Search results

This study explores a hegemonic alliance and the role of relational forms of accounting and accountablity in the making of contemporary capitalism.

We use the WikiLeaks “Cablegate” documents to provide an account of the detailed machinations between interest groups (corporations and the state) that are constitutive of hegemonic activity.

Our analysis of the “Cablegate” documents shows that the US and Chevron were crafting a central role for Turkmenistan and its president on the global political stage as early as 2007, despite offical reporting beginning only in 2009. The documents exemplify how “accountability gaps” occlude the understanding of interdependence between capital and the state.

The study contributes to a growing idea that official accounts offer a fictionalized narrative of corporations as existing independently, and thus expands the boundaries associated with studying multinational corporate activities to include their interdependencies with the modern state.

The study traces how global capitalism extends into new territories through diplomatic channels, as a strategic initiative between powerful state and capital interests, arguing that the outcome is the empowerment of authoritarian states at the cost of democracy.

The study argues that previous accounting and accountability research has overlooked the larger picture of how capital and the state work together to secure a mutual hegemonic interest. We advocate for a more complete account of these activities that circumvents official, often restricted, views of global capitalism.

The records surrounding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) have been subject to unique treatment in their management and opening. The John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (JFK Records Act) mandated that the records would be opened in full by 2017, unless there was intervention from the sitting president. This study aims to examine the extent to which access to the JFK assassination records has been granted. It evaluates how open the archive is, and the consequences of withholding government records. It examines how the continued non-disclosure of this archive has helped to fuel the controversy and conspiracy theories surrounding Kennedy’s death.

This research was approached as traditional historical document analysis, reviewing the JFK assassination records releases from 2017–2018 and the broader landscape of access to information in America. A random sampling of the open and redacted records was used to undertake a statistical analysis on the amount of information that has been withheld. It was supplemented with freedom of information requests intended to reveal further information on the approach taken to redaction. The work was situated within a broader global literature review.

The research identified the limits to access to the JFK assassination records that exist because of the continued postponement and redaction of information by US federal government agencies. It found that the ambiguous language used for exemptions in the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the JFK Records Act has allowed agencies the freedom to interpret and limit access to information if they desired. Furthermore, agencies have had the power to hold and sanitise their own records. The work identifies how these approaches have caused questions, inconsistences, a lack of transparency and accountability in the US government. The lack of centralised processes and related explanations can be seen to fuel further controversies and conspiracies.

Using a systematic research methodology, this work presents a careful analysis of the varying processes and their implications for understanding of the events that surrounded Kennedy’s assassination. Lessons learnt can be applied to the general management of freedom of information and access to information.

This paper aims to systematically unpack the ideal of organizational transparency by tracing the concept's origins in the era of Enlightenment. Based on a genealogical reconstruction, the article explores different transparency understandings in key areas of online public relations (PR) and discusses the opportunities and challenges they present for the field.

This is a conceptual paper that unfolds a genealogical reconstruction to uncover different transparency ideals of modernity. These perspectives are then transferred to the field of online PR to discuss their ethical and practical implications in the context of digitalization.

Claims for transparency manifest in three distinct ideals, namely normative, instrumental and expressive transparency, which are also pursued in online PR. These ideals are related to associated concepts, like dialogue, control and authenticity, which serve as transparency proxies. Moreover, each transparency ideal inherits an ambivalence that presents unique opportunities and challenges for PR practitioners.

Instead of an unquestioned belief in the ideal of organizational transparency, the paper urges communication practitioners to critically reflect on the ambivalent nature of different transparency regimes in the context of digitalization and provides initial recommendations on how to manage digital transparency in online PR responsibly.

The paper contributes to the vivid debate surrounding organizational transparency in the context of digitalization by offering a novel and systematic analysis of the multifaced concept of transparency while opening new research avenues for further conceptual and empirical research.

This paper aims to fill gap in the literature and explore policy options for resolving the problems of accountability by framing three research questions. The research questions are (i) whether certain elements of Scott’s (2014) institutional pillars attenuate (accentuate) corporate and public accountability; (ii) whether the presence of ruling party-affiliated enterprises (RPAEs) create an increase (decrease) in the degree of corporate (public) accountability; and (iii) whether there is a particular form of ownership change that transforms RPAEs into public investment companies.

