Search results

Many neo-Weberians adopt the state’s authority-monopolizing aim as their theoretical expectation. Through a case study of the Peruvian state and Lima’s squatter settlements, I provide evidence in support of the opposite contention: that states may unintentionally produce non-state extractive-coercive organizations. During the mid- to late-twentieth century, Lima’s population grew rapidly. Since they had few economic resources, the new urban poor requisitioned public lands and set up dozens of squatter settlements in the city’s periphery. Other researchers have identified several novel political phenomena stemming from such urban conditions. I focus here on the impact of the state. Using secondary and primary data, I examine three periods during which the state applied distinct settlement policies and one in which it did not apply a settlement policy, from 1948 to 1980. I find that when it applied each of the settlement policies, the state produced non-state political authorities – neighborhood elites – who extracted resources from squatters and tried to control neighborhood turf even against state encroachment, and that the state’s non-involvement did not produce them.

Virtually all of the literature of the MNC assumes that the modern or Westphalian international order of geographically defined sovereign states is the context in which international business takes place. I argue that we are in the midst of a deep-seated systemic transformation to a transnational or post-Westphalian world order characterized by a redefinition of space and geography, the fragmentation of political authority and a more diffuse distinction between public and private spheres. The emergence of a transnational order will have significant implications for the multinational firm in terms of the depth of its involvement in politics and how it formulates strategy. MNCs will both be subject to and a participant in governance, the latter in terms of hybrid public–private regimes. Strategy will have to be reformulated to incorporate a non-territorial context where firms function as actors in the international political process.

This paper provides a political analysis of legal pluralism from a “new institutionalist” perspective. In response to question of why states recognize and incorporate non-state normative orderings into their legal systems, it is hypothesized that the decision of incorporation is made to enhance the capacities of postcolonial states with “rational” calculations. In this respect, two new categories of legal pluralism are introduced: capacity-enhancing recognition and capacity-diminishing recognition. The paper lastly assesses the implications of legal pluralism upon the state-society relations and individual rights and liberties of citizens in the case of Israel.

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

In this chapter we explore the key contributions made by the Authority In Contention (AIC) Project and suggest paths for extension and development of new research and theorizing based on these contributions. We place the AIC project in historical context, discuss three important clusters of ideas suggested by broadening our understanding of authority (the concept of authority, the impact of multiple authority structures, and social control of challenges), discuss the implications for challenger tactics and outcomes, and conclude by calling for a fluid definition of what counts as a social movement.

Purpose – This chapter on global civil society provides a definition of global civil society, and also provides a historical and theoretical overview of social movements. This chapter also presents a taxonomy of non-state actors and demonstrates at the theoretical level that actions and initiatives by non-state actors since the 1990s’ globalisation. In this chapter, the concept of civil society is presented as a form of globalisation from below, and its role in the participatory governance of societal processes implies forms of soft regulation and moral authority which transcend the role of states as enforcers.Design/methodology/approach – This chapter is based on an extensive literature review.Findings – Actions and initiatives by non-state actors in the current age of globalisation have been increasing. This increase has become more evident with the more stringent traceability of processes associated with the development of information and communication technologies (ICT), and private forms of organisation networking at the local and transnational level. This has re-defined geographical boundaries, creating proximity between individuals which goes beyond physical constraints, and it has extended definitions of communities to multiple levels of identification and convergence, but also divergence.The concept of civil society and its role in the participatory governance of societal processes implies forms of soft regulation and moral authority which transcend the role of states as enforcers. The idea of civil society opens a space for non-traditional actors to actively participate and engage in the political processes of change in society, for the betterment of marginalised groups, the environment or social justice in general. The diversity of roles that single individuals have in society allows them to participate from different angles.Although the concept of civil society has limitations due to its breadth, manifestations of a global civil society can be understood as forms of globalisation that occur outside traditional institutional settings.Originality/value of chapter – This chapter provides a general overview on civil society, and its relevance for analysing contexts of international business, and MNES's relations with community and non-governmental groups. Within this chapter, it is also conceptually describe how multinationals as non-state actors have increasingly playing a role in providing welfare.

