Search results

International audience ; This paper analyses how the interaction between social institutions on the one hand and actors' strategies and interests on the other hand is shaping European integration in research policy. We specifically focus on the implications of the existence of different conceptions of European integration (logics) on the emerging landscape of research funding programs jointly managed by the European Union (EU) and National States (joint programs). Our results display the central role of the introduction of a logic of coordination by the EU; it created a breeding ground for a new generation of programs and, at the same time, allowed to make the integration model more flexible and acceptable to National States (as funding became only virtually integrated). Most newly created programs were characterized by largely symbolic commitments and very small budgets, while stronger commitments had to be constructed through successive steps of integration. This process was highly selective and dependent on the presence of strong interests from the research community; additional funding from the EU was critical to ensure stability of national commitments. Further, National States by large delegated to independent funding agencies the management of national participations: delegation allowed to achieve greater homogeneity among national participants, but also to decouple decisions to participate (driven by compliance to institutional pressures) from the level of resources to be committed (driven by national interests). While in the year 2000, the European Research Area (ERA) strategy of coordinating national research policies was largely an empty concept, our case study shows how in the following decade, it was filled in with specific experiences and practices, led to the redefinition of actors' understanding of European integration and roles in European research policies and, ultimately, to the emergence of original models of integration.

International audience ; This paper analyses how the interaction between social institutions on the one hand and actors' strategies and interests on the other hand is shaping European integration in research policy. We specifically focus on the implications of the existence of different conceptions of European integration (logics) on the emerging landscape of research funding programs jointly managed by the European Union (EU) and National States (joint programs). Our results display the central role of the introduction of a logic of coordination by the EU; it created a breeding ground for a new generation of programs and, at the same time, allowed to make the integration model more flexible and acceptable to National States (as funding became only virtually integrated). Most newly created programs were characterized by largely symbolic commitments and very small budgets, while stronger commitments had to be constructed through successive steps of integration. This process was highly selective and dependent on the presence of strong interests from the research community; additional funding from the EU was critical to ensure stability of national commitments. Further, National States by large delegated to independent funding agencies the management of national participations: delegation allowed to achieve greater homogeneity among national participants, but also to decouple decisions to participate (driven by compliance to institutional pressures) from the level of resources to be committed (driven by national interests). While in the year 2000, the European Research Area (ERA) strategy of coordinating national research policies was largely an empty concept, our case study shows how in the following decade, it was filled in with specific experiences and practices, led to the redefinition of actors' understanding of European integration and roles in European research policies and, ultimately, to the emergence of original models of integration.

Testimony issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is the Department of Defense's (DOD) most expensive aircraft acquisition program. DOD is expected to develop, procure, and maintain 2,443 aircraft at a cost of more than $950 billion. DOD plans for the JSF to replace or complement several types of aircraft in the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. Given the program's cost and importance, it is critical that decisions are made within this program to maximize its benefit to the nation. This testimony highlights a number of those decisions and impacts. It (1) discusses emerging risks to the overall program, and (2) updates information for GAO's cost analysis of last year regarding sole-source and competitive scenarios for acquisition and sustainment of the JSF engine. Information on the overall program is from our mandated annual report, also issued today. GAO tracked annual cost and schedule changes, reasons for changes, decisions affecting development, and compared DOD cost estimating methodologies to best practices. For the two engines, GAO updated cost data from last year's testimony and made new projections."

Abstract. This essay provides a critical assessment of an important contribution to the debate on institutional efficiency and inefficiency in European policy–making: the thesis on the 'joint–decision trap'. This trap was identified by Fritz W. Scharpf, first in German federalism and later in policy–making in the European Union. The essay argues that joint–decision traps may be a much more prevalent phenomenon than envisaged by Scharpf. However, the essay demonstrates that joint–decision traps are not inherent to joint–decision systems. The basic argument of the essay is that the effects of joint–decision systems on public policy is contingent upon the central government's ability to threaten intergovernmental actors with exit. If this is possible, joint–decision systems turn into an asset. This argument is made on the basis of an analysis of intergovernmental relations in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark and a comparison of the Scandinavian systems with those of France and Germany.

There is a dearth of critical ethnographic research that focuses on the semiotic-discursive features of corporate social responsibility (CSR) framing in business and nonprofit (BUS-NPO) partnerships. This article contributes to CSR scholarship by combining ethnographic methods (participant observation, in-depth interviews, and textual materials) and semiotic analysis to demonstrate how a bank-NPO partnership is discursively framed in the context of agonistic interactions and its implications in terms of cooptation.
This article crystallizes two arguments. First, the bank's joint CSR initiatives represent a discursively framed and validated model of CSR as a commodity aiming at advancing bank interests at the cost of avoiding substantive and sustained social responsibility. Second, the joint CSR model, discursively framed as a cooptative partnership discourse, is effectively realized through the practices of the cooptative relationship between the bank and the NPOs.

