The metamorphosis of authority: a case study of the Aga Khan Development Network and the Ismaili Imamate

This research is a study of modern developments of the institutions of the Nizārī Ismaili imamate during the time of the present Ismaili Imam, Shāh Karīm al-Ḥusaynī, Aga Khan IV, as the 49th hereditary living Imam of Shiʿi Nizārī Ismaili Muslims, particularly addressing the formation of the Aga Khan Development Network (AKDN) and the functions of the Community institutions. Using the case study of the Aga Khan Development Network and the Nizārī Ismaili imamate, this research demonstrates that the three ideal types of authority as proposed by Weber, namely the traditional, charismatic and legal-bureaucratic types, are not sufficient to explain the dynamics of authority among Muslims. This is partly due to Weber’s belief in the uniqueness of Western civilisation, which is a product of his thesis on Protestant Ethics and partly because his ideal typical system does not work in the case of the Muslim societies. The Ismaili imamate with its multifarious institutions in contemporary times is the most suitable counter-example by which to powerfully demonstrate that Weberian models of authority fail to explain this phenomenon and it would indeed appear as a paradoxical institution if viewed with Weberian theses. The Ismaili imamate in contemporary times represents a paradigm shift and a transmutation not only as regards the Weberian models but also when viewed from inside the tradition of Shiʿi Muslim history. This evolutionary leap forward, which has been crystallised over the course of the past half a century, in the Ismaili imamate suggests the development of a new form of authority which is unprecedented. There are clearly various elements in this form of authority which could be discerned as rooted in tradition and history; however the distinctive elements of this new form of authority give it a defining and exciting dimension. There are several qualities which are peculiar to the contemporary condition of the Ismaili imamate and its style of leadership which are distinctive. Most importantly, while some central features, like succession by way of designation (naṣṣ) has not changed, there is one overarching quality which can best capture all these elements and that is the transmutation of the Ismaili imamate from the person of the Imam into the office of imamate and thus we are now facing the institutionalisation of the imamate and the office being the embodiment of the authority of the Imam. I have described this new development as a metamorphosis of the authority because it gives an entirely new form and content to the previously familiar concept of authority in the Shiʿi Ismaili Muslim tradition.

Technology transfer in Britain: the case of monoclonal antibodies

In 1975 two Cambridge scientists published a short article in Nature which announced the discovery of monoclonal antibodies. The article concluded ‘Such cultures could be valuable for medical and industrial use’. The interest which developed by the end of the decade in the industrial and financial possibilities of the new prospects opening up in biotechnology was to throw the apparent ‘failure’ to follow‐up the potentialities of this discovery into a public prominence rarely achieved by scientific discoveries. By the time Mrs Thatcher came to power it had become a scandal, another example of Britain's apparent inability to exploit effectively the brilliance of its scientific base. It was to explore both the process of scientific discovery and the conditions in Cambridge which nurtured it, and the issues which this particular discovery raised in the area of technology transfer (and the changes of policy that ensued), that the Wellcome Trust's History of Twentieth Century Medicine Group and the Institute of Contemporary British History organised this special witness seminar. It was held at the Wellcome Trust in London on 24 September 1993. The seminar was chaired by Sir Christopher Booth and introduced by Dr Robert Bud of the Science Museum. Those participating included the two authors of the Nature article, Dr César Milstein and Dr Georges Köhler, who received a Nobel Prize for their research, Dr Basil Bard (National Research Development Corporation [NRDC] 1950–74), Sir James Gowans (Secretary of the Medical Research Council [MRC] 1977–87), Sir John Gray (Secretary of the MRC 1968–77), John Newell (BBC World Service science correspondent 1969–79), Dr David Owen (MRC), and Dr David Secher (Laboratory of Molecular Biology [LMB], Cambridge). There were also contributions from Dr Ita Askonas (former head of immunology at the National Institute for Medical Research), Dr John Galloway (former member of MRC headquarters staff), Dr David Tyrrell (former Director, MRC Common Cold Unit), Professor Miles Weatherall (head of Therapeutic Research Division, Wellcome Research Laboratories 1967–75), Dr Guil Winchester (post‐doctoral fellow, Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine), and Dr Peter Williams (former Director of the Wellcome Trust). The organisers would like to thank the Wellcome Trust for hosting and sponsoring the seminar. We would like to dedicate this publication to the memory of Georges Köhler, who sadly died in April 1995 before this could appear.