Using a qualitative research methodology that involves term frequency and thematic analysis of publicly available textual information, the paper examines Mechkova et al.’s (2019 forms of government accountability. The paper analyzes the gaps between the de jure and de facto accountability using the institutional pillars framework.

The findings of the paper are three. First, there are gaps between de jure and de facto in all three (vertical, horizontal and diagonal) forms of government (public) accountability. Second, the study finds that more than three fourth of the parties that contested the June 2021 election did have regional focus. They did not advocate for accountability. Third, Ethiopia’s RPAEs are unique. They have regional focus and are characterized by severe forms of agency and information asymmetry problems.

The main limitation of the paper is its exploratory nature. Extending this research by using cross-country data could provide a more complete picture of the link between corporate (public) accountability and a country’s institutional pillars.

Academic research documents that instilling modern corporate (public) governance standards in the Sub Sahara Africa (SSA) region has shown mixed results. The analysis made in this paper is likely to inform researchers and policymakers about the type of change that leads to better corporate (and public) accountability outcomes.

The institutional change proposed in the paper is likely to advance the public interest by mitigating agency and information asymmetry problems and enhancing government accountability. The changes make the enterprises investable, save scarce jobs, enhance diversity and put the assets in RPAEs to better use.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first paper that uses the institutional pillars analytical framework to examine an SSA country's corporate (public) accountability problem. It demonstrates that accountability is a domestic and a (novel) traveling theory. The paper identifies the complexity of resolving the interlock between political institutions and business enterprises. It theorizes that it is impossible to instill modern corporate (public) accountability standards without changing regulatory, normative and cultural cognitive pillars of institutions. The paper contributes to the change management and public interest literature.

The purpose of this paper is to scrutinise the intricate relationship between the inadequate enforcement of anti-corruption laws and the application of good governance and the persisting prevalence of coups d'état and poverty in Africa.

This paper uses a doctrinal legal research approach, synthesising existing literature while extensively analysing primary and secondary legal sources. Its primary aim is to scrutinise the intricate relationship between the inadequate enforcement of anti-corruption laws and the application of good governance and the persisting prevalence of coups d'état and poverty in Africa. The choice of case study countries Burkina Faso, Chad, Gabon, Guinea, Mali, Niger and Sudan stems from their historical significance, regional diversity, data accessibility and potential insights into the interplay among anti-corruption enforcement, governance, poverty and coups d'état in Africa.

The enforcement of anti-corruption laws and the promotion of good governance are indispensable for democracy and economic stability; their suboptimal enforcement directly contributes to coups d'état and the worsening of poverty in African nations. It emphasises the imperative for African countries to consistently and proficiently enforce anti-corruption laws and adhere to principles of good governance, effectively and responsibly, to mitigate coups d'état and alleviate poverty in the region.

This study designs a model strategy for combating coups d'état and corruption in Africa as contribution to knowledge in the field of study.

This study aims to define a “technological statecraft” concept to distinguish tech-based measures/sanctions from an array of economic measures ranging from restrictions of rare earth elements and natural gas supplies to asset freezes under the wider portfolio of economic statecraft. This concept is practically intended to reveal the USA’s “logic of choice” in its employment of technology as an efficient instrument to deal with China in the context of the great power rivalry.

This study follows David A. Baldwin’s statecraft definition and conceptualization methodology, which relies on “means” rather than “ends.” In addition to Baldwin and as an incremental contribution to his economic statecraft analysis, this study also combines national political economy with statecraft analysis with a particular focus on the utilization of technological measures against China during the Trump administration.

The US rationale for choosing technology, namely, emerging and foundational technologies, in its rivalry against China is caused at least by two factors: the nature of the external challenge and the characteristics of the US innovation model based largely on radical innovations. To deal with China, the USA practically distinguished the role of advanced technology and followed a grammer of technological statecraft as depicted in the promulgated legal texts during the Trump administration.

Despite a growing volume of literature on economic statecraft and technological competition, studies focusing on countries’ “logic of choice” with regard to why and under what conditions they choose financial, technological or commodity-based sanctions/measures/controls are lacking. Inspired from Baldwin’s account on the “logic of choice” from among alternative statecrafts (i.e. diplomacy, military, economic statecraft, and propaganda). This study will contribute to the literature with a clear lens to demonstrate the “logic of choice” from among a variety of economic statecraft measures in the case of the US technological statecraft toward China.