This essay provides a critical assessment of an important contribution to the debate on institutional efficiency and inefficiency in European policy-making: the thesis on the 'joint-decision trap'. This trap was identified by Fritz W. Scharpf, first in German federalism and later in policy-making in the European Union. The essay argues that joint-decision traps may be a much more prevalent phenomenon than envisaged by Scharpf. However, the essay demonstrates that joint-decision traps are not inherent to joint-decision systems. The basic argument of the essay is that the effects of joint-decision systems on public policy is contingent upon the central government's ability to threaten intergovernmental actors with exit. If this is possible, joint-decision systems turn into an asset. This argument is made on the basis of an analysis of intergovernmental relations in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark and a comparison of the Scandinavian systems with those of France and Germany. (European Journal of Political Research / FUB)

Pt. 1: 1st Session, to increase the capability of United States maritime industries to meet the national defense and Ocean transportation needs of the United States, October 18, 1989. - III,186 S. - (Serial / House (United States); No. 101-66) ; (Serial / House (United States); No. 101-32); Pt. 2: 2nd Session, March 29, 1990. - V,191 S. - (Serial / House (United States); No. 101-91) ; (Hearing / Committee on Armed Services (United States / House); H.A.S.C. No. 101-65)

This research work tries to unveil the changing teen's behaviors in nuclear and joint family systems in Pakistan. Pakistan enjoys the social values of joint families; and, where grandparents are very important constituent of the family, the family structure is an important component in shaping the teens behaviors. Therefore, this paper focuses the sample of parents and teachers of the teens in the postmodern urban society and tried to better point out the eminent changes in the attitudes and behaviors of teens. This study follows a qualitative approach of research that pursues a phenomenological inquiry describing lived experience of the respondents regarding teen's behavior in Pakistan.

The well‐known modes of raising and mobilizing venture capital in Islam known as mudarabah and musharakah (m&m) in Islamic economics are critically examined. In the form as m&m presently exist, they are pointed out to be pre‐Islamic financing instruments that came into usage in the Islamic economic literature. The inability to realise the extensively relational perspectives of Islamic socio‐economic co‐operation with extensive participation across agents, firms and sectors by means of these instruments, which are essential requirements for the Islamic political economy, is shown to make the instruments fraught with many technical and ethical problems of development financing. The alternative to transform m&m into a more integrated financing instrument of Islamic venture capital is formalised. Empirical evidences are given. Institutional issues are examined in the light of Islamic joint venture financing.

The article focuses on the way in which multinational corporations (MNCs) and local parent firms interact in the construction and operation of international joint ventures (IJVs). It seeks to contribute to the theory of IJV process in two ways. First, it constructs a preliminary integrative theoretical framework, which draws attention to the roles of initial venture conditions, of political, learning and relationship processes and parental perceptions of efficiency and equity. Second, it infers theoretical lessons from a case study of a German-Czech IJV. The empirical findings highlight the role of critical events that stimulate sensemaking processes, which in turn politicise the IJV and create different dynamic patterns. ; Der vorliegende Artikel konzentriert sich auf die Art und Weise der Interaktionen zwischen multinationalen Unternehmen (MNUs) und lokalen Mutterfirmen beim Aufbau und Betrieb von internationalen Joint-Ventures (IJVs). Er trägt in zweifacher Hinsicht zur Theorie von IJV bei: Erstens wird ein vorläufiger integrativer Rahmen entwickelt, der besonderen Wert legt auf die Rolle der Ausgangslage, der vielfältigen Prozesse sowie den Auffassungen der Mutterfirma bezüglich Effizienz und Gleichheit. Zweitens werden theoretische Erkenntnisse abgeleitet aus einer Fallstudie eines deutschtschechischen IJV. Die empirischen Ergebnisse verdeutlichen die Rolle kritischer Ereignisse, welche die Sinnfindungsprozesse stimulieren, was wiederum das IJV politisiert und verschiedene dynamische Muster hervorbringt.

Theory performs vital descriptive, sensitizing, integrative, explanatory, and value functions in the generation of knowledge about families. Yet theory and research can also simultaneously misconceive, desensitize, misdirect, misinterpret, and devalue. Overcoming the degenerative potentialities of theory and research requires attention to critical theorizing, a joint process of (a) critically examining the explicit and implicit assumptions of theory and research and (b) using dialogical theoretical practices. I draw upon the work of John Stuart Mill to argue that critical and dialogical theorizing is a vital and necessary practice in the production of understandings of family phenomena that are more fully scientific and empirical. A brief examination of behavioral research on marital interaction illustrates the importance of critical theorizing.