Search results

Distribution concerns who gets what. But does “who” refer to the personal distribution of income among individuals or the functional distribution of income among suppliers of productive factors? For nearly 150 years, Anglophone distribution theory followed the Ricardian emphasis on functional distribution – the income shares of labor, land, and capital. Only beginning in the 1960s, and consolidated by a research outpouring in the early 1970s, does mainstream economics turn to the personal conception of distribution. This essay documents Anglophone (primarily American) economics’ move from functional to personal distribution, and tries to illuminate something of its causes and timing.

This introductory chapter presents a personal perspective on the challenges of building a managerial theory of the multinational corporation (MNC). By managerial theory, I mean a practice theory (Van de Ven & Johnson, in press); i.e. a theory that draws upon discipline-based knowledge to show how more general abstract conceptual analysis can be brought to bear on specific real-life managerial problems (Simon, 1996). Developing such a managerial theory is fraught with challenges and pitfalls. Such a theory has to provide a conceptual link between academic disciplines (traditional science or at least academic research) and practical knowledge (learning from action). Each follows very different theory building rules (Christensen et al., 2002; Cook & Brown, 1999;Van de Ven & Johnson, in press), and yet a managerial theory needs to incorporate both. It needs to be useful in the context of an evolving phenomenon: Today’s global companies neither carry the same activities nor draw their legitimacy or competitive advantage from the same sources as yesterday’s multinationals. A theory that attempts to bring theoretical disciplines to bear on practice also needs to be multidisciplinary and eclectic. Thus, there are three challenges addressed in this chapter.

This Introduction gives a historical and theoretical overview of this volume on Fields of Knowledge: Science, Politics and Publics in the Neoliberal Age, which showcases original research in political sociology of science targeting the changes in scientific and technological policy and practice associated with the rise of neoliberal thought and policies since the 1970s. We argue that an existing family of field theoretic frameworks and empirical field analyses provides a particularly useful set of ideas and approaches for the meso-level understanding of these historical changes in ways that complement as well as challenge other theory traditions in sociology of science, broadly defined. The collected papers exhibit a dual focus on sciences’ interfield relations, connecting science and science policy to political, economic, educational, and other fields and on the institutional logics of scientific fields that pattern expert discourses, practices, and knowledge and shape relations of the scientific field to the rest of the world. By reconceptualizing the central problem for political sociology of science as a problem of field- and inter-field dynamics, and by critically engaging other theory traditions whose assumptions are in some ways undermined by the contemporary history of neoliberalism, we believe these papers collectively chart an important theoretical agenda for future research in the sociology of science.

This chapter highlights some of the tensions and most promising points of convergence between the strategic management and stakeholder theory literatures. We briefly examine the early development of both areas, identifying some of the background assumptions and choices that informed how the fields evolved, and how these factors led the two fields to engage in scholarly pursuits that seldom intersected for a period of years, followed by a renewal of interest among strategists in themes that are central to stakeholder theory. From this discussion, we develop a larger agenda with specific topics as examples of areas that offer promise for integrative research that can advance knowledge in both fields. Our vision of the future is one in which the larger aspirations of scholars in strategy and stakeholder theory are more fully realized with human purposes, broadly defined, as the focal point.

Purpose: This purpose of this chapter is to present several theories of financial inclusion. Financial inclusion is the ease of access to, and the availability of, basic financial services to all members of the population. Financial inclusion means that individuals and businesses have access to useful and affordable financial products and services that meet their needs in a responsible and sustainable way. Financial inclusion practices vary from country to country, and there is need to identify the underlying principles or propositions that can explain the observed variation in financial inclusion practices. These set of principles or propositions are called theories.

Methods: The chapter uses conceptual discussions to formulate alternative theories of financial inclusion.

Findings: The study shows that financial inclusion theories are explanations for observed financial inclusion practices. It also shows that the ideas and perspectives on financial inclusion can be grouped into theories to facilitate meaningful discussions in the literature.

