{"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":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":"{\"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}","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}
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.
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.