Suchergebnisse

Inhaltsangabe: To introduce this work the author refers to the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2011, which took place in Davos from the 26th - 30th of January 2011, its agendas and reports (The World Economic Forum, 2011). At first view this meeting looks like a get-together of several leaders from different backgrounds, meaning leaders from different industries as well as political and religious leaders. But the huge amount of attendees and their position in the world turns this get-together into a platform to discuss strategies and solutions for the world's future economy and how to overcome the latest issues regarding the financial crisis. The theme of this year's meeting was 'Shared norms for a new reality', indicating, that the world has reached a turning point where change is important to assure a sustainable future. Abhisit Vejjajiva, Prime Minister of Thailand, for example states 'Governments and businesses should start revising their social contracts with their stakeholders in the light of the new realities of the post-crisis world". Furthermore his concern is that today's leaders are mostly just focused on the short-term success, due to the high pressure from their shareholders and thus work in their own borders without caring about the common good outside the borders in order to generate sustainable success. This concern gets a higher emphasis by Indra Nooyi, Chairman and CEO of PepsiCo, who actually attacks today's businesspeople and want to send them back to university because they just aim for short-term profits, rather than worrying about a sustainable future. In addition it is about the future leadership role of China considering multi stakeholders to achieve win-win solutions (Victor Chu, First Eastern Investment Group), leadership for people (Christine Lagarde, French Minister of Finance) and finally an optimistic outlook for the future, especially Europe, and the request of change and more transparency by David Cameron, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. At the end buzzwords like stakeholders, sustainability, partnership, social responsibility, growth, balance and responsible leadership, just to name a few, can be found throughout all statements. As a matter of course all these statements are in a broader context meaning global issues, but can easily transferred to normal businesses. Reason for this project: Sustainability has become, as seen above, a huge topic paired with a more social behaviour for the common good and let the feeling arise that a new era has begun, that some of the main leaders have started to develop a new 'Zeitgeist". The question now is how this dissertation can contribute to the on-going change in order to achieve sustainable success. Sustainable success is depended on the competitive advantages, which is often tried to gain through reengineering, process improvement, etc. According to Huber, Scharioth, Pallas (2004) this is initially a good idea, but even if there are differences putting these into practice, the performance standard is often quite similar and the competitive advantage, which is won by these initiatives, is not as significant as desired. That is why they are putting the emphasis on stakeholder management with the purpose to not left the relationships with stakeholders on its own. Stakeholder management is actually an idea developed within the 80's by Freeman (1984) in order to strategically align the stakeholder's interest, using a rough framework, finally resulting in improved success (Stoney Winstanley, 2001). Success is nowadays often seen in form of financial benefits and at least in this point Berman, Wicks, Kotha, Jones (1999) see a positive impact on the part of stakeholder management. Nonetheless sustainable success is not just about finances and thus it is interesting to investigate what sustainable success is and how stakeholder management nurtures all its components. But why is each stakeholder so important? Giving some examples according to Huber, Scharioth, Pallas (2004), it points out that no matter if employees or suppliers they all have an essential impact on the business. Employees for instance have a high impact on the customer retention and company's profitability (improvement of 20% - 50%) and therefore put before customer by Nayar (2010). On the other hand suppliers need a lot of attention, due to 'Outsourcing', 'Lean' and scarcity of raw materials, to get required quality, quantity and delivery time. But also other external stakeholders are from high importance to avoid higher financial risks, as already pointed out in the 1990s by McGuire in Savage, Nix, Whitehead, Blair (1991), and thus must be managed well in order to not loose the support of a specific group and thus getting hindered on the journey to sustainable success (Reynolds, Schultz, Hekman, 2006). This is where 'managing", also understood as 'balancing" (Avery, 2005), the different interests comes into play, whereas it can become difficult, if the company is highly depending on one specific stakeholder. This could be an investor, who is holding a lot of shares, or a supplier, who is having a monopole, leading to generated bias and an exposure of sustainability (Savage, Nix, Whitehead, Blair, 1991). Furthermore a company or a company network respectively, is seen as an alliance of stakeholders (Freeman, Harrison, Wicks, 2007), and their sustainable success is ensured by sticking together and behaving like a moving target (De Wit Meyer, 2005), in order to withstand evolutions in the industry and the corresponding challenges. It also could be refereed to a company as organisation, an amalgamation of people or groups of people with the aim of accomplishing productive activities, which is seen as difficult on an individual basis (Chemers, 1997). However there are also arguments against stakeholder management as enabler for sustainable success (Stoney Winstanley, 2001), at which the only purpose of a company is seen by Friedman (1962) in Stoney Winstanley (2001) in making profit and thus stakeholder management is an attack on the individual wealth of shareholders (Sternberg, 1997). In addition stakeholder management has found one of its biggest critics in Stoney Winstanley (2001) who complain about the complexity of this approach and finally its misuse as just a new tool to control the participants. Nonetheless these concerns are generally based on traditional and old-fashioned views and the question arises if the time is ripe for change, meaning the move away from just sustainable shareholder success. Considering the criticism above it seems that one of the biggest drawbacks of stakeholder management is the actual realisation, meaning the consideration of everyone's interest. This is why De Wit Meyer (2005) see good leadership skills as crucial to balance the discrepancies mostly between shareholders and other stakeholders, and lead through an alliance with different partners, affected by mistrust, due to fear that others always want a bigger part of the cake. So one major pitfall of leaders regarding stakeholder management is that of avoiding bias. There are differences between the stakeholders, for instance regarding the flexibility. Employees are mostly depending on their workplace, whereas shareholders can always choose from a wide range or portfolio of possible investments and therefore the risk of favouring shareholders is quite high (De Wit Meyer, 2005), caused in their higher direct influence (Savage, Nix, Whitehead, Blair, 1991). Additionally it should be born in mind that CEO's and the board often hold a share of the own company or are even obligated to, according to several financial reports (e.g. Finsbury, Reckitt Benckiser). Thus the own opulence is affected by the profitability of the company. In this case a bias is self-evident. On the other hand advocates of stakeholder management see the necessity for shareholder value (Freeman, Harrison, Wicks, 2007), but state that it can be just sustainably realised if it is not seen as the main purpose, according to William George, chairman of Medtronic, in De Wit Meyer (2005). Instead of focusing on shareholder value, the actual focus should be concentrated on 'customer satisfaction" and 'integrity" as stated by Porras Collins (2005). In addition a motivated workforce can be seen as a crucial aspect of sustainable success, due to difficulties of competitors to copy it (De Wit Meyer, 2005). Buying in the workforce, but also other stakeholders, by creating a vision, maintaining it and finally make it live through the whole company is seen as one of the major and most difficult tasks of a leader (Ware, Michaels, Primer, 2004) and thus leaders often lacking clear direction during this task and therefore fail (Wheeler, Fabig, Boele, 2002). In order to make the organisation in a highly competitive market