Search results

It was not until the late 1960s that housing attracted much attention from academic social scientists. Since that time the literature has expanded widely and diversified, establishing housing with a specialised status in economics, sociology, politics, and in related subjects. As we would expect, the new literature covers a technical, statistical, theoretical, ideological, and historical range. Housing studies have not been conceived and interpreted in a monolithic way, with generally accepted concepts and principles, or with uniformly fixed and precise methodological approaches. Instead, some studies have been derived selectively from diverse bases in conventional theories in economics or sociology, or politics. Others have their origins in less conventional social theory, including neo‐Marxist theory which has had a wider intellectual following in the modern democracies since the mid‐1970s. With all this diversity, and in a context where ideological positions compete, housing studies have consequently left in their wake some significant controversies and some gaps in evaluative perspective. In short, the new housing intellectuals have written from personal commitments to particular cognitive, theoretical, ideological, and national positions and experiences. This present piece of writing takes up the two main themes which have emerged in the recent literature. These themes are first, questions relating to building and developing housing theory, and, second, the issue of how we are to conceptualise housing and relate it to policy studies. We shall be arguing that the two themes are closely related: in order to create a useful housing theory we must have awareness and understanding of housing practice and the nature of housing.

The equation of unified knowledge says that S = f (A,P) which means that the practical solution to a given problem is a function of the existing, empirical, actual realities and the future, potential, best possible conditions of general stable equilibrium which both pure and practical reason, exhaustive in the Kantian sense, show as being within the realm of potential realities beyond any doubt. The first classical revolution in economic thinking, included in factor “P” of the equation, conceived the economic and financial problems in terms of a model of ideal conditions of stable equilibrium but neglected the full consideration of the existing, actual conditions. That is the main reason why, in the end, it failed. The second modern revolution, included in factor “A” of the equation, conceived the economic and financial problems in terms of the existing, actual conditions, usually in disequilibrium or unstable equilibrium (in case of stagnation) and neglected the sense of right direction expressed in factor “P” or the realization of general, stable equilibrium. That is the main reason why the modern revolution failed in the past and is failing in front of our eyes in the present. The equation of unified knowledge, perceived as a sui generis synthesis between classical and modern thinking has been applied rigorously and systematically in writing the enclosed American‐British economic, monetary, financial and social stabilization plans. In the final analysis, a new economic philosophy, based on a synthesis between classical and modern thinking, called here the new economics of unified knowledge, is applied to solve the malaise of the twentieth century which resulted from a confusion between thinking in terms of stable equilibrium on the one hand and disequilibrium or unstable equilibrium on the other.

This article gives a centenary appreciation of the contributions to economic thought of Joseph A. Schumpeter, with special focus on his work, The Theory of Economic Development (TED). It proceeds, first, by providing an overview of Schumpeter's life and works; secondly, by giving an interpretative exposition of the main themes of TED, and, thirdly, Schumpeter's broader “economic sociology” in terms of the place of these ideas in the history of economic thought; fourthly, by examining the reception to TED and the impact of it and Schumpeter's dynamic methodology on the discipline.

This study extends related research on corporate social responsibility (CSR) into the less-researched realm of Southeast Asia setting by investigating the role of life cycle stages on the relationship between CSR and firm value.

This study uses a sample of 1,247 firm-year observations of firms listed in Southeast Asia from 2012 to 2018. Descriptive, multiple regression and sensitivity analyses are presented in the study.

The results provide evidence that although CSR and firm value, in general, have a positive relationship, the relationship is contingent on the stages of firm's life cycle. The effect of each CSR dimension on firm value differs across life cycle stages. The social dimension of CSR predicts higher firm value at the introduction and mature stages. The governance dimension affects firm value at the growth and shake-out/decline stages. Moreover, the environmental dimension affects firm value only at the later stage of the life cycle.

This study is limited to five countries in Southeast Asia, namely Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand from 2012 to 2018. Future studies may explore other countries and investigate the impact of country classification on the relationship between CSR and firm value.

Policymakers, managers and other decision-makers may have a better understanding of firm's behavior in different life cycle stages. With such understanding, CSR will be successfully adopted in decision making, formulation and implementation of policies.

CSR-related research in Southeast Asia remains an under-studied domain, and little attention has been dedicated to different dimensions of CSR and life cycle in the area of CSR-related preference for decision making.

This paper aims to investigate overlaps, complementarities and divergences between the literature on circular economy (CE) models and related literature in non-linear production models and frameworks, including CE, reverse logistics, closed-loop, industrial symbiosis and industrial ecology.

A systematic literature review was conducted focussing on the benefits of non-linear modes adoption.

The results show a high degree of convergence in findings, gaps and weaknesses of these literatures. Negative environmental, economic and operational impacts are understudied. There is a scarcity of studies identifying practices resulting in empirically tested benefits. The business and society case for non-linear production is still largely built upon conceptual studies, modelling and a few case studies. Despite a normative focus, there is very little use of theory, in particular, management theories.

