Search

What are the distributive consequences of innovation ecosystems? In recent decades, innovation has led to significant productivity gains and wealth creation, but the distribution of these benefits has been uneven, with the majority staying at the top rather than flowing to the bottom. Academic fields such as public policy, political economy, and economic geography have long debated distributive consequences of technological change under the umbrella of the efficiency-equality tradeoff, but innovation studies has not fully integrated these learnings. By conceptualizing and evaluating distribution-sensitive innovation policies and institutions, this symposium aims to address this gap and better understand how innovation can be leveraged to counteract the global "race to the bottom" resulting from liberalization and promote more equitable outcomes. Innovation in Real Places Author: Dan Breznitz; Georgia Institute of Technology Was South Africa More Innovative Under Apartheid? The Case for Representation in Innovation Studies Author: Andy Buschmann; U. of Michigan, Ann Arbor Consumption Targeted Innovation for Women: From Principle to Practice? Author: Amos Zehavi; Tel Aviv U. Author: Shai Oxenberg; Tel Aviv U. UK space sector commerce and the 'Levelling Up' Agenda Author: Michele Scataglini; Saïd Business School U. of Oxford Author: Viktor Salenius; - Author: Dimiana Farag; Said Business School Author: Marc Ventresca; U. of Oxford The Impact of Critical Rare Metal Availability on the Renewable Energy Transition Author: Simona Iammarino; LSE Author: George Yunxiong; London School of Economics [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores whether recent political and economic developments have transformed religious organizations' association with the welfare state. Welfare state development in the West was influenced by the Church. Nevertheless, almost all developed countries have undergone a process of secularization in which the religious attachments of major segments of society, and also certain state institutions, have weakened. In fact, it has been argued that welfare state' expansion has contributed to secularization. This expansion, however, has stalled in recent years and most welfare states have entered an 'age of austerity'. Three of the main developments of this period are a) increased pressure for welfare state retrenchment, b) a growing demand for welfare program restructuring, and c) a significant ideological rightward shift. This paper argues that, in principle, these three developments have created new opportunities for an increased role for religion in welfare funding, delivery, design, and in politics. In practice, however, religious institutions, outside of the U.S., are too weak to make a difference in terms of welfare funding and politics, but there are signs of increased church involvement in welfare delivery and design. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In what fields, if at all, is privatization normatively impermissible? Previous discussions of this question have focused on specific policy domains (e.g., private prisons) from the perspective of one or two normative values (e.g., equity). The theoretical framework proposed in this article focuses on the analysis of three different normative values/factors: personal rights, democratic decision-making and accountability, and state capacity. This analysis, conducted within a consequentialist framework, stresses the implications of the explicit and implicit reliance of normative arguments on assumptions concerning privatization outcomes. Furthermore, special attention is given to the normative implications of four types of variations in the contours of privatization: differences in public-private incentive alignment; full vs. partial privatization; for-profit vs. nonprofit provision; and differences between institutional settings. This theoretical framework is then applied to two central case studies: prison and court privatization. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A heated debate focused on the impact of multiculturalism and ethnic heterogeneity on welfare state generosity has emerged in recent years. At the center of the debate is the argument that ethnic heterogeneity undermines support for the welfare state for several reasons. Prominent among these is the difficulty of creating broad social solidarity in an ethnically divided society: solidarity which is allegedly necessary for sustaining public support for the welfare state. This study explores the "heterogeneity undermines the welfare state" logic in the context of welfare state politics in Israel. Israel would appear to be a near-perfect example of how ethnic and religious heterogeneity strains social solidarity and, in turn, undermines the welfare state. Quite differently from most studies, however, this work's emphasis is not on public attitudes or voting, but on the political interaction between economically disadvantaged ethnic minorities - specifically Arabs on the one hand and orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews on the other - in the welfare field. It is argued that shared interests enable extensive cooperation among political elites in the welfare field despite religiously-and nationally-based antagonism. Elite politics combined with low public visibility facilitate such cooperation, which appears at first unthinkable. Nevertheless, interest-based welfare coalitions of this type are shallow in the sense that they tend to be ad-hoc, focus on a narrow range of issues and are particularly vulnerable to government divide and rule tactics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores