scholarly journals Nonmarket Strategies across Complex Institutional Contexts

AIB Insights ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia Klopf
Keyword(s):  
Nonmarket Strategies ◽  
Institutional Contexts

Knowledge Commons

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J Madison ◽  
Brett M. Frischmann ◽  
Katherine J. Strandburg
Keyword(s):  
Institutional Arrangement ◽  
Information Resources ◽  
Community Management ◽  
Cultural Resources ◽  
Informal Governance ◽  
Institutional Approach ◽  
Knowledge Commons ◽  
Collective Self ◽  
Institutional Contexts ◽  
Commons Institutions

This chapter describes methods for systematically studying knowledge commons as an institutional mode of governance of knowledge and information resources, including references to adjacent but distinct approaches to research that looks primarily to the role(s) of intellectual property systems in institutional contexts concerning innovation and creativity.Knowledge commons refers to an institutional approach (commons) to governing the production, use, management, and/or preservation of a particular type of resource (knowledge or information, including resources linked to innovative and creative practice).Commons refers to a form of community management or governance. It applies to a resource, and it involves a group or community of people who share access to and/or use of the resource. Commons does not denote the resource, the community, a place, or a thing. Commons is the institutional arrangement of these elements and their coordination via combinations of law and other formal rules; social norms, customs, and informal discipline; and technological and other material constraints. Community or collective self-governance of the resource, by individuals who collaborate or coordinate among themselves effectively, is a key feature of commons as an institution, but self-governance may be and often is linked to other formal and informal governance mechanisms. For purposes of this chapter, knowledge refers to a broad set of intellectual and cultural resources. There are important differences between various resources captured by such a broad definition. For example, knowledge, information, and data may be different from each other in meaningful ways. But an inclusive term is necessary in order to permit knowledge commons researchers to capture and study a broad and inclusive range of commons institutions and to highlight the importance of examining knowledge commons governance as part of dynamic, ecological contexts

The Emergence of Business Groups: Israel and South Korea Compared

2002 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
pp. 737-758 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Maman
Keyword(s):  
South Korea ◽  
Multinational Corporations ◽  
Business Groups ◽  
South Korean ◽  
Economic Organizations ◽  
Self Sufficiency ◽  
Institutional Contexts ◽  
1960S And 1970S ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
Korean State

This paper examines the emergence of business groups in Israel and South Korea. The paper questions how, in very different institutional contexts, similar economic organizations emerged. In contrast to the political, cultural and market perspectives, the comparative institutional analysis adopted in this research suggests that one factor alone could not explain the emergence of business groups. In Israel and South Korea, business groups emerged during the 1960s and 1970s, and there are common factors underlying their formation: state-society relations, the roles and beliefs of the elites, and the relative absence of multinational corporations in the economy. To a large extent, the chaebol are the result of an intended creation of the South Korean state, whereas the Israeli business groups are the outcome of state policies in the economic realm. In both countries, the state elite held a developmental ideology, did not rely on market forces for economic development, and had a desire for greater economic and military self-sufficiency. In addition, both states were recipients of large grants and loans from other countries, which made them less dependent on direct foreign investments. As a result, the emerging groups were protected from the intense competition of multinational corporations.

scholarly journals Preparing Education Students for an International Future? Connecting Students’ Experience to Institutional Contexts

2021 ◽  
pp. 102831532199849
Author(s):  
Nafsika Alexiadou ◽  
Zoi Kefala ◽  
Linda Rönnberg
Keyword(s):  
Teaching Practice ◽  
Social Benefit ◽  
Social Dimensions ◽  
Intercultural Understanding ◽  
Social Relevance ◽  
Education Students ◽  
Documentary Analysis ◽  
The Social ◽  
Institutional Contexts ◽  
Internationalization At Home

This article focuses on “internationalization at home” (IaH) for education students in Swedish Universities and its significance for their professional formation and future practice. We draw on research in two large institutions and explore the perceptions and experiences of internationalization of home students in education. We find that while the “intercultural” understanding of students is well developed, the international and intercultural dimensions of experiencing IaH are limited, due to several institutional and learning environment contexts. This has consequences for the social dimensions of future teaching practice. In addition, the perception of the discipline as “national” is significant in shaping the outlook of students toward international questions and their own future personal and professional mobility. We contextualize these findings using documentary analysis and staff interviews, and argue that to achieve intercultural and international learning environments of quality, social relevance, and long-term social benefit, we need to rethink how internationalization perspectives are integrated in teacher education courses.

scholarly journals Tracing divergence in crisis governance: responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in France, Germany and Sweden compared

2021 ◽  
pp. 002085232097935
Author(s):  
Sabine Kuhlmann ◽  
Mikael Hellström ◽  
Ulf Ramberg ◽  
Renate Reiter
Keyword(s):  
Central Government ◽  
Institutional Settings ◽  
Containment Measures ◽  
Local Discretion ◽  
Institutional Contexts ◽  
Administrative Procedures ◽  
Decentralized Management ◽  
Cross Country ◽  
Legally Binding Regulations ◽  
Governance Modes

