidence from Public Schools
Ratings of organizations and firms have become ubiquitous. These ratings, often produced by intermediaries (including private and public organizations), are designed to aid consumers and other stakeholders in their decision making while guiding rated organizations toward performance improvement or compliance. In doing so, these intermediaries introduce new information to markets. However, disparities may exist in the ability to strategically capture the value from such ratings, often due to differential access to complementary assets among stakeholders. Consequently, this differential ability can lead to outcomes contrary to the rating institutions’ intentions. Reflecting on this dynamic, we analyze how widespread access to a prevalent type of rating—school performance information, often produced to enhance transparency and equity in educational access—has affected existing economic and social disparities in America. We leverage the staged rollout of GreatSchools.org school ratings from 2006 to 2015 to answer this question. Across various outcomes and specifications, we find that the availability of school ratings has accelerated the divergence in housing values, income distributions, education levels, and racial and ethnic composition across communities. Affluent and more educated families were better positioned to strategically leverage this new information to capture educational opportunities in communities with top schools. The uneven benefits we observe highlight how ratings can unintentionally deepen existing inequalities, thereby complicating their intended impacts. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0113 .
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
Strategy Science
Strategy Science MANAGEMENT-
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
5.10%
发文量
31
期刊最新文献
Airline Responses to the COVID-19 Collapse: Applying Learning to an Unprecedented Crisis Innovation Disclosures and the Design of Technology Acquisition Contracts: Evidence from the American Inventors Protection Act How Demand Shocks “Jumpstart” Technological Ecosystems and Commercialization: Evidence from the Global Electric Vehicle Industry How Firms Cultivate Collaboration During Postmerger Integration of Technology Acquisitions Who Captures the Value from Organizational Ratings?: Evidence from Public Schools
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1