Search results

The purpose of this paper is to deal with the Eurocentric conceptualisation of “risk” which reinforces rent-seeking language, culture and practices of doing business that are alien to non-European societies. This paper also attempts to engage with Eurocentric methods and strategies that sustain hegemony in international business by promoting “risk” and perpetuating “uncertainty” within the non-European business culture. Such territoriality within basic conceptualisation of in international business is central to manufactured “risks” that reinforces crisis, while state deals successfully or fails to deal with it, the global corporations extract resources and expand their capital and market base in non-European societies while doing business. This paper is divided into two parts: the first part presents the philosophical basis of risks and its historical foundations and the second part deals with the neo-colonial business methods, languages, cultures and strategies which are Eurocentric by nature. This paper argues that manufacturing risk is the Eurocentric business strategy.

This paper draws its methodological lineages to nonlinear historical narrative around the concept and construction of the idea and language of “risk” and “uncertainty”. This paper follows discourse analysis (Fairclough, 2003) to locate the way in which the Eurocentric concept of risk was exported and incorporated within the language of international business in non-Western business traditions. While engaging with conceptual discourses, it focusses on the power of language in the process of conceptualisation where “authority comes to language from outside” (Bourdieu, 1991, p. 109). As a result of which the concept does not reflect the objective reality of non-European business culture and its uniqueness while assimilating it within the Western European theoretical traditions of “risk and uncertainty” in international business practice.

The understanding of risk in business within the non-European context needs new ways of conceptualising risk. The updated version of Eurocentric theories, languages and methods of international business and associated risk narrative can never be a starting point. The duality of philosophy in which “economic growth” and “backwardness” measures progress and reduces human experience and objectives of business to seek and expand profit. The starting point of any theoretical analysis on risk in doing business in non-European societies must acknowledge the specificities of their context in terms of local ideas, knowledge, history, language and methods of business practice which is different from Europe.

This paper outlines the Eurocentric conceptualisation of “risk” which reinforces rent-seeking language, culture and practices of doing business that are alien to non-European societies. It engages with the Eurocentric methods and strategies that sustain hegemony in international business by promoting “risk” and perpetuating “uncertainty” within the non-European business culture. Such territoriality within basic conceptualisation of in international business is central to manufactured “risks” that reinforces crisis; while state deals successfully or fails to deal with it; the global corporations extract resources and expand their capital and market base in non-European societies while doing business. This paper is divided into two parts: the first part presents the philosophical basis of risks and its historical foundations; the second part deals with the neo-colonial business methods, languages, cultures and strategies which are Eurocentric by nature. This paper argues that manufacturing risk is the Eurocentric business strategy. This paper argues for a new language, a new method and a new strategy of doing business by decolonising the discipline of international business.

For sociological perspectives on globalization to do justice to its many facets, they must be informed by an understanding of modern societies as simultaneously complex, contingent, and contradictory – as modern capitalist societies. As is becoming ever more apparent, such an understanding of modern societies is the necessary precondition for identifying the defining features of globalization. Yet, for the most part, the history of the social sciences did not produce research agendas, theories, and methods designed to grasp complexity, contingency, and contradiction as core dimensions of modern social life that continually reinforce each other. The social sciences did not evolve as ongoing efforts to grasp the gravity each dimension exerts on concrete forms of political, economic and cultural life, and how the force of each depends on the constant exchange of energy with the other two. To the extent that scrutinizing the impact of globalization on the future – and possible futures – of human civilization is the primary challenge for social scientists to confront today, the current condition presents a unique, and perhaps most unusual opportunity to conceive anew the promise of each and all the social sciences, as elucidating how the complex, contingent, and contradictory nature of modern societies, in the name of advancing social justice, has engendered a regime of managing “social problems.”

In the last four years, since Volume I of this Bibliography first appeared, there has been an explosion of literature in all the main functional areas of business. This wealth of material poses problems for the researcher in management studies — and, of course, for the librarian: uncovering what has been written in any one area is not an easy task. This volume aims to help the librarian and the researcher overcome some of the immediate problems of identification of material. It is an annotated bibliography of management, drawing on the wide variety of literature produced by MCB University Press. Over the last four years, MCB University Press has produced an extensive range of books and serial publications covering most of the established and many of the developing areas of management. This volume, in conjunction with Volume I, provides a guide to all the material published so far.

