Search results

Offers a response to David Laidler’s article “More on Hawtrey, Harvard and Chicago”, in this issue. Asserts that the unique Chicagoan quantity‐theory of the early 1930s embodied a policy framework which left it immune from the Keynesian revolution and contained important linkages with Friedman’s views in its business‐cycle analysis and policy positions. Claims that this tradition explains why Chicago (and not Harvard) originated the monetarist counter‐revolution.

In recent years, the concept of subculture has been fiercely criticized, with some scholars even claiming that it is no longer relevant in a multi-cultural world (Muggleton, 2000; Chaney, 2004; Stahl, 2004). However, the authors argue that by revisiting the Chicago School tradition and reconceptualizing subculture on the basis of acknowledging its limitations and its potential, subculture theory remains applicable in the context of contemporary China. Through an eight-month ethnographic study of a group of deviant students in a secondary school in urban China, the purpose of this paper is to contend that the subculture of these young people from lower-class backgrounds is a means to negotiate their space and power in a failing school system situated in a drastically transforming society full of diversified yet often conflicting values.

In this study, the authors undertook an ethnographic study to follow a group of deviant students for eight months, trying to understand their everyday lives and the process of their identity construction. The research was conducted in Xiamen, a coastal city located in the southeast part of mainland China. Unlike large metropolitan areas such as Beijing and Shanghai, where most studies have been conducted so far, Xiamen represents one of the medium-sized cities, which are the majority in China. After a process of sampling among 11 classes from five schools in different tiers, the authors chose one class in Grade 2 at a medium-level secondary school called “Central Park Secondary School” as a pseudonym. The authors stayed in the field for the main study and the authors also paid another visit to the school to follow up on students’ recent development.

In this study, a group of problem students identified with each other and shared the same problems and situations, and collectively formed a subcultural group, from within which they could challenge the authority of teachers and parents and negotiate power in the school; for example, reaching a truce with teachers so that they could have an easier time at school until they graduated. Their subculture and resistance may seem like a self-defeating practice, because what they learned at school and the qualifications they obtained could only assure them laboring jobs and reproduce their lower class status. However, this subculture offered an alternative way to safeguard their happiness and healthy development, which in this case is psychological well-being and better interpersonal skills.

This paper could provide the teachers and school administrators with a new perspective to look at some of their students’ poor performance and disruptive behaviors. With a deeper understanding of their “deviant” students, the teachers may develop more pertinent measures to help their students.

This paper argues that, through revisiting the Chicago School tradition and reconceptualizing subculture on the basis of acknowledging its limitations and potential, subculture theory remains applicable in the context of contemporary China.

Introduces the special issue to mark the 10th anniversary of Lauchlin Currie's death. Currie was an economist described as the intellectual leader of the spending wing of Roosevelt's New Deal.

Across the European Union there has been an increase in the number of programmes and initiatives aiming to promote small business and entrepreneurship. In line with this general trend, enterprise creation and entrepreneurship are increasingly recognised as vital for French post‐industrial society, yet France is lagging behind Spain, the UK, Italy and the USA in terms of enterprise creation. This article discusses entrepreneurship education and the role of the Grandes Ecoles. Draws on primary research into student attitudes to entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship and concludes that both societal and educational aspects as well as the creation of entrepreneurial environment at a management school are key to promoting an entrepreneurial student population.

In this paper the author aims to examine his own life and work in order to understand how an ethnographic sensibility emerges and develops.

The paper examines the personal and institutional context in which his book Engineering Culture: Commitment and Control in a High Tech Corporation was researched and written, from formative moments in his life that led him to the study, through the process of finding, entering and exploring his field, to the acts of interpretation and writing that culminated in the book.

The paper illustrates the institutional pressures that constrain conceptual and methodological freedom and undermine the logic of inquiry, and suggests ways of circumventing them. It also illustrates how interpretation is rooted in symbolic resources developed over a lifetime that are far beyond a grounding in social theory, and shows the intricate connections between question formulation, data collection, interpretation and writing that transcend the standard approaches to teaching and executing social research.

The paper offers a revealing behind‐the‐scenes view of the process of ethnographic inquiry, challenges the accepted view of the method and offers practical advice to researchers, teachers and students.

The similarities among the writings of Ralph Hawtrey, Lauchlin Currie and Milton Friedman are re‐affirmed, as is the influence of the former on what Friedman has called “the Chicago tradition” of the 1930s. The underconsumptionist analysis of Paul Douglas is not integral to that tradition.

This paper addresses the status of the concept of tradition in social theory. Tradition, precisely defined, should be one of the ways sociologists understand the logic of social action, group identity, and collective memory (Coser 1992; Connerton 1989). To date, however, most social scientists are either dismissive or indiscriminate in their use of the notion. Those who disapprove of the concept tend to “treat tradition as a residual category”’ (Shils 1981 p. 8) or they see it as a type of false consciousness susceptible to manipulation by dominant elites (Hobsbawm 1983). Scholars who embrace tradition, such as Edward Shils, often do so by broadening the concept into something indistinguishable from any cultural inheritance. A nuanced ideal‐type theory is put forth here to enable us to identify and research the particular logic of a social tradition. This theory is extracted from a critical, and highly selective, reconstruction of the history of the concept of tradition.

Responds to George Tavlas’ comments in “More on the Chicago tradition”, in this issue, and once again assesses the contribution of individuals to “the Chicago tradition” of the 1930s.

This paper is a review essay of Leeson, R. (Ed.), Keynes, Chicago and Friedman (2 volumes), Pickering and Chatto, London, 2003. These volumes contain a comprehensive collection of previously published papers, and also some interesting new materials, relating to the controversy about the accuracy of Milton Friedman's depiction of the “oral tradition” in monetary economics at the University of Chicago in the 1930s and 1940s. As such, the work is a notable addition to the scholarly literature. The broader issue raised by this collection is the precise relationship between Friedman's “monetarism” and the so‐called “Keynesian economics” of the neoclassical synthesis, and specifically, whether there was any real difference between them.

Describes how mathematics enjoyed a virtual monopoly as the privileged method of economic inquiry in the post‐war period. Counters the argument that such a position generates negative consequences, such as monopoly rents and the abuse of dominant positions. Argues that competing schools of economic thought such as Chicago, Harvard, neoclassical and post‐Keynesian, neo‐Australian, evolutionary and institutional economists all hold positions that diverge on essentials. Suggests that the market structure of post‐war economies is not a monopoly but a heterogeneous asymmetric oligopoly with a few large and a fringe of small suppliers. Analyses the relationship between two large and two fringe suppliers, stating that the oligopoly metaphor suggests that there is competition between schools that may lead to winners and losers and to changes in the market shares. In conclusion, offers a projection of what the author expects, i.e. who will lose and how the market structure will change, offering an insight into the role of mathematics.