Search results

As "negotiations" via remote continue to stutter over key differences, I thought it would be worthwhile to take stock over some of the main issues at this stage. To look at the respective strengths of each side, it is blatantly apparent that the EU holds all the advantages.

AbstractMattessich and Hill (1987) charted an historical overview of the family life cycle and development perspective in The Handbook of Marriage and the Family. That same year Evelyn Duvall presented a distinguished lecture at the National Council on Family Relations meeting titled, "Family Development's First Forty Years." These academic works capture the historical foundation of family development theory by two pioneers of the theory and provide a reference point for discussing the history, current state, and future of the theory. In this article, Hill's and Duvall's historical accounts are summarized, contextualized, and used as a reference point to present four challenges to the future relevance of family development theory. Recommendations for future theory, research and practice are suggested.

Today@NPS ; The 72nd graduating class of the Naval War College (NWC) Monterey program for Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) at NPS stands for a group portrait on the front steps of Herrmann Hall, Sept. 14. Through the program's partnership with NPS, 4,751 officers have earned JPME Phase I certification since its inception in September of 1999.

This article gives the first large‐scale assessment of business partnerships in England and Wales using business records within the population census for 1881. It seeks to understand the variety of ways that 'partnership' was used: explicit partnership, 'de facto' partnership, 'joint' activity, and asset ownership together. The article confirms that partnerships were chiefly between two people. Complexity and transaction costs largely precluded larger size and squeezed the partnership into a 'middle ground' between the sole proprietor and the corporation. The main size contrast was between farms with small employee numbers, and larger non‐farm business partnerships. Generally differences in the gender of business owners have greater salience than sectors. Few female business partnerships employed more than four people (mean 3.4), while male partnerships ranged up to several thousand employees (mean 33.6), and 18.6 for mixed gender. While many women were involved in businesses, their opportunities remained restricted, and most were in partnership with male partners. Family structures were important, with three‐quarters of all identifiable partnerships having some form of family relationship, with a strong preponderance of single women in female‐only partnerships, married men in male‐only partnerships, and widows in mixed gender businesses.