A Mixed-Motive Perspective on the Economics Versus Environment Debate

Andrew J. Hoffman; James Judson Gillespie; Don A. Moore; Kimberly A. Wade-Benzoni; Leigh L. Thompson; Max H. Bazerman

doi:10.1177/0002764299042008002

A Mixed-Motive Perspective on the Economics Versus Environment Debate

Andrew J. Hoffman, James Judson Gillespie, Don A. Moore, Kimberly A. Wade-Benzoni, Leigh L. Thompson, Max H. Bazerman

Management and Organizations

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

41 Scopus citations

Abstract

The debate over the relationship between economic development and environmental protection has polarized into the opposing perspectives of win-lose (distributive bargaining) or win-win (integrative bargaining) outcomes, reminiscent of the debate that occurred within the negotiations field 15 years ago. The authors argue that such polarization is unnecessary and inaccurate. Conflict between economics and the environment is neither purely win-win nor win-lose, but rather, it is a mixed-motive situation. In presenting this argument, the authors draw from the negotiations and managerial decision-making literature. Further-more, they consider some strategies for exposing mixed-motive solutions to environmental problems in the future.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	1254-1276
Number of pages	23
Journal	American Behavioral Scientist
Volume	42
Issue number	8
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764299042008002
State	Published - May 1999

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Social Psychology
Cultural Studies
Education
Sociology and Political Science
General Social Sciences

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1177/0002764299042008002

Cite this

@article{d3d7d8e0f47c441b9ce9ec338a2e0fce,

title = "A Mixed-Motive Perspective on the Economics Versus Environment Debate",

abstract = "The debate over the relationship between economic development and environmental protection has polarized into the opposing perspectives of win-lose (distributive bargaining) or win-win (integrative bargaining) outcomes, reminiscent of the debate that occurred within the negotiations field 15 years ago. The authors argue that such polarization is unnecessary and inaccurate. Conflict between economics and the environment is neither purely win-win nor win-lose, but rather, it is a mixed-motive situation. In presenting this argument, the authors draw from the negotiations and managerial decision-making literature. Further-more, they consider some strategies for exposing mixed-motive solutions to environmental problems in the future.",

author = "Hoffman, {Andrew J.} and Gillespie, {James Judson} and Moore, {Don A.} and Wade-Benzoni, {Kimberly A.} and Thompson, {Leigh L.} and Bazerman, {Max H.}",

year = "1999",

month = may,

doi = "10.1177/0002764299042008002",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "42",

pages = "1254--1276",

journal = "American Behavioral Scientist",

issn = "0002-7642",

publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",

number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Mixed-Motive Perspective on the Economics Versus Environment Debate

AU - Hoffman, Andrew J.

AU - Gillespie, James Judson

AU - Moore, Don A.

AU - Wade-Benzoni, Kimberly A.

AU - Thompson, Leigh L.

AU - Bazerman, Max H.

PY - 1999/5

Y1 - 1999/5

N2 - The debate over the relationship between economic development and environmental protection has polarized into the opposing perspectives of win-lose (distributive bargaining) or win-win (integrative bargaining) outcomes, reminiscent of the debate that occurred within the negotiations field 15 years ago. The authors argue that such polarization is unnecessary and inaccurate. Conflict between economics and the environment is neither purely win-win nor win-lose, but rather, it is a mixed-motive situation. In presenting this argument, the authors draw from the negotiations and managerial decision-making literature. Further-more, they consider some strategies for exposing mixed-motive solutions to environmental problems in the future.

AB - The debate over the relationship between economic development and environmental protection has polarized into the opposing perspectives of win-lose (distributive bargaining) or win-win (integrative bargaining) outcomes, reminiscent of the debate that occurred within the negotiations field 15 years ago. The authors argue that such polarization is unnecessary and inaccurate. Conflict between economics and the environment is neither purely win-win nor win-lose, but rather, it is a mixed-motive situation. In presenting this argument, the authors draw from the negotiations and managerial decision-making literature. Further-more, they consider some strategies for exposing mixed-motive solutions to environmental problems in the future.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033244294&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033244294&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0002764299042008002

DO - 10.1177/0002764299042008002

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0033244294

SN - 0002-7642

VL - 42

SP - 1254

EP - 1276

JO - American Behavioral Scientist

JF - American Behavioral Scientist

IS - 8

ER -

A Mixed-Motive Perspective on the Economics Versus Environment Debate

Abstract

ASJC Scopus subject areas

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this