Originality/value: Currently, there are no observed or elaborate theories of financial inclusion in the policy or academic literature. This chapter is the first attempt to develop theories of financial inclusion. The theories are intended to be useful to researchers, academics and practitioners. The resulting contributions to theory development are useful to the problem-solving process in the global financial inclusion agenda.

The goal of this work is to include the new economic-based approaches related to entrepreneurship that have been published in the literature. Based on the neoclassical and Austrian schools, some sociological, psychological and economic theories about entrepreneurship. In this work, some unknown economic-based approaches related to entrepreneurship will be summarized, as they are included in the work of Saiz-Alvarez and García-Vaquero (2017). These approaches are: (1) The Jack-of-all-trades Theory, (2) The Mezzanine Theory, (3) The O-Ring Theory, (4) The Theory of Resources and Capabilities, (5) Entrepreneurial Bricolage, (6) The Processes’ School, (7) The Feedback Loop Theory, (8) The Theory of Effectuation, and (9) The Theory of the Optimal Triangle. All these theories will be summarized in this chapter.

Using the framework of the philosophy of science, this chapter explores some basic theoretical issues that must be recognized and addressed in developing theory within the competence perspective. We first develop an overview of resource-based and competence-based research to highlight some fundamental theoretical issues. We then identify a set of basic assumptions for conducting a research program focused on development of a “competence-based theory of the firm.” Working from these basic assumptions, we argue for a shift in the epistemological aim of competence theory development from explaining market success to explaining firm competitiveness. We explain how such a shift theoretical focus and approach can remedy the problem of circular reasoning often observed in resource-based thinking that tries to contribute to the competence literature.

This paper theorizes the role of shared responsibility in the development of affective group attachments, interweaving ideas from social exchange and social identity theories. The main arguments are that (1) people engaged in task interaction experience positive or negative emotions from those interactions; (2) tasks that promote more sense of shared responsibility across members lead people to attribute their individual emotions to groups or organizations; and (3) group attributions of own emotions are the basis for stronger or weaker group attachments. The paper suggests that social categorization and structural interdependence promote group attachments by producing task interactions that have positive emotional effects on those involved.

Issues of women’s education and empowerment of women have been incorporated in the framing of the role of women in international development from the 1970s, primarily as a response to the liberal feminist movement agenda of the time. This analysis examines the degree to which liberal feminism and liberal feminist theory is reflected in comparative education scholarship in the lead up to and beyond the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The analysis first explores the underpinnings of liberal feminism, which constitutes the ideal embedded in development education for girls and women. It follows up with a reflection on the literature in the field of comparative education that reference liberal feminism framework and feminist theory in exploring educational issues and ways in which the theory is located in the research. Illustration of examples that demonstrate the limits of liberal feminism as a theoretical framework and barriers to the use of liberal feminist theory as an ideological guide are captured in the findings. The search is limited to the six dominant scholarly outlets in the field of comparative education; namely Comparative Education Review (CER), Comparative Education (CE), Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education (Compare), Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education (Prospects), International Review of Education (IRE), and the International Journal of Educational Development (IJED). Only works that explicitly mention liberal feminism/liberal feminist perspectives are included in the analysis. This research contributes to the acknowledgement of the liberal feminist theory in development education and for the field of comparative education. It will also help with understanding the politics of ideology and representation in scholarship and development interventions.

Volumes 70 and 71 of Research in the Sociology of Organizations combine to comprise cutting edge theory and empirical scholarship at the interface of practice and institution in organization studies. As we highlight, this interface has spurred particularly generative conversations with many open questions, and much to explore. We provide a review of scholarly developments in practice theory and organizational institutionalism that have given rise to this interest in building a bridge between scholarly communities. As signaled by recent efforts to construct a practice-driven institutionalism, we highlight how connecting practice theory with the institutional logics perspective provides a particularly attractive focal point for scholarship at this interface due to a variety of shared ontological and epistemological commitments, including the constitution of actors and their behavior. Collectively, the papers assembled unlock exciting opportunities to connect distinct, but related scholarly communities on practice and institution, seeding scholarship that can advance our understanding of organizational and societal dynamics.