Search results

For comments on a previous draft, I wish to thank Mary O’Sullivan, Michael Shalev and Bruce Western.

We examine the relationship between the business cycle and poverty for the period from 1960 to 2008 using income data from the Current Population Survey and consumption data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey. This new evidence on the relationship between macroeconomic conditions and poverty is of particular interest, given recent changes in antipoverty policies that have placed greater emphasis on participation in the labor market and in-kind transfers. We look beyond official poverty, examining alternative income poverty and consumption poverty, which have conceptual and empirical advantages as measures of the well-being of the poor. We find that both income and consumption poverty are sensitive to macroeconomic conditions. A 1 percentage point increase in unemployment is associated with an increase in the after-tax income poverty rate of 0.9–1.1 percentage points in the long run, and an increase in the consumption poverty rate of 0.3–1.2 percentage points in the long run. The evidence on whether income is more responsive to the business cycle than consumption is mixed. Income poverty does appear to be more responsive using national level variation, but consumption poverty is often more responsive to unemployment when using regional variation. Low percentiles of both income and consumption are sensitive to macroeconomic conditions, and in most cases, low percentiles of income appear to be more responsive than low percentiles of consumption.

The purpose of this chapter was to deconstruct the underlying contradictions of crowdfunding practices and to show how crowdfunding practitioners develop a schizophrenic use of these contradictions.

The main contradictions of crowdfunding practices are introduced with theoretical references. Then short cases are used to illustrate how crowdfunding practitioners try to cope with these contradictions.

The crowd addresses many contradictions, first because it is a syncretic concept, second because online crowds are still to be proven crowds. In any case, crowdfunding practitioners do their best to take the advantage of these contradictions, and run the risk of falling between two stools.

An attempt to provide an analysis of crowdfunding as a social, and not only economic, phenomenon, to suggest avenues for further critical research on crowdfunding.

This chapter explores literacy narratives as a narrative inquiry approach used in a Canadian education foundation course which focuses on story and experience as told and retold through letter-writing correspondence among teacher candidates. The process is illustrated in the chapter through a literacy narrative exemplar. The 3R framework developed by the author in her research program on poverty and education was applied to teacher candidates’ narrative ways of excavating storied experiences and assumptions in schooling. The 3R framework helps teacher candidates deconstruct their literacy narrative correspondences in order to avoid ‘hardening’ into their lived storied experiences as they work through the framework of: narrative reveal to help them excavate unconscious assumptions that surface in their writing; narrative revelation to show how they can interrogate further their own (sometimes biased) experiences, and; narrative reformation to show how prospective teachers can begin to transform teacher knowledge through awakened new narratives. Literacy narratives, as a curriculum making pedagogy to deconstruct formally and informally using personal educative experiences, readings from the course, and usage of the 3R framework, is a pedagogical example of social justice that gives dignity, respect, and perspective in order to reframe thinking about diverse issues in teaching and teacher education.

In response to Ford and Sullivan's chapter, this commentary poses a number of questions intended to help future research efforts ascertain whether levels of analysis and phases of new-venture emergence happen concurrently. Strongly in agreement with Ford and Sullivan's call for a process approach toward the study of entrepreneurial ventures, the commentary focuses on the potential processes associated with different levels of analysis that might possibly underlie the enactment and effectuation processes depicted in their model. Through the examination of these underlying processes, questions for future research are raised to help address the question, “Do levels and phases of new-venture emergence always happen together?”

Ford and Sullivan's piece makes a unique contribution to entrepreneurship studies, with the greatest being their multi-level, “bottom-up” theorizing about the process. These authors’ focus is limited to one level during each temporal phase. To be consistent with enactment theory, this process should address the recursive nature between the micro (individual) and macro (team and venture) levels throughout the entrepreneurship process. Specifically, the individual level is relevant throughout the process. This commentary offers three mechanisms to link the micro and macro levels: situational, action formation, and transformation. The current work is not intended to diminish Ford and Sullivan's work; indeed, multi-level theorizing is messy and theirs is an ambitious first step.

This chapter develops a sketch of a critical social ontology and contrasts it to a theory of sociality as presented in the work of Michael Brown. I argue that the ontology of our social forms requires categories for understanding them descriptively, functionally as well as in evaluative terms. I contend that a theory of power is needed for an understanding of the ontology of our social forms and that this can contribute to the construction of a more critical social ontology. I argue that a critical social ontology is a more attractive and satisfying paradigm for critical theory than current post-metaphysical approaches that emphasize discourse, recognition or other neo-Idealistic aspects of human sociality.