First, the authors use only one, albeit highly recognized database, Scopus. This database may have omitted some relevant research, journals such as the Journal of Cleaner Production and Resources Conservation & Recycling that are more likely to publish such research and also have a more interdisciplinary approach. This is an important gap and interesting result to claim for more interdisciplinary research. Second, the filtering process used and the focus on Association of Business Schools top journals may have also omitted some relevant research, such as a large stream of literature in specialist journals such as Resources Conservation and Recycling and the Journal of Cleaner Production.

There are contradictions, tensions and epistemological ambiguity that needs to be critically addressed. Such tensions may be associated with the knowledge field that gave rise to these different non-linear production approaches. Many of them appeared at the same time, but from different sciences and disciplines with their own perspectives. Then in doing so, they create confusion in the definitions of CE, assumptions underlying modelling and business choices arising from this complexity. This can be minimized through the critical interpretation of knowledge to elucidate epistemological quandaries to improve the understanding of the economic, social and environmental impacts of practices.

In some way, this result makes sense, as the authors have limited the search to management, business and accounts journals, especially talking about Operations Management journals. This is an important gap and interesting result to claim for more interdisciplinary research.

In addition to gaps previously described, the authors identified areas of tensions where the literature offers inconclusive – often contradictory – findings requiring further exploration. A better understanding of these tensions is required to understand the impacts of non-linear production and develop policy guidelines for industry and policymakers to scale-up CE.

Since 1980, property cycles have emerged emphatically as a phenomenon of urban development in both developed and developing countries. Among the many things which need to be explained is the continuing high levels of financial investment in property sectors, even well past the time when supply exceeds demand and vacancy rates continue to grow. Various intellectuals have put forward new theories and some situational explanations of the periodic over‐capitalisation in property. The economic adversities are not confined to the property and finance sectors. They extend into the socio‐economic performance of national economies, and in some cases they have international linkages and impacts. Gives exposition and evaluation relating to cyclicity in the USA, the UK, Japan, and some developing countries in Asia. The aim is mainly centred on explanation and theory, extending earlier published work in the authors’ research programmes in property cycles, urban development, and experience in both developing and developed countries. The economic, social, and political significance of property cycles is enormous.

Allyn Young′s lectures, as recorded by the young Nicholas Kaldor, survey the historical roots of the subject from Aristotle through to the modern neo‐classical writers. The focus throughout is on the conditions making for economic progress, with stress on the institutional developments that extend and are extended by the size of the market. Organisational changes that promote the division of labour and specialisation within and between firms and industries, and which promote competition and mobility, are seen as the vital factors in growth. In the absence of new markets, inventions as such play only a minor role. The economic system is an inter‐related whole, or a living “organon”. It is from this perspective that micro‐economic relations are analysed, and this helps expose certain fallacies of composition associated with the marginal productivity theory of production and distribution. Factors are paid not because they are productive but because they are scarce. Likewise he shows why Marshallian supply and demand schedules, based on the “one thing at a time” approach, cannot adequately describe the dynamic growth properties of the system. Supply and demand cannot be simply integrated to arrive at a picture of the whole economy. These notes are complemented by eleven articles in the Encyclopaedia Britannica which were published shortly after Young′s sudden death in 1929.

One crucial but sometimes overlooked fact regarding the difference between observation in the cross-section and observation over time must be stated before proceeding further. Tempting though it is to draw conclusions about the dynamics of a process from cross-sectional observations taken as a snapshot of that process, it is a fallacious practice except under a very precise condition that is highly unlikely to obtain in processes of interest to the social scientist. That condition is known as ergodicity.

The librarian and researcher have to be able to uncover specific articles in their areas of interest. This Bibliography is designed to help. Volume IV, like Volume III, contains features to help the reader to retrieve relevant literature from MCB University Press' considerable output. Each entry within has been indexed according to author(s) and the Fifth Edition of the SCIMP/SCAMP Thesaurus. The latter thus provides a full subject index to facilitate rapid retrieval. Each article or book is assigned its own unique number and this is used in both the subject and author index. This Volume indexes 29 journals indicating the depth, coverage and expansion of MCB's portfolio.

Business cycle theory is normally described as having evolved out of a previous tradition of writers focusing exclusively on crises. In this account, the turning point is seen as residing in Clément Juglar's contribution on commercial crises and their periodicity. It is well known that the champion of this view is Schumpeter, who propagated it on several occasions. The same author, however, pointed to a number of other writers who, before and at the same time as Juglar, stressed one or another of the aspects for which Juglar is credited primacy, including the recognition of periodicity and the identification of endogenous elements enabling the recognition of crises as a self-generating phenomenon. There is indeed a vast literature, both primary and secondary, relating to the debates on crises and fluctuations around the middle of the nineteenth century, from which it is apparent that Juglar's book Des Crises Commerciales et de leur Retour Périodique en France, en Angleterre et aux États-Unis (originally published in 1862 and very much revised and enlarged in 1889) did not come out of the blue but was one of the products of an intellectual climate inducing the thinking of crises not as unrelated events but as part of a more complex phenomenon consisting of recurring crises related to the development of the commercial world – an interpretation corroborated by the almost regular occurrence of crises at about 10-year intervals.