Economic Stability and Economic Governance in the Euro Area:What the European Crisis Can Teach on the Limits of Economic Integration

The recent European economic crisis has dramatically exposed the failures of
the various institutional mechanisms in place to maintain economic stability
in Europe, and has unveiled the difficulty in achieving international coordination
on fiscal and financial stability policies. Drawing on the European
experience, this article analyzes the concept of economic stability in international
law and highlights the peculiar problems connected to its maintenance
or promotion. First, we demonstrate that policies that safeguard and
protect economic stability are largely regulated and managed at the national
level, due to their inextricable relationship with the exercise of national political
power. Until recently, more limited levels of pan-European integration
did not make the coordination of economic stability policies seem necessary.
However, a much deeper level of economic integration makes it very difficult
to tackle an international economic crisis through national responses. If EU
Member states wish to maintain and deepen economic integration, they
must accept an erosion of sovereignty over their economic stability policies.
This will not only deprive states of a fundamental anchor of political power,
but also create a challenge for the maintenance of democratic control over
economic policies. Second, this article argues that soft law approaches are
likely ineffective in enforcing the regulatory disciplines required to ensure
economic stability.

Employing neo-Durkheimian institutional theory in crosscultural accounting research

Purpose
Neo-Durkheimian institutional theory, as developed by the anthropologist Mary Douglas, is proposed as a suitable theory base for undertaking cross-cultural accounting research. Her social theory provides a structure for examining within-country and cross-country actions and behaviours of different groups and communities. It avoids associating nations and cultures, instead contending any nation will comprise four different solidarities engaging in constant
dialogues. Further, it is a dynamic theory able to take account of cultural change.

Design/methodology/approach
The paper establishes a case for using neo-Durkheimian institutional theory in cross-cultural accounting research by specifying the key components of the theory and addressing common criticisms. To illustrate how the theory might be utilised in the domain of accounting and finance research, a comparative interpretation of the different experiences of financialization in Germany and the UK is provided drawing on Douglas’s grid-group schema.

Findings (mandatory)
Neo-Durkheimian institutional theory is deemed sufficiently capable of interpreting the
behaviours of different social groups and is not open to the same criticisms as Hofstede’s
work. Differences in Douglasian cultural dialogues in the post-1945 history of Germany and
the UK provide an explanation of the variations in the comparative experiences of
financialization.

Institutional Hybridity in Public Sector Reform: Replacement, Blending, or Layering of Administrative Paradigms

Despite an abundance of studies on hybridization and hybrid forms of organizing, scholarly work has failed to distinguish consistently between specific types of hybridity. As a consequence, the analytical category has become blurred and lacks conceptual clarity. Our paper discusses hybridity as the simultaneous appearance of institutional logics in organizational contexts, and differentiates the parallel co-existence of logics from transitional combinations (eventually leading to the replacement of a logic) and more robust combinations in the form of layering and blending. While blending refers to hybridity as an ‘amalgamate’ with original components that are no longer discernible, the notion of layering conceptualizes hybridity in a way that the various elements, or clusters thereof, are added on top of, or alongside, each other, similar to sediment layers in geology. We illustrate and substantiate such conceptual differentiation with an empirical study of the dynamics of public sector reform. In more detail, we examine the parliamentary discourse around two major reforms of the Austrian Federal Budget Law in 1986 and in 2007/2009 in order to trace administrative (reform) paradigms. Each of the three identified paradigms manifests a specific field-level logic with implications for the state and its administration: bureaucracy in Weberian-style Public Administration, market-capitalism in New Public Management, and democracy in New Public Governance. We find no indication of a parallel co-existence or transitional combination of logics, but hybridity in the form of robust combinations. We explore how new ideas fundamentally build on – and are made resonant with – the central bureaucratic logic in a way that suggests layering rather than blending. The conceptual findings presented in our article have implications for the literature on institutional analysis and institutional hybridity.

Theorizing temporary spatial clusters and institutional boundary-work in industrial markets

To better understand the nature of temporary spatial clusters (TSC’s) in industrial marketing settings, this conceptual paper first provides a theoretical synthesis of spatial understanding from the industrial marketing (IM) and economic geography (EG) fields, focusing particularly on Doreen Massey’s work on relational space. This leads to a conceptual schema for organizing the IM literature in terms of spatiality, and which also helps clarify the ontological nature of TSCs. We then move to introduce the notion of institutional boundary-work, drawing on the work of Thomas Gieryn, and Andrea Brighenti’s examination of territorology, to conceptualize the activities of market actors engaged in the ongoing social accomplishment of TSCs. Such activities, we suggest, involve these actors ‘marching’ boundaries to assume network influence and maintain market order in IM settings. In summary, therefore, our paper addresses two fundamental questions: i) How do we conceptualize the form of TSCs in IM settings? And, ii) what function(s) are TSCs performing (and how is this being undertaken) in IM? The paper closes by providing methodological guidance for how a research agenda on TSCs within IM activity might be developed, followed by a summary of the managerial implications that emerge from our theorizations.