Search results

This paper intends to explore the localist perspectives concerning Hong Kong’s political development. The persistent growth of localists in the polity of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) has not only challenged the current political order but also aroused Beijing’s national security considerations. The oath-taking controversies of 2016 demonstrated the strife that now exists between Beijing and the localists in Hong Kong. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the localists’ perceptions of the political decay, legitimacy crisis and reverse democratization in HKSAR to illuminate further their perceptions of Hong Kong’s political development.

This paper uses the theoretical discussion of the relations between political decay, legitimacy, the legitimacy crisis and reverse democratization as the key analytical framework to understand the localists’ perspective concerning Hong Kong’s political development. Based on an analysis of the localists’ discourse, the implication for the HKSAR regime’s legitimacy and for reverse democratization will be discussed.

The emergence of the new localists leads to the belief that Hong Kong’s political development is experiencing the reverse of democratization as the government cannot fully absorb the demands made by the general public. The reverse democratization is directly impacting the regime’s legitimacy, but in the HKSAR’s case, the new localists see the root of the problem as stemming from Beijing, that is that the Chinese Communist Party’s legitimacy problem is due to its underdevelopment in the legal, political and cultural spheres. This underdevelopment has weakened the legitimacy of the HKSAR’s administration, especially with regard to political reform, the legal interpretation of the Basic Law, and the influx of immigrants and tourists from the Mainland into the Hong Kong’s society. The China factor, from the Localists’ viewpoint, is at the root of the political decay and the legitimacy crisis in Hong Kong. More significantly, the localists regard the involvement of Beijing in Hong Kong’s affairs as its way to disrupt the autonomous status of the HKSAR. As a result, public discontent has further intensified and created the legitimacy crisis for the HKSAR Government.

This paper is the first academic paper to provide a critical analysis of Hong Kong’s localists’ views regarding Hong Kong’s political development since becoming the HKSAR. In contrast with the existing literature about Hong Kong’s democratization and political development, this paper introduces localists’ views and advocates the idea of “reverse democratization” to explain their perceptions concerning Hong Kong’s political development.

The purpose of the paper is to analyze the challenges brought by the localist faction to the traditional democratic camp in order to examine the risks and opportunities for the pan-democratic camp in the democratization process.

The methodologies used for the paper were documentary analyses to examine the theory and practice of localism in the political context of Hong Kong and the election data analyses to study the electoral performances of localist and traditional democratic camps in the 2015 District Council and 2016 Legislative Council elections.

The paper found that firstly mainland–Hong Kong conflicts were the nurturing ground for emergence of localism in Hong Kong. Secondly, the ideology of localism in the context of Hong Kong connotes an anti-China element in the protection of Hongkongers’ identity, interests, and values. Thirdly, the growth of localist camp was rapid as evidenced in the 2015 and 2016 elections. Fourthly, localism presented both challenges and new opportunities for the pan-democratic camp in the democratization process.

The paper was the product of an original research project that examined the ideology of localism and the challenges brought by localism to the pan-democratic camp to reflect on the implications for the democratization process.

Despite the growing pressure to encourage new ways of thinking about research methodology, only recently have interview methodologists begun to realize that “we cannot lift the results of interviewing out of the contexts in which they were gathered and claim them as objective data with no strings attached”. The purpose of this paper is to provide additional insight based on a critical reflection of the interview as a research method drawing upon Alvesson's discussion from the neopositivist, romanticist and localist interview perspectives. Specifically, the authors focus on critical reflections of three broad categories of a continuum of interview methods: structured, semi‐structured and unstructured interviews.

The authors adopt a critical and reflexive approach to understanding the literature on interviews to develop alternative insights about the use of interviews as a qualitative research method.

After examining the neopositivist (interview as a “tool”) and romanticist (interview as “human encounter”) perspectives on the use of the research interview, the authors adopt a localist perspective towards interviews and argue that the localist approach opens up alternative understanding of the interview process and the accounts produced provide additional insights. The insights are used to outline the skills researchers need to develop in applying the localist perspective to interviews.

The paper provides an alternative perspective on the practice of conducting interviews, recognizing interviews as complex social and organizational phenomena rather than just a research method.

A new wave of anti-mainland protests has emerged in Hong Kong since 2012. The purpose of this paper is threefold: to delineate its unique characteristics; to trace its historical origins; and to speculate on the political implications of this new wave of anti-mainland protests.

A historical approach has been adopted to trace the origins of the anti-mainland protests. Since this new wave of anti-mainland protests only began in 2012, this paper is based mostly on documentary analysis of mass media reports.

