The Buzz About Citizen Coke

4 02 2015

I’m going to be co-editing a special issue of the journal Business History with my frequent research collaborator Kirsten Greer. The theme of the special issue is the intersection of business and environmental history: all of the papers in the SI will look at the historical relationship between business and the natural environment.

Because of my work on the special issue, I’ve been encouraged by the fact that Bartow Elmore’s new environmental history of the Coca-Cola company has generated extensive media attention. The degree of attention that has been paid to Citizen Coke is unusual for an academic book, especially one that is the author’s first major publication.

Here is the book’s blurb:

How did Coca-Cola build a global empire by selling a low-price concoction of mostly sugar, water, and caffeine? The easy answer is advertising, but the real formula to Coke’s success was its strategy, from the start, to offload costs and risks onto suppliers, franchisees, and the government. For most of its history the company owned no bottling plants, water sources, cane- or cornfields. A lean operation, it benefited from public goods like cheap municipal water and curbside recycling programs. Its huge appetite for ingredients gave it outsized influence on suppliers and congressional committees. This was Coca-Cola capitalism.

Elmore

Positive reviews of the book have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the Business Standard. [The Business Standard review faults the book on stylistic rather than for content]. A more critical but nevertheless thoughtful review appeared in  Columbia Daily Tribune. The review published in the WSJ is favourable, which is impressive given that Elmore’s book is hardly compatible with the ideological agenda of that newspaper.  The book has also been described in media sources ranging from the Daily Mail, a middlebrow UK newspaper to the Huffington Post to Bloomberg Radio. The book has also been cited in the debates about whether to levy special taxes on sugary foods.

You can listen to Elmore talk about his research here. You can watch him here.

Anyway, the interest that Elmore’s book has generated has convinced us that our Special Issue on Business/Environmental History will be of use to a wide variety of academics.





Some Thoughts on Holtbrügge and Mohr’s paper “Cultural determinants of learning style preferences”

4 02 2015

A new teaching term has started at the University of Liverpool Management School and I thought I would mark it by sharing some thoughts about an article that has influenced my thinking about teaching. It’s Dirk Holtbrügge and Alexander T. Mohr’s 2010 paper  “Cultural determinants of learning style preferences.” Academy of Management Learning & Education 9, no. 4 (2010): 622-637. The authors are based at universities in Germany and the UK.

This is an important article to me because I teach a culturally diverse group of students in the Management School. I wanted to see how my own experiences fit with the findings of the research on management-school teaching and learning.  I was drawn to this paper because I saw from the abstract that it was based on an extensive cross-national study of nearly a thousand individuals studying business and management at universities in the USA, China, the United Arab Emirates, and seven European countries. This paper is, therefore, more empirically robust than many of the other articles that appear in the Academy of Management Learning and Education journal. (This isn’t to criticize the other articles, which are still worth reading. I’m just making an observation)

The most interesting aspect of the paper was the authors’ application of Geert Hofstede’s system for measuring cultural differences to the question of learning styles. Hofstede developed various indices for scoring cultures. For instance, his Power Distance Index (PDI) measures the degree of deference to hierarchy displayed by individuals from a given culture.  The authors’ use of the PDI to understand dynamics within the lecture theatre struck me as particularly innovative. Moreover, it was congruent with my own observation that East Asian students are more deferential to authority figures than Western students.

The authors hypothesised that students from high PDI cultures have a preference for learning abstract concepts that can then be applied to individual cases. In contrast, students from low PDI cultures are more comfortable with teaching styles that involve the presentation of concrete examples from which the student is supposed to generate their own conclusions. Although the authors’ regression analysis of their survey results found only weak support for this hypothesis, the hypothesis nevertheless seems very plausible to me. My gut instinct is that other studies using a larger array of data points would likely confirm this hypothesis.

