Search results

CALL IT what you will, serendipity, accident, fortuitous chance, but add it to coincidence and together they will take some beating. This was brought home to me recently when browsing through fifty year old files of The Nation and The Athenaeum. In a vague search for something entirely different my eye was attracted by the heading, ‘The woman librarian’, a somewhat inelegant title to a longish letter to the editor sent by Dr Ernest A Baker on the occasion of a discussion at University College London conducted by Miss Marian Frost. Librarian at Worthing, who was at that time one of the sixteen women chief librarians in the country. And then, the very next day, there appeared in the November issue of NLW a note about the potential qualities of women librarians first published in 1889.

WITH A PICKET LINE on the front door of Islington Town Hall where the meeting of June 12 was being held, Council might have been denuded of its NALGO members, but there did not seem any numerical difference made to the attendance and the President assured everyone present that they were not really blacklegs!

Distribution concerns who gets what. But does “who” refer to the personal distribution of income among individuals or the functional distribution of income among suppliers of productive factors? For nearly 150 years, Anglophone distribution theory followed the Ricardian emphasis on functional distribution – the income shares of labor, land, and capital. Only beginning in the 1960s, and consolidated by a research outpouring in the early 1970s, does mainstream economics turn to the personal conception of distribution. This essay documents Anglophone (primarily American) economics’ move from functional to personal distribution, and tries to illuminate something of its causes and timing.

At the turn of the twentieth century, various Socialist parties vied for a place in the American political system, making alliances where possible and convenient with elements of organized labor. Robert Franklin Hoxie, an economist at the University of Chicago whose principle contributions lay in his writings on the labor movement, wrote a series of essays in which he scrutinized the activities of the Socialist Party of America as it appeared to be at the time poised to become a viable force in American politics. This essay examines Hoxie’s writings on the conventions of the Socialist Party within the context of the political dynamic of the period and reveals his interpretations of events based on contemporary accounts and first-hand observations.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss diverse matters concerning the field of Participation and Employee Ownership (PEO) coinciding with the launch of the JPEO.

This paper used mixed methods including bibliometric analysis.

Significant gaps exist in our knowledge of the scope and nature of PEO. Citation counts illustrate both the changing composition of research within PEO and faster relative growth than terms used to describe related fields such as labor unions and trade unions. Based on manually collected citation data I identify the most highly cited studies within PEO. Few of these studies attain a “home-run” citation count. However, PEO scholars are cited 19 percent more than economists in top 30 schools and the median C5 (total citations for the author’s five most highly cited papers) is more than 260 percent of the median for economists in “top 30” institutions. There is also some weak evidence that the citation bias in economics against female scholars is not as marked in PEO as elsewhere. A qualitative assessment of PEO studies suggests markedly uneven progress in empirical work across types of PEO.

No similar review has been done before.

The aim of this paper is to verify whether, in the tourism sector, the “family business model” is an important development opportunity and, in particular, if it is an innovation driver for this industry development. In the literature, there is no conclusive evidence of this for the tourism sector. In this context, the authors investigate personal and family needs and preferences alongside the relationship between family business model, growth and profit maximization and the development of tourism businesses through innovation drivers.

To develop this topic, the authors conducted an extensive literature review considering the scientific papers published and contained mainly in database in the last 10 years (2010–2020) and focused the attention on the last five years. The authors ran content and structural analysis on the collected sources by main scientific databases (EBSCO, Scopus, Thomson Reuter, etc.). Based on a systematic literature review, the analysis was conducted using statistical criteria and bibliometric indicators. In detail, the authors used systematic literature review, bibliometric analysis and automatic text analysis (ATA) tools for identified lexicon analysis and strategic keywords and used statistical correlation to classify the different approaches in the literature and to outline the orientations of the various research groups.

From this analysis, the correlation between tourism, hospitality, entrepreneurship, life cycle and innovation dynamics was analysed. Important research gaps are identified, and future research priorities are suggested. Implications for both family business and tourism theory are discussed.

While the intersection between tourism management and family business model has been established in the literature, the number of related publications is still limited. Against this background, a literature review as a total analysis was an adequate and practicable research methodology. This paper proposes a comprehensive literature review and a reflection on the potential developments and applications for family business in the tourism sector. Authors also suggest several research directions that have not been adequately investigated yet. In particular, scholars do not seem to have caught all the implications of innovation adoption, especially for SMEs and family ownerships in tourism.