Search results

The purpose of the article is to move beyond positivistic political economy analysis of fair trade, and to examine competitive dynamics between competing interpretations in terms of the very fair trade concept itself.

Grounded in an ideational ontology, the paper provides a theoretical framework concerned with the contestation of meaning. Analysis applies this framework through a heuristic reading of fair trade's history, drawing on secondary literature, documents and primary qualitative research; and the discursive construction of Fair for Life – a new programme seeking to negotiate the “constitutive rules” of fair trade.

The article identifies that the history of fair trade and its current competitive dynamics are constituted by a negotiation and contestation of the constitutive rules that set the parameters of the fair trade concept.

The paper complements political economy analysis of socially constructed governance such as fair trade, and adds value to academic analysis by exposing important, yet previously unconsidered, micro‐politics of language and practice. The description and initial analysis of “Fair for Life” opens a new area of empirical interest for scholars of fair trade and sustainability governance.

Analysis highlighting the important implication of discourse and practice for the very definition of fair trade offers practitioners important insights into little considered implication of their practices and their representations in language.

The article complements political economy analysis by demonstrating the value of an ideationally grounded analysis of fair trade and similar socially constructed governance systems.

We explore the significance of social ontology and its capacity to inform the specification of organizational status, architecture and capacities. We consider how different conceptions of social ontology are critical for explicating a range of epistemological and socio-economic questions concerning organizations and develop a research agenda oriented to studying these issues from the perspective of management and organization studies.

This essay considers the relationship between global sociology and sociological theory through an examination of the critique of Northern Theory developed by Raewyn Connell. The author accepts many of Connell’s criticisms of the formation of the Northern Theory canon, and of the false universalism of contemporary Northern Theory, but disputes the degree to which Connell has succeeded in finding a replacement for the “ethnosociology of the metropole” provided by current sociological theory. In particular, the author suggests that, in Southern Theory, Connell pursues an intellectual history of world philosophies instead of the development of theoretical concepts that could provide a more adequate global sociology from a Southern perspective. Connell leaves the reader with a reconstructed canon of classics, but without a new repertoire of middle-range explanatory and interpretive concepts with which to reconstruct our understanding of history itself. The former may be the necessary first step toward the latter, however, rendering Southern Theory an important moment in the global turn in sociological theory.

Social scientists continue to invest a great deal of effort in constructing superior measures of democracy without arriving at any consensus. Reflections on this state of affairs frequently refer to an essay of more than a half-century ago in which the philosopher W. B. Gallie analyzed the characteristics of what he called “essentially contested concepts.” Gallie’s account of the properties of these concepts, however, is inadequate. It looks more promising to explore the contestants and the contests and especially the dynamic roles played by social movements in the history of democracy. Gallie’s focus on a debate among philosophers needs to be incorporated within a larger a larger field of social conflict.

This study examines the legal codification of nascent markets, specifically, the process of defining and incorporating Islamic banking and organic agriculture within the legal system in Turkey. I find that actors’ priorities differ significantly with respect to formal codification and that the existing legal order and socio-political and economic contexts shape how state and non-state actors influence legislative and regulative action. This study contributes to our understanding of how actors and their ideological commitments and relational concerns affect the legal formulation of new industries.

The purpose of this paper is to critique the philosophical underpinnings of the growing field of Islamic economics.

A critical and comparative review of Islamic economics texts written by key proponents during the last eight decades is undertaken. The origins of this nascent science are traced and factors that gave impetus to its development examined. The different characterisations of the discipline as it has developed within the broader socio‐political context are contrasted.

The proponents of Islamic economics have had little success in shaping a distinctive paradigm for their discipline, beyond arguing that it is underpinned by a strong moral ethic. By and large, its epistemological roots have remained firmly within the framework of rationalism/empiricism and methodological individualism. Consequently, Islamic economics has not been able to shed its neoclassical moorings, the very paradigm it originally set out to replace. Several of the contradictions apparent in the discipline are discussed. Islamic economists, recognising that their mission has remained unfulfilled, have variously suggested different approaches to regenerate the process and chart the way forward. These propositions are examined and evaluated.

If Islamic economics is to fulfil its raison d'être, that is, articulate a coherent theoretical paradigm and demonstrate its relevance to the real economy, its proponents must resolve its theoretical and practical difficulties by clarifying its Weltanschauung and developing an appropriate content and form.

This study evaluates how the discipline has developed and exposes its inherent contradictions. These inconsistencies are identified and explained at the foundational level, highlighting where and why they have occurred.

Existing literature has begun to identify the agonistic and contested aspects of the ongoing development of accountability systems. These “contests” are particularly important during periods of change when an accountability “deficit” has been identified, that is, when existing accountability systems are deemed inadequate and requiring revision. The purpose of this paper is to explore one such set of contests in the case of large technology and social media firms: the so-called “big tech”. The authors focus specifically on “big tech” because of increasing societal concerns about the harms associated with their products, services and business practices.

