Search results

The political leadership in the Arab world has certain characteristics, which are based on historical, ideological, and social factors. Few of the Arab leaders have changed their traditional style, as in the case of Jordan, but the majority of them have not. In this paper the (prophetic‐Caliphal) model will be tested. The model has been introduced by Professor Al‐Khadra in (1974) and depicts the dynamics of political leadership in the Arab world. In order to avoid misunderstanding, the model will be called the (Charismatic‐Authoritative Model).

The purpose of this paper is to develop a scale to empirically measure the self-centered leadership SCL pattern in Arab organizations.

This paper depends on two Egyptian samples. It has conducted exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis and multiple regression analyses to generate the proposed SCL measurement scale.

The analyses have revealed that the new measurement scale is valid and reliable. They have also confirmed the multidimensional structure of the self-centered leadership construct.

The Arab leadership literature is in short of scales which take into consideration the specialties of the Arab cultures. Therefore, this study fills a lacuna in international research which examines Arab leadership behaviors from a culture-bound perspective.

Current mainstream management theory is based on incomplete assumptions regarding the nature of human beings and human action, leading to damaging practical results. This paper aims to draw on personalism for the formulation of better assumptions for theory.

The main problems in current assumptions are analysed. A combination of the exclusion of human intentionality with a view of human beings as self‐interest maximisers who betray relationships if it is in their interest so to do, leads to practical proposals for management that distort human behaviour and tend to make people less trustworthy. Nevertheless, such assumptions are not entirely wrong; it is their incompleteness that is problematic. They need to be able to include the intrinsically relational aspect of the human being. In personalism, the human being is seen as a duality, individual‐person, which can provide a way of conceiving both the self‐interested and self‐giving aspects of human action in an integrated way.

Three brief examples of how these expanded assumptions can give us better guidance in management situations indicate the further potential of this line of research. Personalism grounds human dignity in the idea of the person as the imago dei, a Christian idea. The paper discusses the relevance of this idea for management today.

The value of the paper is that it builds a bridge between current management problems and a well‐developed philosophy, allowing the resources of this tradition of thought to be accessed towards the end of creating better management theory and practice.

To demonstrate that person and the philosophy of personalism are more relevant to contemporary economic affairs than individual and the philosophy of individualism.

This paper addresses two tasks. First, it provides a sketch of what it means to approach economic affairs from the perspective of person and personalism versus individual and individualism. Second, it traces the origins of personalist economics to Aristotle, Aquinas, and Smith, shows why personalist economics departs from mainstream economics, and how it is linked to Weber and Walras principally through Schumpeter.

This paper provides a schematic showing that personalist economics originates with Aristotle, Aquinas, and Smith without embracing the individualism of the Enlightenment and a timeline that connects the three stages of human communication – oral/aural, script, and electronic – to the evolution of economics since the Enlightenment.

This paper challenges mainstream economics to consider the adequacy of individual/individualism in an age where it is self‐evident that human beings are not autonomous individuals.

The individual as the basic unit of economic analysis is a creature born of the individualism of the script stage. The person as the basic unit of economic analysis was born of the personalism of the electronic stage and, therefore, is much better suited to economic analysis in an age of economic globalization.

The integration of work on human communication with the way in which economists should be thinking about contemporary economic affairs.

The purpose of this paper is to present a perspective on need that derives from a personalism which is grounded in Catholic social thought and runs counter to the individualism of mainstream economics, focusing on need in the context of three economic activities: consumption, work, and leisure.

Three strands of Christian personalism emerged in twentieth‐century Europe: in Paris, Munich, and Lublin. The author's comments derive from the Lublin strand.

Mainstream economics regards consumption as satisfying human material wants. Need is disregarded except when poverty is addressed. Personalist economics insists that there are needs of the human spirit which are addressed through consumption. Personalist economics views work as having two effects. First, by producing goods and services it provides income to purchase those goods and services. Second, it provides opportunities to associate with others in the workplace, and to apply creative talents and energies. Mainstream economics regards the first but not the second as within the domain of the discipline. Mainstream economics defines leisure negatively as time spent not working. Personalist economics sees it positively as an activity crucial to personal development.

The reader is asked to consider two questions. Will economic theory continue to be constructed on an economic agent who is represented by the passive and predictable homo economicus of mainstream economics that is based on the individualism of the seventeenth‐to‐eighteenth century enlightenment? Or, will it turn to the active and unpredictable acting person of personalist economics based on a personalism that emerged in the twentieth century?