successful it is important to have a stable financial support, but also a highly trained and motivated workforce (Post, Preston, Sachs, 2002), often requiring a crucial change in the fundamental structure, like financial and/or ownership model (Avery, 2005). These changes are hindered by insufficient human resource models and techniques, the question how to get the employees aboard and finally the persuasion of the upper management, shareholders, etc. (Simmons, 2003). This can be eased the more the leader is convinced of the performance improvement using stakeholder management (Stoney Winstanley, 2001). The fact that people already having assets and power are not willed to share this (Gamble Kelly, 1996) and thus will defend it with all legal means or maybe also illegal, does not make it easier for the leader to put stakeholder management through. The globalisation and the expansion of companies throughout the world held another challenge for the leaders. Business policies must be kept flexible, as basis to deal with different countries, cultures and thus unusual competitive and social conditions and at the same time stick to the fundamental values and principles of the organisation (Post, Preston, Sachs, 2002). Talking about flexibility, it is important to see the flexibility of stakeholders in terms of changing from a supporting to a hampering position (Savage, Nix, Whitehead, Blair, 1991) and therefore the necessity to always reassess the importance and influence of stakeholders (Reynolds, Schultz, Hekman, 2006). In addition leaders need to focus on the right stakeholders in the right situations, different from the CEO of Eastern Airlines who was focusing during a strike just on the stakeholders with the loudest voice, and thus ran into serious trouble regarding the other parties of the strike (Savage, Nix, Whitehead, Blair, 1991). Additionally an issue arises that stakeholder may get the feeling that the decision-making regarding stakeholders is negatively influenced by divisibility of resources, saliency, incentives and sanctions (Ogden Watson, 1999) and let fade away the initial willingness to find a fair balance (Reynolds, Schultz, Hekman, 2006). This is why leaders must be prepared for the future challenges, which are a lot more complex, due to a wider range of expectations by the stakeholders, globalisation and more common pressing problems. So finally wrap the power of all stakeholders to a 'value network", considering the creation of social capital and a benefit for every participant (Maak, 2007) is the responsibility of the leader. Stakeholder Management provides a framework, a concept, which can be used by leaders, who are at the end the persons decide how stakeholder management is understood and what is the driving motivation behind its implementation (Stoney Winstanley, 2001). It was even thought about legislating SM and thus make it compulsory for companies, what is seen critical by Stoney Winstanley (2001), because in their opinion company's leaders should practice stakeholder management voluntary and chose their driver for motivation themselves. Today's environment and the resulting circumstances are continuously changing and require a leader who is always questioning the current status of a company and its direction in a constructive and meaningful way (Ware, Michaels, Primer, 2004). Therefore the leader is seen as a key catalyst in defining success of a company (Shinkle, Gooding, Smith, 2006) and also in order to make change happen to the benefit of sustainable success. Seeing sustainable success as a long-term goal leaders are confronted and hindered by external requirements, like the publication of financial reports (Avery, 2005) and thus it becomes a challenge for them to remain committed and thus have the required authentic 'tone at the top" (Freeman, Harrison, Wicks, 2007). They will decide about success or failure of changes while acting as a role model and therefore have the requirement of caring about ethics and social responsibility, rather than just on making quick money. Finally it is about the ensemble of stakeholders and leaders who need a practical guideline to make their contribution for the organisation's and common good, leading to the following research question and its supporting objectives. Research content: Research question: 'What elements and characteristics of leadership would help organisations to achieve missing sustainable success through effective stakeholder management?' Supporting objectives: - Investigate and define sustainable success, stakeholder management and leadership with the purpose to identify what is understood by it and what are their characteristics. - Investigate the correlations and dependencies between sustainable success and stakeholder management to approve their complementarity. - Identify how leadership can overcome possible barriers of balancing stakeholders and creating sustainable success. - Investigate existing guidance and frameworks for the creation of sustainable success, in order to underpin their validity or propose modifications. Scope: The scope of this work is chosen very broadly, due to the nature of the project and its research areas. It is about management in general and is not aiming to be specialised on a specific industry or region. Reason therefore is the involvement of several parties, eventually coming from different industries and indeed the globalisation that does not allow investigating management tools with a narrowed regional view. However the scope is laid on business organisations. Therefore the outcome is neither focused on politics, an area worth investigating in the context of stakeholder management, nor religion. Purpose and contribution: The purpose of this work is to show companies and their leaders a way to manage their stakeholders in form of a proposed framework, to achieve sustainable success. As already mentioned in the introduction, an atmosphere of departure has arisen, due to the last happenings within the economy as well as in the politics. The outcome of this work will be an initiation to change by showing leaders how their characteristics can help to establish a win-win situation between stakeholders. Furthermore it shows the need for today's leaders to care about all stakeholders and that this is not just a matter of instruments, concepts and tools to achieve a balanced stakeholder environment, it is more about the mind-set, behaviour and confidence of the leader itself. It requires a lot of energy and stamina to achieve sustainable success and leaders will face a lot of problems and confrontations. Presenting these issues and discuss them in depth will hopefully support them to defend their view of organisational success.Inhaltsverzeichnis:Table of Contents: LIST OF FIGURESVI LIST OF TABLESVII LIST OF ABBREVIATIONSVIII 1INTRODUCTION1 1.1BACKGROUND OF THE TOPIC AN REASON FOR ITS CHOICE1 1.1.1INITIATION FOR THE PROJECT1 1.1.2REASON FOR THIS PROJECT2 1.2RESEARCH CONTENT8 1.2.1RESEARCH QUESTION8 1.2.2SUPPORTING OBJECTIVES8 1.2.3SCOPE8 1.2.4PURPOSE AND CONTRIBUTION9 1.2.5CHAPTER OVERVIEW10 2THE MANUAL - RESEARCH METHODOLOGY12 2.1FOREWORD12 2.2RESEARCH THEORY12 2.2.1RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY12 2.2.2RESEARCH APPROACH14 2.2.3RESEARCH STRATEGY14 2.2.4THE TIME HORIZON15 2.2.5THE ENQUIRY16 2.3RESEARCH IN PRACTICE17 2.3.1RESEARCH AREA17 2.3.2RESEARCH GUIDELINE18 2.3.3RESEARCH INFORMATION RESOURCES21 2.3.4RESEARCH KEYWORDS24 2.3.5USABILITY OF DATA27 2.3.6HANDLING OF FINDINGS30 2.4CONCLUDING REMARKS31 3THE AIM - SUSTAINABLE SUCCESS32 3.1SUBSTANCE32 3.1.1THE COMPONENT SUCCESS32 3.1.2THE COMPONENT SUSTAINABILITY34 3.1.3THE OUTCOME SUSTAINABLE SUCCESS40 3.2THE IMPORTANCE OF SUSTAINABLE SUCCESS42 3.2.1GENERAL42 3.2.2AFFECTING PEOPLE42 3.2.3AFFECTING FINANCES43 3.2.4AFFECTING REPUTATION44 3.2.5AFFECTING ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITY45 3.2.6AFFECTING RESPONSE TO REGULATIONS AND LEGISLATIONS46 3.4BARRIERS OF ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE SUCCESS48 3.5CONCLUDING REMARKS51 4THE TOOL - STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT52 4.1THE BASICS52 4.1.1DEFINITION52 4.1.2DISTINCTION OF STAKEHOLDERS54 4.1.3PRINCIPLES OF STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT58 4.1.4STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT THEORIES60 4.1.5PUTTING STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT INTO PRACTICE64 4.2LINK TO SUSTAINABLE SUCCESS65 4.3CONCLUDING REMARKS71 5THE ENABLER – LEADERSHIP72 5.1DEFINING LEADERSHIP72 5.2THE LINK OF LEADERSHIP TO STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT73 5.3REQUIRED LEADERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS76 5.3.1REALISTIC76 5.3.2INTELLECTUAL / NOUS77 5.3.3DISCLOSING78 5.3.4GENEROUS78 5.3.5GOOD FAITH79 5.3.6SOLID80 5.3.7VISIONARY82 5.3.8RIGHTEOUS83 5.5CONCLUDING