Search

Actors, including economists, carry a responsibility for their actions and the consequences thereof seems obvious. In economics and among large numbers of economists this notion that economists should be responsible for their actions and the consequences thereof is not shared widely, as the financial crisis of 2007–8 and its aftermath indicated. We address related issues: economics has not really allowed conceptual space for the concept of responsibility. Responsibility, as commonly understood, is a duty or obligation of one particular individual towards others, such as individuals or institutions including the state. Individuals can thus be ‘held responsible’ for how their (lack of) actions affect others in a broad sense. We define responsibility as one’s self-limiting and self-assumed obligation towards others to be aware of how one’s actions have consequences for others–consequences which one is obliged to factor in when deciding upon an action. In this sense, we build on the work of Young ([2006]. Responsibility and Global Justice–a social connection model. Social Philosophy and Policy, 23 (1), 102–130.). Failure to factor in the consequences of one’s actions on others trying to avoid damage to others, even more than seeking others’ benefit, is a failure to behave responsibly. We discuss what this entails for the discussion about a professional code of conduct for economists. A code of conduct (rather than a law), i.e. a set of agreed upon rules to guide preferred behaviours of economists about what it means to act responsibly, will only prescribe to the extent that economists choose to have it affect their behaviour.

Efficient knowledge and information transfer within as well as across organizational boundaries are of a proven importance for survival and growth of firms. At the same time, however, on the one hand, knowledge available within organizations is not always used to its full capacity, at times at the considerable detriment of organizations involved. Furthermore, on the other hand, despite the recognized importance of an efficient interorganizational knowledge transfer, many collaborations have not delivered on their promises. Merges and acquisitions deals, for instance, are prone to fail. The goal of this article is to propose and illustrate a conceptual argument why knowledge and information transfer that crosses departmental and firm boundaries, and in doing so often also domain or disciplinary boundaries, is challenging.

The Stage-Gate process is a tool used by innovation managers to rationalize resource allocation the innovation process by breaking the innovation process into different stages, and determining progress and prospects at gates using pre-determined criteria. This study determines the performance impact of investing financial resources relatively heavily in the front-end or early stages of new product development (NPD) projects. Data was collected for NPD projects for one of the largest consumer electronics firms in the world. Investing relative more resources in front-end activities positively affects performance. The degree of newness of an NPD project positively moderates this relationship.