Search results

Makes and attempts to substantiate, the following claims: It was Marshall′s objective to show how poverty could be ameliorated. He located the causes of poverty in the institutions of the state, education, monopoloid business enterprise, and the working‐class family. He viewed institutions as structures and as organized social behaviour. He explained that the latter is conditioned by customs. Some of these are rooted in the legend‐enshrouded past and hence change‐resisting. Other customs are change‐promoting by virtue of being engendered in scientific, technological, and educational processes. Marshall recommended that the state be reformed through a strengthening of democratic processes and that this be followed by state‐engineered reform of monopoloid institutions and of educational institutions. These reforms would result in increased institutionalization of dynamic behaviour and accelerated deinstitutionalization of static behaviour. The outcome would be an increase in welfare. Because of his recommendations. Marshall considered himself a socialist.

This paper collects together quotations and extracts from 19th and 20th century thinkers who were little-known for being supporters of workplace democracy.

Wilhelm Launhardt (1832‐1918) is a founder of mathematical economics. His main work, Mathematical Foundations of Economics, published in 1885, was translated into English in 1993. As an engineer, he contributed to the field of not only engineering, but also of economics and, in particular, to those parts in economics which can be treated fruitfully with mathematics. Launhardt developed his work independently from the French engineers, but based it squarely on the work of the agricultural engineer von Thünen. He made references to the economists Sax, Walras and Jevons. His main economic contribution lies in founding location theory but, beyond that, he contributed to the mathematical treatment of economics, labor economics, monetary economics and technology economics with a special emphasis on railway issues from a locational point of view. Hence, it is the purpose of this paper to show how Launhardt used mathematics in his engineering‐based approach to the economics of location and technology.

The purpose of this paper is to find out the different types of business networks formed by firms with the stakeholders present in a cluster, i.e. how firms in a cluster interact with the cluster stakeholders?

To answer the research question, this study uses an exploratory research design, which is carried out in two stages, Stage 1 involves use of primary data, which was collected through semi-structured personal face-to-face interview mode and Stage 2 involves survey research method where data was collected through a survey questionnaire. Data for interviews and questionnaires were collected from managers and owners of firms operating in the cluster at their offices.

The study has identified four types of business networks between a firm and its buyers, only one type of business network with the suppliers and educational institutes, finally two types of business networks with government agencies and local associations. However, with respect to network with other stakeholders such as research institutes and competitors, the study shows that the interaction between a firm and these stakeholders is not strong i.e. the linkages between them remain largely unfilled.

The study has been limited to only one cluster thus it might not be appropriate to generalise the findings. Further research in this area needs to be done by taking other clusters to generalise the findings.

The study has tried to answer the research gap of lack of literature on types of business networks formed by firms with the stakeholders present in an industrial cluster, and thus, contributed to the existing literature of business networks. The identified business networks provide a much deeper understanding of how firms connect with its buyers, its suppliers, government agencies and educational institutes operating in an auto-component cluster.

This research aims to provide a theoretical framework for exploring how firms can respond to the growing threat of natural resource scarcity. Specifically, the role of closed‐loop supply chain management is examined as a means for creating resource advantages that can lead to marketplace competitive advantages.

The research extends previous theoretical research, integrating natural resource scarcity and closed‐loop supply chain management for the first time. Resource‐advantage theory is employed as the theoretical lens for the research model and propositions.

The findings deepen understanding of the forces that create natural resource scarcity conditions in the supply chain, and highlight the need for higher order closed‐loop capabilities that have the ability to mitigate natural resource scarcity.

The theoretical model and six research propositions suggest relationships between natural resource scarcity, closed‐loop capabilities, and firm level performance that need to be tested empirically. Future research opportunities and methodologies are suggested.

Growing natural resource scarcity is already having a major impact on many firms and industries; therefore, this research has significant managerial implications due to supply risks and potential disruptions caused by insufficient natural resources in current and future supply chains.

This paper seeks to increase discussion about natural resource scarcity and bring it into focus as a relevant supply chain topic related to closed‐loop supply chain capabilities and the internal firm level resources needed to ensure performance in a changing world.

The sudden evaporation of Alfred Marshall's enormous prestige is a phenomenon that deserves more attention than it has received. During his lifetime, his pre‐eminence was greater than that of any other economist before his time or since. His careful statements were based on a wealth of knowledge and understanding. He was an able mathematician and read widely in history. He studied industry at first hand and had deep social sympathies. His position at Cambridge was a prominent one in a land long known for its able political economists.

This paper aims to counter the view that Marshall was an opponent of the historical school. This false account has survived and prospered because it has fitted into more general conceptions of intellectual history, held by both orthodox and heterodox economists.

Marshall's affinity with the historical school is established by examining his writings and his relationship with historical school sympathisers in the UK.

It is established that Marshall regarded his work as building on historical school insights, and he repeatedly referred positively to the ideas of the German historical school. It is argued in this paper that Marshall's opposition to the historical school was confined to its anti‐theoretical wing, principally Cunningham. In other important respects Marshall's position was compatible with German and British historicism.

In preceding literature, Marshall's affinities with the historical school have been denied, unacknowledged, or unexplored.

Although Alfred Marshall is usually considered as a materialist concerned with the abstract theory of supply and demand, his Principles of Economics and other writings are filled with personal, ethical, and social observations that mark him as an important social scientist concerned with the “higher values” that are the true end goal of human beings. Like Abraham Maslow, he builds a hierarchy of wants from the biological needs, through health and education, friendship and affection, esteem and distinction, excellence and self‐mastery, and on to morality and religion. He seems to condemn the me‐too‐ism of the present day and looks to an ideal future world of perfect virtue in which competition and private property would be out of place.