David K. Jesuit and Lawrence Sych
The purpose of this study is to apply a model of regional networks and governance to cross‐border cases for the purpose of identifying determinants that help local governments…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to apply a model of regional networks and governance to cross‐border cases for the purpose of identifying determinants that help local governments overcome barriers and promote interaction in border areas most susceptible to globalization realities, namely “old economy” manufacturing and industrial centers. It aims to draw together research from a variety of perspectives on regional networks and explore efforts by two local European communities and one local US community to respond to the challenges posed by the global economy by interviewing stakeholders in territories that have experienced significant deindustrialization.
Design/methodology/approach
Interviews were conducted with local, regional and central government officials, as well as private sector actors, in the Italian region of the Marches and in the countries of Luxembourg and the USA.
Findings
The study's preliminary findings show a range of networks across several arenas closely associated with economic development, but fail to show direct associations with economic development alone. The authors attribute this to the centrality of geographic space in development augmented by local competition and presence of the international border.
Originality/value
The authors conclude by identifying a set of determinants that will guide future research into local networking in cross‐border economic development and related arenas.
Details
Keywords
Explores the extent of employee surveillance in the western world and queries why the USA uses surveillance measures to a greater extent than other developed nations. Suggests…
Abstract
Explores the extent of employee surveillance in the western world and queries why the USA uses surveillance measures to a greater extent than other developed nations. Suggests that American managers choose surveillance methods which include the control of workers’ bodies in the production process. Lists the batteries of tests and monitoring to which US employees can now be subjected – including searching employee computer files, voice/e‐mail, monitoring telephone calls, drug tests, alcohol tests, criminal record checks, lie detector and handwriting tests. Notes also the companies which are opposed to worker and consumer privacy rights. Pinpoints the use of surveillance as a means to ensure that employees do not withold production. Reports that employees dislike monitoring and that it may adversely affect their performance and productivity. Argues that Americans like to address complex social problems with technological means, there are no data protection laws in the USA, and that these two factors, combined with the “employment‐at‐will” doctrine, have all contributed to make it possible (and easy) for employers to use technological surveillance of their workforce. Outlines some of the ways employers insist on the purification of workers’ bodies.