REMARKS85 6THE PROPOSAL - TOTAL STAKEHOLDING86 6.1CRITERIA FOR USEABLE FRAMEWORKS86 6.2EXISTING MODELS87 6.2.1FREEMAN'S MODEL REDEFINED87 6.2.2THE EFQM-MODEL90 6.3THE DEVELOPED FRAMEWORK95 6.3.1GENERAL DESCRIPTION95 6.3.2USER'S MANUAL97 6.3.3STAKEHOLDER98 6.3.4LEADERSHIP101 6.3.5SUSTAINABLE SUCCESS101 6.3.6PLAN-DO-STUDY-ACT (PDSA)104 6.4DISCUSSION OF FRAMEWORKS AND VALIDITY OF THE PROPOSED108 6.5CONCLUDING REMARKS113 7DISCUSSION114 7.1SCOPE114 7.2SUSTAINABLE SUCCESS115 7.3STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT116 7.4LEADERSHIP118 7.5SPECIFIC LITERATURE119 7.6METHODOLOGY DATA COLLECTION120 8CONCLUSION122 9LIMITATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER WORK124 9.1RESILIENCE124 9.2QUADRUPLE BOTTOM LINE124 9.3GROWTH125 9.4CONTRACT THEORY125 9.5ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE126 9.6SCORING SYSTEM126 10REFERENCES127 11BIBLIOGRAPHY157 12APPENDICES157 12.1WAYS OF DATA COLLECTION157 12.1.1SURVEYS157 12.1.2CASE STUDIES158 12.1.3SECONDARY DATA158 12.2SEARCH STRING TABLE160 12.3DETAILED STAKEHOLDER LIST161 12.4STAKEHOLDER ALLOCATION TO SUSTAINABILITY ASPECTS169 12.5IDENTIFIED STAKEHOLDER BY FASSIN (2009)170 12.6RADAR ASSESSMENT FOR RESULTS171 12.7RADAR ASSESSMENT FOR ENABLER172Textprobe:Text Sample: Chapter 5.3.6, Solid: The personality of a leader decides whether the leader is anxious of loosing control and power, so that especially wrong strategic decisions are made due to prescient from involving others in the decision-making process (Delbecq, 2008) and not considering their opinion (Avery, 2005:216). Furthermore a strong leader's personality may benefit from a good sense of humour, suggested by (Kets de Vries, Doyle, Loper, 1994) as well as hope, that does not let him give up (Thomas Thomas, 2011). Hope is a crucial point in stakeholder management, with the aim to motivate and therefore overcome the difficulties of making it successful. But finally bravery is a personal characteristic that let the leader stand up fight for the right thing, an important step on the way to stakeholder management (Avery, 2005:79). Collins (2001:21) has done comprehensive research on great leaders and even though he just find a few of them he points out one important characteristic of great leaders: putting the greatness of the company above all. This also means to put it above the own interests, obviously a giant task and thus often doomed to failure. But this does not undermines the importance of this characteristic with regard to stakeholder management. To make this clockwork of stakeholders work the leader must put back the own interest for the benefit of the whole system. Even though it was stated in 4.2 that people are always selfish Mitchell, Agle, Wood (1997) bring forward enough opponents regarding this view, so that it finally depends on the values of the leader (Greer Downey, 1982). Solid in this case indicates that a leader is strong and self-confident in way that he can cope with the previous mentioned. All this results in a characteristic indicated as solid whereas the personality is strong enough to resist external influences. In addition it is pointed to the phrase 'solid as a rock". The leader must be the one standing out of the crowd at least for the followers and keep them grounded. In this position he act as a role model (Oakland, Tanner, Gadd, 2005) an attribute that plays a major role within stakeholder management and sustainable success. The tone at the top is crucial to buy in stakeholders, whereas they must believe in what they are doing to fulfil these expectations (Freeman, Harrison, Wicks, 2007). Being solid in this context also means, as a leader, to recognise that the values are not supported and thus a further collaboration is not efficient. Nonetheless being solid also refers to the time span a leader is staying in its position. In Germany the period in higher management change after 6.1 years whereas it was 8 years in 2003 (Handelsblatt, 2011). Against the trend it is more desirable that leaders stay longer because the biggest problem with changing executives is to find a new one, an undertaking that can become very expensive as well as bear risks (Kennedy, 2000). Research in the 90s showed that the experience of managers has a great impact on their belief and their values, so that the experience of a manager in a company will have a positive impact on his decisions (Höpner, 2003:205) in this context with view to sustainable success. Additionally there is always the risk that new leaders turning the whole company upside-down and even if this is often wanted it is not if the new leader does not support the idea of stakeholder management and sustainable success. So all the hard work could turn out to be useless. Deming, 1986:121) sees an obstacle of long-term success in job-hopping due to the fact that leaders do not develop a sense of commitment and that new leaders unsettle the stakeholders. But long-term commitment also must be understood in the commitment to the approach of stakeholder management. So patience is necessary due to the fact that sustainable success and the necessary organisational behaviour is not achieved overnight (Potter, 1994). This requires an aim in the future that can be established as the one of the main motivator 5.3.7, Visionary: To avoid confusion and to respond to critics on stakeholder management a clear direction is vital for the success as discussed in 3.4. So it is about the leader to establish this direction by introducing a vision (Kets de Vries, Doyle, Loper, 1994), that helps to unify the stakeholders behind it, whilst providing clarity about what the vision is not about (Dubrin, 2007). In order to stimulate high performance and motivate followers a leader must lead passionately (Collins, 2001:20) and pragmatic (Frydman, Wilson, Wyer, Senge, 2000) towards a vision giving him/her the opportunity to have a major influence on the stakeholders. This refers back to the characteristic 'solid" (5.3.6) where a leader act as a role model towards the vision, so that stakeholder can follow (Cyert, 2005). It must be assured that the vision meets the requirements of stakeholder management, in particular balance and ethically correct, referred to as righteous. 5.3.8, Righteous: Righteous refers mainly to ethical and moral, including several 'components'. Morality is a key aspect of stakeholder management, resulting in trust and cooperation of the stakeholders. Indeed leaders should be compensated as every other stakeholder but it must be appropriate and not too high, like the stated 326:1 ratio between average CEOs and workers pay (Tang, Kim, Tang, 2000) in order to sustain trust and goodwill of stakeholders. Against the traditional way of high pay equals high performance (Jones, 1995) the survey of (Kennedy, 2000) reveals that challenging work and open communication are far more important than the pay, supported by Freeman (1984) the father of strategic stakeholder management seeing open communication as one enabler of stakeholder management. So this mind-set actually supports to lead stakeholder management, but nonetheless the salary of managers has increased dramatically. This is mainly caused in more freedom and missing internal monitoring of salary (Höpner, 2003:207), leading to a necessary moral respect of this freedom and do not exploit it. But it is not just about the monetary frugality it is also about recognition and awards, where heroism is not appropriate, acting in silence is what turned out to characterise great leaders (Collins J. , 2001:28). This includes the dispense of awards if things go good and blaming oneself if they go bad, this helps to not become arrogant (Kets de Vries, Doyle, Loper, 1994). This is also true for stakeholder management where the collaboration of the whole clockwork should be recognised and the leader act just as the element holding everything together and is not the centre of everything. Ethics is a fundamental characteristics for stakeholder management leaders, whereas Freeman, Harrison, Wicks (2007) see ethical leadership as the one most suitable, backed by McManus (2006:137) advocating ethical behaviour in order to decide to do the right thing, or ethical judgement respectively (Clarkson, 1995). This is why it is also about humanity (Kets de Vries, Doyle, Loper, 1994) and not seeing the environmental and societal responsibility as nonessential (Avery, 2005:216). Leaders also should be aware that they have fiduciary to all stakeholders and thus this fact should become the basis of the ethical mind-set (Kaufman, 2002). This fiduciary towards all stakeholders lead then towards the need of leaders to use this tool in an appropriate manner and to not justify bad decision with this model (Collins, Kearins, Roper, 2005). In addition this brings with it the desired balance of wealth distribution required by Sachs Maurer(2009).

