Search results

This chapter will examine the rise and downfall of the Irish Green Party from a party of protest through their elevation as junior coalition partners in the national government from 2007 until 2011. An ‘Event History Analysis’ (EHA) (Berry & Berry, 1990) through an ‘Issue History’ (Szasz, 1994) will be applied to the key events in this process, in order to illustrate the key motivations, moments, potential successes and enduring difficulties which emerged during this time. An Event History Analysis provides an explanation for ‘a qualitative change’ that occurs as a result of key events in an organisation's history (Berry & Berry, 1990). An Issue History requires a trans-disciplinary analysis of events using theories and methods from history, sociology, political science, sources from the state, the media, surveys and the social movements, in addition to theories of political economy and postmodernism, to analyse various interrelated facets of the salient ‘issue’ being studied (Szasz, 2004, 2008).

‘WHY MUST EVERYBODY IN IRELAND’, says Sean O'Faolain, in one of his recent flashes of inspiration, ‘live like an express train that starts off for heaven full of beautiful dreams, and marvellous ambitions and, halfway, Bejasus, you switch off the bloody track down some sideline that brings you to exactly where you began?’ Such highly coloured comment might equally well be applied to the characters and situations we find in the plays of that Dublin genius—the centenary of whose birth we are commemorating this year—John Millington Synge. The writings of both authors, incidentally, are characterized by a rueful, amusing, gently self‐mocking tone about Ireland and the Irish. Both adopt a wider, detached, almost continental view of their country. Synge, in particular, refers to Ireland as the furthermost corner of Western Europe and himself as an Irish European.

China’s social credit system features a central database, the assignment of social credit scores for individuals and businesses, and the meting out of rewards and punishments, including a form of public shaming. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) continues to develop the system in an effort to promote virtue and trustworthiness. While the idea that a government can ‘legislate morality’ is often scorned, it is not one that we dispute. Our focus is on how the social credit system promotes virtue, how the CCP’s thinking compares with that of certain relevant philosophers, and whether the system is in violation of human rights. As we readily acknowledge, there is a sense in which practically all of us face an informal kind of social credit system; as individuals in society, we expect to be subject to a kind of feedback loop in which good behaviour is rewarded and poor behaviour is punished. Yet China’s social credit system is a remarkably centralised kind of effort, and it enables the CCP to play an extraordinarily dominant role in both controlling and contributing to the feedback loop that people and businesses in China face. In harmony with a chorus of human rights groups, we argue that China’s social credit system is indeed in serious danger of violating certain human rights, particularly certain rights relating to freedom of opinion and expression. Moreover, we contend that this human rights critique of the system is reasonably robust because the kind of human rights involved are liberty rights as opposed to rights to goods and services. As we explain, liberty rights tend not to impose a material burden on others, which helps to give them an especially strong claim for recognition as human rights.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on the other end of entrepreneurship – the disassembling of enterprises by insolvency professionals.

Drawing on empirical material from major insolvency practitioners (IPs) in Ireland; the paper identifies three different narrative positions – “clinical market operators”, “blame the entrepreneurs” and “professional detachment/disidentification” – that these specialists employed to story their working experiences.

The paper suggests that IPs do not have a fixed narrative schema to narrate their professional identities, as they struggle to reconcile their professional acts with their personal ambitions. These findings point to a disconnection between the political rhetoric on risk taking and the acts perpetrated on entrepreneurs who fail, a central tension in the discourse on entrepreneurship policy.

The paper adds to the current debate on business failure, an area that is typically under-researched and under-theorised in entrepreneurship studies. By offering a response to calls for more multi-perspective research, this paper makes a significant contribution to extant interpretive literature on business failure. While the method of analysing stories is widely accepted in social science research, researchers seeking to replicate this study may produce different results; this is a taken for granted outcome of the method.

The analysis suggests that the current legislative impetus to ameliorate the implications of insolvency, driven by an aspiration to encourage second-chance entrepreneurship, faces resistance from IPs as they attempt to fulfil their professional obligations. In the absence of legislative reform, the impulse, perhaps even process necessity, of IPs to dialogically position themselves against failed entrepreneurs is likely to continue.

The paper's originality and value arise from its unique consideration of other end of entrepreneurship; offering novel insights into the difficulties IPs have in narrating their working lives.