Participatory Partnerships: Engaging and Empowering to Enhance Environmental Management and Quality of Life?

It is generally believed that, when partnerships with civil society are created, members of the public become engaged in defining and solving problems, and as a result become empowered through enhanced understanding of substantive problems, and of the processes used by society to deal with them. In this context, two fundamental assumptions related to a partnership approach deserve examination. First, partnerships assume a shared vision among partners, and a willingness to work together in a spirit of collaboration and cooperation. However, humans often are competitive, protective and defensive, attributes unlikely to lead to collaboration and cooperation. Second, advocates of a participatory approach advocate, or assume, that citizens will become empowered through being part of a partnership process. If partnerships are to be encouraged, we need to know if such a transformation actually occurs. Two experiences in Canada, one dealing with shared decision making during a resource and land use management process in British Columbia, and the other focused on an environmental impact assessment process in Manitoba, provide evidence that challenges whether these assumptions are easily satisfied.     

从全球人口百年(1950～2050)审视我国人口国策的抉择

基于“人口众多”这一基本国情,我国自20世纪80年代前后采取了严格控制人口增长的政策。对于这一政策应科学、全面地衡量其利害得失。文章利用全球人口资料和我国历次人口普查及人口预测资料,从人口规模、结构的发展变化作实证研究。最终认为,我国的人口国策是利大于弊。     

Models of well-being and ill-being

The purpose of this paper is to present models of well-being and ill-being which integrate the effects of different types of independent variables. Using the more powerful techniques provided by the LISREL software, the paper replicates and extends analysis previously reported in SIR (Headey, Holmstrom and Wearing, 1984a). A preliminary issue is whether well-being and ill-being constitute different dimensions or whether they are polar opposites. Factor analytic evidence, derived from two waves of an Australian panel study (1981, 1983) with samples of 942 and 878 respectively, confirms that indicators of well-being and ill-being form distinct, although not orthogonal dimensions. In the models of well-being and ill-being estimated from the panel data, we attempt to integrate research dealing with the impact of social background, personality, social networks and satisfaction with particular domains of life. Two key personality traits which influence both well-being and ill-being are self-esteem and personal competence. Social background (SES) has greater influence on ill-being than well-being. Having a well-developed social network, on the other hand, contributes more to enhancement of well-being than relief of ill-being. This is largely because a rich social network is associated with satisfaction with leisure, friends and marriage, which themselves are the life domains most closely connected to feelings of well-being. By contrast, the domain of health is relatively closely associated with ill-being. The conclusion discusses public policy implications of the finding that well-being and ill-being have different correlates and causes. Conventional welfare policies are designed to relieve ill-being. Quite different policies (“positive welfare” policies) are required to enhance well-being.     

Stakeholder value disclosures: anchoring on primacy and importance of financial and nonfinancial performance measures

In the growing debate about stakeholder values, there has been little discussion about information overload or whether the requested disclosures can be effectively used. Stakeholder advocates call for complicated and massive environmental and related social disclosures while not considering how information overload might affect the discourse about corporate performance. Stakeholders, including shareholders, plead for more transparency in financial statements, management discussion and analysis (MDA), and other corporate disclosures. As we know, shareholders and boards of directors are most concerned with the ‘Holy Trinity’ of earnings per share, dividends and market value changes. We believe that managers and stakeholders involved in performance evaluations have multiple interests that extend beyond traditional shareholder value measures. We note that the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) was developed as one tool to reflect and communicate these multiple measures. We test how managers use (or ignore) multiple performance measures and we posit that stakeholders will face many of the same constraints when using and processing multiple disclosures including Corporate Social Reports (CSR), environmental, or similar disclosures. While we do not directly test a wide variety of stakeholder disclosures, we examine eight (four for a single subject) shareholder values (financial measures) and four stakeholder values (nonfinancial measures). The eight measures included in our research instruments serve as proxies for the multiple concerns that might be of interest to many stakeholders. Note that stakeholders are likely to be extremely interested in nonfinancial performance measures, while many shareholders will likely concentrate on financial performance measures. Field research has reported managers tend to favor financial measures while discounting or ignoring nonfinancial measures when evaluating subordinates, making it difficult to align performance evaluations and incentives with corporate strategies (Ittner et al. Account Rev 78:725–758, 2003). In this study, we find the relative weights managers place on financial and nonfinancial performance measures are influenced by both (1) presentation order and (2) the relative importance of specific measures. When financial measures are presented first, the manager who performs better on financial measures is rated higher than the manager who performs better on nonfinancial measures. However, when nonfinancial measures are presented first, managers who excel on nonfinancial measures are rated higher. Reports that include financial measures that are relatively more (less) important also produce higher (lower) ratings for the manager who excels on financial measures. Thus, the relative weights that superiors place on financial and nonfinancial measures in evaluating corporate managers’ performance are substantially anchored both by the order in which measures are presented as well as by the importance of the specific performance measures employed. Other stakeholder disclosures are likely to be similarly anchored, perhaps biased, by primacy and a priori importance rankings.     