The authors analysed four US Congressional hearings, in which the CEO of Facebook was held to account for the company's alleged breaches and harms. The authors conducted a discourse analysis of the dialogue between the account giver (Mark Zuckerberg) and account holders (Members of Congress) in the oral testimony at the four hearings.

Two areas of contestation in the dialogue between the account giver and account holders are identified. “Epistemic contests” involved contestation about the “facts” concerning the harms the company had allegedly caused. “Responsibility contests” involved contestation about who (or what) should be held responsible for these harms and according to what standards or criteria.

The study advances critical dialogical accountability literature by identifying two areas of contestation during periods of change in accountability systems. In so doing, they advanced the theory by conceptualising the process of change as underpinned by discursive contests in which multiple actors construct and contest the “problem” with existing accountability systems. The outcomes of these contests are significant, the authors suggest, because they inform the development of reforms to the accountability system governing big tech firms and other industries undergoing similar periods of contestation and change.

Civil disobedience is often defined as a public, conscientious, nonviolent act of breaking the law in an attempt to change an unjust policy or law. When applied to real-life situations, this widely accepted definition overlooks key features of civil disobedience and ignores civil acts that fundamentally challenge undemocratic institutions or the state and make socio-political changes possible. The purpose of this paper is to criticize and revise the conceptual, ethical and socio-political understandings of civil disobedience by integrating deliberative theory with some radical perspectives on civil disobedience.

This paper integrates and critically revises previous approaches to the justification and role of civil disobedience in democratic systems. Specifically, the ethical concerns about civil disobedience are discussed and the deliberative concept of civil disobedience is expanded as a form of political contestation by incorporating the socio-political aspects of civil disobedience. Although it is a conceptual discussion, the paper opted for an exploratory approach using empirically related examples to illustrate the theoretical discussion.

The paper provides a new perspective to the literature on civil disobedience. The critical review shows that the limited general understanding of civil disobedience conceptually is not useful to analyze various forms of civil disobedience.

The reviewed literature is limited due to a limited space.

The paper includes practical implications for policymakers and authorities when evaluating and responding to civil actions more effectively and for members of civil movements and organizations when creating new forms of civil protest and effective responses to authorities.

This paper may be a modest first attempt to reframe the concept of civil disobedience by integrating deliberative democracy theory and some radical perspectives.

This paper is prompted by the dissatisfaction of developing countries regarding the grant of special and differential treatment (SDT) under the legal framework of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). As a result of such dissatisfaction, the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations explicitly called for a review of such treatment with a view to making it more precise, effective and operational. This mandate has not yet been met to the satisfaction of many developing countries. This paper aims to provide an alternative way of examining and evaluating the contestation which exists regarding SDT in the WTO.

This paper uses the conceptual framework provided by the economic contract theory and in particular, the concept of the incomplete contract to provide a scaffold for analysing SDT. This approach is intended to offer insights beyond those elucidated so far in the literature on the topic.

This paper, by using an economic contract theory approach, finds that SDT is constructed as an incomplete contract. Furthermore, the suboptimal outcomes associated with incomplete contracts are apparent in the constitution of SDT. This finding is useful in both an evaluative and programmatic sense, providing us with an alternative entry point to explain some of the shortcomings with SDT, as well as garnering us with a useful conceptual tool to think upon how SDT can be improved.

The paper contributes to the literature on SDT within the WTO in particular and differential treatment in international law in general. Drawing on literature on the WTO as an incomplete contract, the paper provides an original frame for analyzing SDT and draws attention, in particular, to the utility of the economic contract theory as a programmatic and evaluative frame for SDT and differential treatment more generally.

This chapter seeks to understand the emergence of new institutions of business regulation, standard-setting and governance commonly referred to as multistakeholder initiatives (MSIs), and to consider their implications both from the perspective of regulatory effectiveness and sustainable development.

The analysis synthesizes the findings of a review of 20 such initiatives. It draws on a wide body of literatures and conceptual insights to understand the emergence of these new approaches to international business regulation. The assessment of their emergence, performance, and impacts highlights the complex dynamics of regulatory change.

The findings caution against simple generalizations about the positive or negative outcomes of these new forms of collaborative governance. Their somewhat mixed record can be partly explained by the diverse set of interests, preferences, and agendas of the actors involved; variations in institutional learning, capacities, and power relations; as well as how such initiatives are nested in broader institutions and structures. This points to the need, raised in the conclusion, for intellectual pluralism in advancing knowledge of the effectiveness of new regulatory institutions.

The analysis aims to go beyond studies that (i) tend to focus on just one or a few cases; (ii) that ignore the implications of such initiatives for development in the Global South; and (iii) draw on narrow bodies of theory and literature to understand complex issues.