On August 20, Guatemala's anti-corruption candidate Bernardo Arévalo of the center-left Movimiento Semilla party won a resounding victory against establishment favorite Sandra Torres of the National Unity of Hope party (Unidad Nacional para la Esperanza) in the presidential run-off. Arévalo secured a 58 percent to 37 percent victory over Torres, obtaining the majority of votes in 17 of the Central American country's 22 departments, including a number of rural and indigenous communities. The new president is expected to take office on January 14.Arévalo's unexpected rise and landslide victory were a strong repudiation of the corrupt and entrenched interests that have ruled the country for decades. His triumph is a major triumph for Guatemala's democracy and offers an opportunity to tackle widespread corruption and restore the rule of law. The vote in Central America's most populous nation also marks an important victory against the wave of authoritarianism that has swept the region in recent years.The road ahead, however, will be rough. The country's political establishment appears set on using everything in its arsenal to disqualify Semilla and annul Arevalo's victory to maintain their grip on power.Challenging Road to TransitionOn August 28, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal certified Bernardo Arévalo's victory proclaiming him Guatemala's next president, and the outgoing president, Alejandro Giammattei promised an orderly and transparent transition of power. But an orderly transition remains far from certain as Semilla and Arévalo continue to face a wave of legal battles in attempts to block his rise to power.Despite Arévalo's resounding victory, the country's attorney general, Consuelo Porras, who was named to a second term by Giammattei and has been the subject of U.S. sanctions due to corrupt and undemocratic activities, is determined to push ahead with spurious cases against Semilla and election officials. Following the presidential run-off, her office also requested that charges be brought against election officials and has demanded the list of election workers.The threats do not stop there. Hours before the August 28 certification of results, the electoral registry, under mounting threats of prosecution, suspended Semilla pending further investigation, in violation of court orders that ostensibly protected the party until October 31, when the electoral process officially ends. Two days later, the leadership in Congress, led by the governing party, stripped Semilla's legislators of their party status; the move bars the party's current and incoming lawmakers from serving on committees or as part of the leadership. Given several credible threats to their lives, including two assassination plots, one involving state actors, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights issued a resolution calling for protective measures on behalf of Arévalo and his running mate, Karin Herrera. The resolution also noted repeated threats presumably coming from individuals linked to the attorney general's office.Porras has not commented on the assassination plots but, instead, unsuccessfully filed a motion before the Constitutional Court asking for protection measures of her own and denouncing posts on social media calling for her resignation, including from journalists.At the same time, Arevalo's rival, Sandra Torres, has refused to concede, and has filed a complaint alleging fraud in the vote count. However, the electoral observation missions of the Organization of American States and the European Union have validated the results, and several countries, including the United States, have recognized Arévalo's victory.Post Inauguration ChallengesPresuming the establishment's efforts fail and Arévalo can assume office on January 14, he will face steep challenges.He will confront a strong opposition in Congress dominated by clientelist and hardline right-wing parties. Semilla obtained 23 out of 160 seats. If the establishment succeeds in permanently suspending Semilla's legal standing, Arévalo will be left without a party bloc in Congress to help advance his legislative agenda.Moreover, the establishment will continue to exercise power through the courts and the public prosecutor's office, both of which have been stacked with its allies. By law, Porras, the attorney general, will remain in office until 2026 and will likely remain hostile to the incoming administration. Those who have profited from the status quo will fight him tooth and nail.Despite these challenges, there are reasons to be hopeful. Arévalo and Semilla are genuinely committed to democratic values and tackling systemic corruption. The path forward will require careful collaboration and agreements with other sectors, including members of the private sector who share their goals and are open to supporting needed reforms, as well as with civil society.Addressing the country's deep inequalities will require working with indigenous organizations and leaders and ensuring they have a seat at the table. Arévalo will also need to rely on the support of the international community. More important, he enjoys the support of an important segment of the citizenry that is eager for change and a better future. Managing their expectations will be critical to his success.US PolicyTwo years ago, the Biden administration launched a five-point, $400-million strategy to tackle the underlying causes of irregular migration from the region, but Central American governments have been reluctant to cooperate. The independent journalists, civil society activists, and other independent actors the U.S. has supported through the strategy have been the target of attacks, threats, and spurious charges by the region's governments, forcing many into exile. The Biden administration's relationship with the Giammattei government has been difficult as, at times, it has felt the need to cooperate on immigration enforcement matters, while, at others, it has sanctioned Guatemalan public officials due to corruption concerns.Arévalo's victory opens up new possibilities for the Biden administration. The president-elect understands the deep ties between both countries and is keen on developing a shared agenda with the United States. The U.S. is Guatemala's most important economic partner, and an estimated 20 percent of the country's GDP comes from remittances.He has vowed to improve basic services — education, health, access to water, and infrastructure — as well as to purge state institutions coopted by corrupt interests. He has promised to focus development efforts on the rural areas that have been most abandoned by the government. Almost half of Guatemalans live in poverty, and that rate rises to 80 percent among indigenous peoples, who make up over 40 percent of the country's 14.9 million people. Child malnutrition is one of the highest in the world, with nearly half of children under five suffering from chronic malnutrition, 58 percent among indigenous children.The Biden administration is likely to continue pressing for border enforcement cooperation, an issue that Arévalo seems to acknowledge and has signaled an openness to working on with the U.S. government.The Biden administration should view Arévalo's victory as an opportunity to revamp its Central America Root Causes Strategy and offer its political, technical, and financial support to help him succeed. First, it must continue to work with other countries in the OAS Permanent Council to exert pressure on the current Guatemalan authorities, as it did after the first round in the elections in June, to ensure that the will of the Guatemalan people is respected and that Arévalo is able to assume office and carry out his democratic mandate.

