Search results

Purpose—Through a case study of Pan American World Airways (Pan Am), this chapter sets out to explore the roots of 20th century globalization and the postcolonial nature of the trading relations involved.

Design/methodology/approach—Drawing on Foucault’s broad notion of “the archive” a critical hermeneutics approach is used to examine a series of company-produced texts, including minutes, travelogues, company narratives, annual reports, film, diaries, and published histories.

Findings—The chapter argues that Pan Am contributed to the “idea of Latin America” and, in the process contributed to practices of dependency that served the interests of the United States. Drawing on a case study of Pan Am, the chapter further argues that multi-national corporations help to establish the contours of international trade by influencing the very character and boundaries of the territories traded in, with troubling implications for the countries traded in.

Research limitations/implications—As a detailed case study extension of the findings to other global trading arrangements needs to take into account to social-political context and relational histories of the players involved.

Practical implications—The chapter generates insights into the role of rhetoric in developing trading relationships and its roots in embedded notions of postcolonial thinking and generalizations.

Originality/value—The chapter contributes to an understanding of the role of language and the social construction of national identities involved in the development of international business.

Unfortunately, I am not the first to attempt to map out the narrative terrain of Others. In 1985, R. S. Perinbanayagam presented various social theorists’ conceptions of the Other in his book Signifying Acts: Structure and Meaning in Everyday Life. Basically, they comprise three Others: the Generalized Other, the Meiotic Other (my language), and the Significant Other. I will address three additional Others – the Unconscious Other, the Marginalized Other, and the Nonhuman Other – that I find in a broader and more recent literature. Although I group them into six main Others, the borders of these types are somewhat arbitrary, porous, and nondiscrete, as interaction and intersection exist among them. Two characteristics that distinguish one Other from another are whether the Other exists within or outside the Self and whether the Other is an individual or aggregate entity. The Unconscious Other and the Generalized Other both are constructed from symbolic material outside the individual but ultimately take up residence within the Self. The Meiotic Self is the self-divided; there may be multiple divisions but each Meiotic Self is usually presented as singly constituted. The Significant Other, an individual, and the Marginalized Other, often a status group or member of it, reside outside the Self but play supporting roles in relation to any particular Self, which may also be an individual or status group, such as men, Whites, and Americans. The Nonhuman Other may be individual, an aggregate of individuals, or the product of human behavior, all of which reside outside the Self.

A banking system is essential for financial stability, especially economic growth and development. The authors investigate the dynamic linkage of key banking system stability measures, namely, liquidity, capital, profitability, and credit risk. To this end, the authors employ Panel Vector Autoregressive (VAR) to a panel data set of country-level banking system indicators from seven developing countries; from March 2010 to December 2020 (308 country quarter observations). A nation is selected on the basis of similar characteristics large and bank-based economy with the considerably same stage of economic development. The authors find a remarkable resilient feature of the banking system in which both liquidity risk and credit risk appears significant only in the short run (within three quarters). Shocks from both risk sources dissipate quickly, suggesting an internal mechanism is at work. This study provides evidence of how a good performance of financial safety net should be.

This chapter examines staffing trends for Beta Alpha Psi (BAP) advisors over the past 20 years to document the degree of tenure- versus nontenure-track faculty involvement. We surveyed faculty advisors to determine how they are compensated for their BAP service. Our findings show a significant increase in the percentage of nontenure-track faculty filling the role of BAP advisor. Additionally, few advisors appear to receive pecuniary benefits for their service, and nearly one-third receive no reimbursement from their institutions for BAP-related expenses that they incur. We discuss the implications of these findings and their potential for limiting BAP's ability to execute future strategic initiatives.

Popular constitutionalists seek to recover the popular sovereignty foundations of American constitutionalism, bringing the people in as active participants in the constitutional enterprise as they create and refashion the Constitution by “majoritarian and populist mechanisms” (Amar, 1995, p. 89). The result is to recover an understanding, in FDR's words, of constitution as a “layman's document, not a lawyer's contract” (Kramer, 2004, p. 207). This understanding has deep roots in American constitutionalism, tracing its lineage back to the founding and, as popular constitutionalists insist, finds powerful expression in the likes of The Federalist and Abraham Lincoln (Ackerman, 1991; Tushnet, 1998). In exercising popular sovereignty, the people founded the Constitution, but they did not simply retreat from the trajectory of constitutional development. Rather, as Bruce Ackerman argues, since the Constitution of 1787 the people have spoken in a manner that has re-founded the Constitution giving us a “multiple origins originalism” (Kersch, 2006a, p. 801; see also Amar, 1998 and 2005). In turning to founding era thought and the notion of constitutional foundations, popular constitutionalists like Ackerman and Amar make common cause with conservatives who turn to original intent, but then they seek to synthesize this understanding with democratic expressions of popular will by emphasizing both formal and informal constitutional change, giving us layered “foundings,” and a more complex version of “living constitutionalism.” Such constitutional change, however, can only legitimately come from an authentic expression of “We the People.”