Search results

It turns out that there is a bigger, better version of The big three. Skousen should be aware of it since he wrote it himself. The making of modern economics: The lives and ideas of the great thinkers (Skousen, 2001; hereafter Making of economics) is the source of The big three. The latter is essentially a condensed version of the former.

This chapter focuses on policy intervention that has grown in popularity in the UK since the financial crisis of 2008. The focus is on inclusive growth and more specifically, community wealth building. The concept has been picked up by institutions and think tanks at multiple scales from the OECD to local government. We aim to address the tensions in community wealth building and in particular how local authorities in the UK are adjusting their procurements strategies to increase the tendering capabilities of SMEs in their political geography.

We introduce a UK-based study utilising an ESRC-funded case study, desktop research and semi-structured interviews to investigate how well the region of Greater Manchester (GM) ecosystem was equipped to prepare small firms to learn how to compete for public contracts with evidence applicable to other large-scale tenders.

Overall, at the time of writing business support across GM does not create the value proposition of enabling small firms to be capable at tendering and thus undermines community wealth building (CWB) efforts. The advice on offer is sparse; it offers partial or no advice about different capabilities and is often limited to simple guidance stating procurement rules and compliance demands. Information is often abstract and technical support is also fragmented, making it unlikely that small firms will find resources. Advice fails to engage with evidence on how small firms learn and to provide a learning process. In particular, support to raise absorptive capacity and strategic commitment to tendering, build basic tender readiness and develop and refresh tendering capability is not evident. Training, coaching and peer learning are largely absent.

UK appears to be an experimental ground for CWB with dedicated think tanks and several examples such as the ‘Preston Model’. GM is a suitably sized and comparable region to offer transferable knowledge and indicators to support regions to innovate. We offer a ‘Dashboard of Priorities’ to enhance business support to SMEs so they can win at tendering, thus strengthening CWB policy and impact. Furthermore, we are adding clarity to a fuzzy definition of CWB and define inclusive procurement. We assist global policymakers to answer the fundamental question; are we doing all that we can with these significant resources to create an economy which truly benefits the people? By examining the ideas of community wealth building and inclusive procurement from a local authority and SME perspective, we can extrapolate finings for international comparison and offer an in-depth look at how the execution of this policy can be strengthened to deliver maximum benefit to their communities. The implication is to focus attention on how institutions (public or private), by way of better execution, can enhance the economic resilience of their own local ecosystems/places.

The following is an introductory profile of the fastest growing firms over the three-year period of the study listed by corporate reputation ranking order. The business activities in which the firms are engaged are outlined to provide background information for the reader.

The United States today boasts of a complex and extensive set of public and private institutions and arrangements for managing its water resources. Today's system of watershed management is neither entirely top-down nor bottom-up. It is not entirely planned, nor is it entirely laissez-faire. Rather it is a hybrid. This chapter analyzes through a historical lens how American watershed management evolved to this state. It looks at two driving factors: technological change and trends in American political culture. Technology provided the reason for water resource and watershed management to evolve because of the conflicts provoked by its unintended and negative side effects, such as pollution. American political culture mediated the way that individuals and government reacted to these conflicts and spurred the evolution of new institutions.

This chapter explores three different Cinema, Memory and Wellbeing pilot projects, two of which were carried out in Liverpool and the other in Petrópolis, a city of comparable size in the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. It begins by discussing our motivations for developing these projects and how we drew on our previous research relating to films and cinema-going. It then presents the three different projects, showing how each was tailored to the care context in question (a residential nursing home and a day-care centre on Merseyside, and a GP practice in Brazil), explaining how they were conducted and discussing the results, with a view to informing and improving future initiatives of this type. We also show how our findings have shaped the creation of the ‘best-practice’ toolkit designed to enable activities coordinators, carers and health professionals to optimize the benefits of using films to stimulate memories and reminiscence and promote an improved sense of wellbeing among older people and those living with dementia. (This toolkit is available to download from the Emerald website in English: https://books.emeraldinsight.com/page/detail/Selfies/?K=9781787437173). We recount in detail our practical experiences of setting up and running screenings in diverse environments, how we set about trying to ‘measure’ or at least gather some tangible evidence of the wellbeing benefits of these events, and provide numerous examples of the reminiscences that they generated, as well as the feedback on the projects that we received from both the people who participated and the people who care for them.

The governance of capital market institutions did not receive much interest compared to their banking sector counterparts, partly due to their different ownership structures. Recent trends; increased competition, technological advances, structural changes, globalization, all had their share of impact on governance systems of capital markets institutions particularly on exchanges. Corporate governance of non-financial firms and capital markets institutions differ in several ways. Firstly the role of risk management differs since they may impose systemic risks to the financial system. Secondly well-implemented governance structures and processes are required but are not sufficient in capital markets since there are several conflicts of interests to be addressed. Therefore whether and how effectively they function is what matters. Thirdly the governance structures of such institutions exhibit different effectiveness on their decisions.The governance of FIs in capital markets is discussed in terms of board structure and management, risk governance, supervisors, shareholders, executive compensation, role of regulators, authorities and values and culture. The role of stock exchanges in corporate governance are discussed separately in terms of implementing corporate governance codes, demutualisation and its impact on regulations, transparency and accountability issues and the effects of M&As among exchanges. Market needs strong analytical tools and reliable benchmarks to assess governance risk. The corporate control and the regulation of the institutions by the exchanges when the corporations (regulated) are the competitors of the exchanges (regulators) or owned by the stockholders of the exchanges must be addressed. The risk of regulatory arbitrage, calls for the need of harmonisation among regulators. Better regulation of FIs and greater global coordination among regulators are seen as the most two important issues to prevent another crisis.