Perhaps as a result of this growing research on corporations as citizens, political actors, and participants in multi-stakeholder initiatives, there is greater awareness of remaining and newer complexities and tensions evident in both business-driven and multi-stakeholder forms of governance (Levy 2008). Such governance initiatives are usually played out at the transnational level, where the form, meaning, intention, and implications of CSR remain highly contested (Brammer et al. 2012; Kourula et al. 2018). Even on their own terms as heuristics and frameworks, the notions of corporations as citizens and political actors as well as multi-stakeholder forms of governance by non-state actors remain plagued by a multitude of challenges (Arora 2017; Goodman and Arenas 2015; Hussain and Moriarty 2018; Sethi and Schepers 2014; Utting 2014; Whelan 2012). While the developing world, in some instances, may have experienced economic gains from the practices of outsourcing and offshoring by modern multinational firms, there has also been a simultaneous rise in global, regional, national, and local inequalities, destruction of the environment, a diminished biodiversity, and inappropriate application of technologies (Margolis and Walsh 2003; Wilks 2013). Multi-stakeholder forms of governance have not been able to solve these negative impacts. The viability of their aims, the lack of representation in their processes, and their questionable effectiveness remain debated. This thematic symposium addresses these challenges and debates and the four papers highlight and theorize some of these issues of the emerging paradigms of CSR, regulation and governance.
Graz et al. (2019) and Jackson et al. (2019) offer useful starting points in understanding how outcomes are linked to institutionally embedded actors and their interactions. Research and theorization on outcomes may require moving beyond CSR as a mode of governance and/or regulation and gaining expertise and inspiration from other fields such as international relations, law, political science, and sociology (Ciepley 2013; Kourula et al. 2019). Insights from other fields are likely to be useful in understanding both the complexity of interactions and considering the local marginalized voices. Cross-sector partnerships and their limitations remain an important topic, though still in need of better links to regulation and governance. Ultimately, we need to continue to problematize how each new paradigm perceives institutions and associated politics, actors, processes, their interactions, and the outcomes of these interactions.
political science nd arora pdf 56 1
After a review of prior studies that critically investigate the (cultural) distance concept, we present an analysis of more than 90 studies looking at the impact of cultural distance on entry mode choice, the phenomenon we use to illustrate our general arguments. We suggest that, instead of cultural distance, host or home country context characteristics, such as investment restrictions, political risk, economic development, access to capital, or cultural traits (rather than cultural distance) are more likely explanatory factors. Although differences between home or host country context matter, distance is in our view much less important. We then test this assumption by presenting results from our own empirical study covering MNCs in nine host and fifteen home countries across the world. Our findings suggest that cultural distance has little impact on entry mode choice once home and host country control variables are included. Finally, we discuss the implications of our findings, extend our arguments to other areas of International Business research, and present recommendations for International Business research in general.
H1b: Investment restrictions and political risk in the host country will have a significant positive correlation with both greenfield investments and cultural distance; economic development in the host country will have a significant negative correlation with both greenfield investments and cultural distance.
Cultural distance correlates positively with the likelihood of a greenfield entry mode, which confirms the findings of most prior studies (see e.g., Anand and Delios 1997; Harzing 2002). As predicted in Hypothesis 1a the home country characteristics uncertainty avoidance and long term orientation are significantly positively and access to capital significantly negatively correlated with greenfield investments. Apart from uncertainty avoidance these variables also show the expected significant correlations with cultural distance. Likewise, and as predicted in Hypothesis 1b, investment restrictions and risk of political instability are significantly positively and economic development significantly negatively correlated with greenfield investments as well as cultural distance. The strongest correlations with greenfields and cultural distance are found for investments restrictions (r = 0.47 for greenfields, and r = 0.49 for cultural distance). The latter is virtually identical to the 0.48 correlation found by Slangen and Hennart (2008).
