Search results

This chapter explores how state–business relations (SBR) in the Arab world influence public policy on industrial clusters and the resulting economic benefits from these clusters on innovation and productivity. The main SBR actors are identified as the state, big capitalists (or tycoons), and small and medium business managers and owners (entrepreneurs). The framework used here focuses on interactors' power relations. Such power relations are reflected in the ability/inability of the state to enforce its will with less consultation with and/or favorite treatment to nonstate actors. It is also reflected in the ability/inability of nonstate actors to act individually or organize in order to defend their interests and influence government policy formulation and implementation. Such power relations are reflected in the ability of nonstate actors to organize – especially entrepreneurs – and the level of favoritism provided by state officials to tycoons. The power dynamics in SBR lead to different SBR modes and different economic outcomes, one of which is the development of industrial clusters and how efficient they are in fostering innovation and productivity in Arab countries. This chapter suggests that the development of industrial clusters in the Arab world necessitates institutional reform, addressing the power relations governing SBR in the region. A more open political system allowing the independence and growth of broad-based business associations and curbing favoritism is necessary for realizing the benefits from implementing recommended policies, leading to cluster development and reaping the economic benefits from such development. Using statistical and regression analysis, empirical evidence supporting these arguments is provided.

This study aims to discover the general trends, the structural characteristics of the knowledge base, and developments in the field of internationalization of higher education (IHE) in Turkey. In this respect, the studies published in journals indexed by SSCI, SCI-Expanded, ESCI, and AHCI in Web of Science (WoS) between January 1, 1975, and November 20, 2021, were analyzed. The dataset included 260 articles. We administered descriptive analysis reflecting the topographical features and the dynamics of the related literature through Excel and the WoS analysis tools. We conducted bibliometric analyses to shed light on the current view of the literature and reveal the intellectual structure of the knowledge base and topical foci. The volume of the research in the field of IHE in Turkey and their yearly distribution suggests that this area of research is still in its infancy; however, there has been a rapid growth in the number of publications recently. Author co-citation analysis reveals four distinct schools of thought labeled as “Higher Education Policy Studies in EU,” “Global Socio-politics and Economics of IHE,” “Socio-cultural and Psychological Dimensions of Internationalization” and “Language Studies.” Finally, topical foci in the knowledge base emerged as “International Student Mobility,” “Psychological and Cultural Adaptation of International Students,” “Higher Education Policy Reforms,” “International Staff Mobility” and “Migration Related Issues.” The results are discussed with related review studies and suggestions for future research are provided.

Work-life flexibility policies (e.g., flextime, telework, part-time, right-to-disconnect, and leaves) are increasingly important to employers as productivity and well-being strategies. However, policies have not lived up to their potential. In this chapter, the authors argue for increased research attention to implementation and work-life intersectionality considerations influencing effectiveness. Drawing on a typology that conceptualizes flexibility policies as offering employees control across five dimensions of the work role boundary (temporal, spatial, size, permeability, and continuity), the authors develop a model identifying the multilevel moderators and mechanisms of boundary control shaping relationships between using flexibility and work and home performance. Next, the authors review this model with an intersectional lens. The authors direct scholars’ attention to growing workforce diversity and increased variation in flexibility policy experiences, particularly for individuals with higher work-life intersectionality, which is defined as having multiple intersecting identities (e.g., gender, caregiving, and race), that are stigmatized, and link to having less access to and/or benefits from societal resources to support managing the work-life interface in a social context. Such an intersectional focus would address the important need to shift work-life and flexibility research from variable to person-centered approaches. The authors identify six research considerations on work-life intersectionality in order to illuminate how traditionally assumed work-life relationships need to be revisited to address growing variation in: access, needs, and preferences for work-life flexibility; work and nonwork experiences; and benefits from using flexibility policies. The authors hope that this chapter will spur a conversation on how the work-life interface and flexibility policy processes and outcomes may increasingly differ for individuals with higher work-life intersectionality compared to those with lower work-life intersectionality in the context of organizational and social systems that may perpetuate growing work-life and job inequality.