This paper finds that this new wave of anti-mainland protests has been characterized by its targeting of mainland tourists/immigrants, its militancy, its concentration in the New Territories, its constituent membership of people from society’s grassroots, its dependence on e-mobilization and its poor image in Hong Kong’s mass media. In addition, this paper has identified the complex interplay between the influx of tourists/immigrants, the increase of social inequality, the emergence of a localist discourse, the formation of localist organizations and the setbacks to the democracy movement that are the underlying socio-political factors that have sparked this new wave of anti-mainland protests.

Anti-mainland protests have profound implications for Hong Kong politics since they deepen socio-political polarization, have transformed the mode of protesting in Hong Kong society and threaten the prospects for the national reunification of Greater China.

This paper may be one of the first academic papers to examine the anti-mainland protests. Instead of taking a pro-Beijing or anti-mainland approach, this paper takes a neutral position and offers an objective analysis of the anti-mainland protests.

The purpose of this paper is to trace the changing pattern of identity politics in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). It shows that in response to the massive urban renewal projects in the 2000s, “civic localism” in the form of cultural preservation movement emerged to protect local community culture against the government-business hegemony. However, due to the deepening of social integration between Hong Kong and the mainland, a new “anti-mainland localism” emerged in the 2010s against the influx of mainlanders. In 2015–2016, as a result of Beijing’s active interference in Hong Kong affairs, localism is further transformed to Hong Kong “independence.”

This paper uses a historical methodology to trace the changing pattern of identity politics in Hong Kong after it becomes a special administrative region of China in 1997.

It shows how the interaction among the following three factors has shaped the pattern of localism in Hong Kong: macro historical-structural context, social movement dynamics and the response of Hong Kong and mainland government.

This paper argues that Beijing’s hardline policy toward Hong Kong localism may work in the short run to all push the pro-independence activities underground. However, unless the structural contradiction of the HKSAR is resolved, it seems likely that anti-mainland localism and Hong Kong independence sentiment and movement will come back with a vengeance at a later stage.

The literature tends to discuss Hong Kong localism in very general terms and fails to reveal its changing nature. This paper contributes by distinguishing three different forms of localism: civic localism in the mid-2000s, anti-mainland in the late 2000s and early 2010s, and independence after 2016. It shows how the macro historical-structural transformation, social movement dynamics and the responses of the Hong Kong SAR government and Beijing government have led to the changes of civic localism to anti-mainland localism, and finally to independence.

The aim of this review paper is to identify the methodological practices and presentational styles used to report interview-based research in “leading” management and organisation journals.

This paper reviews a sample of 225 articles using qualitative interviews that were published in management, human resource management, organisational behaviour and international business journals listed in the Financial Times 50 list between 2009 and 2019.

The review found diversity and plurality in the methodological practices used in these studies and the presentational styles used to report interview research.

The findings are expected to help doctoral students, early career scholars and those new to using qualitative interviews to make decisions about the appropriateness of different methodological practices and presentational styles. The findings are also expected to support editors, reviewers, doctoral examiners and conference organisers in making sense of the dissensus that exists amongst qualitative interview researchers (Johnson et al., 2007). These insights will also enable greater “paradigmatic awareness” (Plakoyiannaki and Budhwar, 2021, p. 5) in the evaluation of the quality of interview-based research that is not restricted to standardised criteria derived from positivism (Cassell and Symon, 2015).

To make sense of this plurality, the authors map these practices and styles against the onto-epistemological paradigms identified by Alvesson (2003, 2011). The paper contributes to calls for philosophical diversity in the evaluation of qualitative research. The authors specifically articulate concerns about the use of practices in interview-based studies that derive from the positivistic logic associated with quantitative research.

In this chapter, the authors take a close look at the current discourse of food system relocalization. From the perspective of theories of justice and theories of neoliberalism, food relocalization is wrapped up in a problematic, and largely unexamined, communitarian discourse on social justice. The example for California's localized governance of pesticide drift demonstrates that localization can effectively make social justice problems invisible. The authors also look at the EU context, where a different form of localization discourse emphasizes the local capture of rents in the value chain as a neoliberal strategy of territorial valorization. Examining Marsden et al.'s case study of one of these localization projects in the UK, the authors argue that this strategy does not necessarily lead to more equitable forms of rural development. In fact, US and EU discourses are basically two sides of the same coin. Specifically, in neoliberal biopolitical form, they both obscure politics, behind either the discourse of “value” in the EU or “values” in the US. Rather than rejecting localism, however, the authors conclude by arguing for a more “reflexive” localism that harnesses the power of this strategy while consciously struggling against inequality in local arenas.

At long last we have the Oakes Report — or to give it its proper title, the Report of the Working Group on the Management of Higher Education in the Maintained Sector. Many had hoped that it would provide a resolution of the long‐standing problems of the financing and control of advanced further education; but it is a sad disappointment, for it hovers uneasily between the localist and the centralist views of where power should reside in the system.