American Behavioral Scientist

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Free Access - Register Here

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by HOFFMAN, A. J.
Right arrow Articles by VENTRESCA, M. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 42, No. 8, 1368-1392 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/00027649921954903

The Institutional Framing of Policy Debates

Economics Versus the Environment

ANDREW J. HOFFMAN

Boston University

MARC J. VENTRESCA

Northwestern University

By framing the economics versus environment debate as a mixed-motive situation, opportunities become visible that allow greater benefits to all interests in the debate. Yet, social, cultural, and institutional arrangements frame how these interests see these opportunities, creating a barrier to mixed-motive analyses. In this article, the authors use an institutional perspective to analyze how the economics versue environment debate emerges from institutions as presently structured. They present an analysis of its present framing based on three aspects of institutions—regulative, normative, and cognitive—and consider the prescriptive implications they expose at the managerial and organizational level of action. The authors conclude with an analysis of possible solutions to overcome them.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Human RelationsHome page
M. Perkmann and A. Spicer
How are management fashions institutionalized? The role of institutional work
Human Relations, June 1, 2008; 61(6): 811 - 844.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of ManagementHome page
D. Etzion
Research on Organizations and the Natural Environment, 1992-Present: A Review
Journal of Management, August 1, 2007; 33(4): 637 - 664.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Organizational Research MethodsHome page
W.E. D. Creed, J. A. Langstraat, and M. A. Scully
A Picture of the Frame: Frame Analysis as Technique and as Politics
Organizational Research Methods, January 1, 2002; 5(1): 34 - 55.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
American Behavioral ScientistHome page
A. J. HOFFMAN, H. C. RILEY, J. G. TROAST Jr., and M. H. BAZERMAN
Cognitive and Institutional Barriers to New Forms of Cooperation on Environmental Protection: Insights from Project XL and Habitat Conservation Plans
American Behavioral Scientist, January 1, 2002; 45(5): 820 - 845.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Organization EnvironmentHome page
A. J. Hoffman
Linking Organizational and Field-Level Analyses: The Diffusion of Corporate Environmental Practice
Organization Environment, June 1, 2001; 14(2): 133 - 156.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of ManagementHome page
M. T. Dacin, M. J. Ventresca, and B. D. Beal
The Embeddedness of Organizations: Dialogue & Directions
Journal of Management, June 1, 1999; 25(3): 317 - 356.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
American Behavioral ScientistHome page
M. H. BAZERMAN, D. A. MOORE, and J. J. GILLESPIE
The Human Mind as a Barrier to Wiser Environmental Agreements
American Behavioral Scientist, May 1, 1999; 42(8): 1277 - 1300.
[Abstract] [PDF]