Search results

Presence of refugees in our world is very common and historically admitted also. Refugees are heterogeneous as a group, many asylum seekers are relatively young, the vast majority is of working age, and increasingly more people come from countries considered crisis accumulated or unsafe. Refugee crisis is recently hindering the developmental paths of several emerging economies across the globe and therefore generates curiosity among both economists and political scientists. Under such a backdrop, findings of any substantive plausible economic reasons behind such hitherto commonly ascribed issue become crucial from the angle of policy making. Broadly speaking, here we want to examine the major cause of refugee formation and how it will affect the size of the so-called potential refugees owing to eco-political instability. To perform this, here we have used a hybrid model which entails the flavours of both dynamic game theory and rational expectations theory of macroeconomics. From such a setup and under the presence of rational expectations, we have shown that a movement from a regime of REPE to non-REPE may lead to an increase in the level of nuisance or uncertainty in the South, which in turn raises the cost of life associated with high-quality quality-differentiated product of the South and thereby increases the number of potential refugees.

Misconduct allegations have been found to not only affect the alleged firm but also other, unalleged firms in form of reputational and financial spillover effects. It has remained unexplored, however, how the number of prior allegations against other firms matters for an individual firm currently facing an allegation. Building on behavioral decision theory, we argue that the relationship between allegation prevalence among other firms and investor reaction to a focal allegation is inverted U-shaped. The inverted U-shaped effect is theorized to emerge from the combination of two effects: In the absence of prior allegations against other firms, investors fail to anticipate the focal allegation, and hence react particularly negatively (“anticipation effect”). In the case of many prior allegations against other firms, investors also react particularly negatively because investors perceive the focal allegation as more warranted (“evaluation effect”). The multi-industry, empirical analysis of 8,802 misconduct allegations against US firms between 2007 and 2017 provides support for our predicted, inverted U-shaped effect. Our study complements recent misconduct research on spillover effects by highlighting that not only a current allegation against an individual firm can “contaminate” other, unalleged firms but that also prior allegations against other firms can “contaminate” investor reaction to a focal allegation against an individual firm.

This chapter considers how social capital is evolving in the era of globalization today especially under COVID-19 pandemic conditions globally. Definitions of social capital have varied: some broad others narrow. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), for example, currently has a broad research project on social capital. These researchers have defined social capital as comprising four key areas. These areas are:

• Personal relationships, referring to the structure of people’s social networks.

• Depth and breadth of social network support available to each person in their networks.

• Civic engagement activities such as volunteering and community action.

• Beliefs, attitudes, and action frames of reference such as trust and cooperative norms, of reciprocity.

Personal relationships, referring to the structure of people’s social networks.

Depth and breadth of social network support available to each person in their networks.

Civic engagement activities such as volunteering and community action.

Beliefs, attitudes, and action frames of reference such as trust and cooperative norms, of reciprocity.

Thus, there are tacit as well as explicit aspects of social capital though some of these may seldom if ever be articulated and delineated for others.

As Claridge (2020) indicates, there are distinct, but dynamically interrelated, levels of social capital. These levels range between the micro- or individual level. That is personal “habitus” – which Bourdieu (1977) describes as a person’s “taken-for-granted” – ways of being, thinking, and reacting to events and to other people. Then, the next level above the individual is the meso-level, which is “how things are done here amongst us,” that is, the level of a group’s social capital (such as a team, or an organizational or local community level). Lastly, and wider still, the top level is the macro- or cultural-societal structural level of the nation.

The social capital systems in any location encompasses sets of acceptable or culturally legitimated behavioral norms and rules of engagement between community members which include types of greetings, forms of cooperation, communications, and signaling between diverse members. Thus, social capital may be present in the tacit, or unspoken/taken-for-granted assumptions as much as in explicit or formalized codes of behavior. The forms of social interactions at each of the levels may have norms for specific types communication and address in particular sets of circumstances such as social gatherings at home or in public or when attending communal gatherings or ceremonial occasions, or between people of different social status. Social capital generates trust and social cohesion and some level of cultural and attitudinal consensus and interest, which in turn delivers a stable environment for the local community or larger society, business, or the economy.

• (1)

  Social capital is the development of relationships that help contribute to a more efficient production of goods and services as there is embedded trust, embodied in practice, that is, in behaviors regarded as trustworthy and socially helpful.

• (2)

  There are three types of social capital at each level of interaction – bonding, bridging, and linking. Bridging and linking are similar though they operate in different directions socially. Bonding social capital describes the connections between people in similar social levels or groups of people who share the same characteristic norms and beliefs, whereas linking social capital facilitates connects between different groups.

• (3)

  Social capital can therefore make or break businesses, especially small businesses or start-ups as those with the right kind and amount of social capital, such as good connections and contacts in the trade or profession, can usually thrive as they are able to get work done more quickly, effectively, and efficiently. Conversely, a lack of social capital denoting some distrust between groups can undermine social stability.

Social capital is the development of relationships that help contribute to a more efficient production of goods and services as there is embedded trust, embodied in practice, that is, in behaviors regarded as trustworthy and socially helpful.

There are three types of social capital at each level of interaction – bonding, bridging, and linking. Bridging and linking are similar though they operate in different directions socially. Bonding social capital describes the connections between people in similar social levels or groups of people who share the same characteristic norms and beliefs, whereas linking social capital facilitates connects between different groups.

Social capital can therefore make or break businesses, especially small businesses or start-ups as those with the right kind and amount of social capital, such as good connections and contacts in the trade or profession, can usually thrive as they are able to get work done more quickly, effectively, and efficiently. Conversely, a lack of social capital denoting some distrust between groups can undermine social stability.

The meso- or macro-levels of bridging type social capital ensures acceptance of established social roles locally and linking forms of social capital boost levels of acceptance of other roles such as those of leaders and followers.

All three forms of social capital and the three levels are not mutually exclusive but instead are mutually inclusive and interrelated. That is, they co-evolve, each impacting the other while dynamically interacting with the social capital anchored as it is emerging from the complex and interwoven fields of tacit and explicit norms of social interaction underpinning each of the levels of interaction over time.

Low density polyethylene, commonly known as polythene, was first synthesised by Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) in England in 1933. Due to its extensive usage as a packaging material, along with other uses, it has now begun to pose a serious threat to the entire ecosystem. This material, which was used to make a variety of consumer goods, is commonly used for packaging a wide range of products including foodstuffs. It has been estimated that approximately 20 billion polythene bags are used in Sri Lanka. Because polythene and plastics take a long time to decompose (20–100 years), these materials have been contributing heavily to the pollution of the environment. Unfortunately, much of the discarded polyethene ends up in garbage dumps, thereby posing a great threat not only to humans but also to animals. This study aimed to investigate the use of polythene in supermarkets in the Attanagalla division, the management of household polythene waste, and the search for alternatives to replace polythene and plastics. Data were collected by interviewing 40 consumers and getting their feedback on the use of polythene bags in which the goods were supplied to them. Observations were also made in the field. It was noted that some consumers liked to use polythene bags while many others disliked them. More than 95% of the supermarket products were packed in polythene and plastic containers and packs. It was observed that there were shortcomings in the production of reusable bags, and because of that disposable polythene bags had to be used, causing the supermarkets to incur huge costs. On average, more than five polythene bags were used per customer to pack his purchases per shop visit. This costs between Rs. 25 and Rs. 30. There seemed to be no alternative to polythene and plastic, due to the lack of suppliers for more environmentally friendly packaging materials. Therefore, it is suggested to establish a system that will supply more eco-friendly bags and educate the public on the use of environmentally friendly alternatives.