To assert that Asian Americans are not a monolith has been a major aim of the social scientific literature (Tam 1995). Recent scholarship finds that even now, among most Americans, the default view of Asian American is East Asians who are recent immigrants (Lee and Ramakrishnan 2020). Yet many studies that consider variations in political behavior across racial groups do so by comparing African Americans and Latinos with Asian Americans as an aggregated, panethnic group (see, for example, Fraga 2016; Schildkraut 2013; Phoenix and Arora 2018). Failure to disaggregate and examine Asian Americans by their national-origin subgroup may mask important distinctions. Although panethnic identity is an essential component of the Asian American experience, that identity is not derived exclusively from a national-origin identity (Okamoto 2014). The study of Asian Americans by national-origin subgroup therefore remains prudent. Rather than asking whether opportunities exist for panethnic Asian Americans to form coalitions with African Americans and Latinos, we attempt to be more precise in our examination. We instead ask which Asian national-origin subgroups have the greatest potential for coalition building with Blacks and Latinos based on commonality of policy positions and perceived interest alignment.
We posit that potential for cross-racial coalition building consists of two major ingredients: policy convergence on key policy issues and perceived interest alignment. To measure policy preferences and interest alignment among the broader AAPI community, we turn to the 2016 National Asian American Survey. The 2016 NAAS is an ideal data source for four main reasons. First, it includes a variety of policy-related questions that allow us to calculate issue dimensions. Second, it includes a question asking Asian Americans how much they have in common with Blacks and Latinos in terms of government services, political power, and representation. Third, it includes a large, nationally representative sample of Asian American respondents, which allows us to investigate heterogeneity in policy preferences and perceived interest alignment based on national origin, nativity, gender, class, party identification, strength of group identity, and residence. Fourth, it includes nationally representative samples of Blacks and Latinos to allow for cross-racial and cross-ethnic comparisons.
Project MUSE promotes the creation and dissemination of essential humanities and social science resources through collaboration with libraries, publishers, and scholars worldwide. Forged from a partnership between a university press and a library, Project MUSE is a trusted part of the academic and scholarly community it serves.
The study design was a cross-sectional quantitative survey, consisting of 20 hypothetical rationing scenarios. There were 119 respondents who entered the questionnaire, and 109 who completed it. The respondents were adult US and Indian participants of the online crowdsourcing platform Mechanical Turk. Respondents were asked to decide which of two infants to treat in a situation of scarce resources. Demographic characteristics, personality traits and political views were recorded. Respondents were also asked to respond to a widely cited thought experiment involving rationing.
We sought to explore the views of lay people (non-health professionals) about resource allocation decisions in the NICU using a series of hypothetical rationing dilemmas designed to test egalitarian or utilitarian intuitions. The views of the general public do not resolve ethical questions, but are relevant in realising the goals of democratic legitimacy and may play a role in the process of reflective equilibrium [23]. Our aim was to examine general intuitions and compare them with theoretical models. We focused on resource allocation in newborn infants because of our clinical interest in newborn intensive care, but also because it allowed us to set aside differences in clinical need as well as the question of age in allocation [24]. We hypothesized that respondents would be inclined to give treatment preference to infants with a better predicted outcome, and that ethical inclinations may be associated with demographic characteristics, personality traits and political views.
In order to examine the influence of underlying personality traits and political views on resource allocation preferences, three validated scales were also included: the Need for Cognition scale (a measure of tendency to enjoy effortful cognitive endeavours) [27], Empathic Concern index (a quantitative measure of empathy) [28], and the Social and Economic Conservatism scale (a measure of political ideology) [29].
This study examined the responses of a sample of the general public to a series of rationing dilemmas in newborn intensive care. When asked to choose between critically ill infants, the majority of respondents, in all but one scenario, sought the greatest benefit of treatment (i.e. chose the utilitarian option). This cross section of the lay public was remarkably utilitarian. Respondents were more likely to give utilitarian responses where there was a larger difference in predicted outcome between critically ill patients. Personality traits and political preferences were not associated with responses to rationing dilemmas. 2ff7e9595c
Comments