Suchergebnisse

PurposeThis paper highlights the importance of understanding family firms in different contexts. The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the characteristics and behavior of family firms in Ibero-America, and their contribution and fit to the broader field of research. Based on the five articles in this special issue, this paper attempts to give an overview of their main contributions.Design/methodology/approachThis paper explains in a contextual and analytical way the contributions of five papers that focus their attention on Ibero-American family firms, by linking them to the current research in the field and finding their fit within the broader field of family business. Tackling different topics, these five papers discuss about the comparison between family vs non-family businesses, innovation in family firms, and governance in family firmsFindingsFindings suggest that there is a need to stimulate research in family business in Ibero-America, especially Latin America, regarding family business dynamics, the different roles of the family within the enterprise, family governance, and the role of women. With regards to innovation the cultural and economic context play an important role in how they perform innovative activities.Originality/valueThis paper contributes to further understanding family firms by discussing the importance of the context and by linking all five papers with the broader literature in family business. The introduction also discusses topics worth to be further researched in Ibero-America.

In spite of the close historical and cultural links between Latin America and Africa, and regardless of having so many things in common, interaction between the countries on the opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean remains confined to sporadic trade and cultural exchanges and a low level of diplomatic and political activity between just an isolated few partners on each side. If the countries of Africa and Latin America joined forces in pursuing their interests and the universal imposition of their common rights, a great deal could be achieved towards gaining worldwide recognition. (UNISA Lat Am Rep/DÜI)

This book proposes an innovative conceptual framework to explore cultural organizations at a multilateral level and cultural mediators as key figures in cultural and institutionalization processes. Specifically, it analyzes the role of Ibero-American mediators in the institutionalization of Hispanic and Lusophone cultures in the first half of the 20th century by means of two institutional networks: PEN (the non-governmental writer's association) and the International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation (predecessor to UNESCO). Attempting to combine cultural and global history, sociology, and literary studies, the book uses an analytical focus on intercultural networks and cultural transfer to investigate the multiple activities and roles that these mediators and cultural organizations set in motion. Literature has traditionally studied major figures and important centers of cultural production, but other regions and localities also played a crucial role in the development of intellectual cooperation. This book reappraises the place of Ibero-America in international cultural relations and retrieves the lost history of key secondary actors. The book will appeal to scholars from international relations, global and cultural history, sociology, postcolonial Studies, world and comparative literature, and New Hispanisms.

This essay examines the Ibero-American history producers who were killed for political reasons during the past century. It presents sixty-one victims from eight countries. Of these, 82% were killed by state forces, 16% by non-state forces. Dictatorships had the worst scores (57% of the victims), while flawed democracies also saw considerable casualties (33%), in contrast to emergent (7%) and stable democracies (3%). Much evidence was found for the thesis that killing these history producers did not necessarily mean the erasure of their names or achievements. Out of the sixty-one victims, nine (15%) were killed for political reasons that were mainly or partly related to their historical works. Six of these, however, occurred under democracies, particularly flawed or emergent democracies, and not under dictatorships. This finding leads to the hypothesis that well-entrenched dictatorships, wielding ruthless power, deter and block incriminating historical research – making the killing of history producers for history-related reasons relatively rare – whereas freer conditions in flawed and emergent democracies prompt or encourage such dangerous historical research. Those investigating past systemic violence or the crimes of previous dictatorships then risk becoming targets of the military seeking to install or restore authoritarian rule.