Simon J. Robinson and Jonathan Smith
The purpose of this final paper in the special issue is to extend the critical conversation that has run through this journal about the meaning and practice of responsibility. It…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this final paper in the special issue is to extend the critical conversation that has run through this journal about the meaning and practice of responsibility. It will draw together material from the other papers, summarise what is meant by responsibility and offer suggestions for further research.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper takes the form of a critical analysis of the concept of responsibility in relation to practice.
Findings
The paper argues for the importance of a holistic view of responsibility focused in individual and organisational practice of the virtues.
Practical implications
The paper argues for increased dialogue between key stakeholders about the practice and development of responsibility, and for developments in pedagogy that will connect all aspects of ideas, values and practice.
Social implications
There is typically a low level of appreciation of what responsibility means. This paper raises this awareness and identifies what responsibility looks like. It emphasises the importance of engraining a responsibility culture in the organisation, and continued dialogue between within, and beyond institutions.
Originality/value
The paper provides a virtue‐based approach that is based in critical dialogue, extending responsibility beyond conventional CSR thinking and providing the basis of what is a form of universal responsibility. This leads to a unique view of responsibility in culture and the curriculum.
Details
Keywords
Abstract
Details
Keywords
John A. Bishop, Haiyong Liu and Juan Gabriel Rodríguez
There are conflicting views of the primary role of income inequality in economic development. Many expect that higher income shares at the top reflect substantial economic…
Abstract
There are conflicting views of the primary role of income inequality in economic development. Many expect that higher income shares at the top reflect substantial economic contributions while others think that these increases in top shares have not translated into higher economic growth. Recently, this debate has been reinvigorated by a new proposal: higher income inequality could hurt economic performance by decreasing future intergenerational mobility. We contribute to this debate by examining the relationship between intergenerational perceived job status mobility and past income inequality. We find a robust negative association of lagged income inequality with upward intergenerational job status mobility and a robust positive association of lagged income inequality with downward intergenerational job status mobility. In addition, we find that the quality of political institutions and religious fractionalization both contribute positively to job status mobility. Higher levels of past Gross Domestic Product (GDP) result in less upward job status mobility and more downward job status mobility.