Search results

The purpose of this paper is to comprehensively explore and propose solutions to global economic inequities and disparities, with a particular focus on healthcare. This paper also aims to explore whether drastic reductions of inequality are justified in terms of conventional economic theory, and whether ending inequality can be viewed as ethical through certain lenses.

To seek the response to those questions, the paper uses Pareto optimality; Hicks–Kaldor model; Millian utilitarianism; the ethical theories developed by John Rawls in his 1971 work on ethics as well as his 1999 Law of People; and the capability approach developed by Noble Laureate economists Amartya Sen. As demonstrated, those equalizing works cannot support a policy that would advocate an end to global inequities. Those theories also propose no practical solutions for the end of those extreme inequities. Thus, the paper attempts to present other solutions.

This paper discusses two theories that are very helpful in supporting those without much wealth. Mohammad Yunus’ Grameen Bank and its provision of small free-interest loans to poor businesses (in particular women) in Bangladesh has been very successful. Another alternative advocating interest-free banking that was proposed by the proponents of binary economics is discussed.

The author believes the arguments used to support the theses of this paper be unique and novel.

Drawing insights from the culture-centered approach (Dutta-Bergman, 2004; Dutta, 2007), the purpose of this paper is to explore the meanings of, experiences with, and information sources for antibiotics among at-risk yet understudied populations in urban and economic margins in the Global South.

Given the exploratory purpose of this paper, it used qualitative approach specifically focus group discussions with mothers, guardians and female senior citizens from Manila, Philippines.

Antibiotics had multiple meanings – from purposes and modes of acquisition to side-effects. Experiences with antibiotics were not only tied to financial difficulties, but also in administering antibiotics to children or wards and managing side-effects. Furthermore, medical doctors were the most accessed and preferred sources of antibiotics-related information.

To date, this paper is one of the few to argue that knowing the conditions into which antibiotics are situated in the Global South is critical for strengthening global public health campaigns and policies against antimicrobial resistance a and reducing global health inequity.

This essay brings structural intimacies – theorised as the meeting of social structural patterns with interpersonal lives – to the border to consider transnational LGBTQ kinships. Specifically, the paper considers ‘the border’ and its state-driven bio-regulations as a reproductive technology that produces LGBTQ, racial/ethnic and social class inequities through the consolidation of heteronormative, bio-genetic kinship institutions and ideations of family. Structural intimacies harnesses intimacy as both subject and as an analytic lens for queering reproductive sociology that insists on re-conceptualizing institutions central to our lives. Structural intimacies move our analytic gaze from how the border structures sexuality, and vice versa, to consider the border as at once a structural and an affective domain. Structural intimacies is a conceptual tool useful for cross-disciplinary inquiry into the social and structural contexts in which reproductive technologies render meaning, as well as produce families, and to illustrate the analytic necessity of storying both content and method as integral to queer/ing scholarship. Straddling the most proximal forms of daily care and labor patterning everyday intimacies with the policies and practices of the state, the concept of structural intimacies reveals moments of encounter between state institutions with the most intimate components of a person's life and identity, in this case amplified by the bio-politics of the border.

We revisit the problem of redesigning the Master in Business Administration (MBA) program, curriculum, and pedagogy, focusing on understanding and seeking to tame its “wicked problems,” as an intrinsic part and challenge of the MBA program venture, and to render it more realistic and relevant to address major problems and their consequences. We briefly review the theory of wicked problems and methods of dealing with their consequences from multiple perspectives. Most characterization of problems classifies them as simple (problems that have known formulations and solutions), complex (where formulations are known but not their resolutions), unstructured problems (where formulations are unknown, but solutions are estimated), and “wicked” (where both problem formulations and their resolutions are unknown but eventually partially tamable). Uncertainty, unpredictability, randomness, and ambiguity increase from simple to complex to unstructured to wicked problems. A redesigned MBA program should therefore address them effectively through the four semesters in two years. Most of these problems are real and affect life and economies, and hence, business schools cannot but incorporate them into their critical, ethical, and moral thinking.

The aims of this Editorial are twofold: (i) synthesise emergent themes from the special issue (ii) tender four theoretical frameworks toward examination of crises in tourism.

The thematic analysis of papers highlights a diversity of COVID-19 related crises contexts and research approaches. The need for robust theoretical interventions is highlighted through the four proposed conceptual frameworks.

Crises provides a valuable seam from which to draw new empirical and theoretical insights. Papers in this special issue address the unfolding of crises in tourism and demonstrate how its theorization demands multi and cross-disciplinary entreaties. This special issue is an invitation to examine how global crises in tourism can be more clearly appraised and theorised. The nature of crisis, and the extent to which the global tourism community can continue to adapt remains in question, as dialogues juxtapose the contradictions between tourism growth and tourism sustainability, and between building back better and returning to normal.