Asymmetric wars require the search for new forms and ways to achieve goals in contemporary military conflicts. One of these forms is to support the capabilities of the security and defense sector (SFA) of NATO partner countries.The official materials of the last three NATO summits, the concept, doctrine and leadership of NATO define the principles of the SFA. This article is devoted to the implementation of SFA.The article is to analysis of SFA implementation measures.In line with the Strategic Concept of the North Atlantic Alliance, NATO is focused on addressing three key challenges, such as collective defense, crisis management, and security-based co-operation, in the interests of defense and security of its members.The NATO Summit in theUKidentified anotherAllianceactivity aimed at strengthening the capabilities of the security and defense sectors of the partner countries, called Security Force Assistance (SFA).According to the NATO guidelines, the SFA refers to the ability to "train and develop national forces in crisis zones" in order to "achieve the ability of the national authorities of partner countries to effectively support security without international assistance". SFA refers to "all NATO actions that develop, improve, or directly support the development of national security and defense forces and their associated institutes." Thus, in the general context, the SFA covers all measures aimed at the development and preparation of the national security and defense sector and is carried out at the tactical, operational, strategic, military-political levels, involves providing advisory assistance from a separate platoon to the ministry. In a wider context, the SFA, though having military orientation, includes such mechanisms for preventing contemporary military conflicts as political, economic, information, legal, and others.In order to implement the SFA, the leadership of theAllianceand individual NATO member states held a series of practical measures. So, at the end of2015, inconnection withRussia's aggression againstUkraine, NATO initiated the creation of a joint multinational group for the training of units for the Armed Forces and the Joint Multinational Training Group (Ukraine).TheUnited Statesbegan the formation of six security assistance brigades (SFABs) whose primary objective was to provide training, counseling, assistance, support and support for operations with coalition forces and partner countries. According to US military experts, the SFABs will achieve the following strategic goals: development of the capabilities of the security forces and defense of the partner countries, the release of regular military brigades from their unrelated functions, provision of, if necessary, the preparation of the infrastructure of the partner countries for the Allied Rapid Reaction Force.The Italian government decided in May 2017 to organize theNATOSecurityForceExcellenceCenterand its location in the capital of the country. It is anticipated that theCenterofExcellencewill be certified and will complete its tasks at the end of 2018.At the tactical level, in line with theAlliance's standards, the following tasks are addressed within the framework of the SFA:organization and conducting of targeted instructor-methodical exercises in accordance with the norms adopted by NATO with the units of the joint and airborne assault brigades, as well as the special forces special forces;familiarization of servicemen of partner countries with new models of weapons, military equipment, means of communication and navigation, and other special equipment;determine the level of readiness of formations for combat operations, taking into account the standards adopted by theAlliance.Along with this, the issue of improving the regulatory and legislative framework, according to which the number of foreign military advisers may, if necessary, be substantially increased to several thousand persons for the entire duration of the SFA operation is relevant.Conclusions. The North Atlantic Alliance is implementing an effective concept of support and development of the capabilities of the security and defense sector and its practical implementation mechanisms that address a wide range of security and defense issues of non-NATO countries. At the same time, implementation of such a concept requires from the partner countries changes in the regulatory framework and appropriate infrastructure preparation.In the following, an analysis of the individual mechanisms for implementing the concept of supporting the security forces at operational and strategic levels will be conducted. ; Асимметричные войны требуют поиска новых форм и путей достижения целей в современных военных конфликтах. Одна из этих форм заключается в поддержке возможностей сектора безопасности и обороны (SFA) стран-партнеров НАТО.Официальные материалы последних трех саммитов НАТО, концепция, доктрина и руководство НАТО определяют принципы SFA. Эта статья посвящена реализации SFA.В соответствии со Стратегической концепцией Североатлантический Альянс сосредоточен на решении трех ключевых задач: коллективная оборона, кризисное управление и сотрудничество на основе безопасности.Саммит НАТО в Великобритании определил еще одну деятельность Североатлантического союза, направленную на укрепление потенциала секторов безопасности и обороны стран-партнеров, называемых Силами безопасности (SFA).Согласно руководящим принципам НАТО, SFA относится к способности "обучать и развивать национальные силы в кризисных зонах", чтобы "обеспечить способность национальных властей стран-партнеров эффективно поддерживать безопасность без международной помощи". К SFA относятся "все действия НАТО, которые разрабатывают, совершенствуют или напрямую поддерживают развитие сил национальной безопасности и обороны и связанных с ними институтов". Таким образом, в общем контексте SFA охватывает все меры, направленные на развитие и подготовку сектора национальной безопасности и обороны и осуществляется на тактическом, оперативном, стратегическом, военно-политическом уровнях, предполагает оказание консультативной помощи от отдельного взвода до министерства. В более широком контексте SFA, хотя и имеет военную ориентацию, включает такие механизмы предотвращения современных военных конфликтов как политические, экономические, информационные, правовые и другие.В целях реализации SFA руководство Альянса и отдельных государств-членов НАТО реализовало ряд мероприятий.Так, в конце 2015 года в связи с агрессией России против Украины было инициировано создание совместной многонациональной группы по подготовке подразделений для Вооруженных Сил Украины и Национальной гвардии Украины.В Соединенных Штатах началось формирование шести бригад по оказанию помощи в обеспечении безопасности, основная задача которых заключалась в обеспечении обучения, консультирования и поддержки операций с коалиционными силами и странами-партнерами. По мнению военных экспертов США, применение этих бригад позволит достигнуть следующих стратегических целей: обеспечить развитие возможностей сил безопасности и обороны стран-партнеров, освободить линейные боевые бригады от не свойственных им функций, обеспечить, при необходимости, подготовку инфраструктуры стран-партнеров для развертывания Сил быстрого реагирования Альянса.Итальянское правительство в мае 2017 года приняло решение организовать Центр передового опыта в сфере SFA. Предполагается, что Центр будет сертифицирован и приступит к выполнению своих задач в конце 2018 года.На тактическом уровне, в соответствии со стандартами Североатлантического союза, в рамках SFA рассматриваются следующие задачи:организация и проведение целенаправленных инструкторско-методических учений в соответствии со стандартами, принятыми НАТО с подразделениями общевойсковых и десантных бригад, а также сил специального назначения;ознакомление военнослужащих стран-партнеров с новым вооружением и военной техникой, средствами связи и навигации, другого специального оборудования;определение уровня готовности соединений к боевым действиям с учетом стандартов, принятых в Альянсе.Вместе с тем остается актуальной проблема совершенствования нормативной и законодательной базы стран-партнеров, возможности в случае необходимости существенного увеличения иностранных военных советников на весь срок проведения операции SFA.Вывод. Североатлантический альянс реализует эффективную концепцию поддержки и развития потенциала сектора безопасности и обороны и его практических механизмов реализации, которые охватывают широкий круг вопросов безопасности и обороны стран, не входящих в НАТО. В то же время реализация такой концепции требует от стран-партнеров изменений в нормативной базе и соответствующей подготовки инфраструктуры. ; Проводено аналіз концепції і заходів Північноатлантичного Альянсу, що стосується підтримки та розвитку спроможностей сил безпеки (Security Force Assistance) і оборони країн-партнерів НАТО.

