Search results

The modernization of China’s economy is an integral part of Chinese-style modernization. According to the principle of unifying theoretical, historical and practical logic, theoretically explaining the modernization of China’s economy is both a political necessity and a higher scientific requirement.

Following this evolutionary line – from modes of production to the general economic development mechanism and then to patterns of economic operation and development – this paper employs the principal contradiction analysis method to offer an interpretation of China’s economic modernization from the broad Marxist political economy perspective.

In economic terms, “get organized” primarily refers to the development and mutual promotion of team-based and market-based division of labor organizations, as discussed by Karl Marx. “Get organized” (specifically the development of team-based division of labor organizations) acts as the engine of China’s economic modernization and serves as the historical logical starting point. Division of labor is the theoretical logical starting point for interpreting China’s economic modernization. The two of them are congruent, achieving the unity of theoretical and historical logic at the starting point. The development and mutual promotion of these “two types of division of labor” inherently generate the general mechanism of economic development first comprehensively discussed by Marx and Friedrich Engels, which involves the division of labor development and market expansion accumulating cyclically and reinforcing each other. This mechanism drives both the high-speed and high-quality development of China’s economic modernization.

The broad Marxist political economy paradigm facilitates explaining China’s economic modernization theoretically, historically and practically with unified logic. “Get organized” serves as both the engine and the realization mechanism of this modernization, with the Communist Party of China (CPC) consistently being the core force of this organizational effort.

Nation-states, researchers, and organizations realized the pivotal role of social entrepreneurship in economic development in the recent two decades. The body of knowledge in this domain witnessed consistent research growth but it still lacks a critical review to guide future researchers. This chapter contributes to the body of knowledge by presenting the first bibliometric analysis (using software such as HistCite, VOSviewer, and Biblioshiny). The relevant articles were searched in the Web of Science (WOS) database to ensure the inclusion of high-quality research. Among 910 initially retrieved publications 86 most relevant publications were included in the final dataset. The analysis included various bibliometrics and visualization maps such as the publication trends, most influential articles and journals, most productive countries and organizations, co-citation analysis, and thematic clustering of the research. The findings showed an overall consistent growth in research publications during the last 16 years (2005–2020) with Social entrepreneurship and enterprise: international and innovation perspectives' as the most influential article, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development as the most influential journal, and the United States and the United Kingdom as the most productive countries. The keyword co-occurrence analysis exposed five thematic clusters within the selected dataset indicating a relatively less focus on economic development aspects. Thus, future research should explore how social entrepreneurship, while solving social, cultural, environmental, and community issues, contributes to economic development. The research implications and limitations are discussed in the end.

Previously disregarded factors are now included in development theory and practice. A narrow understanding of capital has had profound effects on development as well as on tourism policy and governance. In this framework, purpose-designed tourism for development has been the exception. Contemporary ideas of other forms of capital playing a key role in a broader concept of development are examined, specifically the central function of human and social-institutional capital. Human capital is seen in the light of capabilities, attributes, and knowledge possessed by individuals. Social-institutional capital may empower individuals as it refers to the value of trust and cooperation deriving from formal and informal sets of behavioral rules. This chapter clarifies the foundations of tourism as an instrument for development if tourism policy and governance are designed and implemented within an adequate framework.

Society is considered as a large system and, therefore, the inevitable planning of its development as a whole must be such that the focus is on the interaction: nature — man — society. The following topics will be discussed: The participation and coordination of natural and social sciences in the formation of the future of the human society, in general, and of various given social systems in particular; the most important reasons favouring the systems approach to socio‐economic planning; the consideration of the whole planning — action feedback cycle, i.e. the simultaneous planning of both large wholes and their parts alongside the continuous coordination of interests and goals at various levels of management in the economy as well as in the whole society (the so‐called convergence planning); three levels of the development plan of any economic system (the technical, the economic and the social plan of development and their unity. Technical, economic and social proportions in the process of development); the relationship of development policy planning and the technology of planning (development policy planning as a general social activity. Optimality of the planning system).

In the last four years, since Volume I of this Bibliography first appeared, there has been an explosion of literature in all the main functional areas of business. This wealth of material poses problems for the researcher in management studies — and, of course, for the librarian: uncovering what has been written in any one area is not an easy task. This volume aims to help the librarian and the researcher overcome some of the immediate problems of identification of material. It is an annotated bibliography of management, drawing on the wide variety of literature produced by MCB University Press. Over the last four years, MCB University Press has produced an extensive range of books and serial publications covering most of the established and many of the developing areas of management. This volume, in conjunction with Volume I, provides a guide to all the material published so far.

