Search results

In 1933 two books on competitive structure were published. One, extracted from a Harvard PhD filed six years earlier, dealt with the workings of the competitive process. Seeking not to supplant, but to supplement Marshall, this book by E. H. Chamberlin focused on an effort involving the use of a diagrammatic apparatus to highlight certain fundamental relationships between variables in the competitive process. It did not analyse real firms but nor did it attempt to pretend that such were irrelevant, and to concentrate on positions of competitive equilibrium only. It dealt with problems of arrival at equilibrium, false trading, and a whole variety of issues relevant to an actual competitive process. Supervised by Allyn Young, it drew on a wide range of references and showed evidence of the kind of thorough scholarly preparation which has always been characteristic of the best American PhDs.

Social class has long existed in tension with other forms of social difference such as race, gender, and sexuality, both in academic and popular debate. While Marxist-influenced class primacy perspectives gained prominence in US sociology in the 1970s, they faded from view by the 1990s, replaced by perspectives focusing on culture and institutions or on intersectional analyses of how multiple forms of social difference shape durable patterns of disempowerment and marginalization. More recently, class and capitalism have reasserted their place on the academic agenda, but continue to coexist uneasily with analyses of oppression and social difference. Here we discuss possibilities for bridging the gap between studies of class and other forms of social difference. We contend that these categories are best understood in relation to each other when situated in a larger system with its own endogenous dynamics and tendencies, namely capitalism. After providing an historical account of the fraught relationship between studies of class and other forms of social difference, we propose a theoretical model for integrating understandings of class and social difference using Wright et al.‘s concept of dynamic asymmetry. This shifts us away from discussions of which factors are most important in general toward concrete discussions of how these factors interact in particular cases and processes. We contend that class and other forms of social difference should not be studied primarily as traits embodied in individuals, but rather with respect to how these differences are organized in relation to each other within a framework shaped by the dynamics of capitalist development.

Macroeconomic shocks such as the recent global economic crisis can have far-reaching effects on the levels and the distribution of resources at the individual and the household levels. A recession associated with a labor market downturn and turbulent property and financial markets gives rise to significant and widespread losses for workers and households. Identifying the likely pattern of losses is, however, not straightforward. This is especially the case at the outset of a severe recession, when up-to-date information about current household circumstances is patchy, and economic conditions are subject to rapid change.

The paper discusses various important issues of development aid in the context of the emerging new landscape for Official Development Assistance (ODA) and in particular how aid effectiveness issues are now perceived in a world of scaled-up aid. The paper also discusses the overall nexus between aid, growth and domestic policies in aid-recipient countries by reflecting on the relevant ongoing debate in this area. A substantial part of the paper is devoted to the discussion of the central issues involved in development aid, particularly in connection with recent calls in the international development community for scaling-up aid so that the Millennium Development Goals can be attained, as well as the challenging new policy agenda in this regard.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how Chinese and German consumers react to print advertisements that are potentially offensive.

Using culture theories about information context, individualism and feminine consciousness, the paper hypothesizes that Chinese consumers will be less accepting of the advertisements than German consumers. It also compares the dimensions of consumer perceptions for both countries and how consumer perceptions are related with intentions to reject the products and the brands because of the ads. A survey of 563 respondents aged 17‐58 from urban China (Shanghai) and Germany was conducted in October 2005 and June 2006. A questionnaire with six print advertisements containing sexism and other themes was constructed. Data were collected through five universities.

Findings on perceptions of the offensive advertisements among Chinese and German respondents were mixed. Overall, as expected, Chinese respondents were less accepting of offensive advertising, as they liked the advertisements less than German respondents. However, they were also more likely than German respondents to find the advertisements convincing and informative. Results showed that Chinese respondents and German respondents had different dimensions of advertising perceptions. The two print advertisements that received the most negative perceptions both contained sexually oriented body images. The study also found that advertising perceptions had a significant impact on consumers' intentions to reject the products and the brands.

The city surveyed in China is highly advanced in terms of economical and advertising development when compared with all other Chinese cities. Consumer responses were derived from a student sample. Only the “manner” of offensive advertising was studied, and the “matter” as well as “media” were not covered.

Useful advice for marketers and advertisers to understand how far they can stretch the line for controversial advertisements and to assess the possible risk involved.

This paper offers insight to design communication and message strategies for consumers of very different cultural backgrounds.

Supplier codes of conduct (CoC) are the primary mechanism companies use to drive corporate social responsibility (CSR) upstream in their supply chains. Companies have traditionally used CoC to tackle systemic social issues (e.g. forced labor, wages and working conditions). More recently, CoC have included environmental concerns (e.g. waste treatment, toxic chemicals and pollution). The purpose of this paper is to analyze how companies have evolved their CoC across four points in time between 1999 and 2017. By evaluating changes in the scope, depth and possible regime of sanctions included in CoC, the authors consider whether companies use CoC as either a leveling or a differentiating mechanism.

The authors employ a competing-theories approach to examine how companies have employed CoC. Specifically, the authors examine the content of CoC between four data points: 1999, 2005, 2010 and 2017 to determine whether CoC are used to maintain comparative parity (institutional theory) or to achieve a distinctive market presence (awareness–motivation–capability (AMC) framework). The sample includes 36 transnational companies. To enable replication, the authors maintained consistent sampling and coding procedures across the four time periods.

The authors find a significant harmonization and standardization of CoC over time. Alignment occurs at the lower end of acceptable norms – i.e. a lowest-common-denominator approach. Companies have not chosen to take a more aspirational approach that involves raising the bar on social and environmental performance. That is, companies have not attempted to use CoC to differentiate themselves as CSR standard bearers. Provision specificity dropped for the 2010 sample before rebounding in 2017.

The authors juxtapose the findings with a theoretical framework based on the tenets of institutional theory and the AMC framework. The authors conclude that changes in CoC are largely driven by coercive, normative and mimetic isomorphism as opposed to attempts to leverage CoC to create a distinctive image that could be used for competitive advantage. This finding provides context for how the public, investors and managers should view these documents.

The purpose of this paper is to understand why the neo‐Thomist natural law approach to social economics does not represent a trustworthy epistemological reference for the current social economists but, rather, definitively belongs to the past history of economics.

The approach ventures beyond an epistemological, methodological, and historical analysis of the causes that led to the rediscovery of Thomism, its golden age, and its abandonment. The theoretical and practical contents of the neo‐Thomist natural law approach to social economics are also carefully examined in order to identify its originality.

From this study, it clearly emerges that the modern conception of economics as a value‐free and context‐independent science is due to historical facts and ideological convictions and not to evidence in nature. This study also demonstrates that the disappearance of the neo‐Thomist natural law approach from the social economics debate is basically attributable to political, scholarly, and ecclesiastical factors and not to the loss of scientific reliability.

The treatment of the neo‐Thomist school is deployed in general terms with special reference to the principal scholars, Taparelli, Liberatore, and Leo XIII. In order to focus on the paper's aim, the author has not explored the particularity of each neo‐Thomist author's thought.

The practical desirability is to always render economists more aware of the fact that the societal and ethical context significantly mattered and continues to matter in the elaboration process of the economic theories.

The novelty consists of the attempt to explain the theoretical and practical reasons that historically and currently determine the sharp separation between the neo‐Thomist natural approach tradition and the social economics theory.