Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of entrepreneurship education (EE) in the form of a business planning course on students' career intentions and preferences. While there is extensive research in which traditional survey scales have been applied to study students' entrepreneurial intentions, this study takes a novel approach by extending the construct of entrepreneurial intention to include preferences for intrapreneurship and team entrepreneurship. Furthermore, the use of conjoint analysis captures students' unconscious decision-making processes when presented with different career opportunity scenarios, thereby overcoming many of the limitations of self-reported survey measures.

The study uses a quasi-experimental design with a novel application of conjoint analysis in EE research. A two-part survey combining a traditional questionnaire with conjoint analysis was distributed to students enrolled in a business planning course at two campuses of a Norwegian university, resulting in 99 matched pre- and post-test responses.

Two main findings arise from the study. First, there is a significant decrease in entrepreneurial intention among students in the EE course. Second, the conjoint analysis contributes to a better understanding of this decrease by illustrating how students shift their career preferences from entrepreneurship to employment during the EE course. This suggests that EE provides a space for students' career reflections where they can explore, commit to and reconsider entrepreneurship as a career.

A limitation of the study is that it focuses on a small sample of undergraduate students from two campus locations in Norway. Thus, further investigation is still necessary to establish whether the findings are valid in other contexts. The research has implications for higher educational institutions, policymakers and researchers in the field of EE.

The study contributes with a novel perspective on EE as a trigger for career reflection, a perspective that is important for educators teaching EE courses, as well as for higher education institutions who decide to implement EE in study programmes.

By focusing on the development of students' career preferences through conjoint analysis, the study expands knowledge on the impact of EE on students' careers, while also accentuating the value of the application of conjoint analysis in research on EE.

In the 1990s, European social democrats coalesced around a set of principles often referred to as the third way – characterised by prudent economic governance, a slimmer public sector, ‘productive’ welfare services and attraction to inward investment. Third way proponents perceived fairness as supporting opportunity rather than redistributing welfare. On the way to the late 2000s, their sense of direction was lost. The final phase, one might argue, ended with the 2008–2009 financial crisis. Henceforth, the challenge for the Left concerned how to define a social democracy with less revenue and limited scope for expanding public services, while reaching out to the so-called left-behinds through better jobs and a renewed sense of common purpose.

Jeremy Corbyn and Emmanuel Macron represent two distinctly different attempts at forging a new way forward from the impasse. During Corbyn's tenure as a leader (2015–2020), Labour carved out space by moving leftwards on key economic policies while proffering communitarianism as the antidote to globalised capitalism. Across the English Channel, Macron's new party, La République En Marche, sought to generate a new form of politics that had clear similarities with the centrism of third way social democracy, supplemented by an emphasis on social dialogue and enhanced European integration as a strategy for harnessing globalisation.

Corbynism and Macronism represent two distinct attempts at centre-left renewal, both personalised yet evolving on the back of mass movements. This chapter summarises the trajectory of both in terms of ideological content and organisational change and asks what lessons they convey about the future of social democracy in the twenty-first century.

This paper examines the evolution of a company's management control package (MCP) over time. The overall aim is to gain a deeper understanding of internal and external factors shaping a company's management control package.

This paper employs a retrospective single-case methodology where a company is followed over a ten-year period (2005–2015). Theoretically, the paper builds on Malmi and Brown's (2008) MCP framework while also utilizing Simons' (1994) levers of control framework as well as Abrahamson's (1991) management fashion theory.

The company's MCP evolved in several ways. First, there was a change from using an interactive to a diagnostic budget. Second, the Balanced Scorecard approach was replaced by a narrow, strong focus on shareholder value. Finally, the quality system was reduced from a system for continuous learning and improvement to a system for compliance purposes only.

