Search results

‘WORK STUDY specialists of Europe—from both the Six and the Seven— are getting together in London this year regardless of what happens to other meetings,’ said Mr. R. M. Currie, C.B.E., President of the European Work Study Federation, in a statement on the forthcoming Congress of the Federation which is to take place at Church House, Westminster, from May 20 to 23.

China around 1900 was an enormous domain with approximately 400 million people, almost all of them desperately poor. Most were farmers, working intensively on small tracts of land using relatively primitive technology. It was in many respects a Malthusian economy, with high death and birth rates and many residents living close to the subsistence level.

According to what is reported by the North America Oral History Association, oral history was established in 1948 as a modern technique for historical documentation when Columbia University historian Allan Nevins began recording the memoirs of people who had played a significant role in American public life. While working on a biography of President Grover Cleveland, Nevins found that Cleveland's associates left few of the kinds of personal records – private correspondences, diaries, and memoirs – that biographers generally rely on for their historical reconstructions. Nevins thus came up then with the idea of filling the gaps in the official records with narratives and anecdotes from living memory. Accordingly, he conducted his first interview in 1948 with New York civic leader George McAneny, and both the Columbia Oral History Research Office – the largest archival collection of oral history interviews in the world – and the contemporary oral history movement were born (Thomson, 1998).

A debate continues on whether the structural separation of incumbent telecommunications operators would increase competition in telecommunications markets leading to a more dynamic industry. John Cubbin and David Currie, the future Chairman of OfCom, and the OECD have both contributed to this debate. More recently (in Issue 4 of this Volume) Professor Martin Cave asked the question “Is LoopCo the answer?”. In the light of the regulators’ objectives in the new EU framework to promote efficient investment, this article answers some of Professor Cave’s arguments against structural separation and sets out a framework for analysing the impact of separation on innovation in the sector and in other industries which use telecommunications as a key input. The article draws on work conducted by other academics, notably The Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis and Michael Porter.

A HUNDRED YEARS AGO members of a Birmingham family named Warner lived at no. 19 Beaufort Road, Edgbaston. (The firm ‘Currie & Warner’ is still flourishing in Birmingham's old jewellery quarter.) Looking across the road towards no. 6 (‘Inglesant’), Mrs Warner would remark, ‘Joseph's still scribbling!’ Late into the night the oil‐lamp bore witness that, in his front parlour, Joseph Henry Shorthouse was writing John Inglesant.

Professor Currie's Comment not only strengthens his already well‐known leading sector strategy of development; it also raises some further interesting questions regarding the behavior of suppliers in Latin America which are crucial to the choice of policy for development. While the definitive answers to these questions probably lie beyond our limited, present knowledge, I hope this clarifying reply to his comment will offer some tentative answers which may have important implications for the application of the leading sector strategy.

This chapter discusses the “seigniorage argument” in favor of public money issuance, according to which public finances could be improved if the state more fully exercised the privilege of money creation, which is, today, largely shared with private banks. This point was made in the 1930s by several proponents of the “100% money” reform scheme, such as Henry Simons of the University of Chicago, Lauchlin Currie of Harvard and Irving Fisher of Yale, who called for a full-reserve requirement in lawful money behind checking deposits. One of their claims was that, by returning all seigniorage profit to the state, such reform would allow a significant reduction of the national debt. In academic debates, however, following a criticism first made by Albert G. Hart of the University of Chicago in 1935, this argument has generally been discarded as wholly illusory. Hart argued that, because the state, under a 100% system, would be likely to pay the banks a subsidy for managing checking accounts, no substantial debt reduction could possibly be expected to follow. The 100% money proponents never answered Hart’s criticism, whose conclusion has often been considered as definitive in the literature. However, a detailed study of the subject reveals that Hart’s analysis itself appears to be questionable on at least two grounds: the first pertains to the sources of the seigniorage benefit, the other to its distribution. This chapter concludes that the “seigniorage argument” of the 100% money authors may not have been entirely unfounded.

The purpose of this chapter is to develop the idea of enhancing collaboration within a public context. It does so by exploring the challenge of working with others across organisational boundaries, when addressing complex issues. It discusses research findings from a Scotland based public service study concerned with collaborative practice and presents an empirical analysis of what it means to work in a relational way. The existing literature is reviewed alongside the study findings, connecting with contemporary theories and debates in the fields of collaboration, leadership and public administration.

The empirical work detailed in this chapter drew from collective and relational leadership theories which influenced the study design and methodological approach. The data collection method took the form of semi-structured interviews and data were analysed using thematic analysis supported by data mapping exercises. Data were obtained through interviews of 20 participants from multiple public service roles and organisations who were involved in similar activities linked to collaboration.

This chapter promotes an approach where disrupting traditional collaborative practice offers new insights in terms of (1) understanding the group process and (2) recognising what processual and behavioural adjustments can be made to enrich collaborative work. This approach was found to offer a number of benefits linked to building trust, promoting meaningful dialogue and altered the conversations that people chose to have.

The reconceptualisation of collaboration specifically illustrates what it means to ‘work in a more relational way’ and how it is understood by those attempting to build collaborative capacity, sustain public services and improve outcomes for citizens and communities. As such, it is this focus on relationships that is considered innovative and important to creating the open collaborative culture required for addressing complex issues and working across organisational boundaries.