This cross-country comparison of administrative responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in France, Germany and Sweden is aimed at exploring how institutional contexts and administrative cultures have shaped strategies of problem-solving and governance modes during the pandemic, and to what extent the crisis has been used for opportunity management. The article shows that in France, the central government reacted determinedly and hierarchically, with tough containment measures. By contrast, the response in Germany was characterized by an initial bottom-up approach that gave way to remarkable federal unity in the further course of the crisis, followed again by a return to regional variance and local discretion. In Sweden, there was a continuation of ‘normal governance’ and a strategy of relying on voluntary compliance largely based on recommendations and less – as in Germany and France – on a strategy of imposing legally binding regulations. The comparative analysis also reveals that relevant stakeholders in all three countries have used the crisis as an opportunity for changes in the institutional settings and administrative procedures. Points for practitioners COVID-19 has shown that national political and administrative standard operating procedures in preparation for crises are, at best, partially helpful. Notwithstanding the fact that dealing with the unpredictable is a necessary part of crisis management, a need to further improve the institutional preparedness for pandemic crises in all three countries examined here has also become clear. This should be done particularly by way of shifting resources to the health and care sectors, strengthening the decentralized management of health emergencies, stocking and/or self-producing protection material, assessing the effects of crisis measures, and opening the scientific discourse to broader arenas of experts.

scholarly journals State-Owned Enterprises as Institutional Actors: A Hybrid Historical Institutionalist and Institutional Work Framework

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-45
Author(s):  
Olivier Butzbach ◽  
Douglas B. Fuller ◽  
Gerhard Schnyder ◽  
Liudmyla Svystunova
Keyword(s):  
Top Management Teams ◽  
Historical Institutionalism ◽  
Top Management ◽  
State Control ◽  
Institutional Work ◽  
Institutional Level ◽  
Meso Level ◽  
Institutional Contexts ◽  
Multiple Levels ◽  
Institutional Actors

ABSTRACT Although state-owned enterprises (SOEs) are recognized as important economic actors, the literature to date has assumed close state control over SOEs and, therefore, their passive stance towards institutions. Drawing on the institutional work and historical institutionalism literatures, we challenge this view. We develop a multilevel framework of SOE top management teams’ (TMTs’) embedded agency, spanning the national macro-institutional level, the meso-level of regimes of state-SOE relations, and sector-specific institutions. We then derive propositions regarding the factors across these multiple levels that shape SOE TMTs’ motivation, resources, and scope for institutional work. This framework allows us to explain the leeway for and likelihood of SOE TMTs’ engagement in institutional work across institutional contexts.

scholarly journals “Educate, Agitate, Organize”: Inequality and Ethics in the Writings of Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arun Kumar ◽  
Hari Bapuji ◽  
Raza Mir
Keyword(s):  
Business Ethics ◽  
Caste System ◽  
Political Leader ◽  
Institutional Reforms ◽  
Organizational Boundaries ◽  
Representational Politics ◽  
Institutional Contexts ◽  
Comprehensive Reform ◽  
Business And Management

AbstractScholars of business and management studies have recently turned their attention to inequality, a key issue for business ethics given the role of private firms in transmitting—and potentially challenging—inequalities. However, this research is yet to examine inequality from a subaltern perspective. In this paper, we discuss the alleviation of inequalities in organizational and institutional contexts by drawing on the ideas of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, a jurist, political leader and economist, and one of the unsung social theorists of the twentieth century. Specifically, we focus on Ambedkar’s critique of the Indian caste system, his outline of comprehensive reform, and prescription of representational politics to achieve equality. We contend that an Ambedkarite ethical manifesto of persuasion—focussed on state-led institutional reforms driven by the subaltern—can help management researchers reimagine issues of inequality and extend business ethics beyond organizational boundaries.

scholarly journals A comparative study of COVID-19 responses in South Korea and Japan: political nexus triad and policy responses

2021 ◽  
pp. 002085232199755
Author(s):  
M. Jae Moon ◽  
Kohei Suzuki ◽  
Tae In Park ◽  
Kentaro Sakuwa
Keyword(s):  
Northeast Asia ◽  
Governance Structure ◽  
Disease Spread ◽  
Policy Outcomes ◽  
Governance Structures ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Policy Responses ◽  
Government Capacity ◽  
Institutional Contexts ◽  
Policy Problems

Korea and Japan, neighboring democratic countries in Northeast Asia, announced their first COVID-19 cases in January 2020 and witnessed similar patterns of disease spread but adopted different policy approaches to address the pandemic (agile and proactive approach versus cautious and restraint-based approach). Applying the political nexus triad model, this study analyzes and compares institutional contexts and governance structures of Korea and Japan, then examines the differences in policy responses of the two Asian countries. This study first reviews the state of COVID-19 and examines changes in the conventional president-led political nexus triad in Korea and the bureaucracy-led political nexus triad in Japan. Then, this study examines how the differences in institutional contexts and governance structures shaped policy responses and policy outcomes of the two countries in managing the COVID-19 crisis. Points for practitioners •  Institutional and governance structure in a society are likely to affect policymaking processes as well as selection of policies among various policy alternatives. •  Government officials often need to refer to government capacity as well as citizens’ voluntary participation in resolving wicked policy problems like COVID-19. •  Policy decisions made by government officials affect policy outcomes while political environment and political leadership are equally important to policy effectiveness.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document