whether recent political and economic developments have transformed religious organizations' association with the welfare state. Welfare state development in the West was influenced by the Church. Nevertheless, almost all developed countries have undergone a process of secularization in which the religious attachments of major segments of society, and also certain state institutions, have weakened. In fact, it has been argued that welfare state' expansion has contributed to secularization. This expansion, however, has stalled in recent years and most welfare states have entered an 'age of austerity'. Three of the main developments of this period are a) increased pressure for welfare state retrenchment, b) a growing demand for welfare program restructuring, and c) a significant ideological rightward shift. This paper argues that, in principle, these three developments have created new opportunities for an increased role for religion in welfare funding, delivery, design, and in politics. In practice, however, religious institutions, outside of the U.S., are too weak to make a difference in terms of welfare funding and politics, but there are signs of increased church involvement in welfare delivery and design. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Around 1970, public aid for private schools in Australia, New Zealand and the U.S. was marginal although a politically influential Catholic school establishment was desperately campaigning for public aid in all three. Since then, the three education systems have diverged dramatically. While in the U.S. public aid has, by and large, been denied to private schools, especially sectarian ones, in Australia all private schools have since received aid and the private school sector has expanded significantly as a result. In New Zealand, public aid to private schools is modest and the private school sector has, in fact, diminished in size since 1970. This study explains the reasons for the divergent development with an emphasis on institutional constraints and also on the strategic creation, and bypass, of institutions by both proponents and opponents of public aid. A framework of two comparisons of political institutions, policy processes and decision making - Australia compared to the U.S. and Australia compared to New Zealand - offers insights about the circumstances under which the use of veto points aids or fails reform. Furthermore, the study also explores how significant reform can proceed in either a rapid or a slow pace. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contributions to the public administration literature have debated for more than a decade the merit of claims that the policy process and environment has moved from governmentdominated to New Governance. New Governance is said to involve the use of 'soft' policy instruments, such as moral suasion, on the one hand, and far less use of coercive means, on the other. This study explores the introduction of 'new accountability' to nongovernment schools, in Australia and Israel, as an illustration of the use of diverse policy instruments in a New Governance setting. It is argued that even in the presence of powerful private actors, on which policy implementation depends, governments employ coercive policy instruments. However, to be effective, these policy instruments must be combined with 'softer' instruments. Furthermore, the article also demonstrates the limits for the use of 'soft' instruments, or even 'soft-hard' instruments mixes. Under circumstances in which public and private interests conflict, there is little that governments could do in a New Governance policy setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractHistorically, faith-based organizations made important contributions in the field of social provision, but with the advent of the modern welfare state, their role diminished dramatically. This article examines and explains the renewed interest in the United States and Britain in publicly funded faith-based social provision. Despite significant differences between the two countries, their governments have endorsed strikingly similar faith-based initiatives that have institutionalized the relationship between the state and faith-based organizations. This study explains the emergence of faith-based initiatives as one component of welfare state restructuring, and more specifically, as a response to the growing problem of minority' social exclusion in urban areas. Finally, the article explores the possibility of the policy's spread to other countries. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper claims that the spread of privatization of delivery in social services - that is privatization of provision while funding remains public - has not proceeded uniformly across different policy domains. Certain differences in the attributes of policy domains are responsible for the variance in the incidence and extent of privatization of delivery. The paper examines two such attributes: the size of policy domains and the prevalence of professional philosophies that support institutional restructuring for reasons other than privatization. By utilizing a comparison of privatization of delivery initiatives in the education and mental health domains, across two political systems - England and Massachusetts - this study suggests that privatization of delivery is more difficult in large policy domains than in small ones and that privatization is facilitated by the pre-existence of dominant professional philosophies that demand institutional restructuring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]