The aim is to contribute to the personalist economics research agenda by exploring how personalist thought can theoretically inform the question of well-being and its measurement.

The paper draws on the work of personalist philosopher Emmanuel Mounier. After reviewing relevant aspects of Mounier's political economic thought, the second section considers the conceptual implications for a personalist well-being measure and analyses its key tenets: integrality; heterogeneity; objectivity vs. subjectivity; and autonomy and freedom. The third section consists of a dialogue between Mounier's personalist philosophy and some aspects of Sen's capability approach applied to the issue of well-being measurement, which echoes and parallels some fundamental dimensions of personalist thought.

Firstly, the conceptual analysis offers preliminary avenues for moving towards measuring well-being using an agent model that aligns more closely with the model of the economic agent as person, as is articulated by personalists and incorporating personalist principles. Secondly, the brief analysis of ways in which aspects of Sen's capability theory dialogue with personalist economic principles demonstrate the potential for personalist principles to be incorporated into welfare assessment theory.

Personalist economics strives to re-think the foundations of economic theory by introducing the acting person as the economic agent, as opposed to the individual. Dissatisfaction with a range of mainstream economic well-being indicators suggests that there is a deficit in the normative and ontological assumptions that underlie conventional welfare economic models.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/IJSE-02-2023-0084.

When the Catholic bishops of the United States prepared the first draft of their pastoral letter on the US economy, they deliberately kept its contents confidential until after the presidential election of that year. They did not want it to intrude upon the campaign then under way. It was not made public until 11 November, 1984. The Lay Commission, chaired by William E. Simon, issued its document, Toward the Future: Catholic Social Thought and the US Economy, before the bishops' first draft but also after the presidential election. It was not a response to the bishops' then unseen document but an advisory counter‐proposal from a different perspective. The Lay Commission presumed that the two documents would be different certainly in the area of policy recommendations and in the evaluation of the performance of the American economy; they probably anticipated differences also in the understanding of Christian and Catholic tradition and principles. They were not wrong.

The purpose of this research is to address the notion of leadership in Muslim countries. It seeks to develop a model for understanding leadership in Islamic culture and discusses the factors which give rise to two types of leadership: the prophetic and caliphate.

The article briefly surveys the socio‐economic and political forces which facilitate the emergence of certain leadership styles. The paper, then, suggests a model of leadership relevant to Islamic culture.

Two types of leadership were identified. Furthermore, the paper addresses the conflict between idealism and realism and the rise of authoritarian leaders.

This paper offers policymakers and researchers various avenues on how to address the issue of leadership in an Islamic culture and presents a theoretical model for understanding issues pertaining to leaders and leadership in Muslim societies. Specific propositions pertaining to the effect of culture and society on leadership are offered.

The paper offers a genuine reflection on the nature of leadership. The issue of leadership and its linkage to culture has often been overlooked in the literature. In part, this is because most of the literature on leadership has been focused primarily on personality‐based relationships and relationships between leaders and followers. In this paper, it is argued that culture shapes personality and gives meaning to contextual and relational aspects of leadership.

This paper explores the sociological, economic, and political reasons for the collapse of Venezuela's 40-year “pacted” democracy, the eight-year conflict between the country's new president and the opposition, where this conflict has led Venezuela, and what its prospects are for the near future. It proposes that the collapse of Venezuela's “ancien regime” can best be understood by an examination of the impact the rise and fall of oil prices had on its economy, society, and polity. A 20-year economic decline led to the election of Hugo Chavez, a radical outsider, who refused to play along with the country's old political class. This class, in turn, refused to accept Chavez as the legitimately elected president and launched the country on an eight-year roller-coaster ride of counter-revolution and radicalization, which recently ended with the reelection of Chavez and a massive popular endorsement for the establishment of “21st century socialism” in Venezuela. Exactly what such a project means is still unclear, but it so far involves state support for self-managed workplaces and an anti-capitalist and participatory democratic state in the midst of a still functioning capitalist economy. With the apparent defeat of obstacles that are external to the Bolivarian movement, as the pro-Chavez movement is called, such as the domestic opposition and U.S. intervention, the movement is now forced to confront its internal obstacles, such as clientelism, corruption, and personalism, if it is to succeed in the long run.