The authors also conclude that students from cultures that rank highly on Hofstede’s index of Individualism would tend to prefer a learning style that involves active experimentation and active abstract conceptualization. This finding was particularly interesting to me as I am about to start teaching a course that revolves around the case study method. Sessions devoted to debates about case studies necessarily involve a learning style that corresponds to what the authors called active experimentation. I need to find a way of encouraging students from cultures with low scores on Hofstede’s Individualism index  to participate in these debates. The Holtbrügge and Mohr suggests that I should ask the class to think about abstract principles that can be applied to the cases in a deductive fashion. Doing so may encourage participation by students from Collectivist cultures.

My major criticism of the authors’ methodology is that the research was based on a questionnaire that was returned by only some of the students to whom it was sent. The students who returned the questionnaires are, therefore, a self-selected group. Moreover, the fact a significant number of the questionnaires were excluded from the analysis because the students were unable to complete them correctly, perhaps due to poor English, also undermines the robustness of this analysis. Additional research is clearly required. Despite its limitations, this stimulating paper will provide a good starting point for future research and debate.





Risk Interconnectivity: Sloppy Thinking at the WEF

3 02 2015

Ok. Normally I like the reports that the long-term research people at Zurich Insurance publish on their Twitter account. They sometimes contain some really interesting insights into various risks we face. The most recent post, however, is an exercise is tautological reasoning combined with cool graphics.

For social scientists, one of the most infuriating vague terms is “social,” a term of 19th century coinage that is so broad it can mean almost anything. Personally, I think that we should try to use it as little as possible, except when a term like “social scientist” has become entrenched. It’s not an analytically helpful word since pretty much everything involving more than one or two people is social.

Now the authors of Zurich’s Global Risks 2015 Report tell us that As global risks transcend borders, cross-cutting challenges can threaten social stability, perceived to be the most interconnected with other risks in 2015

Ok. But “social stability” is such an inclusive term it would be hard for it not to linked to all of the other risks shown here. I’m not saying this a bad report, but the use of the almost meaningless term “social instability” is intellectually sloppy. Doubtless the sheer inclusiveness of this term will contribute to the report being cited by many people, especially those who sell services designed to combat various types of social instability. The Zurich report will thus get lots of mentions, which helps with brand awareness for the company that published it. That’s fine in the world of commercial research. It’s also fine at Davos. However, as academics we must guard against sloppy terms like “social instability” entering academic discourse.





CFP: BHC/EBHA Workshop Historical Approaches to Entrepreneurship Theory & Research

2 02 2015
 
BHC/EBHA Workshop
Historical Approaches to Entrepreneurship Theory & Research

Wednesday, June 24, 2015, Noon-5pm
Hyatt Regency Miami, 400 SE Second Avenue, Miami, Florida
Deadline: March 1, 2015 for abstracts

In recent years, both business historians and entrepreneurship scholars have grown increasingly interested in the promise of using historical sources, methods and reasoning in entrepreneurship research. History, it has been argued, can be valuable in addressing a number of limitations in traditional approaches to studying entrepreneurship, including in accounting for contexts and institutions, in understanding the relationship between entrepreneurship and economic change, in providing multi-level perspectives on the entrepreneurial process and in situating entrepreneurial behavior and cognition within the flow of time. Support for historical research on entrepreneurship has grown, with both leading entrepreneurship researchers calling for the use of historical perspectives and with Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal announcing a call for papers for a special issue devoted to history and entrepreneurship.
 
The purpose of this workshop is to provide scholars with developmental feedback on work-in-progress related to historical approaches to entrepreneurship and strategy, broadly construed. Our aim is support the development of historical research on entrepreneurship for publication in leading journals, including for the special issue of Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. In addition to providing feedback and suggestions for specific topics, the workshop will address the commonly faced challenges of writing for a double-audience of historians and entrepreneurship/management scholars, engaging entrepreneurship theory and constructs, and identifying the most valuable historical sources and methods in studying entrepreneurial phenomena. We welcome work-in-progress at all stages of development. Interested scholars may submit two types of submissions for discussion: full research papers (8,000 to 12,000 words) or paper ideas (1,000 to 3,000 words).
 
