Search results

AbstractWith the societal cracks resulting from decade-long neoliberal policies becoming increasingly visible in many countries, capitalism as the most suitable institutional system to produce material wealth, environmental sustainability and social stability has come under growing attack. This contribution examines what the growing army of recent heterodox scholars in economics and business have to say on what one could call 'inclusive capitalism'. This concerns both the flaws in current capitalist systems and the behavioral assumptions that underpin it, as well as the possible institutional fixes they propose. I first sketch the background of the crisis surrounding capitalism, delve into its conceptual foundations and offer a working definition. I subsequently examine what social and environmental inclusion refer to and use Kate Raworth's conceptualization of the doughnut economy as a point of departure to explore what 'inclusive capitalism' may imply. I also identify requirements for its implementation in institutional practices. It appears that 'purpose' rather than utility maximization or profit maximization is what novel economists and business scholars perceive as the key driver in 'stakeholder-oriented capitalism' or the 'economics of mutuality'. Their claim is that at the end of the day this is not only a moral imperative for companies but also more beneficial for them in terms of long-term profitability. Moreover, they see a far more important role for government in shaping markets and leading the way into a more inclusive future than it is currently fulfilling. I argue that it is time for scholars in the field of public policy to take heed of these new theoretical developments in neighboring disciplines and respond to them.

With the societal cracks resulting from decade-long neoliberal policies becoming increasingly visible in many countries, capitalism as the most suitable institutional system to produce material wealth, environmental sustainability and social stability has come under growing attack. This contribution examines what the growing army of recent heterodox scholars in economics and business have to say on what one could call 'inclusive capitalism'. This concerns both the flaws in current capitalist systems and the behavioral assumptions that underpin it, as well as the possible institutional fixes they propose. I first sketch the background of the crisis surrounding capitalism, delve into its conceptual foundations and offer a working definition. I subsequently examine what social and environmental inclusion refer to and use Kate Raworth's conceptualization of the doughnut economy as a point of departure to explore what 'inclusive capitalism' may imply. I also identify requirements for its implementation in institutional practices. It appears that 'purpose' rather than utility maximization or profit maximization is what novel economists and business scholars perceive as the key driver in 'stakeholder-oriented capitalism' or the 'economics of mutuality'. Their claim is that at the end of the day this is not only a moral imperative for companies but also more beneficial for them in terms of long-term profitability. Moreover, they see a far more important role for government in shaping markets and leading the way into a more inclusive future than it is currently fulfilling. I argue that it is time for scholars in the field of public policy to take heed of these new theoretical developments in neighboring disciplines and respond to them.

AbstractWhat distinguishes the Chinese practice of transferring policy ideas and institutions from examples observed elsewhere in the world can be described in two words: gradualism and eclecticism. In contradistinction to other (Post) Communist countries, actors operating in the Chinese political and socio-economic systems were not so taken aback by developments in 1989 that these completed collapsed. Nor were they overhauled in rigorous ways so as to realize a brand new start in which Communist and authoritarian remnants of the past were to be completely effaced. Rather did policy makers keenly observe developments and spot promising examples elsewhere in the world to draw lessons from. These were then reassembled onto existing institutional frameworks. In this article, it is claimed that this cautious and selective approach reflects a more generic Chinese tradition of institutional bricolage. This tradition of cobbling together various foreign and domestic policy ideas in modular fashion is illustrated with the modern day example of eco city development in China.

AbstractChina's economic growth and the high pace with which it plans and constructs its infrastructure networks have led to a renewed interest in its decision-making models and the Confucian values which are believed to underlie it. This article makes an attempt to show what these Confucian values entail, through what mechanisms they influence organisational and decision-making processes, what their positive and negative sides are, to what extent they permeate transport infrastructure planning in China and why it is not easy or straightforward to emulate these policy practices elsewhere. Adopting certain features imbued with Confucian values, such as aspects of collectivism, conceptions of the common good, moral reflection and empathy are not pointless in a non-Asian context, but the specific context of such 'other' institutional environments must always be taken into account. Asian countries have grown stronger by selectively learning Western lessons; Western countries could reinforce the performance of their planning and policy-making processes in the future by looking eastwards and drawing inspiration from them while acknowledging vital differences.

In this article, two serious caveats are raised against Rose's dislike if the elusive aspects if the process of applying policy lessons. These are (1) his prescription to follow 10 consecutive design-oriented steps in spite if overwhelming evidence that such a linear sequence is neither empirically nor prescriptively desirable, & (2) his rejection of the importance of historical, cultural & specific institutional aspects as relevant factors during the transportation process for fear of 'culturalism'. In the remainder of this article, I will highlight both weaknesses & propose to give both the policy network aspects & the (formal & informal) institutional aspects the place in lesson-drawing they deserve. Adapted from the source document.

In this contribution, the introduction of contractual public–private partnerships (PPPs) in the Netherlands, more specifically the use of Design, Build, Finance, Maintenance, and Operations (DBFMO) contracts in Dutch infrastructure management, is analysed using a specific strand within the policy transfer and institutional transplantation literature: that of 'institutional bricolage'. This perspective states that policy transplants come to fit their new institutional context stepwise. This contribution reconstructs the adoption process by which the Anglo‐Saxon‐inspired PPP practice is incorporated into the traditional 'Rhinelandic' practice of infrastructure management in the Netherlands, identifying four waves of PPP initiatives. It concludes that these waves and the difficulties that emerge in them stem from an ongoing struggle between actor coalitions, one aiming to preserve the transplant in its original shape, and others making attempts at bricolage. Shifts in power relations explain the progress and outcomes of the process of institutional transplantation.

Through which mechanisms do officials in rural areas in China reach the higher cadre positions in government bureaucracies? Literature on career advancement variously points to the relevance of human capital, social capital and political loyalty, but does not provide unambiguous answers as to which type of capital plays which role in the mobility of government officials. Adopting social network analysis, the authors conducted fieldwork in a township in northeast China, and obtained overwhelming evidence of the crucial importance of the 'strong ties' variety of social capital (real and fictive kinship relations) for recruitment and promotion at the township level. More specifically, for the highest positions both human and social capital are required, for medium-level functions social capital alone is enough. Those who are successful and have primarily social capital acquire human capital through obtaining or buying university degrees. Likewise, tokens of political loyalty can be purchased whenever required for entering relevant administrative positions. Those who initially have only human capital will rapidly need to acquire social capital by developing fictive kinship relations if they wish to make steps in their careers. (J Contemp China/GIGA)