Search

Previous research have opposed secrecy and openness as mutually exclusive processes. In this paper, we suggest a more nuanced approach to secrecy in open innovation, drawing from Philosophy and Sociology. We have conducted a two-year research program in the defense industry, collecting data on the practices of concealment in open innovation activities. We found that focal actors utilize distinct cognitive techniques to decontextualize knowledge in the course of open innovation projects in order to safeguard secrecy while preserving mutual learning. Further, focal actors design contrasted relational approaches to secrecy with their open innovation partners. Such approaches are based on the positions of secrecy boundaries, which are internal or external to the relationship. In fact, actors intentionally make use of the reversible nature of secrecy, balancing inclusion and exclusion of knowledge in partnerships, to meet objectives that sometimes go beyond knowledge protection. Finally, we build on our findings to introduce a capability-based framework of secrecy management in openness processes. This framework, which we call Knowledge Discretion, suggests that actors overcome tensions stemming from secrecy and openness playing on the contextual depth and relational breadth of external knowledge sharing.

Recent contributions in the domains of governance and regulation elucidate the importance of rule-intermediation (RI), the role that organizations adopt to bridge actors playing regulatory or “rule-making” (RM) roles, and those adopting target or “rule-taking” (RT) roles. Intermediation not only enables diffusion and translation of regulatory norms, but also allows for the representation of different actors in policy-making arenas. While prior studies have explored the roles that such RIs adopt to facilitate their intermediation functions, we have yet to consider how field-level structuring processes influence (and are influenced by) the various and changing roles adopted by RIs. In this study, we focus on the mutually constitutive relations between field-level change processes and the evolving roles of RIs by studying the rise of ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives/Local Governments for Sustainability), an RI serving as a bridge for sustainable urban development policies between the United Nations and urban authorities. Using ICLEI as an illustrate case, we theorize four different processes of regulatory field consolidation and fragmentation including: problematization, role specialization, marketization and orchestrated decentralization. We discuss their implications for the RI roles in the field and further theorize the changing dynamics of trickle-up intermediation processes as an RI gains power and influence. This is the pre-peer reviewed version of the following article: Bothello, J. and Mehrpouya, A. (2018), Between regulatory field structuring and organizational roles: Intermediation in the field of sustainable urban development. Regulation & Governance, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12215. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions.

COVID-19 is a matter of common European interest since its very first detection on the continent. Yet this pandemic outbreak has largely been handled as an essentially national matter.This article makes a first attempt at unpacking how such fragmented, uncoordinated national responses to COVID19 came into being under the EU legal order. To do so, it systematizes the European response into separate stages. Phase 1 – the emergency – has been characterized by the adoption of national emergency risk management measures that, albeit country specific, were inspired by a common objective of pandemic suppression, i.e. to reduce disease transmission and thereby diminishing pressure on health services, under the by now well-known ‘flatten the curve’ imperative. Phase 2 – the lifting – is about the attempt at relaxing some of the national risk responses in a coordinated fashion to avoid creating negative spillovers or distortions – be they sanitary and/or financial – across the Union.The article argues that contrary to conventional wisdom the resulting uncoordinated EU response to Covid-19 shouldn’t be seen as the inevitable consequence of the EU’s limited competence in public health. Against this backdrop, it strives to define the regulatory policy framework that might be governing the next phases of the European risk management response to this pandemic as they will emerge from a widely undefined yet unescapable dialectic between the Union and its member states. Ultimately, it predicts that by testing the outer limits of the EU public health competence COVID-19 is set to go down in history as a major catalyst in the advancement of EU health emergency action.

This paper was presented for the first time during the 2018 SASE Annual Conference that was held in June 2018 at Doshisha University. A revised version of this paper is to be published in The Japanese Political Economy.; This paper aims at finding out how the shareholder-value pursuit has affected labor policies at large Japanese listed enterprises. It concentrates on the issue of labor bifurcation, whereby the proportion of nonregular employees has grown rapidly over the last two decades, currently approaching the numbers of regular employees.In Japan, corporate governance reforms became key to structural macroeconomic changes according to the 2013 “Japan Revitalization Strategy” formulated by the Cabinet Office. This document mandated the creation of the JPX-Nikkei Index 400 – an index called to accommodate the most investor-friendly joint-stock companies. The move towards a shareholder model has been further reinforced through a rapid surge in foreignstockholding that started during the post-bubble period of the mid-1990s. At the same time, the externalities of increased returns to stockholders have been the changes in the related domains of management and labor, which I explain through the application of the political economic theory. This theory underlines the importance of inclusion into a “political bloc” for being eligible for economic benefits. Consequently, I argue that increased returns to politically privileged shareholders have been achieved at the expense of a growing proportion of unprivileged nonregular employees.The evidence yields support to the argument about the positive correlation between shareholder value and the proportion of nonregulars. On the other hand, foreign stockholding does not appear to be significantly correlated with the increase in nonregular employment. In turn, the study has found that the proportion of nonregular employees is significantly correlated with domestic ownership that characterizes higher managerial entrenchment.

Nudge is a semantically multifarious concept that originates in Thaler and Sunstein's (2008) popular eponymous book. In one of its senses, it is a policy for redirecting an agent's choices by only slightly altering his choice conditions, in another sense, it is concerned with bounded rationality as a means of the policy, and in still another sense, it is concerned with bounded rationality as an obstacle to be removed by the policy, when the latter has a benevolent aim. The paper centres on the interrelations, both semantic and factual, of these three nudge concepts. It argues that the first and second are basically disconnected on Thaler and Sunstein's major examples of nudges, and that this has gone unnoticed to them because they wrongly equate the second with the third concept, and also because they overestimate the explanatory power of behavioural economics, compared with that of classical rational choice theory, to account for successful interventions. After completing this analysis, the paper moves to some of the normative issues raised by Thaler and Sunstein. Their thought-provoking claim that liberalism and paternalism can be reconciled within one and the same doctrine of social ethics - libertarian paternalism – has been subjected to thorough philosophical criticism. Rather than following this abstract line, the paper takes the shortcut of arguing that Thaler and Sunstein lose their best defence of libertarian paternalism after the nudge concepts are disentangled. They had effectively based their case on the view that slight interventions could have powerful effects through a clever use of bounded rationality, and it has been shown that the latter is not really at work in the interventions they consider. The paper finally concludes that the three nudge concepts are worth pursuing, though independently of each other, and in particular that the third one, which involves correcting the pitfalls of bounded rationality, should receive sustained attention from policy analysts.