Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explain the “evaluation deadlock” or “stasis” diagnosed by many authors. The explanation relies on a thought experiment.

The paper is conceptual and builds on a thought experiment inspired by qualitative research such as interviews with communication consultants in Sweden. It makes use of principal–agent theory and Akerlof’s theory of lemon markets.

A plausible explanation for the evaluation stasis requires consideration of practitioners’ self-interest as businesspeople. The deadlock is explained by an anomaly in practitioner populations and passive or active but covert resistance. If the long-time neglect of measurement and evaluation has led to expectation inflation and overpromising, even well-performing actors might shy away from rigorous measurement and evaluation practices in their own mandates, since they fear being measured against promotional, not realistic standards. At the same time, on the level of industry discourse, these practitioners would still advocate for measurement and evaluation in principle, so as to avoid the suspicion of underperformance.

The paper suggests an explanation for further empirical investigation. It does not attempt to demonstrate anything else than that the suggestion is plausible and that it warrants further investigation.

The scientific community engaged in the measurement and evaluation debate appears puzzled by the discrepancy between practitioners’ words and actions. The authors hope that the paper contributes to a more realistic and thus more constructive dialogue between practitioners and academics in the measurement and evaluation debate.

Inspired by Alvesson and Spicer’s concept of functional stupidity, the paper argues that attempts to explain the evaluation stasis have been marked by circumspection and narrowness. At present, explanations for the evaluation stasis tend to focus on lack of knowledge or inadequate systems or frameworks. The paper offers a more comprehensive explanation.

The meaning of scandals like “Liborgate” is not given beforehand; it is constructed in the course of framing contests. The purpose of this paper is to provide a nuanced framework for understanding such framing contests by re-conceptualizing them as rhetorical struggles.

A conceptual framework that combines modern framing theory, and classical stasis theory is applied to the rhetorical struggles over the meaning of “Liborgate.”

While rhetorical struggles over “Liborgate” overtly center on the issue of who is to blame, an analysis of the argumentative relations between competing frames leads to the conclusion that this political “blame game” is related to struggles over how to define the scandal, how to conceptualize its causes, and policy recommendations. Banks may have lost the battle of “Liborgate,” but the war over the meaning of financial culture is far from over.

The paper is theoretically and methodologically original in its combination of the theories of framing and stasis, and it provides analytical insights into how sense is made of financial culture in the wake of the financial crisis.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the current policy stasis in UK drug policy.

This paper examines reports, statistics and policy statements by government agencies.

Delays in revising a national strategy appear to have no clear explanation. Responses to drugs issues, including drug-related deaths, appear to lack urgency or concern at a policy making level.

Complacency and lack of regard to evidence appear to inform current policy and strategy. Ways of overcoming this stasis are not identified.

There is a need for factors leading to reform and change to be identified and implemented, by government and others.

The situations and needs of drug users do not appear as a government priority. Continued reductions in public spending – austerity – are reducing treatment provision.

The paper attempts to identify factors which inhibit policy reform in the UK so that future reform becomes more realistic.

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?”

The purpose of this paper is to examine modern monetary policy as practiced and promoted by the officials of Central Banks, with the Federal Reserve Bank of the USA and the Bank of Japan in leading roles.

Modern monetary policy is assessed for its rhetoric and its philosophies steeped in Keynesian traditions. The fallacies of relying on patently incorrect economic theory with specific critique on the assumption that saving is equal to investment (S=I) is exposed in the policy failures of themes such as quantitative easing, approaching the zero bound, wealth effects, the liquidity trap, forbearance lending and an unwavering belief in the power to inflate. An alternative credit theory is presented and discussed to explain the accumulation of monetary interventions in the modern banking environment. The credit theory is further expanded to evaluate an economy in distress as a result of an accumulation of monetary stimulations against a background of the philosophies of the Austrian school of economics.

Three decisive monetary policy outcomes are identified and substantiated in the Austrian philosophy of laissez faire; the probable outcome of modern monetary policies in deflationary stasis; and the destructive outcome of extreme monetary and fiscal interventions resulting in a hyperinflationary depression and destruction of the money unit.

The conceptual framework and content of the paper are mostly original and will contribute to the study of political and monetary economics.