History of Electrex 1950-1993

Electrex developed from a small exhibition at the start of the 1950s into the top electrotechnical exhibition of products and related services in the UK by the 1990s. Its emergence reflected a complex relationship with the key trade association, BEAMA (the British Electrical and Allied Manufacturers' Association). This history places this development in a wider context marked by the disappearance of the British Industries Fair in the 1950s, the entry to Europe and the establishment of the National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham. In the process it is also a rare case study of the under-explored business histories of exhibitions, as well as casting light on the changing post-war fortunes of the British electrical industries.

Television history: archives, excavation and the future. A discussion

This article considers possible futures for television (TV) studies, imagining how the discipline might evolve more productively over the next 10 years and what practical steps are necessary to move towards those outcomes. Conducted as a round-table discussion between leading figures in television history and archives, the debate focuses on the critical issue of archives, considering and responding to questions of access/inaccessibility, texts/contexts, commercial/symbolic value, impact and relevance. These questions reflect recurrent concerns when selecting case studies for historical TV research projects: how difficult is it to access the material (when it survives)? What obstacles might be faced (copyright, costs, etc.) when disseminating findings to a wider public? The relationship between the roles of ‘researcher’ and ‘archivist’ appears closer and more mutually supportive in TV studies than in other academic disciplines, with many people in practice straddling the traditional divide between the two roles, combining specialisms that serve to further scholarship and learning as well as the preservation of, and broad public engagements with, collections. The Research Excellence Framework’s imperative for academic researchers to achieve ‘impact’ in broader society encourages active and creative collaboration with those based in public organizations, such as the British Film Institute (BFI), who have a remit to reach a wider public. The discussion identifies various problems and successes experienced in collaboration between the academic, public and commercial sectors in the course of recent and ongoing research projects in TV studies.

Capital 2.0 capital formation and legal risk in a new global economic order from fiat to exit: including case studies of the proposed transatlantic trade and investment partnership between the United States and the European Union and the financing relation between the United States and the People’s Republic of China