This article examines the US Army's experiences and lessons learned during military interventions in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo. It explores why these lessons did not affect the Army transformation, directed in the late-1990s by James M. Dubik, John W. Hendrix, John N. Abrams, and Eric K. Shinseki.

State fragility, which describes how different components of a state do (or do not) function, is a central concept for understanding how development activities and policies in complex political, humanitarian and conflict-affected contexts will (or will not) work in practice. Using fragility as a lens, we use feminist development policy and forced displacement as examples to demonstrate how different empirical conceptualisations of fragility can be used to uncover potential challenges and identify opportunities for more comprehensive policy and programming. These examples are only two ways one can apply the concepts of fragility of the OECD and the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS). Indeed, these and other empirical concepts of state fragility have many applications and can be used to measure and understand state–society, conflict and humanitarian dynamics in myriad ways. The longest-running among these kinds of models is the Fund for Peace's Fragile States Index (Fund for Peace, 2023). Other models focus on state fragility as a function of different aspects of "stateness". This includes IDOS's Constellations of State Fragility typology, which clusters types of fragility based on strengths/weaknesses in key dimensions of statehood (Grävingholt et al., 2019). Some organisations have moved beyond an exclusive focus on the functioning of the state, with the OECD currently defining fragility contexts as the combination of risks and insufficient coping capacities of multiple levels of governance systems and/or communities to manage, absorb or mitigate those risks (OECD, 2016). The IDOS and OECD concepts do not rank countries, and the methods used in both models allow them to be applied to different levels of analysis. Essentially, these empirical conceptualisations of state fragility can serve as useful heuristics for the policy-makers responsible for setting policy agendas in fragile contexts. The key challenge for policy-makers that we address in this policy brief is the step from empirically categorising states' fragility, to using that empirical data to inform often fast-moving, idiosyncratic policy-making and implementation in fragile contexts. As noted previously, these concepts are heuristics; country-specific policy planning and implementation require more fine-grained monitoring of country contexts. To achieve this, we recommend: Donors should be aware that the suitability of a particular tool/ fragility lens depends on the specific problem at hand, and they should choose the tool following a rigorous problem analysis. Use Germany's leadership on feminist foreign and development policy to capture and highlight the full range of links between gender and fragility, and to continue strengthening feminist foreign and development policy in fragile contexts. In many cases, state fragility is a neighbourhood challenge that requires regional coordination in order to be managed. In the case of migration and displacement, donors can support the freedom of movement protocols in regional agreements such as ECOWAS and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD). Policy-makers and donor organisations should deepen investment in new avenues for collecting and standardising the data that is used to generate different empirical concepts of state fragility. This includes funding on-the-ground monitoring activities such as IGAD's Conflict Early Warning and Response Mechanism in East Africa. Recognise that otherwise functional states can indeed have sub-national pockets of severe fragility, and that these variations in sub-national fragility can over time erode the capacity, legitimacy and authority of the state if left unchecked.

Despite hopes that movies like "Top Gun: Maverick" would recapture the imagination of youth and open their minds to the possibility of high-flying military service, the U.S. Air Force has missed its recruitment goals for the first time since 1999. This is part of a service-wide trend (Army and Navy included) that has so far only spared the Marines, which at 33,000 has much lower target numbers than the Army, for example, which missed its goal of 65,000 new recruits in May. It was the second year in a row the Army fell short.But the active duty Air Force's failure to meet its goals is the first time in nearly a quarter century, presaging hard times to come. According to this report the active duty component fell just shy (90 percent) of its 26,877 goal, while its reserve and Air Guard fared worse, with 30 percent shortfalls in each.Unlike the pre-9/11 days in 1999, which, despite small overseas operations against lesser rivals like Saddam Hussein, was considered peace time, military officials are worried about what these shortfalls mean for their ability to meet the current twin security challenges consistently identified by official Washington: Russia and China."The geopolitical landscape was so much different" in 1999, Air Force Recruiting Service boss Brig. Gen. Christopher Amrhein told reporters Wednesday."Missing this year is kind of at a critical point."Is there one reason for the slip in recruitment? The short answer is no. As we've said in these pages before, the theories are moving targets, sometimes partisan, and varied. Some observers point out that young people have more economic and educational opportunities today. Others have noted that the pool of eligible recruits is shrinking — young people are more obese, have been on therapeutic drugs (disqualifying), are in poor shape, and have histories of using recreational drugs/alcohol and bad behavior.On the left, critics say the military continues to be racially biased and misogynistic (particularly at the leadership level; the percentage of women across the military has actually increased to over 17 percent, while the level of minorities is close to 40 percent of the total military population).On the right, critics say the military has become too "woke," overtaken by the civilian world's culture and identity politics, and focused more on "diversity, equity, and inclusion" than preparing men and women for future wars. But another theory transcends partisan politics. As the trust levels in government institutions (including the military) has eroded society-wide, so has the number of men and women willing to put their lives in the hands of Uncle Sam. After 20 years of failed war policies, a citizenry that feels lied to, swindled, and misled at every turn is less inclined to believe that their children won't be used as toy soldiers in some future Washington political gambit overseas.Whatever the reason, the recruitment crisis is real, and it is cutting across the grunts and "glamor boys." If you believe a strong defense is necessary for the health of the nation, this is not good news, especially since the military doesn't seem equipped to deal with this dicey, complicated question head-on.

