5,669
edits
Difference between revisions of "Related Projects"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
__TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
==Call for Applications: International Workshop on Shadow Practices, Policy and Development== | |||
'''International Workshop: From Economic to Political Informality - Exploring the Link Between Shadow Practices, Policy Making and Development''' | |||
'''Organisers:''' [[Buôn có bạn, bán có phường (Vietnam)|Abel Polese]], Dublin City University and Rustamjon Urinboyev, Lund University | |||
'''University of Lund, Sweden''' | |||
'''Date:''' 17-19 September 2019 | |||
'''Deadline for submissions:''' 15th May 2019 | |||
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"> | |||
'''Rationale and main aims of the workshops''' | |||
<div class="mw-collapsible-content"> | |||
While early works on informality mostly explored its economic aspects (shadow economies, informal sector), recent studies have unveiled the multi-faceted nature of informality. From ways to get things done at the top political level (Ledeneva 2013) to everyday resistance (Scott 1985, 2012), informality has been regarded as an integral part of governance structures and mechanisms (Polese et al. 2017). For this workshop, we give continuity to the classification of the four "flavours of informality" (Polese 2019) to regard informal practices as an act of deliberate, if unorganised, non-compliance with formal instructions. At the everyday level, these actions may remain isolated and sterile. However, once they are embraced regularly by a significant portion of a given population they may come to renegotiate, or even reject, policy measures that are regarded, consciously or unconsciously, as inappropriate for a given situation context. | |||
Footing on these assumptions, with this event, we propose to shift attention away from informality perceived, especially at the everyday level, as a mere survival strategy to think in a different direction. When people produce similar, or even the same, patterns of behaviour, informality can acquire political significance and reshape the way policies are implemented in a given context. | |||
Starting from the above assumptions, our workshop has a three-fold goal. | |||
First, it '''will expand the scope of theoretical research on informality beyond its economic understanding at the national level,''' something pointed out by studies by Dixit (2007), Helmke and Levitsky (2005) and Stone (2010) as necessary, but not yet systematically studied. We will look at the role of informal practices in the redefinition and renegotiation of business environments and how entrance and exit barriers are created, causing the reversal that state-led measures were intended to bring about. | |||
Second, it '''will apply this interpretative framework to look at the way policymaking, and development policies, are affected by informality''' in the transitional world. This will eventually allow us to engage with worldwide debates from a comparative perspective. Our departure point is the post-socialist region, where informality has been widely studied. However, with this workshop, we intend to upscale the scope of our inquiry to Southeast Asia, Africa, Latin America. | |||
Third, inasmuch as this has been timidly attempted so far, our event represents a chance to '''establish and develop a research group on informality''' that can work on further conceptualizations of the relationship between informality, policy-making and development at a global scale. We anticipate some of the contributions to be invited into an edited volume (we have a preliminary agreement with Routledge). In addition, should we have enough papers with a profound theoretical engagement, we will consider pulling together a special issue of a journal | |||
As a result, we welcome contributions focusing on the following list of topics (the list is non-exhaustive and we are open to considering further perspectives and foci): | |||
*Measuring informality: novel and mixed methods for the measurement of informal practices, their effects and the rationale behind the desire (active or passive) to engage with informal practices in different contexts and with different ends | |||
*Informality and policymaking: studies on the relationship between the formal and the informal; how informal practices affect policymaking at the top level (negotiations of laws and rules, power relations between parties, groups, economic actors); how individuals, groups and non-state actors react, oppose, renegotiate policy measures at the everyday level | |||
*Informality and international development: explorations on the role of informal practices in a North-South development context; how instructions by international and development organizations are filtered, renegotiated or opposed when going against the interests of powerful individuals, interest groups, lobbies; how individuals (especially the weak, the marginalized, the poor) react to measures that they do not perceive as necessary, useful or beneficial | |||
Given our initial specialization, our starting point has been the post-socialist world. However, we would like to use this workshop to expand the upscale the scope of our inquiry to a global scale in an attempt to construct comparisons with other world countries and regions. | |||
</div> | |||
