Search results

Social scientists have increasingly turned to constructivist models to explain when, and how, international and world-level social forces constrain the policy-making autonomy of national states. While constructivists have shown that international ideational processes matter for domestic policy making, they have had a harder time explaining why some ideas gain prominence in policy discussions while others do not. This chapter develops an institutionally centered materialist model of idea selection, arguing that international relations of dependency give actors who control vital financial resources a greater capacity to shape the ideational agenda. This model is explored through a case study of the international sources of American monetary policy in the early 1960s. A detailed examination of archival materials shows that European officials at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development were able to advance their own ideas for American monetary policy because the United States was dependent on European cooperation to help resolve its mounting balance of payments problems.

The aim of this opinion piece is to seek to cast a critical eye over the event studies field to chart its progress as an emerging area of study, relative to its close relations tourism, hospitality and leisure.

Viewpoint approach.

The paper highlights various challenges that event educators and researchers face in advancing event studies to discipline status.

It is timely that, as the quantum of event research and the number of event management education programmes surge, those involved in the field engage in greater critical introspection. This opinion piece attempts to provide such a reflective insight, which has been largely absent from the event studies literature to date.

This paper is the first in a regular series of articles in JFBM that will share “a conversation with” thought leaders who are active in the family business space. The world of family business is, like many other arenas, constantly evolving and as the authors learn more about how and why families “do business” the approaches and tools for working with them also evolve. The purpose of this paper is to stimulate further new research in areas that practically affect family businesses and to “open the door” to practical insights that will excite researchers and provide impetus for new and exciting study. The specific purpose of this paper is to explore “what is strong governance.” There has been much interest in governance lately yet there is a tendency to treat governance in a formulaic way such that, at the moment, the notion that every family business must have a family council or a formal structure in order to be considered “effective” and “successful” predominates. The authors’ panel challenges and discusses this notion drawing on the experience and knowledge as family business advisors, consultants and owners.

The impetus for this particular conversation is a result of a brainstorming conversation that Lorna Collins and Barbara Murray held in February 2014 where they focussed on “how JFBM can encourage and stimulate researchers to engage in aspects of research that makes a difference to the family business in a practical way.” This paper reports a conversation between Barbara Murray (Barbara), Ken McCracken (Ken) and Martin Stepek (Martin), three leading lights in the UK family business advising space, all of whom have been involved in running or advising family businesses for more than three decades, held in August 2015. The conversation was held via telephone and lasted just over 60 minutes. Lorna Collins acted as moderator.

Strong governance is not just about instituting a “family council” or embedding formal governance mechanisms in a family business. Evolutionary adaption by family members usually prevails such that any mechanism is changed and adapted over time to suit and fit the needs of the family business. Many successful family businesses do not have recognized “formal” governance mechanisms but, it is contended, they are still highly successful and effective. Future areas of research in governance are also suggested.

This paper contributes to the family business discourse because the debate it reports challenges the basic assumptions upon which much consulting and advisory practice is conducted. It also challenges the notion of “best practice” and what is “new best practice” and how is it that any “best practice” is determined to be “best.” Furthermore, the panel provides insights in to the “impact of family dynamics on governance” and “the impact of family dynamics on advisors.” The paper content is original in that it provides an authentic and timely narrative between active family business practitioners who are also scholars and owners.

The cardinal point to note here is that the development (and unfortunately the likely potential) of area policy is intimately related to the actual character of British social policy. Whilst area policy has been strongly influenced by Pigou's welfare economics, by the rise of scientific management in the delivery of social services (cf Jaques 1976; Whittington and Bellamy 1979), by the accompanying development of operational analyses and by the creation of social economics (see Pigou 1938; Sandford 1977), social policy continues to be enmeshed with the flavours of Benthamite utilitatianism and Social Darwinism (see, above all, the Beveridge Report 1942; Booth 1889; Rowntree 1922, 1946; Webb 1926). Consequently, for their entire history area policies have been coloured by the principles of a national minimum for the many and giving poorer areas a hand up, rather than a hand out. The preceived need to save money (C.S.E. State Apparatus and Expenditure Group 1979; Klein 1974) and the (supposed) ennobling effects of self help have been the twin marching orders for area policy for decades. Private industry is inadvertently called upon to plug the resulting gaps in public provision. The conjunction of a reluctant state and a meandering private sector has fashioned the decaying urban areas of today. Whilst a large degree of party politics and commitment has characterised the general debate over the removal of poverty (Holman 1973; MacGregor 1981), this has for the most part bypassed the ‘marginal’ poorer areas (cf Green forthcoming). Their inhabitants are not usually numerically significant enough to sway general, party policies (cf Boulding 1967) and the problems of most notably the inner cities has been underplayed.

This issue is a selected bibliography covering the subject of leadership.

This paper aims to identify ethical challenges of using artificial intelligence (AI)-based accounting systems for decision-making and discusses its findings based on Rest's four-component model of antecedents for ethical decision-making. This study derives implications for accounting and auditing scholars and practitioners.

This research is rooted in the hermeneutics tradition of interpretative accounting research, in which the reader and the texts engage in a form of dialogue. To substantiate this dialogue, the authors conduct a theoretically informed, narrative (semi-systematic) literature review spanning the years 2015–2020. This review's narrative is driven by the depicted contexts and the accounting/auditing practices found in selected articles are used as sample instead of the research or methods.

In the thematic coding of the selected papers the authors identify five major ethical challenges of AI-based decision-making in accounting: objectivity, privacy, transparency, accountability and trustworthiness. Using Rest's component model of antecedents for ethical decision-making as a stable framework for our structure, the authors critically discuss the challenges and their relevance for a future human–machine collaboration within varying agency between humans and AI.

This paper contributes to the literature on accounting as a subjectivising as well as mediating practice in a socio-material context. It does so by providing a solid base of arguments that AI alone, despite its enabling and mediating role in accounting, cannot make ethical accounting decisions because it lacks the necessary preconditions in terms of Rest's model of antecedents. What is more, as AI is bound to pre-set goals and subjected to human made conditions despite its autonomous learning and adaptive practices, it lacks true agency. As a consequence, accountability needs to be shared between humans and AI. The authors suggest that related governance as well as internal and external auditing processes need to be adapted in terms of skills and awareness to ensure an ethical AI-based decision-making.

This article has four parts. First, we outline the main determinants of productivity and examine some evidence on the relative importance of the factors involved. Secondly, we outline the “conventional” wisdom on the influence of trade unions and generate several hypotheses on the possible effects of trade unions on a number of economic variables. Thirdly, by an appeal to a wide range of literature, we seek to test these hypotheses but with particular reference to the influence of trade unions on productivity. Fourthly, we indicate that in terms of policy on productivity‐raising measures the conventional wisdom is wanting and there is a need for an alternative theory upon which to base policies for the implementation of change.