This chapter examines whether Type 1 and Type 2 models of Multi-Level Governance (MLG) are suitable frameworks for analysing the operation of local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) as significant new partnerships at the sub-national level of governance in England. In doing so it bridges some gaps in knowledge, largely absent from MLG literature, by demonstrating how actors in economic development attempt to solve governance problems through co-operation rather than central steering and control.

The approach follows Stubbs (2005) who called for more political anthropological or ethnographic analyses, and the chapter draws on primary interview data and secondary documentary evidence from two LEPs in the north east of England.

Some advocates of MLG believe that governance should serve citizen needs but it is clear from the contents of this chapter that MLG has a number of weaknesses in this respect, as well as neglecting power relationships and misinterpretations of the concept of territory. The conclusion shows that LEPs as multi-agency partnerships need to be accountable and it is essential to adopt models that facilitate a clearer understanding of new spaces of interactions and multiple accountabilities. Using a stakeholder analysis fills some gaps in understanding of how partnerships work and who they are accountable to, as well as assessing how public services delivery models operate within a multi-level governance setting. All 39 LEPs have varying levels of trust between partners, as well as responding to multiple accountabilities. Neither Type I nor Type II MLG is sufficient on its own as an explanatory framework for analysing LEPs, but each does offer a useful entrée into this important field of enquiry.

The MLG concept is a helpful starting point, but its utility is governed by how it is augmented with other, more appropriate models of analysis. LEPs are a challenge to the dynamics of public accountability as they involve private actors at the heart of public service delivery; they are also interesting examples of persistent contestation between actors with different mind sets on outcomes and on legitimacy, accountability and representativeness. Stakeholder analysis allows a deeper appreciation of the interactions in space and multiple accountabilities of actors in LEPs.

LEPs in England are the preferred instrument for driving economic growth in regions and sub-regions. The findings help to explain more fully some of the intricate power and trust relationships in these partnerships. The chapter also examines multiple accountabilities and how actors connect within territories.

Critically the findings show an absence of real citizen engagement or expression of public opinions and feedback loops to citizens/publics/individuals/other organisations within such diffuse partnership arrangements. In an era of Localism it is essential for partnerships to be accountable to a wider group of societal stakeholders

The chapter takes a novel approach to analysing LEPs and builds on some existing work on MLG to obtain a deeper analysis of some of the complex inter-relationships and connections between actors on LEPs.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the basis for, and ramifications of, applying relevant human rights norms – such as the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights – to the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). In doing so, the paper seeks to contribute to scholarship on the political legitimisation of the IASB’s structure and activities under prevailing global governance conditions.

The paper explores three distinct argumentative logics regarding responsibilities for justice and human rights vis-à-vis the IASB. First, the authors explore the basis for applying human rights responsibilities to the IASB through reasoning based on the analysis of “public power” (Macdonald, 2008) and public authorisation. Second, the authors develop the reasoning with reference to recent attempts by legal scholars and practitioners to apply human rights obligations to other non-state and transnational institutions. Finally, the authors develop reasoning based on Thomas Pogge’s (1992b) ideas about institutional harms and corresponding responsibilities.

The three distinct argumentative logic rest on differing assumptions – the goal is not to reconcile or synthesise these approaches, but to propose that these approaches offer alternative and in some ways complementary insights, each of which contributes to answering questions about how human rights obligations of the IASB should be defined, and how such a responsibility could be “actually proceduralised”.

The analysis provides an important starting point for beginning to think about how responsibilities for human rights might be applied to the operation of the IASB.

During the past 30 years environmental policy was never between the top priority areas of public intervention in Greece. Legislative measures related to the protection of human health and nuisance from private economic activities were introduced as early as in the beginning of last century. The post dictatorial constitution of 1975 provided, for the first time, specific provision for the protection of natural environment. However, a comprehensive framework legislation regulating all facets of environmental degradation was adopted only in 1986 but remained, for a long period, practically inactive since the necessary implementing decisions were issued with considerable delay. The country's accession into the EU, in 1981, provided a cognitive and material basis for the modernisation of environmental policy through the incorporation of the environmental acquis into domestic law and building up of domestic administrative capacities through the use of the structural funds. However, low prioritisation of environmental protection in the domestic policy agendas of successive Greek governments continued to affect domestic administrative structures and policy traditions.