The appraisal of four conceptual frameworks, little used in tourism research provides markers of the theoretical rigour and novelty so often sought. Beck’s risk society reconceptualises risk and the extent to which risk is manmade. Biopolitics refers to the power over the production and reproduction of life itself, where the political stake corresponds to power over society. The political ecology of crisis denaturalises “natural” disasters and their subsequent crises. Justice complements an ethic of care and values like conative empathy to advance social justice and well-being.

The purpose of this commentary is to present a critically constructive examination of the contribution of service research to the development of services from institutions that offer fair and sustainable living for all humans.

The authors draw upon critical thinking and critical social theory to problematise the neoliberal agenda (e.g. marketisation and privatisation) that shapes the service ecosystems within which the sustainable development goals (SDGs) and service research relating to SDG11 – sustainable cities and communities – and SDG16 – peace, justice and strong institutions – are often based. The authors critically review extant literature aimed at these goals and present constructive pathways for transformative social change to foster fair and sustainable living for all.

The authors find that the United Nations institutions, the SDGs and the service ecosystems that shape the research and practice addressing SDG11 and SDG16 are often grounded in neoliberal capitalist ideology that may inhibit transformative change. While service research has made some relevant and important contributions to support the development of services from institutions that offer fair and sustainable living, there is a need to consider alternative assumptions upon which service research and service design can be based to fully realise such transformative goals.

This commentary encourages service research scholars to engage with critically constructive perspectives that harness critique for transformative change.

The purpose of this paper is to provide information regarding the ways in which the authors’ College’s faculty use paper within their pedagogical practice. A related purpose was to ascertain faculty interest in professional development initiatives related to reducing paper usage through technological affordances.

A survey was developed and administered to the faculty within the university’s Teachers College. The survey was built to assess faculty pedagogical use of paper. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected via the survey.

The results suggested that digital resources are widely used by faculty, and students are encouraged to conserve paper. However, many faculty are uncomfortable with the complete elimination of paper.

Modeling and promoting environmentally sustainable pedagogical practice is imperative within institutions charged with preparing the next generation of educators.

Unequal social conditions that provide people with unequal opportunities to live healthy lives are considered unjust and associated with “health inequity”. Governing power is impacting people's lives through laws, policies and professional decisions, and can be used intentionally to combat health inequity by addressing and changing people's living- and working conditions. Little attention is paid to how these ways of exercising governing power unintentionally can structure further conditions for health inequity. In this paper, the authors coin the term “governance determinants of health” (GDHs). The authors' discussion of GDHs potential impact on health inequity can help avoid the implementation of governing strategies with an adverse impact on health equality. This paper aims to discuss the aforementioned objective.

The authors identify Governance Determinants of Health, the GDHs. GDHs refer to governance strategies that structurally impact healthcare systems and health equality. The authors focus on the unintended, blind sides of GDHs that maintain or reinforce the effects of socioeconomic inequality on health.

The power to organize healthcare is manifested in distinct structural approaches such as juridification, politicalization, bureaucratization and medical standardization. The authors explore the links between different forms of governance and health inequalities.

The authors' discussion in this article is innovative as it seeks to develop a framework that targets power dynamics inherent in GHDs to help identify and avoid GDHs that may promote unequal access to healthcare and prompt health inequity. However, this framework has limitations as the real-world, blurred and intertwined aspects of governing instruments are simplified for analytical purposes. As such, it risks overestimating the boundaries between the separate instruments and reducing the complexity of how the GDHs work in practice. Consequently, this kind of theory-driven framework does not do justice to the myriad of peoples' complex empirical practices where GDHs may overlap and intertwine with each other. Nevertheless, this framework can still help assist governing authorities in imagining a direction for the impacts of GDHs on health equity, so they can take precautionary steps to avoid adverse impacts.

The authors develop and explore – and demonstrate – the relevance of a framework that can assist governing authorities in anticipating the impacts of GDHs on health inequity.

This chapter examines the connections between race and class divisions and examines how they shape racial inequities in the distribution of resources, power and privilege. Throughout history, racial identity has been a key factor in determining a person's position in modern capitalist societies. As such, issues of race and class have preoccupied sociologists and other scholars with diverse ideological orientations. This is highlighted in debates around the nexus of race and class in the production of racial structures, laws and institutions that legitimate and perpetuate the normalisation and centrality of whiteness. This chapter summarises some of the historical and ongoing debates, providing a synthesis of how race and class divisions continue to shape contemporary intergroup relations and social policy. It delves into racial capitalism and how race intersects with other social identities to determine socio-economic hierarchy in many western countries.