IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/inrsre/v36y2013i1p115-136.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Shaping the Future through Narrative

Author

Listed:
  • Noah Isserman
  • Ann Markusen

Abstract

Throughout his scholarly career, Andrew Isserman made bold calls for vision, storytelling, and narrative construction in regional science and planning. The necessity to plan and make infrastructure and development decisions with incomplete evidence often requires narratives—gists, insights, and ideas that are shorthand for an amalgam of reasoning, evidence, and feedback from practice. Narratives play a large role in planning practice and education, but their premises and implications must be subjected to evidence and compared with alternatives. From their respective work on the third sector, the authors explore a powerful narrative that bigger organizations are better: due to economies of scale, more professional personnel, more sustainable operations, and better measurement, they deliver superior services and greater public value for resources spent. The authors compare this with a competing narrative that smaller organizations generate superior social returns due to flexibility, innovativeness, and community-embeddedness. Using evidence on nonprofit arts and cultural organizations, the authors show that the superiority of large organizations is questionable and further, that the “bigger is better†narrative serves particular interests. In concluding, the authors underscore Isserman’s argument that planners and regional scientists must consciously and deliberately claim their roles in the creation of narratives that shape debate, planning process, and, ultimately, the future. In teaching and research, the authors must both acknowledge whose interests are served and harness evidence to compelling visions, explicit theories of causality, and story arcs—the tools that planners, regional scientists, designers, and social scientists use in defining, shaping, and imagining our regional worlds.

Suggested Citation

  • Noah Isserman & Ann Markusen, 2013. "Shaping the Future through Narrative," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 36(1), pages 115-136, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:inrsre:v:36:y:2013:i:1:p:115-136
    DOI: 10.1177/0160017612447195
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0160017612447195
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0160017612447195?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Harbaugh, William T., 1998. "What do donations buy?: A model of philanthropy based on prestige and warm glow," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 269-284, February.
    2. Harbaugh, William T, 1998. "The Prestige Motive for Making Charitable Transfers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(2), pages 277-282, May.
    3. Ann Markusen, 2010. "Organizational Complexity in the Regional Cultural Economy," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(7), pages 813-828.
    4. Robert Birnbaum, 2000. "The Life Cycle of Academic Management Fads," The Journal of Higher Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 71(1), pages 1-16, January.
    5. Ann Markusen, 2003. "Fuzzy Concepts, Scanty Evidence, Policy Distance: The Case for Rigour and Policy Relevance in Critical Regional Studies," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(6-7), pages 701-717.
    6. Andreoni, James & Scholz, John Karl, 1998. "An Econometric Analysis of Charitable Giving with Interdependent Preferences," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 36(3), pages 410-428, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Romano, Richard & Yildirim, Huseyin, 2001. "Why charities announce donations: a positive perspective," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(3), pages 423-447, September.
    2. Andreoni, James & Petrie, Ragan, 2004. "Public goods experiments without confidentiality: a glimpse into fund-raising," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(7-8), pages 1605-1623, July.
    3. Jen Shang & Rachel Croson, 2009. "A Field Experiment in Charitable Contribution: The Impact of Social Information on the Voluntary Provision of Public Goods," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(540), pages 1422-1439, October.
    4. Lacetera, Nicola & Macis, Mario, 2008. "Motivating Altruism: A Field Study," IZA Discussion Papers 3770, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Keval Amin & Erica Harris, 2022. "The Effect of Investor Sentiment on Nonprofit Donations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 175(2), pages 427-450, January.
    6. Stefano Barbieri & David A. Malueg, 2014. "Increasing Fundraising Success by Decreasing Donor Choice," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 16(3), pages 372-400, June.
    7. Olivier Bos & Tom Truyts, 2021. "Auctions with signaling concerns," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 420-448, May.
    8. Edward Cartwright & Amrish Patel, 2010. "Public Goods, Social Norms, and Naïve Beliefs," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 12(2), pages 199-223, April.
    9. Aronsson, Thomas & Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Wendner, Ronald, 2019. "Charity, Status, and Optimal Taxation: Welfarist and Paternalist Approaches," Umeå Economic Studies 959, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    10. Benabou, Roland & Jaroszewicz, Ania & Loewenstein, George, 2022. "It Hurts to Ask," IZA Discussion Papers 15576, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Meer, Jonathan, 2011. "Brother, can you spare a dime? Peer pressure in charitable solicitation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7), pages 926-941.
    12. Zafar, Basit, 2011. "An experimental investigation of why individuals conform," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(6), pages 774-798, August.
    13. Butera, Luigi & Houser, Daniel, 2018. "Delegating altruism: Toward an understanding of agency in charitable giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 99-109.
    14. Astrid Dannenberg & Olof Johansson‐Stenman & Heike Wetzel, 2022. "Status for the good guys: An experiment on charitable giving," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(2), pages 721-740, April.
    15. Feine, Gregor & Groh, Elke D. & von Loessl, Victor & Wetzel, Heike, 2023. "The double dividend of social information in charitable giving: Evidence from a framed field experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    16. repec:grz:wpaper:2016-01 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Amir Borges Ferreira Neto, 2018. "Charity and public libraries: Does government funding crowd out donations?," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 42(4), pages 525-542, November.
    18. Lambarraa, Fatima & Riener, Gerhard, 2012. "On the norms of charitable giving in Islam: A field experiment," DICE Discussion Papers 59, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    19. Lacetera, Nicola & Macis, Mario, 2010. "Social image concerns and prosocial behavior: Field evidence from a nonlinear incentive scheme," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 225-237, November.
    20. David Reinstein & Gerhard Riener, 2012. "Reputation and influence in charitable giving: an experiment," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(2), pages 221-243, February.
    21. Cornelli, Francesca & Buraschi, Andrea, 2002. "Donations," CEPR Discussion Papers 3488, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:inrsre:v:36:y:2013:i:1:p:115-136. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.