Search results

This article studies the tensions between universities' accountability and autonomy in response to the demands of public steering mechanisms coordinating higher education institutions.

Demonstrating the tension between accountability and autonomy, the impact and relevance of public steering mechanisms coordinating higher education are studied via a survey with selected representative Finnish universities. The response rate was an exceptionally high 94%. In addition to the statistical analysis of the survey, open-ended questions were also analyzed to give a more in-depth understanding of the findings. The study uses paradox theory and institutional complexity as its theoretical lenses.

The empirical analysis of this study shows a considerable gap between the experienced impact and the experienced relevance of the steering mechanisms in higher education. The authors’ further analysis of the open-ended data shows that indicator-based funding allocation has undermined the perceived university autonomy. The authors highlight the paradoxical tensions of university autonomy and higher education institutions' steering mechanisms' requirement for accountability. Finding an acceptable balance between accountability and institutional autonomy plays an important role in designing higher education policies.

The authors found that even if a steering mechanism is experienced as impactful, it is not necessarily considered relevant. One of the key aspects in understanding the reasons behind this mismatch is related to university autonomy. Most impactful steering mechanisms become considered less relevant because they also endanger institutional autonomy. In this sense, it could be expected that steering mechanisms should better balance accountability and autonomy.

To discuss issues that real estate fund sponsors may encounter due to investor liquidity constraints amidst the COVID-19 pandemic (such as investors seeking redemptions or transfers) and to provide guidance on potential ways that fund sponsors can prepare for, and respond to, such inquiries while at the same time addressing their fund’s liquidity needs (such as by utilizing subscription-secured credit facilities).

The article identifies the types of requests that investors may make to address their internal liquidity constraints, discusses contractual, legal, regulatory and business issues that fund sponsors should consider in responding to such requests and provides some alternatives for fund sponsors to consider allowing them to be responsive to investor liquidity concerns while also addressing fund capital needs.

The article finds that there are specific actions which fund sponsors should take in anticipating, and responding to, investor liquidity requests, such as reviewing partnership documents and credit facility documents and considering consequences in respect of ERISA, tax and compliance with applicable securities laws. The article also finds that specific affirmative actions by fund sponsors, such as increased borrowings under credit facilities, making distributions that are recallable and favoring transfers over withdrawals or redemptions may assist fund sponsors in preserving capital while addressing investor liquidity requests.

Fund sponsors should carefully review their fund documentation and determine their options and requirements as they pertain to potential liquidity requests. Fund sponsors should be careful to avoid foot-faults under their fund documents and credit facility agreements.

Practical guidance from experienced fund formation, securities law, tax, ERISA and finance lawyers.

Event portfolios promote synergies among events and stakeholders within a destination in order to maximise resources. The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of relationships in the creation and maintenance of an event portfolio using the four stages of Parvatiyar and Sheth’s (2000) process model of relationship marketing: formation, management and governance, performance evaluation, and evolution.

Nine semi-structured interviews were conducted with tourism and government stakeholders involved in the creation and maintenance of an event portfolio within a single destination.

The destination outlined clear strategic goals through an event strategy. An Events Board was established to bring together key stakeholders from tourism, events, and government to oversee the development of an event portfolio. The Events Board gave advice to relevant tourism and government stakeholders on which events they should provide funding. Developing relationships was not a stated objective, but the Events Board realised the importance of relationships to create and maintain the destination’s event portfolio. Long-term funding contracts were used as a mechanism to establish relationships and were an impetus for interaction. Relationships were also maintained through dedicated staff who managed the relationships between the destination stakeholders and the events.

Understanding factors that contribute to the successful creation and maintenance of event portfolios can inform destination stakeholders who are responsible for generating tourism through events.

Limited research has examined the creation and maintenance of event portfolios. This study provides insight into the central importance of relationships in creating and maintaining an event portfolio.

Many Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) allow students or their advisors to restrict access to theses/dissertations (TDs) by applying embargoes. This study aims to identify why Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) allow embargoes.

One hundred HEIs were randomly selected, representing seven geographic regions. The authors imported policies/guidelines for embargoing TDs into MAXQDA software and coded the qualitative data.

Among the 100 studied HEIs, 43 HEIs (43%) have policies/guidelines on the web for embargoing TDs, most of which are from North America. For the majority of HEIs, embargoes are a voluntary option for students/advisors. Content analysis of the 32 embargo policies showed that embargo reasons (18 key reasons) can be categorized into six broad themes (commercialization, publication, ethical issues, funding contracts/agreements, security and safety, and miscellaneous).

In this study, only those policies are reviewed that are available, discoverable and accessible on HEIs' websites.

Highlighting the detrimental effect of not managing stipulations towards embargoes clearly, the findings could be useful for national/institutional policymakers and administrators of research departments, academic libraries, institutional repositories and graduate offices.

This is the first study to investigate rationales for TDs embargo practices. It creates awareness of how embargoes are managed and reflected in policy. Ultimately, it recommends further interrogation on how embargoes influence the principle of openness to scholarship.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-09-2022-0497.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of European Union Objective 1 funding on the development and formalisation of a neighbourhood‐based group situated in a regeneration area in the UK. The role, function and impact of a Community Empowerment Network (CEN) (funded by the Labour Government as part of its Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy) is also examined and assessed.

