Search results

The spread of COVID-19 is not just a health crisis. The pandemic has taken a geopolitical dimension. The health crisis amplified the competitive dynamics between the USA and China, affected the provision of global public goods and injected instability into the global order. In line with the geopolitical zero-sum thinking, both the USA and China have sought to capitalize on the crisis to boost their international profile. Instead of working together to mitigate the health and economic impacts of COVID-19, the two powers fear that the other will exploit the current situation to accrue political, economic or military gains that will give it an edge after the pandemic subsides. The spread of COVID-19 has set off a “battle of narratives,” in which China and the USA are accusing each other of failing to rise to the challenge. The world seems to be falling into a “Kindleberger Trap,” in which the established power is unable to lead while the rising power is unwilling to assume responsibility. The COVID-19 crisis is occurring amid the collapse of global cooperation. The USA, the traditional leader of international collective efforts in times of crisis, has abandoned its role entirely. The lack of leadership at the global level during an international crisis may cause the breakdown of the international order.

This paper examines the US-China competitive dynamics through the lens of the work of Charles Kindleberger, which both liberals and realists regard as foundational when examining the dynamics of global crisis management. This paper also uses the meta-geopolitics framework to determine the ability of both China and the USA to respond to the current COVID-19 crisis and its implications for their power and standing in the international system.

This paper concludes that the only way to escape the Kindleberger trap is “to embed Sino-American relations in multilateralism.”

As rivals, both the USA and China are seeking to capitalize on the crisis to boost their international profile. This paper probes how China and the USA navigated the ongoing COVID-19 crisis to determine whether or not they are currently in a “Kindleberger Trap,” using elements of the meta-geopolitics framework of analysis, namely, health issues, domestic politics, economics, science and international diplomacy. Using the meta-geopolitics framework will help us determine the ability of both China and the USA to respond to the current COVID-19 crisis and the implications of that on their power and standing in the international system.

The authors’ contention in this paper is that the expression of subsidiary strategy in IB literature has become fragmented and incomplete. Therefore, this study aims to propose a rethink on how IB scholarship approaches the important issue of subsidiary strategy by holistically examining the discrete and integrated set of activities, choices and decisions that constitute the subsidiary strategy process for, in this context, assuming a competence-creating role within the multinational enterprise (MNE).

A conceptual model is designed to illustrate the holistic process of subsidiary strategy from assigned to assumed role and how a subsidiary can navigate a pathway to elevated performance and survival.

The paper identifies the key integrated elements that constitute a holistic strategic process that can enhance a subsidiary’s standing within the MNE and maximise its survival prospects.

Particular focus is placed on subsidiaries that strategise to advance their internal corporate role to competence creator via upgraded knowledge capabilities.

This paper offers a roadmap for IB scholars to contribute to a future discourse around the subsidiary strategy process for assuming a competence-creating role.

Although supporting and assessing the non-academic “impact” of research are not entirely new developments in higher education, academics and research institutions are under increasing pressure to produce work that has a measurable influence outside the academy. With a view to supporting the solution of complex societal issues with evidence and expertise, and against the background of increased emphasis on impact in the United Kingdom's 2021 Research Excellence Framework (REF2021) and a proliferation of impact guides and tools, this article offers a simple, easy to remember framework for designing impactful research. We call this framework “The 7Cs of Impact” – Context, Communities, Constituencies, Challenge, Channels, Communication and Capture.

Drawing on core elements of the Policy Institute at King's College London's Impact by Design training course and the authors' practical experience in supporting and delivering impact, this paper outlines how this framework can help address key aspects across the lifecycle of a research project and plan, from identifying the intended impact of research and writing it into grants and proposals, to engaging project stakeholders and assessing whether the project has had the desired impact.

While preparations for current and future REF submissions may benefit from using this framework, this paper sets out the “7Cs” with a more holistic view of impact in mind, seeking to aid researchers in identifying, capturing, and communicating how research projects can and do contribute to the improvement in society.

The Chinese fund market has witnessed significant developments in recent years. However, although there has been a range of studies assessing fund performance in developed industries, the rapidly developing fund industry in China has received very little attention. This study aims to examine the performance of open-end securities investment funds investing in Chinese domestic equity during the period May 2003 to September 2020. Specifically, applying a non-parametric bootstrap methodology from the literature on fund performance, the authors investigate the role of skill versus luck in this rapidly evolving investment funds industry.

This study evaluates the performance of Chinese equity securities investment funds from 2003–2020 using a bootstrap methodology to distinguish skill from luck in performance. The authors consider unconditional and conditional performance models.

The bootstrap methodology incorporates non-normality in the idiosyncratic risk of fund returns, which is a major drawback in “conventional” performance statistics. The evidence does not support the existence of “genuine” skilled fund managers. In addition, it indicates that poor performance is mainly attributable to bad stock picking skills.

The authors find that the top-ranked funds with positive abnormal performance are attributed to “good luck” not “good skill” while the negative abnormal performance of bottom funds is mainly due to “bad skill.” Therefore, sensible advice for most Chinese equity investors would be against trying to “pick winners funds” among Chinese securities investment funds but it would be recommended to avoid holding “losers.” At the present time, investors should consider other types of funds, such as index/tracker funds with lower transactions. In addition, less risk-averse investors may consider Chinese hedge funds [Zhao (2012)] or exchange-traded fund [Han (2012)].

The paper makes several contributions to the literature. First, the authors examine a wide range (over 50) of risk-adjusted performance models, which account for both unconditional and conditional risk factors. The authors also control for the profitability and investment risks in Fama and French (2015). Second, the authors select the “best-fit” model across all risk-adjusted models examined and a single “best-fit” model from each of the three classes. Therefore, the bootstrap analysis, which is mainly based on the selected best-fit models, is more precise and robust. Third, the authors reduce the possibility that findings may be sample-period specific or may be a survivor (upward) biased. Fourth, the authors consider further analysis based on sub-periods and compare fund performance in different market conditions to provide more implications to investors and practitioners. Fifth, the authors carry out extensive robustness checks and show that the findings are robust in relation to different minimum fund histories and serial correlation and heteroscedasticity adjustments. Sixth, the authors use higher frequency weekly data to improve statistical estimation.

Climate change is recognised as a severe threat to human and planetary wellbeing. Many children and young people around the world have chosen resistance as their form of resilience in the face of the climate and biodiversity crises that threaten their current and future wellbeing. Their activism has widened the discourse pertaining to the climate emergency from a narrow focus on technical and scientific sources, bringing the discussion into broader public consciousness. In Aotearoa (New Zealand), the context for youth climate activism also reflects commitments to Māori, the Indigenous people, and to Pacific Peoples, given the ongoing impacts of histories of colonisation. This chapter draws from a range of focus group interviews with young Aotearoa (New Zealand) high school climate activists, and Māori and Pacific children and young people ranging in age from 10 into their 20s. Data were gathered during a recent small-scale project to develop a wellbeing guide which accompanies a climate change education programme for schools. It identifies the collective, collaborative leadership exhibited by these young people of diverse backgrounds, as well as their sophisticated analysis and advocacy for urgent remedies to address the climate crisis. It is argued that, instead of focussing on the blinkered continuation of restrictive assessment-driven pedagogies, teachers need to meet the moment of the current convergence of inter-related crises which include, along with the climate emergency, biodiversity loss, pandemic related exacerbation of socio-economic inequities, global conflict, and the unsustainable agenda of current global neoliberal economics. This can be done by supporting children and young people with knowledge and skills for climate action as they seek hope through active participation in endeavours to reshape their potential futures.