Suchergebnisse

The openness movement that started in the 1940's with the invention of the T-group has lost much of its momentum. The movement's excesses and abuses have discredited openness in its pure form to the point where anything resembling a T-group is verboten in many organizations, and many of its original champions have become disenchanted with it. What of the original form of openness can be or should be salvaged?

WHO COULD OBJECT to 'open innovation'? The term, which has migrated from software development to become a staple of business-management strategy, seems to conjure the most desirable aspects of contemporary American capitalism: freedom, creativity, democratic accessibility, the possibility of new frontiers. The 'openness' paradigm promises to combine new production systems, made possible by the technologies of Web 2.0 and the shrunken space of globalization, with novel forms of business organization and value extraction; it offers a powerful weapon in inter-firm competition and a new regime of labour. The paradigm has been promoted by a torrent of books and articles from us business schools over the past decade. In 2003 a Google search for 'open innovation' brought up 200 results, according to Henry Chesbrough, one of the gurus of the field and Director of the Centre for Open Innovation at Berkeley's Hass Business School. By 2013, the figure was 672,000,000. Adapted from the source document.

Abstract
We report an intriguing empirical observation. The relationship between corruption and output depends on the economy's degree of openness: in open economies, corruption and GNP per capita are strongly negatively correlated, but closed economies display no relationship at all. This stylized fact is robust to a variety of different empirical specifications. In particular, the same basic pattern persists if we use alternative measures of openness, if we focus on different time periods, if we restrict the sample to include only highly corrupt countries, and if we restrict attention to specific geographic areas or to poor countries. We find that the degree of financial openness is primarily what determines whether corruption and output are correlated. Moreover, corruption is negatively related to capital accumulation in open economies, but not in closed economies. We present a model, consistent with these findings, in which the main channel through which corruption affects output is capital drain.

Changes following the end of the cold war to increase openness to the outside world and within the US intelligence agency.

This article examines the relationship between economic openness and internal conflict. The article first discusses different theoretical perspectives on how openness affects a country's internal stability and how internal conflict affects openness. Next, empirical estimates of the relationship between conflict and openness are presented, where conflict is measured with both a civil war dummy variable and an events dataset. The correlation between openness and conflict in the data is negative: more open countries have less internal conflict by some measures. However, internal conflict affects the level of openness, which suggests that openness should be treated as an endogenous variable. When the effect of openness on conflict is estimated using instrumental variables or full information maximum likelihood to control for endogeneity, openness does not significantly reduce internal conflict. There is robust evidence, on the other hand, that conflict within a country reduces its international trade. Together, these results suggest that the negative correlation between openness and conflict emerges because stability facilitates international trade rather than because trade flows reduce internal conflict.

Although friendly to business, SingaporeÕs government represses dissent and is far from transparent in its management of public funds. A leading dissident chronicles his struggle for greater openness.

Discusses political and economic situation; democracy, civil society, governmental system, political parties, government regulation of business, and other issues.

AbstractDempsey, Nordqvist and Kelly's recent publication in BioSocieties highlights the complexity of disclosure in donor conception, which is legally, ethically, and morally challenging. However, contemporary society means that donor-conceived people's awareness of their conception history can no longer be controlled by their parents. Late, accidental, and non-parent disclosure is becoming more prevalent and can be distressing. Research has consistently found that openness in donor conception families from an early age is optimal, and that disclosure positively impacts rather than threatens family relationships. Despite this, disclosure can be difficult for parents, particularly if they perceive an unsupportive social context. Both donor conception and adoption literature has found more positive outcomes among disclosing families compared to non-disclosing families and interestingly, parents who have chosen to disclose have not reported regret. This response briefly discussed these important considerations and also notes some instances of inaccurate reporting and misleading information in their article.