| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Saturday, 30 November 2024
The London School That Abused Autistic Children
Friday, 29 November 2024
Alexithymia Course Delivered Live Online!
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Business History and imperialism
Organizational History Network
Business History and imperialismSpecial Issue Editor(s)Simon Mollan, University of York Kevin Tennent, University of York Stephanie Decker, University of Birmingham Nina Kleinöder, University of Bamberg Chibuike Uche, University of Leiden Rationale and themes There is a rich historiography within business history that engages with imperialism and colonialism and the projection of extra-territorial power explicit in imperial interactions (for recent examples see Mollan 2020; Decker 2022; Kleinoeder 2020 & 2022; Uche 2015). Given that contemporary international politics is increasingly dominated by questions of extraterritoriality and coloniality, this is a timely moment for the field of business history to renew its examination of the historical relationship between business and imperialism. Submissions are encouraged to engage with one or more of the following themes: Violence, both structural and intentional, remains central to the exertion of imperial power. The concept of ‘slow violence’, described as ‘incremental and accretive’ (Nixon 2011, 2), indicates how the structures of imperialism (including businesses) resulted in the appropriation, exploitation, degradation, and deracination of everything from people, communities and cultures, knowledge, and the natural environment, over different temporalities. Intentional (or personal) violence also has a business history, illustrated, for example, by the people and businesses involved in or benefitting from slavery and the slave trade (Schermerhorn 2015; Rosenthal 2018), the practice of indenturing labour, or otherwise engaging in or facilitating coercion and harm in connection to business activity. Linkages and transfers within empires, and between colonies and metropolitan imperial powers, are of central importance to the business history of imperialism. Multiple studies have explored the ways in which people, capital, technology, knowledge were organised and managed by businesses operating in imperial contexts. Linkages and transfers both created and sustained imperial relationships through trade, investment, production and consumption. These linkages were, however, not only within empires, but also between empires (for example Dejung 2022). Inter-imperial business history may also be a fruitful new avenue of research. Informal empire, and the concept of business imperialism, have a deep historiography (Thompson 1992; Miller 1999; Jones 1980) and an important contemporary resonance in relation to the ways in which multinational corporations are able to shape the business environment and/or may act as informal proxies for state power exercised extra-territorially. Much of the scholarship in this area has focused on Latin America, and to a lesser extent China (Clayton 1997; Duran and Bucheli 2017). Studies that revisited these examples, or developed new geographical cases would very welcome. European and non-European empires, and comparative studies. Much of the business history of imperialism has focused on European imperialism. While we envisage a continuation of studies that examined European imperialism(s), opportunities to look at non-European empires would be particularly welcome. Comparative studies seeking to examine the role played by business in comparison across empires, or across colonies, would also be very useful in illuminating the similarities and differences in cases and contexts. Contributions that reflect on empires found in modern, early-modern, medieval, and ancient-history time periods are welcome. Institutions. The institutions that supported business in imperial contexts are also of considerable interest. Different kinds of business corporations, such as Free-Standing Companies, multinationals, and trading companies (Mollan 2018; Aldous 2016; Decker 2022; Jones 2000), project organisations (Tennent and Gillett 2024), financial service providers such as banks, insurance companies, accounting firms, and markets (including stock exchanges and commodity markets), all formed institutional components of imperial systems (Decker 2005; Beniamin, Wilson, and Abdelrehim 2024; Lukasiewicz 2024; Mollan and Michie 2012; Jones 1993; Uche 1999; Austin and Uche 2007). Studies of the strategies and operations of these different institutions might prove especially useful. Legacies. The nature of imperial retreat and withdrawal has contributed to reformulated power relationships in the post-colonial world in what has been described as the ‘imperialism of decolonization’ (Louis and Robinson 1994). The nature of empire building has enduring legacies in the post-colonial world in areas as varied as state capacity, sovereignty and international governance (Mollan and Corker 2024; Rönnbäck and Ngoma 2024). These perspectives open possibilities of explorations that nest business-level research within