It was not until the late 1960s that housing attracted much attention from academic social scientists. Since that time the literature has expanded widely and diversified, establishing housing with a specialised status in economics, sociology, politics, and in related subjects. As we would expect, the new literature covers a technical, statistical, theoretical, ideological, and historical range. Housing studies have not been conceived and interpreted in a monolithic way, with generally accepted concepts and principles, or with uniformly fixed and precise methodological approaches. Instead, some studies have been derived selectively from diverse bases in conventional theories in economics or sociology, or politics. Others have their origins in less conventional social theory, including neo‐Marxist theory which has had a wider intellectual following in the modern democracies since the mid‐1970s. With all this diversity, and in a context where ideological positions compete, housing studies have consequently left in their wake some significant controversies and some gaps in evaluative perspective. In short, the new housing intellectuals have written from personal commitments to particular cognitive, theoretical, ideological, and national positions and experiences. This present piece of writing takes up the two main themes which have emerged in the recent literature. These themes are first, questions relating to building and developing housing theory, and, second, the issue of how we are to conceptualise housing and relate it to policy studies. We shall be arguing that the two themes are closely related: in order to create a useful housing theory we must have awareness and understanding of housing practice and the nature of housing.

Although previous research has examined the role of franchising for the economic development of countries, no empirical study to date has investigated the importance of franchising for social, infrastructural, and institutional development. The authors address this research gap by applying research results from the field of sustainable entrepreneurship and highlight that franchising has a positive impact on economic, social, institutional and infrastructural development.

This study uses a fixed-effects model on a panel dataset for 2006–2015 from 49 countries to test the hypothesis that franchising positively influences various dimensions of country development such as economic social institutional and infrastructural development.

The findings highlight that franchising has a positive impact on the economic, social, infrastructural, and institutional development of a country. Specifically, the results show that the earlier and the more franchising systems enter a country, the stronger the positive impact of franchising on the country's economic, social, institutional, and infrastructural development.

This study has several limitations that provide directions for further research. First, the empirical investigation is limited by the characteristics of the data, which are composed of information from 49 countries (covering a period of 10 years). Because franchising is not recognized as a form of entrepreneurial governance in many emerging and developing countries, the available information is mainly provided by the franchise associations in the various countries. Hence, there is a need to collect additional data in each country and to include additional countries. Second, although the authors included developed and developing countries in the analysis, the authors could not differentiate between developed and developing countries when testing the hypotheses, because the database was not sufficiently complete. Third, future studies should analyze the causality issue between franchising and development more closely. The role of franchising in development may be changing depending on different unobserved country factors, economic sector characteristics, or development stages.

What are the practical implications of this study for the role of franchising in the development of emerging and developing economies? Because public policy in emerging and developing countries suffers from a lack of financial resources to improve the social, infrastructural and institutional environment, entrepreneurs, such as franchisors who expand into these countries, play an important role for these countries' development. In addition to their entrepreneurial role of exploring and exploiting profit opportunities, they are social, institutional, and political entrepreneurs who may positively influence country development (Schaltegger and Wagner, 2011; Shepard and Patzelt, 2011). Specifically, the findings highlight that countries with an older franchise sector (more years of franchise experience) may realize first-mover advantages and hence larger positive spillover effects on their economic, social, institutional and infrastructural development than countries with a younger franchise sector. Hence, governments of emerging and developing countries have the opportunity and responsibility to reduce potential market entry barriers and provide additional incentives for franchise systems in order to trigger these positive spillover effects. The authors expect that the spillover effects from the franchise sector on the economic, institutional, social and infrastructural development of a country are stronger in emerging and developing countries than in developed countries.

Previous research has focused on the impact of franchising on the economic development of a country, such as its growth of gross domestic product (GDP), employment, business skills, innovation and technology transfer. This study extends the existing literature by going beyond the impact of franchising on economic development: the results show that franchising as an entrepreneurial activity offers opportunities for economic, social, institutional, and infrastructural development, all of which are particularly important for emerging and developing economies. The findings of this study contribute to the international franchise and development economics literature by offering a better understanding of the impact of franchising on country development.