This paper was originally presented as a keynote presentation to the annual conference of the ANZHES whose theme was “knowledge skills and expertise”. The purpose of this paper is to reflect on history as a field of study in the context of changing conditions and new debates about knowledge in the twenty-first century.

The paper reviews three important lines of sociological argument about changed conditions for knowledge: the case to “bring knowledge back in” to school curriculum; the contention that knowledge in universities is moving from “mode 1” to “mode 2” forms; and arguments about testing and audit culture effects on the practices of universities and schools. It then draws on interviews with historians and history teachers to show how they think about the form of their field, its value, and the impact of the changing conditions signalled in those arguments.

The paper argues that some features of the discipline which have been important to history continue to be apparent but are under challenge in the conditions of education institutions today and that there is a disjunction between teachers’ views of the value of history and those evident in the public political arena.

The paper draws on a major Australia Research Council funded study of “knowledge building across schooling and higher education” which focusses on issues of disciplinarity and the fields of physics and history.

The paper is intended as a new reflection on the field of value to those working as historians.

This paper aims to counter the view that Marshall was an opponent of the historical school. This false account has survived and prospered because it has fitted into more general conceptions of intellectual history, held by both orthodox and heterodox economists.

Marshall's affinity with the historical school is established by examining his writings and his relationship with historical school sympathisers in the UK.

It is established that Marshall regarded his work as building on historical school insights, and he repeatedly referred positively to the ideas of the German historical school. It is argued in this paper that Marshall's opposition to the historical school was confined to its anti‐theoretical wing, principally Cunningham. In other important respects Marshall's position was compatible with German and British historicism.

In preceding literature, Marshall's affinities with the historical school have been denied, unacknowledged, or unexplored.

Any endeavor to circumscribe, with a certain degree of precision, the nature of the relationship between social science and critical theory would appear to be daunting. Over the course of the past century, and especially since the end of World War II, countless efforts have been made in economics, psychology, political science, and sociology to illuminate the myriad manifestations of modern social life from a multiplicity of angles. It is doubtful that it would be possible to do justice to all the different variants of social science in an assessment of their relationship to critical theory. Moreover, given the proliferation of critical theories since the 1980s, the effort to devise a “map” that would reflect the particular orientations and intricacies of each approach to critical theory would also be exacting in its own right.¹

To demonstrate that, at its core, Marx’s critical theory is not a critique of a mode of class exploitation that distorts modernity, undertaken from a standpoint that affirms labor, but rather one that uncovers and analyzes a unique form of social mediation and domination that structures modernity itself as a historically specific form of social life.

Critical reconstruction, interpretation, and application of Marx’s critique of political economy as developed in the Grundrisse and Capital, to the massive global transformations of the past four decades.

Marx’s critical analysis is well-suited to function as the foundation for a theory that systematically illuminates modern society in the 21st century. It is more conducive to grasping the contemporary world than traditional Marxism or most versions of post-Marxism.

The historical transformations of the past century suggest the central significance of a critique of capitalism for an adequate critical theory today. Such a critique must be capable of grasping the core of a social formation that is generative of a peculiar dynamic of identity and non-identity, of pointing beyond itself while reasserting itself. It indicates that the realization of the possibility of the abolition of proletarian labor is a necessary response to a deep structural crisis of capitalism.

Recent decades have witnessed great interest in Leon Trotsky’s idea of uneven and combined development (UCD) by Marxist scholars of International Relations (IR). A burgeoning literature has argued that one interpretation, Justin Rosenberg’s U&CD, resolves the question of ‘the international’ by offering a single, non-Realist theory capable of uniting both sociological and geopolitical factors in the explanation of social change across history. Evaluating this claim, this paper argues that the transhistorical ways in which U&CD has been developed reproduce, reaffirm and reinforce some of the more important shortcomings of Realist IR. I develop my argument through an internal critique of Rosenberg’s conception of U&CD, which, I argue, is illustrative of larger shortcomings within the literature. I conclude that the political and geopolitical economy of UCD and their dynamics must be grasped through the specific social and historical relations in which they are immersed.

The authors analyse narratives of Chinese consumers of Vintage Costume Jewellery to show how value is attributed to vintage items, often in direct contrast to contemporary luxury goods. Examining a range of factors in this process, including uniqueness, scarcity, historical specificity, social meaning and cultural legitimacy, authenticity is shown to be central to the positioning of jewellery and those who collect, trade and appreciate it as tasteful and discerning consumers.