In 2024, it will be 125 years since the establishment of the Higher Seminary of Agricultural Economics and Policy at the Petrovsky Agricultural Academy, which was later transformed into the famous Research Institute of Agricultural Economics (RIAE) headed in the 1920s by A. V. Chayanov. His article "A short review of the centers of economic thought in the field of agriculture in Europe and other countries", published in the Bulletin of the Research Institute of Agricultural Economics in 1927, is presented for the English-speaking reader for the first time. Chayanov provides a brief description of the most important centers of the agrarian economic thought, including those with whom the Institute managed to establish correspondence and book exchange, and concludes the review with a conditional classification of trends in the science of organizing agricultural production in the 1920s. Certainly, this long list of scientific institutions and research partners was to prove the high importance and usefulness of the Institute for strengthening the prestige of the Soviet science and Soviet Russia in the international arena. However, fate decreed otherwise: in 1928, Chayanov was removed from the leadership position; in 1929, the Institute was reorganized and merged with the Institute of Large-Scale Economy into the Institute for Organizing Large-Scale Economy and Agricultural Economics; in 1930, after the final removal of Chayanov from the scientific staff, this new Institute was transformed into the Collective Farm Institute. Thus, all international contacts were cut off; Chayanov's Institute, which united researchers with different approaches and views on the object and tasks of agricultural economics as a scientific discipline, was destroyed, and Chayanov's materials on international relations, ironically, formed the basis for the future work scenario of the punitive authorities (as follows from Chayanov's interrogations by the Chief of the Secret Department of the Joint State Political Directorate (OGPU) Ya.S. Agranov). The English translation of the concept "agricultural economy" used by Chayanov for the field of scientific knowledge is still debatable. According to specialists in the history of economic thought and in Chayanov's works, there are two options: agricultural economics and agricultural economy. It was suggested that the term "agricultural economy" would more accurately reflect the diversity of approaches in the Soviet agrarian-economic thought of the 1920s: general economic theory (applied to agriculture) in its interpretation by the world science of the 1920s; technical and technological (agronomic) approaches to organizing the economy; theory and practice of agricultural policy with an emphasis on its social aspect; accounting and taxation. We should not understand "economy" as anything else than a historical, outdated by the end of the 19th century synonym for economic science, which in the late 19th - early 20th centuries was abandoned in favor of "economics" all around the world, including in Russia (B.D. Brutskus, N.N. Kazhanov, A. I. Skvortsov, A. F. Fortunatov, etc.). Thus, in 1925, the title of the famous work by G. A. Studensky was translated by the publisher in English as Outlines of Agricultural Economics. In other words, "economics" is just the name of economic science and cannot be reduced to A. Marshall's ideas; therefore, the term "economy" interferes with the correct understanding of Chayanov's text by the English-speaking reader, providing wrong connotations with real economic phenomena - industry and economy. The text is provided with notes that clarify and supplement facts mentioned by Chayanov. Editor's notes are marked as Ed.

Abstract
In May 2021 Jewish Voice for Labour ("JVL") published a combative document entitled How the EHRC Got It So Wrong-Antisemitism and the Labour Party. The document criti­cises the Equality and Human Rights Commission's October 2020 Report of its investiga­tion into antisemitism in the Labour Party. The Commission found the Labour Party responsible for antisemitic conduct giving rise to several unlawful acts in breach of the Equality Act 2010. In addition to its legal findings, it also made critical factual findings, identifying a culture of acceptance of antisemitism in the Labour Party, which suffered from serious failings in leadership, where the failure to tackle antisemitism more effectively was probably a matter of choice. The essence of JVL's attack on the Commission's Report is as follows. First, it is said that the Commission did not and could not lawfully investigate antisemitism as such; to the extent that it purported to do so, its findings of unlawfulness are purportedly meaningless. Secondly, JVL claims that the Commission made no finding of institutional antisemitism. Thirdly, by failing to require production of evidence referred to in a certain leaked report, probably prepared by Labour Party officials loyal to Jeremy Corbyn, the Commission is accused of nullifying at a stroke the value of its own Report as a factual account. Fourthly, JVL claims the Commission's Report is not just legally unten­able, but purportedly a threat to democracy. Finally, JVL claims the Commission's analysis was not just wrong, but that it exercised its statutory powers in bad faith. This article offers a response to each of the five pillars of JVL's attack, all of which collapse under scrutiny. As to the first pillar, the article identifies the disappearing of antisemitism as the linchpin of JVL's argument and shows how JVL's criticism is underpinned by a political epistemology of antisemitism denialism. As to the second pillar, it shows that the absence of the term "institutional antisemitism" in the Commission's Report is a semantic quibble. In sub­stance, the Commission found that the conduct under investigation amounted to institu­tional antisemitism. As to the third, the article demonstrates that JVL's complaint about the Commission's failure to call for production of the leaked report is perverse because that report constitutes an admission of the correctness of the complaints put before it. More­over, the Corbyn-led Labour Party itself decided that it did not want the Commission to consider that material. As to the fourth pillar, the article shows that far from being a threat to democracy, the Commission's Report grasps the nettle of antisemitism denial. It con­cludes that continuing to assume and assert that Jews raising concerns about antisemitism are lying for nefarious ends may itself be, and in at least two cases was, a form of unlawful anti-Jewish harassment. As to the fifth, the article rebuts the extraordinary charge that the Commission exercised its powers in bad faith. Rather strikingly, neither JVL nor Jeremy Corbyn was willing to take the Commission on judicial review. The article concludes by considering how the poverty of JVL's reasoning, coupled with the extravagance of its accu­sations, invites a symptomatic reading of Antisemitism and the Labour Party as a disap­pointing illustration of left-wing melancholia.

The dissolution of the Soviet Union and the emergence of new independent countries in the international arena necessitated conceptual changes in Germany's foreign policy strategy for Central and Eastern Europe in general and Ukraine in particular. Effective cooperation with CEE countries is one of the priorities of German diplomatic relations, as it views these countries as a kind of «junior partners», and a successful example of Germany's Euro- and Euro-Atlantic integration strategy motivates the CEE region to take more active action on the path to European integration. For Ukraine, Germany is one of the key actors in the system of international relations, the «locomotive» of European organizations, on the position of which depends the further European and Euro-Atlantic integration of the Ukrainian state.The article analyzes the evolution of Ukrainian-German relations during Angela Merkel's chancellery, when bilateral interaction was particularly dynamic. At the beginning of her rule, Ukraine was considered by Chancellor Merkel only in the contextof cooperation with the Russian Federation, which was Germany's main economic partner. Merkel's position on fi nding a new formula for German-Ukrainian cooperation within the EU was limited to the European Neighborhood Policy and the Eastern Partnership. At the same time, Ukraine's full membership in the European Union was seen by the German leadership as a hasty step. Russia's annexation of the Crimea in 2014 and the aggression in eastern Ukraine began to dispel German illusions about cooperation with Russia. Support for the separatists in the Donbas has signifi cantly worsened German-Russian relations and at the same time transformed Germany's cooperation with Ukraine. From the very beginning of the Russian-Ukrainian confl ict, Chancellor Angela Merkel has taken a principled position on Russia's aggression, seeking to resolve the conflict in eastern Ukraine, restore stability in the region and promote Ukraine's European integration aspirations. The Ukrainian crisis has played a key role in strengthening Germany's international importance, in particular, making it a leader in the European political arena, turning it into a «middle power» that has consistently defended Ukraine.Keywords: German-Ukrainian interaction, European structures, annexation of Crimea, Russian aggression in the East of Ukraine, European and Euro-Atlantic aspirations. ; Розпад Радянського Союзу та поява на міжнародній арені нових незалежних країн зумовили необхідність концептуальних змін у зовнішньополітичній стратегії ФРН щодо Центрально-Східної Європи загалом і України зокрема. У статті проаналізовано еволюцію українсько-німецьких відносин під час канцлерства Ангели Меркель, коли двостороння взаємодія була особливо динамічною. На початку свого урядування Україна розглядалась Ангелою Меркель винятково у контексті взаємодії з Російською Федерацією, яка була для Німеччини основним економічним партнером. Водночас повноправне членство України у Європейському Союзі розглядалось німецьким керівництвом як передчасний крок. Російська анексія Кримського півострова у 2014 році та агресія на Сході України поклали початок розвіюванню німецьких ілюзій щодо взаємодії з РФ. Підтримка сепаратистів на Донбасі значно погіршила німецько-російські відносини та водночас трансформувала співпрацю ФРН з Україною.З початку російсько-українського конфлікту канцлерка Ангела Меркель зайняла принципову позицію щодо агресії РФ, прагнучи вирішити конфлікт на Сході України, відновити стабільність у регіоні та сприяти українським євроінтеграційним прагненням. Українська криза відіграла основну роль у посиленні міжнародного значення ФРН, зокрема зробила її лідером на європейській політичній арені, перетворивши на «середню силу», яка послідовно захищає Україну.Ключові слова: німецько-українська взаємодія, європейські структури, анексія Криму, російська агресія на Сході України, європейські та євроатлантичні прагнення.