macro-structural frameworks and multiple temporal frames, including more contemporarily oriented business history where the link to imperialism made clearly. Contributions As indicated in a recent editorial of Business History (Decker et al. 2024), there are three kinds of contribution that are sought in submissions to the journal: empirical, historiographical, and theoretical. We would expect all articles in the SI to engage with at least one of these. In the context of the business history of imperialism this is understood as follows: Empirical studies based on primary data should provide new evidence, so contributing to the wider historiography by widening and deepening the case-studies, examples, geographic scope, and temporal coverage of the business history of imperialism. Historiographical articles based on detailed discussion of the existing historiography to provide new perspectives and interpretations in relation to the debates and questions relating to business history and imperialism. This might take two forms: first, to explore the ways in which the existing business history literature can be revaluated, revised, or rethought to provide new insights into the role of business in imperialism; and second, to explore the ways in which wider historiographical debates about imperialism and imperial history might have implications for business history. This might engage constructively with management history, the new histories of capitalism, and/or conceptions of racial capitalism (Decker 2013; Mollan 2019; Hilt 2017; Robinson 1983). Theoretical development. In the context of the business history of imperialism, there are two main ways in which theory development may occur. First, there are historical theories of imperialism (for example ‘business imperialism’ (Jones 1980; Platt 1977) or ‘Gentlemanly Capitalism’ (Cain and Hopkins 2002)), classical theories of imperialism (drawing on Marxist or Hobsonian traditions (Noonan 2017; Timo Särkkä 2009)), and more recent sociological and critical theories of imperialism and coloniality (Faria and Cunha 2022; Wanderley and Barros 2019; Mignolo and Walsh 2018; Motyl 2013). The implications for business history of reflecting on these studies, or using themes or frames, or problematising a piece of research might be a fruitful way to proceed. Second–in line with the development of theoretically fluent business history (Rowlinson, Hassard, and Decker 2014)–theories of management, organization, strategy, business ethics and so on might be deployed to gain a better understanding of the dynamics of imperialism and its relationship to business history. This might refine or extend the contextual applicability (see Welch et al. 2022), and/or the explanatory power of, existing theoretical constructs, as well as the potential for business historical research to contribute to debates around decolonising the curriculum (Boussebaa 2023). References
Submission InstructionsPaper development workshop and article submission process We have identified the following structure to foster the inclusion of high-quality papers. This will involve a submission of an extended abstract to the SI editorial team in January 2025 (see below). These will be considered in terms of empirical, historiographical and theoretical contribution to the field as well as the spread of geographies, topics, and historical periods to encourage a diverse academic contribution. The career stages and location of submitting authors will also be carefully considered to ensure a fair balance of opportunities. 8-10 proposals will be invited to attend a Paper Development Workshop to be held at the University of Leiden in March 2025. Thereafter authors would submit to the Special Issue for anonymous peer review in the normal way via the electrnic submission system (link below). Submissions from papers not selected for the workshop can also be submitted to the SI and will be considered for review as normal. Please send any queries to the Guest Editors at businesshistoryimperialism@gmail.com. Timetable Pre-submission paper development workshop (PDW) Submission of Extended Abstracts (2,000-3,000) words to businesshistoryimperialism@gmail.com – 15 January 2025 Invitation to Paper Development Workshop – 22 January Paper Development Workshop – 20 March 2025 – University of Leiden, Netherlands. Open Submission to the Special Issue – 1 August 2025 First Round of Reviews Returned to Authors – 15 November 2025 Revisions Due – 28 February 2026 Second Round of Reviews – 31 May 2026 Revisions Due 31 August 2026 Publication – Spring/Summer 2026 Organizational History Network is free today. But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell Organizational History Network that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription. You won't be charged unless they enable payments.
|
How Labour's Welfare Bill Dehumanises Disabled People In The UK
On the politicisation of disabled bodyminds ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ...
-
socialleveragedwritings posted: "Fairness has been a status symbol for centuries. It has been so deep-seated that we form f...