This paper offers naturalistic generalization to enable a holistic understanding of the changes to a management control package over time. The findings suggest that history matters in the design and configuration of MCPs. The MCP has evolved from being balanced and interactive, resembling Beyond Budgeting, to a diagnostic approach resembling traditional budgetary control. In 2005, the different controls were complementary and used for different purposes, while in 2015 the controls solely support the creation of shareholder value. The findings also indicate that management accounting innovations such as The Balanced Scorecard and Beyond Budgeting in this specific context may be considered fashions or even fads.

The findings of the paper could be useful for CFOs and other managers who are involved in the design and configuration of MCPs. The findings show that internal and external events shape how much leeway managers have in the design and configuration of MCPs.

The paper answers a call for more empirical studies on MCPs. By adopting a retrospective approach, the paper can provide insight into the temporal evolution of a control package.

Immigration represents one of the most contentious and complicated issues for social democracy in many national contexts. In Scandinavia, the social democratic parties have been particularly tormented, being split internally on central concerns related to immigration policy. Social democratic parties in Scandinavia have had a basically ambiguous relationship to the issue from the initiation of the era of ‘new immigration’. This chapter argues that this can be explained by the specifically strong attachment and ‘ownership’ of these parties to the Scandinavian welfare model, with its particular claims on a strong tax base and an orderly labour market. ‘Social democracy’ is dealt with mainly as an institutional and political entity, close to what goes as ‘The Nordic Model’ in the international literature. The chapter describes and analyses similarities and differences between the three Scandinavian countries, through a historical exposé of the period after the early 1970s; on the one hand, the institutional and normative prerequisites for social democracies in handling migration, and on the other hand, the way in which recent flows of migrants have influenced the very same social democracies. Theoretically, the chapter is drawing on conceptual tools from political economy, citizenship discourse and institutional theory.

This study focuses on ad hoc policy advisory committees that bring together experts and stakeholders to propose public policies on the basis of consensus. These kinds of committees are often considered to be a typical governance mechanism of the social democratic model of regulation and policy-making known from the Nordic countries. We challenge this view by comparing the Norwegian system of committee governance with those of Germany and the European Union and point out the central role of coordination and consensus in all three systems. Relying on existing and original research, and contrary to the assumption of a distinct Nordic regime, we find significant similarities between the three committee governance systems when it comes to organisational features, the kind of expertise produced and the committees' governance functions. Most remarkable is the prevalence of hybrid, tripartite committees that draw together interest groups, civil servants and researchers in all three systems. We show that these kinds of ad hoc advisory committees tend to generate a kind of coordinated, negotiated expertise where notions of validity and objectivity are connected not only to cognitive quality but also to the breadth of viewpoints that are integrated. Moreover, the Nordic committee system of Norway stands out with only few distinctive qualities, and it is not obvious how the notion of ‘social democracy’ helps illuminating these features. To help shed light on the striking resemblances we find across systems, we develop a notion of consensus-oriented political and epistemological systems, which may be a useful complement to the notion of Nordic social democracy.

How are we to make sense of the attitudes of Social Democratic parties towards decentralisation? What do they think about what is a legitimate territorial allocation of power? What factors shapes this view? And what makes Social Democratic parties change their minds? This article addresses these questions by way of competing ideological traditions, the external strategic incentives and internal constraints. Empirically, the article presents a comparative case-study analysis of Social Democratic parties in four countries (Belgium, Italy, Spain and United Kingdom). On the basis of this analysis, I argue that the positioning of Social Democratic parties on decentralisation is influenced by strategic incentives created by the structure of political competition, whereas the policy shifts are more often produced by factors that are internal to the party. A decentralist policy shift is always associated with the capacity of regionalist parties to set the agenda by exerting pressures on Social Democratic parties. In addition, Social Democratic parties tend to shift their policy while in opposition to distinguish themselves from their centralist mainstream rival in government. The dominant mechanism found across four countries was one in which regional branches persuade the central party leadership to adopt a pro-decentralist position. This chapter illustrates how Social Democratic parties have an instinct for ‘adaptation and control’ in the face of social-structural changes, and it demonstrates that the prevalence of different ideological traditions will vary according to external strategic incentives and, crucially, by the party's internal ability to follow those incentives.