Will they stay or will they go? How network properties of WebICs predict dropout rates of valuable Wikipedians

This paper contributes to our understanding of an increasingly prevalent work system, web-based internet communities (WebICs). We are particularly interested in how WebICs are governed given the fact how different they are compared to more classical forms of organization. We study the governance of a WebIC by studying the structure and dynamics of their edit network. Given the fact that the edit network is a relational structure, social network analysis is key to understanding these work systems. We demonstrate that characteristics of the edit network contribute to predicting the dropout hazard of valuable WebIC members. Since WebICs exist only thanks to the activity of their contributors, predicting drop-outs becomes crucial. The results show that reputation and controversy have different effects for different types of Wikipedians; i.e., an actor’s reputation decreases the dropout hazard of active Wikipedians, while participation on controversial pages decreases the dropout hazard of highly active Wikipedians.     

Network influence and organizational performance: The effects of tie strength and structural equivalence

We combine theory and empirical evidence to develop and test three related claims about how ties strength and structural equivalence affect interorganizational performance similarity. First, network partners attain similar levels of performance because direct network ties facilitate information and resource sharing, and the diffusion of organizational practices. Organizations occupying similar network positions attain similar levels of performance because they face similar competitive constraints. Second, because mechanisms underlying performance similarity implied by direct network ties and similarity in network positions are different, strength of network ties and network position affect different dimensions of organizational performance. Third, we expect that tie strength will affect aspects of performance that are more likely to be influenced by processes activated by the direct contact between network partners. We expect structural equivalence to affect more strongly those aspects of organizational performance that are more directly influenced by competition. An analysis of interorganizational networks and organizational performance within a regional community of hospitals provides evidence in support of these claims. Models estimated on a sample of 8190 interorganizational dyads suggest that the effects of tie strength and structural equivalence on organizational performance are highly differentiated and contingent on specific aspects of performance. We show that these conclusions are robust with respect to a wide variety of other factors that may be responsible for performance similarity including competitive interdependence, structural homophily, and resource complementarity.     

How do actors shape social networks during the process of new product development?

Recent studies on new-idea generation and development have highlighted the role played by network structure in the genesis of new combinations or the process of selecting ideas. However, less attention has been paid to the factors that entice actors to shape social networks during the process of the development of new ideas.This research was conducted in an R&D facility of a semi-conductor company. We analysed the generation of five creative projects and their development over a four-year period. We used a longitudinal approach and collected data through interviews and observations to identify the creative contributions and the actors who were involved at different time periods for each project. We mapped the relationships between actors who contributed to the development of each idea through creative thinking and/or helped it to become accepted both internally and externally over three-year windows. This method generated data on network evolution.We also carried out a qualitative analysis and identified four main factors explaining why actors turn to others during the idea-development process: (1) to gain access to information; (2) to enhance credibility; (3) to exercise one’s influence; and (4) to gain access to knowledge through people or objects. We demonstrate that different types of ties or network structures are relied upon to reap different kinds of benefits. This may partially explain network evolution as an idea progresses through different development stages.