</div> | |||
'''Technical information''' | |||
*You will be notified by the 1st of June 2019 on whether your abstract has been accepted. Please note that the dates might slightly change (1-2 days later) but we will send the final dates along with the acceptance letter | |||
*Meals and accommodation during the workshop is covered for all accepted speakers | |||
*There is limited availability of funds to cover travel to and from Lund. If you expect to be unable to get support from your institution, please add this information in your abstract | |||
'''How to apply''' | |||
If interested, please send by the 15th of May 2019 in a single word document named after your surname containing: | |||
*An abstract and your contact details (300 words) | |||
*A short biographical statement (300 words) | |||
*Whether you need financial support for your travel | |||
to Sevara Usmanova at [mailto:usmanova.c@gmail.com usmanova.c@gmail.com] and CC your message to [mailto:ap@tlu.ee ap@tlu.ee] and [mailto:rustamjon.Urinboyev@soclaw.lu.se rustamjon.Urinboyev@soclaw.lu.se]. | |||
==CFP: The Sharing Economy - New HRM Theories and Practices?== | ==CFP: The Sharing Economy - New HRM Theories and Practices?== | ||
| Line 120: | Line 170: | ||
Research on the mechanisms of organizing and managing via interpersonal relations has a rich history in the management and organization-oriented literature. So far, however, the informal dimension of managing and organizing by drawing on informal networks in an international context has received comparably less attention. Recent research has pointed out that social capital and network theories have largely been developed by Western scholars based on circumstances and social structures that are typical of Western societies. Thus, current theory takes into account to a lesser extent their character and nature and the way in which informal ties and networks are formed in other parts of the world(Ledeneva, 2018; Li, 2007b; Qi, 2013; Sato, 2010). Besides the growing body of literature concerned with informal ties and networks in emerging and transitioning countries, for example guanxi (China), blat/ svyazi (Russia), and wasta (Arab World), a trend for analyzing pervasive informal networks in advanced and industrialized economies, such as yongo (Korea), has arisen. While insights from the latter research stream indicate that informal networks persist, the results generated in both research streams will help in developing the extant informal network theories further. | Research on the mechanisms of organizing and managing via interpersonal relations has a rich history in the management and organization-oriented literature. So far, however, the informal dimension of managing and organizing by drawing on informal networks in an international context has received comparably less attention. Recent research has pointed out that social capital and network theories have largely been developed by Western scholars based on circumstances and social structures that are typical of Western societies. Thus, current theory takes into account to a lesser extent their character and nature and the way in which informal ties and networks are formed in other parts of the world(Ledeneva, 2018; Li, 2007b; Qi, 2013; Sato, 2010). Besides the growing body of literature concerned with informal ties and networks in emerging and transitioning countries, for example [[guanxi]] (China), [[blat]]/ svyazi (Russia), and wasta (Arab World), a trend for analyzing pervasive informal networks in advanced and industrialized economies, such as yongo (Korea), has arisen. While insights from the latter research stream indicate that informal networks persist, the results generated in both research streams will help in developing the extant informal network theories further. | ||
With this MOR special issue, the guest editors aim to advance these trends by shedding light on the ambivalent operating modes of informal networks. Although informality can be regarded as a normal approach or the status quo of managing and organizing in many parts of the world, it tends to have a bitter aftertaste in the Western world (Ledeneva, 1998), since terms such as favoritism, nepotism, cronyism, or even corruption are at times perceived to be equivalents. Given the importance of informal coordination in many of the largest economies in the world (e.g., China, India, Russia, and the former Soviet Union states, the Arab world, or South America), there is a need to understand better the dark and the bright side of managing and organizing through informal networks. | With this MOR special issue, the guest editors aim to advance these trends by shedding light on the ambivalent operating modes of informal networks. Although informality can be regarded as a normal approach or the status quo of managing and organizing in many parts of the world, it tends to have a bitter aftertaste in the Western world (Ledeneva, 1998), since terms such as favoritism, nepotism, cronyism, or even corruption are at times perceived to be equivalents. Given the importance of informal coordination in many of the largest economies in the world (e.g., China, India, Russia, and the former Soviet Union states, the Arab world, or South America), there is a need to understand better the dark and the bright side of managing and organizing through informal networks. | ||