This research project addressed the question 'to what extent, if at all, does teaching intelligent design to evangelical students contribute to their confidence and ability to share their faith?' The context of the professional doctorate is my role as an evangelical theology lecturer at Moorlands College. The problem that motivated the research was feedback from students relating their Christian faith to questions and objections presented to them in their ministry context about science generally and Darwinism in particular. I locate the intelligent design argument within the broader debate over the relationship between science and religion. Intelligent design is an expression of concordism, the most integrative of Tenneson et al's paradigms (conflict, compartmentalism, complementarianism, and concordism). The approach adopted for this professional doctorate was Norton's pedagogical action research and Osmer's model of practical theology. During the first cycle of action research, I piloted the Discovering Intelligent Design course covering a range of scientific topics supporting the design argument for full-time students on campus. The second action research cycle involved teaching the course again as a more formal Saturday School event for part-time evangelical students off campus. Eight participants took part in semi-structured interviews, and a further seven formed a focus group. I undertook thematic analysis of the interview transcripts and triangulated the results with the focus group transcript. The narrative analysis of participant responses described the pressure felt from the hegemony of a materialist worldview that presented Darwinism as 'fact', especially within a school environment. Participants felt the DID course enabled them to challenge the dominance of that worldview with scientific evidence supporting a theistic worldview. They believed there was a need to think about the relationship between science and faith within the church to equip young people to retain their Christian faith. I initiated a cycle of Osmer's model of practical theology to reflect christologically on the thematic analysis and generate theologically-laden praxis. These themes were critically correlated within Osmer's sagely wisdom phase to understand more deeply what was going on. Critical insights were gained through transdisciplinary reflection including discourse analysis, sociology and philosophy of scientific worldviews, critical consciousness and political hegemony, forces of marginalization, and anti-teleological child-psychology. The democratic, liberative nature of teaching intelligent design was framed as 'common science'. An important theological disclosure was identified in Osmer's prophetic discernment phase: teaching intelligent design was discerned as teaching a contemporary parable and an extension of Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom of God. Like the parable of the sower, intelligent design provokes different reactions; it empowers the marginalized and challenges institutional power that denies God's presence and power. The revised praxis of Osmer's servant leadership phase included locating teaching intelligent design within a broader biblical ministry, identifying the conflict between materialistic and theistic worldviews rather than between science and faith, communicating this transformed perspective at conferences to encourage churches to engage more with science, and developing intelligent design as part of an apologetics module. Support was offered for the CoRE policy to restructure RE classes as 'Religion and Worldviews', and a development of the DID course to teach others to lead it was proposed as an expression of proclaiming the kingdom of God and sowing seed on good soil.

RiassuntoL'articolo analizza il legame tra disastro, sacralità e regalità in Sri Lanka, esplorando il ruolo ricoperto dall'eziologia del maremoto nella riproposizione storica del modello del Dhamma-king: un re che sia l'incarnazione di un Bodhisattva, un essere vivente che aspira all'illuminazione conducendo pratiche altruistiche come un Budda, e di un Cakkavatti, un sovrano assoluto che assembla in sé il compito di promuovere il buddismo nel mondo e al tempo stesso di difendere l'unità della nazione. Ricostruendo le tracce del maremoto nella letteratura del buddismo Theravada e descrivendo la riproposizione di queste narrazioni mito-storiche nella fase politica seguita allo tsunami dell'Oceano Indiano, si mostra come dopo il disastro si sia imposta in Sri Lanka un'immagine di eroe culturale compenetrata da una tradizione della regalità di matrice buddista e singalese: una guida-quasi- divinizzata capace di assicurare prosperità alla sua gente e di riunificare energicamente il regno seguendo i valori religiosi e l'ideologia etnico-identitaria che avevano alimentato quasi trent'anni di conflitto civile. L'idea che riconquista territoriale, ricchezza e prosperità seguissero a un periodo di disordine e distruzione ha, infatti, favorito l'ascesa elettorale della dinastia Rajapaksa, impostasi sulla scena nazionale scalando i ranghi del potere da una delle periferie dell'"impero". Così, le azioni scellerate che si erano manifestate sotto forma di calamità naturali venivano simbolicamente assunte come l'incipit di una nuova epoca dell'oro, al tempo stesso "restauratrice" di equilibri facenti perno sull'unità della nazione e "riformatrice" di una società che poteva tornare ad essere virile, proba e virtuosa. The bowl, the robe and the scepter. Disaster, sacredness and kingship in Sri LankaThis article analyses the link between disaster, sacredness and kingship in Sri Lanka, exploring the role that the etiology of the tsunami played in the historical revival of the Dhamma-king model: a king who is the incarnation of a Bodhisattva, a living being pursuing enlightenment through altruistic practices similarly to a Buddha, and a Cakkavatti, an absolute monarch whose role combines promoting Buddhism in the world and simultaneously defending national unity. By unearthing traces of the tsunami in the literature of Theravada Buddhism and describing the revival of these mytho-historical narratives in the political phase following the Indian Ocean tsunami, I show how a specific image gained ground in Sri Lanka in the aftermath of the disaster, the image of a cultural hero imbued with the tradition of Buddhist and Sinhalese sovereignty: a semi-divinized leader who succeeded in ensuring prosperity for his people and dynamically reuniting the kingdom under the religious values and ethnic-identity ideology that had fuelled almost thirty years of civil war in the country. The idea that regaining territory, wealth and prosperity were to follow a period of disorder and destruction favoured the electoral rise of the Rajapaksa dynasty, a leadership that took over the national stage by climbing the ranks of power from the margins of the "empire". The reckless actions that had materialized in the form of natural disasters were thereby symbolically cast as the beginning of a new golden age, one destined to "restore" balances pivoting on the unity of the nation while at the same time "reforming" a society with the potential to be virile, just and virtuous once again.