Search results

Social enterprises are embedded in ecosystems with multiple actors interested in the field’s growth. One way to enhance social enterprises is through public policies and developing countries like Brazil included this in the public agenda. After an important mobilization of private organizations and public managers, the Brazilian federal government implemented in 2017 the National Impact Investment and Business Strategy (ENIMPACTO) renamed in 2023 to National Impact Economy Strategy with the same abbreviation. Since its creation, ENIMPACTO saw significant modifications leading to a decree in 2023 extending its mandate, amplifying membership and changing its name to the National Impact Economy Strategy while maintaining the same acronym. This experience leads us to the following question: How was ENIMPACTO created and developed?

We used institutional arrangements and advocacy coalition theory to analyze the key elements that contributed to ENIMPACTO’s creation and its evolution through time. A qualitative, single-case study on the Brazilian experience implementing ENIMPACTO was conducted through semi-structured interviews with national strategy members, participant observation, document and data analysis.

We argue that advocacy coalition and institutional arrangements frameworks combined are needed to understand Enimpacto’s complexity. The strategy presented an extensive multiple-actor articulation involving shared beliefs that were also important to gather support on recreating and expanding Enimpacto when external events threatened its continuity. Yet, it presented important challenges on how to achieve consensus and alignment regarding important concepts and regulation strategy among the actors and manage the public policy governance and activities implementation.

We combine institutional arrangements and advocacy coalition frameworks and apply them to analyze a public policy composed of actors of multiple sectors that play an active advocacy coalition role. We also present empirical evidence that elements of the advocacy coalition framework add analytical elements to institutional arrangements literature and how they affect each other. We point to two important elements of the institutional arrangements framework (territoriality and subsidiarity) that were not initially considered by ENIMPACTO and were later incorporated because of tensions in the field. We provide empirical evidence of the incipient role that public administration can play in promoting social enterprises' agenda that might base similar strategies to boost social enterprises in other locations.

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.

This paper aims to discuss the practical dilemmas of institutional change to tackle the climate crisis in a UK university, identifying key assumptions and issues that block meaningful change. The research was part of an initiative to define a theory of change (ToC) to meet the university’s institutional climate commitments.

The findings are based on interviews with members of an inter-disciplinary ToC working group, a staff–student climate coalition and student representatives at the university. Interviewees were purposively selected to gain insights into assumptions about the nature of the university and its role in tackling the climate crisis, which must be addressed for the university to effectively implement its climate plan.

This paper identified tensions between the university’s role as a public and commercial institution, a lack of clarity over decision-making processes and the difficulties in balancing (and being transparent about) actions with commitments to tackle the climate crisis. A democratic and flexible approach to change is essential to mitigate these issues, providing an opportunity to reflect on the diversity of the university community and openly debate goals and commitments.

In setting out the initial steps of a ToC in a UK university, this paper offers practical insights for higher education institutions looking to change practices. By highlighting assumptions at a particular institution, this paper also contributes a level of granularity to a growing field of research on efforts in higher education institutions to tackle the climate crisis.

What kinds of support do interstate rivals provide to domestic actors in ongoing civil wars? And how do domestic actors utilize the support they receive? This chapter answers these questions by comparing Iranian and Saudi military and non-military (mediation, foreign aid and religious soft-power promotion) support to the Houthis and to the Government of Yemen (GoY) during the Saada wars (2004–2010) and the internationalized civil war (2015–2018). It also focuses on the processes through which the GoY and the Houthis have utilized this support for their own strategic purposes. This chapter applies a structured, focused comparison methodology and relies on data from a review of both primary and secondary sources complemented by 14 interviews. This chapter finds that there were less external interventions in the conflict in Saada than in the internationalized civil war. During the latter, a broader set of intervention strategies enabled further instrumentalization by domestic actors, which in turn contributed to the protracted nature of the conflict. This chapter contributes to the literature on interstate rivalry and third-party intervention. The framework of analysis is applicable to civil wars that experience intervention by rivals, such as Syria or Libya.