Following the intrinsically linked balance sheets in his Capital Formation Life Cycle, Lukas M. Stahl explains with his Triple A Model of Accounting, Allocation and Accountability the stages of the Capital Formation process from FIAT to EXIT. Based on the theoretical foundations of legal risk laid by the International Bar Association with the help of Roger McCormick and legal scholars such as Joanna Benjamin, Matthew Whalley and Tobias Mahler, and founded on the basis of Wesley Hohfeld’s category theory of jural relations, Stahl develops his mutually exclusive Four Determinants of Legal Risk of Law, Lack of Right, Liability and Limitation. Those Four Determinants of Legal Risk allow us to apply, assess, and precisely describe the respective legal risk at all stages of the Capital Formation Life Cycle as demonstrated in case studies of nine industry verticals of the proposed and currently negotiated Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the United States of America and the European Union, TTIP, as well as in the case of the often cited financing relation between the United States and the People’s Republic of China. Having established the Four Determinants of Legal Risk and its application to the Capital Formation Life Cycle, Stahl then explores the theoretical foundations of capital formation, their historical basis in classical and neo-classical economics and its forefathers such as The Austrians around Eugen von Boehm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek and most notably and controversial, Karl Marx, and their impact on today’s exponential expansion of capital formation. Starting off with the first pillar of his Triple A Model, Accounting, Stahl then moves on to explain the Three Factors of Capital Formation, Man, Machines and Money and shows how “value-added” is created with respect to the non-monetary capital factors of human resources and industrial production. Followed by a detailed analysis discussing the roles of the Three Actors of Monetary Capital Formation, Central Banks, Commercial Banks and Citizens Stahl readily dismisses a number of myths regarding the creation of money providing in-depth insight into the workings of monetary policy makers, their institutions and ultimate beneficiaries, the corporate and consumer citizens. In his second pillar, Allocation, Stahl continues his analysis of the balance sheets of the Capital Formation Life Cycle by discussing the role of The Five Key Accounts of Monetary Capital Formation, the Sovereign, Financial, Corporate, Private and International account of Monetary Capital Formation and the associated legal risks in the allocation of capital pursuant to his Four Determinants of Legal Risk. In his third pillar, Accountability, Stahl discusses the ever recurring Crisis-Reaction-Acceleration-Sequence-History, in short: CRASH, since the beginning of the millennium starting with the dot-com crash at the turn of the millennium, followed seven years later by the financial crisis of 2008 and the dislocations in the global economy we are facing another seven years later today in 2015 with several sordid debt restructurings under way and hundred thousands of refugees on the way caused by war and increasing inequality. Together with the regulatory reactions they have caused in the form of so-called landmark legislation such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, the JOBS Act of 2012 or the introduction of the Basel Accords, Basel II in 2004 and III in 2010, the European Financial Stability Facility of 2010, the European Stability Mechanism of 2012 and the European Banking Union of 2013, Stahl analyses the acceleration in size and scope of crises that appears to find often seemingly helpless bureaucratic responses, the inherent legal risks and the complete lack of accountability on part of those responsible. Stahl argues that the order of the day requires to address the root cause of the problems in the form of two fundamental design defects of our Global Economic Order, namely our monetary and judicial order. Inspired by a 1933 plan of nine University of Chicago economists abolishing the fractional reserve system, he proposes the introduction of Sovereign Money as a prerequisite to void misallocations by way of judicial order in the course of domestic and transnational insolvency proceedings including the restructuring of sovereign debt throughout the entire monetary system back to its origin without causing domino effects of banking collapses and failed financial institutions. In recognizing Austrian-American economist Schumpeter’s Concept of Creative Destruction, as a process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one, Stahl responds to Schumpeter’s economic chemotherapy with his Concept of Equitable Default mimicking an immunotherapy that strengthens the corpus economicus own immune system by providing for the judicial authority to terminate precisely those misallocations that have proven malignant causing default perusing the century old common law concept of equity that allows for the equitable reformation, rescission or restitution of contract by way of judicial order. Following a review of the proposed mechanisms of transnational dispute resolution and current court systems with transnational jurisdiction, Stahl advocates as a first step in order to complete the Capital Formation Life Cycle from FIAT, the creation of money by way of credit, to EXIT, the termination of money by way of judicial order, the institution of a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Court constituted by a panel of judges from the U.S. Court of International Trade and the European Court of Justice by following the model of the EFTA Court of the European Free Trade Association. Since the first time his proposal has been made public in June of 2014 after being discussed in academic circles since 2011, his or similar proposals have found numerous public supporters. Most notably, the former Vice President of the European Parliament, David Martin, has tabled an amendment in June 2015 in the course of the negotiations on TTIP calling for an independent judicial body and the Member of the European Commission, Cecilia Malmström, has presented her proposal of an International Investment Court on September 16, 2015. Stahl concludes, that for the first time in the history of our generation it appears that there is a real opportunity for reform of our Global Economic Order by curing the two fundamental design defects of our monetary order and judicial order with the abolition of the fractional reserve system and the introduction of Sovereign Money and the institution of a democratically elected Transatlantic Trade and Investment Court that commensurate with its jurisdiction extending to cases concerning the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership may complete the Capital Formation Life Cycle resolving cases of default with the transnational judicial authority for terminal resolution of misallocations in a New Global Economic Order without the ensuing dangers of systemic collapse from FIAT to EXIT.