Search results

In June 2016, a clear majority of English voters chose to unilaterally take the United Kingdom out of the European Union (EU). According to many of the post-Brexit vote analyses, the single strongest motivating factor driving this vote was “immigration” in Britain, an issue which had long been the central mobilizing force of the United Kingdom Independence Party. The chapter focuses on how – following the bitter demise of multiculturalism – these Brexit related developments may now signal the end of Britain's postcolonial settlement on migration and race, the other parts of a progressive philosophy which had long been marked out as a proud British distinction from its neighbors. In successfully racializing, lumping together, and relabeling as “immigrants” three anomalous non-“immigrant” groups – asylum seekers, EU nationals, and British Muslims – UKIP leader Nigel Farage made explicit an insidious recasting of ideas of “immigration” and “integration,” emergent since the year 2000, which exhumed the ideas of Enoch Powell and threatened the status of even the most settled British minority ethnic populations – as has been seen in the Windrush scandal. Central to this has been the rejection of the postnational principle of non-discrimination by nationality, which had seen its fullest European expression in Britain during the 1990s and 2000s. The referendum on Brexit enabled an extraordinary democratic vote on the notion of “national” population and membership, in which “the People” might openly roll back the various diasporic, multinational, cosmopolitan, or human rights–based conceptions of global society which had taken root during those decades. This chapter unpacks the toxic cocktail that lays behind the forces propelling Boris Johnson to power. It also raises the question of whether Britain will provide a negative examplar to the rest of Europe on issues concerning the future of multiethnic societies.

“It should also be noted that the objective of convergence and equal distribution, including across under-performing areas, can hinder efforts to generate growth. Contrariwise, the objective of competitiveness can exacerbate regional and social inequalities, by targeting efforts on zones of excellence where projects achieve greater returns (dynamic major cities, higher levels of general education, the most advanced projects, infrastructures with the heaviest traffic, and so on). If cohesion policy and the Lisbon Strategy come into conflict, it must be borne in mind that the former, for the moment, is founded on a rather more solid legal foundation than the latter” European Commission (2005, p. 9)Adaptation of Cohesion Policy to the Enlarged Europe and the Lisbon and Gothenburg Objectives.

Status constitutes a core research concept across the social sciences. However, its definition is still contested, and questions persist about its consequences. We begin with a flexible, provisional definition: status is a relational asset possessed by social actors insofar as they are highly regarded by highly regarded others. Using this definition as a backdrop, we develop a fourfold typology based on how status is used as an asset and from where it is derived. The typology allows us to explore the implications of considering status as either a quality signal or a good and of viewing status-conferring ties as either deference-based or dominance-based. We then consider the implications of our framework for the generation of novelty. Although status has been connected to many social and economic outcomes, because of competing predictions in the literature – the generation of novelty has been linked to all regions of the status distribution – we sketch intuitions for future research on the status–novelty linkage. We also work toward greater conceptual clarity by comparing and contrasting status with selected related concepts: quality, reputation, and legitimacy. We conclude with considerations for future research, including cautionary remarks regarding network-analytic measurement in light of the definition we propose.

In August 2007, over 6,000 sociologists gathered in New York to attend the 102nd meeting of the American Sociological Association and discuss the possibility of radical social transformation in post-modern capitalist society.¹ The adoption of the conference theme ‘Is another world possible?’ was theoretically significant, for it seemed to call into question one of the most fundamental assumptions upon which critical sociology depends: that despite the rarity of radical social change, it is possible, desirable and even imperative to imagine and struggle for better alternatives to existing ways of being. From phenomenological insights into the contingency of our subjective interpretations of reality to the imperative of reconciling ‘appearance’ with ‘reality’; from the long history of collective movements to defend human dignity to the ‘politics of small things’ (Goldfarb, 2006), critical theories of society presume that human fates are not determined and futures are not reified, and that the possibility of possibility is a pre-condition for ‘normal’ human existence. This is not to say that progressive alternatives to the status quo are not often and everywhere repressed to some degree and in some form, or that they are equally distributed or attainable. But as Gustavo Gutierrez once remarked, a ‘commitment to the creation of a just society and, ultimately, to a new human being, presupposes confidence in the future’ (2003, p. 197).

Purpose: This literature review aims to answer the calls for further exploration of scaling challenges and opportunities for social entrepreneurs (SEs). We address the scaling issue of social entrepreneurship through the theoretical lens of sustainable business models. Methodology: This paper investigates, on a multilevel approach, 340 journal articles published in one of the 20 peer-reviewed journals in management, entrepreneurship, CSR, organizational behavior, and nonprofit. It also considers influential articles due to their relatively high citation count (i.e., more than 150 times) outside of those selected journals. This paper furthermore analyses in-depth 32 scaling articles. Findings: This study positions the topics of social entrepreneurship over the last decades, together with the six types of scaling strategies: scaling up, scaling down, scaling across, scaling deep, scaling out, and diversification. It also discusses 15 challenges related to the scaling efforts by SEs. It furthermore elaborates on potential leads for research and practice regarding scaling social impact. Social Implications: There are many pathways for SEs to increase their impact on society, even though it remains quite challenging to achieve for most. Understanding what possibilities or limitations apply to individual SEs is but a first step in developing the full potential of social entrepreneurship. Originality: This paper approaches scaling from three complementary levels of analysis, i.e., individual, organizational, and institutional. Thus we provide more clarity and a nuanced perspective on past and future research regarding scaling challenges and opportunities.

Mergers have increased at a fast rate in the last 10 years. Nevertheless, practitioners and consultants point out the low rate of success for mergers. Considering this paradoxical situation, it would appear opportune to question the possibility of developing a specific competence within an organization for carrying out mergers and acquisitions. This research aims to propose a model for analyzing the development of such a competence. This paper presents a study of competence-building according to two aspects: level of recognition by the organization and level of use. The study model defines four forms that competence may take: ad hoc responses, capitalization, institutionalization, and dynamic competence. This model is used for the study of the development by the Lafarge Group of a competence in managing cultural integration after international mergers and acquisitions.

This chapter shows how the theory of industrial organization can help us understand some important aspects of crowdfunding that go beyond the finance sphere of the firm. A special attention is devoted to the role and behavior of crowdfunding platforms, which intermediate between entrepreneurs and contributors.