If you have questions or are interested in participating, please submit an initial abstract of max. 300 words and a one-page CV before March 1, 2015 to Christina Lubinski (cl.mpp@cbs.dk) and Dan Wadhwani (dwadhwani@pacific.edu). Invitations to the PDW will be sent out before March 20, 2015. Full paper (8,000 to 12,000 words) and paper idea (1,000 to 3,000 words) submissions will be expected by May 15, 2015. Please feel free to contact the organizers with your paper ideas if you are interested in early feedback or want to inquire about the fit of your idea with this PDW.




Emotional Historians? A review of Andrew Popp’s Entrepreneurial Families

31 01 2015

Joanne Bailey has posted a lengthy and very positive review of my colleague Andrew Popp’s book Entrepreneurial Families: Business, Marriage, and Life in the Early Nineteenth Century (Studies in Business History, Pickering and Chatto, London, 2012).

I think that the main lesson we can take away from the discussion that Popp’s book has generated is that we need additional research into the mental and social landscapes of historical entrepreneurs.





The New Greek Finance Minister on the Scottish Enlightenment, Hayek, and Spontaneous Order

30 01 2015

As most readers of this blog will know, Greece recently elected a hard left-wing government. On the right, there is a tendency to regard all left-wing politicians as economically illiterate morons who think nostalgically about Soviet-style central planning. Indeed, there is a tendency to caricature leftists as monolithically hostile to and ignorant of business.  The new Greek finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis, demolishes this stereotype, as he is smart, worldly thinker with a PhD in economics and wide-ranging interests. Varoufakis is well-know for his study of software company called Valve that operates without most of the managerial hierarchies that are typically found in firms. His research has important implications for how we think about successful organisations or all types, ranging from the military and the church to private companies and indeed the economy as a whole. In his research on Valve, Varoufakis drew on the ideas of F.A. Hayek, who had demonstrated the impossibility of successful central planning by pointing out the sheer complexity of the modern economy and the amount of knowledge embedded in prices. Varoufakis took the ideas of Hayek, who is generally regarded as a conservative (i.e., liberal) thinker and applied them to the study of a single firm.

In a fascinating blog post on the Valve company website, Varoufakis gives us a short intellectual history of the antecedents of Hayek’s ideas.

The idea of spontaneous order comes from the Scottish Enlightenment, and in particular David Hume who, famously, argued against Thomas Hobbes’ assumption that, without some Leviathan ruling over us (keeping us “all in awe”), we would end up in a hideous State of Nature in which life would be “nasty, brutish and short”. Hume’s counter-argument was that, in the absence of a system of centralised command, conventions emerge that minimise conflict and organise social activities (including production) in a manner that is most conducive to the Good Life. Steadily, these conventions acquire a moral dimension (i.e. there is a transition from the belief that others will follow the established conventions to the belief that others ought to follow them), they become more evolutionarily stable and, in the end, function as the glue that allows society to be ordered and efficient albeit without any centralised, formal, hierarchy. In short, spontaneous order emerges in the absence of authoritarian hierarchies.

Hume’s views influenced one young man in particular: Adam Smith, the economists’ patron saint. Indeed, Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ is no more than an application, and extension, of Hume’s spontaneous order to market-societies. Smith’s argument, in case we have forgotten, is that markets are an example of spontaneous order, where price movements (in reaction to market forces) coordinate individual efforts in a manner that, as if by the help of some invisible hand operating behind our backs, promotes the public good (much better than any ruler who strives to promote it).

While the concept of a ‘spontaneous order’ harks back to Hume and Smith, it was Friedrich von Hayek, the doyen of modern day libertarians, who coined the term. Taking his cue from Adam Smith, Hayek used the ‘spontaneous order’ idea as a stick with which to beat into submission all ideas in favour of economic planning (socialist planning in particular) and all arguments in favour of an activist state.

You can read the entire blog post here.