The findings of the paper are informed by a critique of the policy literature and the ways in which “leadership” roles and responsibilities are played out within neighbourhood settings. The empirical research derives from an analysis of the role and practice of CENs in England.

The paper argues that the external initiatives restrict the autonomy and independence of community based groups. Furthermore, the paper makes the point that such externally driven programmes are often located within neighbourhoods with little reference to identifying the needs or priorities of residents.

There are important lessons here for policy makers and practitioners in public policy to reflect upon. The paper seeks to draw connections between the literature on community development and planning/regeneration management. These links are important to sustain and to open the discussion to a broader audience of researchers and practice managers.

The paper raises questions concerning how local residents/groups can be facilitated into articulating their needs and exercising agency in terms of changing the decision‐making/resource allocation processes.

The paper adds to understanding the practice of empowerment networks.

This article follows an earlier article in this journal (Goldman, 2010), examines the emerging government policy on integration and considers some of the implications for joint financing. Most primary care trusts (PCTs) and councils with adult social care responsibilities are engaged in joint financing and wider health and social care partnership arrangements. But, with the demise of PCTs and the growth in GP commissioning, there are issues and questions about the future of such arrangements. However, despite these organisational changes, partners must continue to be able to demonstrate the outcomes that integrated health and social care services are achieving.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how probabilistic simulation can be used to assist prospective general partners (GP) and limited partners (LP) of a venture capital limited partnership fund to evaluate alternative investment strategies for the proposed fund. The model presented in the paper is based upon observed characteristics of the venture capital market reported in the finance, economics, and management science literature. The body of the paper is organized as follows. In Section II we review the structural characteristics of the model. In Section III we present the results, in terms of ending wealth, obtained from simulating the fund's operations over its life under selected alternative investment strategies. In Section IV we show evaluations of the fund's simulated results under expected return, mean/variance and four moment approaches. In Section V, we present conclusions and implications of the results for financial management.

This paper aims to examine the strategic role of world-class universities and the international academic profession in the regionalisation project of China’s Greater Bay Area (GBA). It illustrates the way in which the case of the GBA regionalisation project offers a potentially rich empirical example for adding contextual understanding to the literature of the Triple Helix model, which largely draws on inductive theorising from western successful innovation cases. The GBA regionalisation processes will provide a wealth of empirical cases for identifying circumstances that address tensions and increase interactions in the Triple Helix relationship of university, government and industry for fostering knowledge synergies.

Focusing on the case of Hong Kong, it engages in policy and stakeholder analysis and addresses three key research questions: What are the competitive advantages and potential strategic role of Hong Kong's universities and academic profession in the regionalisation of innovation systems in the GBA? What is the role of the governments in the regionalisation processes? What are the expected opportunities and challenges offered by the GBA policy initiatives for the future development of Hong Kong’s universities and academic profession?

Hong Kong, given its status as an international finance centre and global city with intense internationalisation and established judicial system operated by the rule of law, will contribute to the GBA development by leveraging on its edge in scientific research and development and international networks of academic research through the world-class academic profession. Scientists and researchers in the city, possessing the competitive advantages of basic research and international partnerships, are highly regarded by the central government. The engagement of Hong Kong’s scientific talents, can play an important role in achieving China’s aspiration of becoming a global technology power.

Analysis of this article implies that the GBA concept is currently China’s ambitious but vague economic plan. The opportunities in which key node cities and knowledge/ innovation clusters will capture and capitalise from the regional ‘co-opetitive” ’entrepreneurial ecosystem are still unclear. The future of the GBA regionalisation is so dynamic and open-ended that grounded concepts related to the governance innovation/ discourse of ‘one country two systems’ and social connectedness and capitalisation with Chinese characteristics will help in making sense of the contextualisation of a Chinese regional innovation system and enhancing the sophistication of reconceptualisation of the Triple Helix model.

This article will add to the literature some novel contextualised knowledge about the GBA’s potential triple-helix relationship between government-university-industry in the 21st century. The empirical example of China’s GBA will also shed light on a new understanding of the role of international social capital in the entrepreneurial knowledge economy, dynamics between basic and applied research, and a synergistic interface between regionalisation and national innovation system.

The purpose of this paper is to explore discrepancies between transfer provisions in the US model BIT, employed as a working text in the ongoing China‐USA BIT negotiations, and relevant Articles of the Agreement of the IMF, to which both China and the USA are signatories, with a view to advising on China's possible strategies for negotiation.

The approach taken is doctrinal and comparative analysis and treaty interpretation of the US model BIT, the Articles of the Agreement of the IMF, the Chinese model BIT and some earlier versions of these instruments.

A detailed analysis of several major discrepancies between these instruments finds that a differentiated treatment of capital transfers and current transfers is desirable and, in respect of current transfers, a properly formulated “temporary derogation” exception should be adopted.

The paper conducts a unique substantial comparison of two most influential instruments governing transfer of funds in international investments. It reveals the common rationale shared by the transfer provisions under both instruments.