Search results

In the 1990s, European social democrats coalesced around a set of principles often referred to as the third way – characterised by prudent economic governance, a slimmer public sector, ‘productive’ welfare services and attraction to inward investment. Third way proponents perceived fairness as supporting opportunity rather than redistributing welfare. On the way to the late 2000s, their sense of direction was lost. The final phase, one might argue, ended with the 2008–2009 financial crisis. Henceforth, the challenge for the Left concerned how to define a social democracy with less revenue and limited scope for expanding public services, while reaching out to the so-called left-behinds through better jobs and a renewed sense of common purpose.

Jeremy Corbyn and Emmanuel Macron represent two distinctly different attempts at forging a new way forward from the impasse. During Corbyn's tenure as a leader (2015–2020), Labour carved out space by moving leftwards on key economic policies while proffering communitarianism as the antidote to globalised capitalism. Across the English Channel, Macron's new party, La République En Marche, sought to generate a new form of politics that had clear similarities with the centrism of third way social democracy, supplemented by an emphasis on social dialogue and enhanced European integration as a strategy for harnessing globalisation.

Corbynism and Macronism represent two distinct attempts at centre-left renewal, both personalised yet evolving on the back of mass movements. This chapter summarises the trajectory of both in terms of ideological content and organisational change and asks what lessons they convey about the future of social democracy in the twenty-first century.

The importance of foreign aid cannot be overstated.¹ Unprecedented integration of the world economy in recent years has brought the issue of poverty back in the policy debate at the international level. Some of the recent initiatives such as the United Nation's Millennium Development Goals and the report by the Africa Commission (set up by the British Prime Minister Tony Blair) which was discussed at length at G8 meetings, recognize this fact. The analysis of foreign aid is however fraught with controversies and paradoxes. This applies to both the theoretical and the empirical literature. There are two broad strands in the literature. First, in international trade theory, researchers have examined the welfare effects of foreign aid and, in particular, if aid can be donor-enriching and recipient-immiserizing – the so-called Transfer Paradox.² The main mechanism here is via changes in the international terms of trade. The primary benefit (loss) to the recipient (donor) can be offset by a secondary loss (gain) because of deterioration (improvement) in the international terms of trade. More recently, a number of studies have examined the possibility of strictly Pareto improving foreign aid, i.e., situations where both the donor and the recipient are better off as a result of the transfer.

Mental health is an underdeveloped service to the population generally and to African-Caribbean in particular. There is a need for more sensitive diagnosing, treatment and care. African-Caribbean people are asking for a more culturally competent mental healthcare system.

This chapter aims to address the following issues: how African-Caribbean people reflect on mental health and mental ill health. Their reflections are drawn from interviews done with African-Caribbean people who are involved with Hagar, a mental health charity in Lewisham, London. Mental health and mental illnesses will be examined, followed by the Psychiatrists’ use of the diagnostic tools that do a disservice to Black people. The Trans-Atlantic slave trade and its contribution to the mental ill health of Black people will be addressed, thus providing a historical underpinning for much of Black people’s struggle with mental ill health. Racism and its contribution to mental health issues will be presented. The views of the Black Psychiatrist Franz Fanon will be argued as a way of understanding oppression, alienation and mental ill health in Black people, and going on to open up ways of providing treatment and care. Finally suggestions will be made about how to provide a culturally competent mental health service to African Heritage peoples.

This study examines how narratives and legitimacy formation affect crowdfunding capital assembly from distributed, heterogeneous investors.

The study explores a dataset of 80,181 projects from Kickstarter, a rewards-based crowdfunding platform, between 2009 and 2013. We explore the link between project-related variables, legitimacy formation and outcomes.

Entrepreneurs design narratives and create project legitimacy by exploiting crowdfunding platform-specific features. First, lower funding targets and shorter campaign durations confer positive project legitimacy. Second, entrepreneurs exploit reward-levels as narrative tools that encourage funders to engage with the project. Third, visual pitches transmit a broader sociocultural narrative, leveraging emotional rather than financial reasoning. We also note certain gender effects.

Crowdfunding platforms allow entrepreneurs to pitch business ideas to a broad online audience. We show that project legitimacy, including both structural and narrative elements, is linked to crowdfunding outcomes. In particular, legitimacy is co-created through the generation of a persuasive narrative linking the entrepreneur and investor cohort.

Entrepreneurs use crowdfunding platforms to generate a coherent narrative around unfamiliar business models. Generic platform tools may be set and manipulated in online crowdfunding pitches to support project legitimacy. Ultimately, these are less important than establishing an affinity-based narrative that engages and exploits investor participation. Successful crowdfunding pitches co-author the project story with investors.

Crowdfunding has been traditionally understood as simply an online-mediated venture resource assembly tool. A narrative framework highlights the critical role of legitimacy formation in a disintermediated investment system.

This chapter argues that neoliberal governmentality in immunization relocates the Turkish state's position regarding vaccine and immunization policies. Neoliberalism is often discussed in the context of privatization, performance, and effectiveness separately. However, more attention should be paid to the set of strategies that are employed in public policy processes to manage populations in terms of immunization, while intertwining power with knowledge. Following Foucault's concept of governmentality and taking it further within the context of biopolitics, this chapter focuses on different knowledge practices regarding vaccine and immunization policies in Turkey. In doing so, this case study applies a post-structural analysis to examine vaccine production, vaccine know-how, and immunization policies inscribed in policy documents as a form of knowledge practice. The analysis sheds light on the reflexive transformation of the concept of biopolitics, which is moving from state-oriented knowledge practices toward a neoliberal governmentality of immunization.

This chapter seeks to look at the most important trends in international relations and global affairs spurred by the coronavirus crisis, and its long-term repercussions. In this analysis the author adapts the current biopolitical scholarship to such disciplines as security studies, foreign policy analysis, international relations and regional studies, and world politics and globalization. The chapter starts with discussing the biopolitics of the coronavirus crisis from a security perspective that requires a juxtaposition of COVID-19 emergency with some other securitized biopolitical events and experiences such as the war on terror and the refugee crisis. When it comes to the global level, the analysis includes the new roles of global organizations and their contribution to the fight against COVID-19. Another perspective is grounded in the discussions on the idea of “the international” and the reverberations of COVID-19 for the entire system of inter-state/inter-governmental/trans-national relations, including its regional dimensions. From the viewpoint of national foreign policies, the pandemic can be viewed as a global calamity producing new forms of diplomatic activity that significantly re-actualize and expand the concepts of biodiplomacy and health diplomacy.