I saw several thoughts about Varoufakis. First, the fact that someone is a quasi-follower of Hayek is a member of a hard left party shows just how far Hayek’s ideas have permeated across the political spectrum. Second, I bet that  Varoufakis has some good ideas for structural reform in Greece. Cutting the bloated military budget would be good start.  Perhaps he will try to make government  ministries more like Valve. Third, I wonder if the realities of Cabinet government will prevent Varoufakis from implementing his ideas.

You can listen to Varoufakis talking about Valve here. You can read more about him here, here, and here.





Journal of Historical Research in Marketing

30 01 2015

The Journal of Historical Research in Marketing, which this month is celebrating its 7th Anniversary, invites submissions from business and economic historians. As the only scholarly journal dedicated entirely to historical themes in marketing, it features world-class research on the history of distribution and retail formats, advertising, direct marketing and public relations, market research, branding and product development, exporting, marketing policy and regulation, and the history of marketing thought. Over the past years, it has devoted special issues to marketing history and histories in Canada, Ireland and Italy, the history of sports marketing, the evolution of retail formats, and the contribution of female marketing scholars and practitioners, amongst other themes.

JHRM’s impact factor continues to improve: average cites per article are 2.44, and the H-index is 10. This compares very favourably with highly ranked business history journals (Source: Harzing’s ‘Publish or Perish’ and Google Scholar Database, January 27, 2015).

Please join us on the journey that continues to explore the complex and exciting history of marketing. More information on the journal’s content, call for papers, and submission procedures can be found on the journal’s website.

Editorial team

Editor
Professor Brian Jones
Quinnipiac University, School of Business / SB-DNF, 275 Mount Carmel Avenue, Hamden Ct 06518-1949, USA
bjones1@quinnipiac.edu

Associate Editors
Stefan Schwarzkopf
Associate Professor in Business History, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark

Eric H Shaw
Professor, Florida Atlantic University, USA

Explorations and Insights
Mark Tadajewski
Professor of Marketing, Durham University, UK

Teaching and Learning
Stanley J Shapiro
Professor of Marketing, Simon Fraser University, Canada

Editorial Advisory Board

Andrew Alexander, University of Surrey, UK
Fred Beard, University of Oklahoma, USA
Russell W. Belk, York University, Canada
John Benson, University of Wolverhampton, UK
Hartmut Berghoff, German Historical Institute / Göttingen University, USA
Barry Boothman, University of New Brunswick, Canada
Blaine Branchik, Quinnipiac University, USA
Stephen Brown, University of Ulster, UK
Robert Crawford, University of Technology Sydney, Australia
Peggy Cunningham, Dalhousie University, Canada
Teresa da Silva Lopes, University of York, UK
Judy Foster Davis, Eastern Michigan University, USA
Tracey Deutsch, University of Minnesota, USA
O. C. Ferrell, University of Wyoming/Colorado State University, USA
Ronald Fullerton, Independent Scholar, Nigeria
Shelby D Hunt, Texas Tech University, USA
William Keep, The College of New Jersey, USA
Philip Kotler, J. L. Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, USA
Pamela Laird, University of Colorado at Denver, USA
William Lazer, Florida Atlantic University, USA
Marilyn Liebrenz-Himes, George Washington University, USA
Jan Logemann, Institut für Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte, Germany
Pauline Maclaran, Royal Holloway, University of London, UK
Elizabeth Moore, University of Notre Dame, USA
Leighann Neilson, Carleton University, Canada
Ross Petty, Babson College, USA
Richard Pollay, University of British Columbia, Canada
Thomas Powers, University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA
Jacqueline Reid, Duke University, USA
Daniel Robinson, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Ronald Savitt, University of Vermont, USA
Jonathan Schroeder, Rochester Institute of Technology, USA
Jagdish N Sheth, Emory University, USA
Inger Stole, University of Illinois, USA
Göran Svensson, Oslo School of Management, Norway
Robert Tamilia, Retired, Canada
Laura Ugolini, University of Wolverhampton, UK
Kazuo Usui, Saitama University, Japan
William Wilkie, University of Notre Dame, USA
Ian F Wilkinson, The University of Sydney, Australia
Terrence Witkowski, California State University, USA
Ben Wooliscroft, University of Otago, New Zealand – See more at: http://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/journals/editorial_team.htm?id=jhrm#sthash.ed6HTVN3.dpuf





