Transformation or bureaucratisation?: the changing role of community representation in local strategic partnerships in England

The debate about the need to build social capital and to engage local communities in public policy has become a central issue in many advanced liberal societies and developing countries. In many countries new forms of governance have emerged out of a growing realisation that representative democracy by itself is no longer sufficient. One of the most significant public policy trends in the UK has been the involvement of community organisations and their members in the delivery of national policy, mediated through local systems of governance and management. One such policy area is urban regeneration. Central government now requires local authorities in England to set up Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) to bring together stakeholders who can prepare Community Strategies and deliver social and economic programmes which target areas of deprivation. This paper reviews the key institutional processes which must be addressed, such as representation, accountability and transformation.

Local strategic partnerships in England: the continuing search for collaborative advantage, leadership and strategy in urban governance

Local Strategic Partnerships are being established in England to provide an inclusive, collaborative and strategic focus to regeneration strategies at the local level. They are also required to rationalise the proliferation of local and micro-partnerships set up by a succession of funding initiatives over the last 25 years. This article explores their remit, resources and membership and discusses how this initiative relates to theoretical work on urban governance, community engagement and leadership. It concludes by debating whether urban policy in England is now entering a new and more advanced phase based on inter-organisational networks with a strategic purpose. But questions remain about whether the institutional capacity is sufficient to deliver strong local leadership, accountability and community engagement.

Strategic tensions within the smartphones industry: the case of BlackBerry

This paper reviews some aspects of corporate strategy in a well-known smart phone provider. Two approaches to strategy are analysed: one concerning the industry and the other related to the organization. A general introduction on the smart phones industry is given followed by specific background on BlackBerry. Two perspectives are explored: the first talks about the paradox of compliance and choice within the industry and the second discusses the paradox of control and chaos in BlackBerry. The paper concludes with a brief overview on the company performance from 2006 to 2012 leading to some recommendations.

Making way for change at the Bar: The practical implications of the new Bar Standards Board Handbook

The Legal Services Act 2007 caused a need to change professional conduct rules for lawyers in England and Wales. The Bar Standards Board Handbook brings substantial changes to the way barristers are regulated. Changes include litigation rights, reporting of professional misconduct, an increased focus on chambers, and expansion to include employees of chambers and barristers without practicing certificates (unregistered or non-practicing barristers). The approach to enforcement and supervision moves to include elements of outcome focused, principle based and risk based approaches. These changes have the potential to change the practice of different groups of barristers and the dynamics between them.

Board attributes that increase firm risk - evidence from the UK

Purpose – The aim of the paper is to identify the board attributes that significantly increase firm risk. The study aims to find if board size, percentage of non-executive directors, women on the board, a powerful CEO, equity ownership amongst executive board directors and institutional investor ownership, are associated with firm risk. This is the first study that examines which board attributes increase firm risk using a UK based sample. Design/methodology/approach – This empirical study collected secondary data from Bloomberg and Morningstar databases. The data sample is an unbalanced panel of 260 companies’ secondary data on FTSE 350 index in the UK, from 2005 to 2010. The data was statistically analysed using STATA. Findings – The study establishes the board attributes that were significantly related to firm risk. The results show that a board which can increase firm risk is one that is small in size,has high equity ownership amongst executive board directors and has high institutional investor ownership. Research limitations/implications – The governance culture and regulatory system in the UK is different from other countries. Since the data is a UK based sample, the results can lack generalisability. Practical implications – The results are useful for investors who invest in large firms, to have the knowledge about the board attributes that can increase firm risk. Regulators can also use the results to strengthen regulatory guidelines. Originality/value – This study fills the gap in knowledge in UK governance literature on the board attributes that can increase firm risk.