Closure of the LSE Business History Unit

29 01 2015

LSE Campus

Terry Gourvish, the long-standing director of the Business History Unit at the LSE, has announced that the unit is closing.  This is sad news, as the Unit has been an important centre for business historical research since its establishment in 1978. The Unit’s seminar series has served a very important role in the business history community. In part because of its location in central London, the seminar series had attracted large numbers of excellent speakers and very engaged attendees. It’s a great venue for feedback on papers that are about to be submitted. The BHU has long had strong ties with private industry and government, thanks again to its central London location (it’s just a few Tube stops from the City).

[The only bad thing about the BHU unit was that access to it was through a labyrinthine route that included the bridge seen in the picture above].

Although the news of the closure of the unit is sad, there may be an opportunity here for another university in central London. It seems to me that the Institute of Contemporary British History at King’s would be the ideal new home for the seminar series previously run by the BHU. King’s is just across the street from the BHU. The head of the Institute, Richard Roberts, is a business/financial historian. I think that a business history seminar series would complement the Institute’s thriving oral history programme. (A number of years ago I attended a fascinating oral history session in which finance professionals spoke about the Big Bang deregulation reforms of 1988).

The management school at Queen Mary, University of London, is also home to business historians. It could potentially take over the operation of the BHU seminar.

Anyway, these are just suggestions from a sympathetic outside observer up in Liverpool.

P.S. Here are some of Terry’s publications:

2011

Gourvish, Terry (2011) The financing of a large infrastructure project: the case of the Channel Tunnel In: Amatori, Franco and Millward, Robert and Toninelli, Pier Angelo, (eds.) Reappraising state-owned enterprise: a comparison of the UK and Italy. Routledge international studies in business history. Routledge, New York, USA, 100-118. ISBN 9780415878326

2008

Gourvish, Terry (2008) Britain’s railway 1997-2005: Labour’s strategic experimentOxford University Press, Oxford, UK. ISBN 9780199236602

2006

Gourvish, Terry (2006) The official history of Britain and the Channel TunnelGovernment official history series. Routledge, London, UK. ISBN 9780415391832

Gourvish, Terry (2006) What can business history tell us about business performance? Competition and Change, 10 (4). 375-392. ISSN 1024-5294

2003

Gourvish, Terry (2003) Introduction: the business-government relationship In: Gourvish, Terry, (ed.) Business and Politics in Europe, 1900-1970: Essays in Honour of Alice Teichova. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1-14. ISBN 0521823447





Bernardo Batiz-Lazo on the History of the ATM

22 01 2015

My research collaborator Bernardo Batiz-Lazo is quoted extensively in an article in the Smithsonian Magazine about the history and future of the ATM.  The author of the excellent piece in the Smithsonian Magazine is Linda Rodriguez McRobbie.

The “world’s first” ATM landed on a high street in Enfield, a suburb of London, at a branch of Barclays bank; there’s even a blue plaque on the outside of the building, still a Barclays, to memorialize the cash dispenser’s June 27, 1967, debut. The story goes that John Shepherd-Barron, an engineer at printing company De La Rue, came up with what was essentially a cash vending machine one Saturday afternoon after he missed his bank’s open hours.,,The machine transformed banking and Shepherd-Barron’s name went down in history: In 2005, he was made an Officer of the Order of the British Empire for his services to banking and the obituaries after his death in 2010 all called him the “inventor of the ATM”.

It’s a good story, although it’s almost certainly not true – “absolutely rubbish,” laughed professor Bernardo Batiz-Lazo, professor of business history and bank management at Bangor University, Wales, and the co-author of a book on the history of the ATM..  Batiz-Lazo says, there were several teams working independently to come up with a solution to the same problem

The Smithsonian Magazine piece draws on Bernardo previous research. The paper I am currently working on with Bernardo is:The Changing Industrial Organization of Epistemic Communities During Hong Kong’s Progression Towards a Cashless Society (1960s-2000s).

Abstract:

The period from the 1960s to c. 2000 saw a dramatic change in retail banking technology in Hong Kong. Initially the relevant technologies were installed and managed within the boundaries of large banks. More recently, a micro-payments solution called “Octopus” was developed by a consortium that included non-financial firms. These developments illustrate  how, over the course of the period covered by this article, the industrial organization of the relevant technologies was transformed as the provision of much of the technology for retail payments was outsourced to non-bank institutions. This paper seeks to account for this shift in the organization of computer technology in Hong Kong by drawing on Transaction Costs Economics and the theory of the firm as an epistemic community.





Call for Papers: Hello Kitty and International Relations

22 01 2015

AS: I’m posting this CFP on behalf of a colleague.

Call for Papers – Hello Kitty and International Relations
(12th June 2015)

Institute of Advanced Study (IAS), University of Warwick

Shocking news was revealed about Hello Kitty on her 40th birthday in summer 2014: ‘Hello kitty is not a cat – she’s a British girl’ named Kitty White and lives with her sister and parents in suburban London. But this has hardly affected the global popularity of this character created by the Japanese company Sanrio in the 1970s.
Her fandom has a large following around the world. She can be seen in Tokyo, New York, or Rio de Janeiro. 25,000 fans flocked to her convention in Los Angeles last year. The world’s first Hello Kitty theme park opened in China.
Illuminating on the intersection of popular culture and international relations (IR), the Hello Kitty and International Relations workshop aims to explore deeper, more nuanced understandings of IR through an interdisciplinary dialogue on the Hello Kitty phenomenon. International relations is not defined here as a narrow subfield in politics, but an interconnecting constellation with cultural, social, economic, and linguistic implications. It is the production of ‘relations international’ (Christine Sylvester) that incorporates questions of gender, relations among ethnic/racial groups and bridges between local and regional communities.
In the spirit of the aesthetic turn in IR (Roland Bleiker), this workshop recognises Hello Kitty’s potential to invite us to challenge granted dogmas in everyday life, interrogate in new ways global issues that affect our life-worlds, and reinvigorate silenced or marginalised debates. Above all, despite her commodification, she is an artistic expression that reifies and epitomises hope in and for the everyday. As the Japanese-American conductor Kent Nagano claims, the main purpose of art is to plant the seed of hope, through impassioning our innermost feelings.

This ubiquity of Hello Kitty is a result of her ‘emptiness’, or what Roland Barthes calls ‘the empty sign’ that embodies ‘an empty point-of-affluence of all its occupations and its pleasure’. Christine Yano’s recent monograph on Hello Kitty concurs: Hello Kitty ‘inhabits the “thingness” of the “thing” in the physical properties of cuteness she brings to meaning making’. Hello Kitty is then a ‘liminal space’ to posit academic conjectures on the everyday and the international.
This workshop welcomes contributions from a variety of approaches that discover Hello Kitty’s relevance in the contemporary world, especially in consideration to the three following sub-themes:
Resurgence of the global (political) subjects
Performing IR in everyday life
Speaking in silence: reconstructing marginalised voices in IR

Keynote Roundtable Speakers: Dr Kyle Grayson (Geography, Politics and Sociology, Newcastle), Dr Jason Dittmer (Geography, UCL) and Dr Erzsébet Strausz (Politics and International Studies, Warwick)

Please send a word-processed abstract of no more than 200 words to Misato Matsuoka (m.matsuoka@warwick.ac.uk) before 25th February 2015, indicating also the subtheme to which your paper would make a contribution. There are plans to publish the workshop papers in an edited volume, and details will follow.