The feudal model and the study of modern organizations

Woods, Joshua; Shlapentokh, Vladimir

doi:10.1108/ijotb-12-04-2009-b001

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 89 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In order to develop the feudal model as a tool of analysis, we begin by reviewing how it has been used by other investigators, past and present, and then synthesize some of these treatments in a cohesive conceptual framework. This treatment of feudalism builds on several of our previous works (Shlapentokh with Woods 2007;Shlapentokh 1996aShlapentokh , 1996bShlapentokh , 1997aShlapentokh , 1997bShlapentokh , 2003Shlapentokh , 2004Shlapentokh, Levita, and Loiberg 1997;Woods and Shlapentokh 2009). moguls, regional governors, and criminal organizations further weakened the state, encouraged corruption, and hindered the transition to democracy and a market economy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 68%

Feudal America: Elements of the Middle Ages in Contemporary Society

Shlapentokh¹,

Woods²

2012

Contemp Sociol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Judging by their commentary on American public opinion, their sharp debates on key social issues, and the wide variety of labels they place on society, the critics and observers of the United States seem to be talking about several different countries. Indeed, their portrayals of the country range from fascist state to ideal democracy.The United States is certainly not the only country to have stimulated debate over its defining characteristics. The Soviet Union, for instance, was the subject of a wide range of commentary and analysis. Until its collapse in 1991, many observers-both inside and outside the country-treated the USSR as a true socialist society, while others regarded it as a brutal totalitarian regime (Shlapentokh, Shiraev, and Carroll 2008). In the post-Soviet period, debates over Russia and other postcommunist countries continued. If some were eager to accept the official definition of Russia as a "normal" liberal capitalist country, others were no less insistent that labels such as "authoritarian" and "oligarchic" should be applied (Shlapentokh with Woods 2007).Similarly, is France the motor of European integration, a deeply nationalist country in search of "grandeur," a true democracy, a champion of egalitarianism, or a society with growing authoritarian and discriminatory tendencies? Italy, in its turn, has been described as a "normal" democratic society and an oligarchy, as well as a criminal society ruled by mafias. Iran is seen by some as a healthy Islamic democracy and by others as a highly repressive theocracy. Popular labels for China range from a "normal" totalitarian regime to a fledgling liberal capitalist society.Returning to the United States, we see sharp disagreements among journalists, scholars, and politicians on whether or to what extent the term "liberal capitalism," including genuine political and economic competition, accurately describes U.S. society. It is difficult to deny the considerable influ ence of corporations and political clans on the election process, the importance of personal relations in business and politics, the frequent disregard of merit in the hiring and selection procedures of public and private organizations, the Preface privatization of public space, the walling of wealthy American neighborhoods, the widespread use of private security, and the independent control of violent force. While there is agreement that deviations from ideal liberalism exist, there is general disagreement about the seriousness of these problems, how long they will persist, and how they became problems in the first place.One camp, the true believers in liberal capitalism, suggests that all such problems are temporary, accidental deviations from the liberal model. While every society faces considerable challenges, U.S. society is led, for the most part, by honest and able people who can meet these challenges. In other words, the problems derive not from the barrel, but from a few bad apples.This optimistic vision of liberal capitalism has been attacked from all sides. Those on the f...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 68%

Feudal America: Elements of the Middle Ages in Contemporary Society

Shlapentokh¹,

Woods²

2012

Contemp Sociol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Increasingly in the United States, private firms are performing the task of protecting individuals, groups, and assets. The safety and security of many Americans now depend in part on a range of private agents and organizations, from security guards, bodyguards, private investigators, and home security companies to commercial surveillance firms, massive in-house corporate security departments, private military companies, and other privatesector defense agencies and contractors (Wood and Shearing 2007;Loader and Walker 2007). These services not only secure life and property, but also aid in the expansion of wealth and power.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feudal America : Elements of the Middle Ages in Contemporary Society

Shlapentokh¹,

Woods²

2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Judging by their commentary on American public opinion, their sharp debates on key social issues, and the wide variety of labels they place on society, the critics and observers of the United States seem to be talking about several different countries. Indeed, their portrayals of the country range from fascist state to ideal democracy. The United States is certainly not the only country to have stimulated debate over its defining characteristics. The Soviet Union, for instance, was the subject of a wide range of commentary and analysis. Until its collapse in 1991, many observers-both inside and outside the country-treated the USSR as a true socialist society, while others regarded it as a brutal totalitarian regime (Shlapentokh, Shiraev, and Carroll 2008). In the post-Soviet period, debates over Russia and other postcommunist countries continued. If some were eager to accept the official definition of Russia as a "normal" liberal capitalist country, others were no less insistent that labels such as "authoritarian" and "oligarchic" should be applied (Shlapentokh with Woods 2007). Similarly, is France the motor of European integration, a deeply nationalist country in search of "grandeur," a true democracy, a champion of egalitarianism, or a society with growing authoritarian and discriminatory tendencies? Italy, in its turn, has been described as a "normal" democratic society and an oligarchy, as well as a criminal society ruled by mafias. Iran is seen by some as a healthy Islamic democracy and by others as a highly repressive theocracy. Popular labels for China range from a "normal" totalitarian regime to a fledgling liberal capitalist society. Returning to the United States, we see sharp disagreements among journalists, scholars, and politicians on whether or to what extent the term "liberal capitalism," including genuine political and economic competition, accurately describes U.S. society. It is difficult to deny the considerable influ ence of corporations and political clans on the election process, the importance of personal relations in business and politics, the frequent disregard of merit in the hiring and selection procedures of public and private organizations, the Preface privatization of public space, the walling of wealthy American neighborhoods, the widespread use of private security, and the independent control of violent force. While there is agreement that deviations from ideal liberalism exist, there is general disagreement about the seriousness of these problems, how long they will persist, and how they became problems in the first place. One camp, the true believers in liberal capitalism, suggests that all such problems are temporary, accidental deviations from the liberal model. While every society faces considerable challenges, U.S. society is led, for the most part, by honest and able people who can meet these challenges. In other words, the problems derive not from the barrel, but from a few bad apples. This optimistic vision of liberal capitalism has been attacked from all sides. Those on ...

show abstract

“…The other is the willingness of officials, especially in the bureaucracies of developing countries, to make decisions and follow procedures deviating from policy statements, laws and regulations, and to develop informal networks with elite groups. Such groups may thereby exercise influence over policy making and implementation (Woods and Shlapentokh, 2009, pp. 538‐45).…”

Section: Analytical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Procurement reform in the Philippines: the impact of elite capture and informal bureaucracy

Jones

2013

International Journal of Public Sector Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe purpose of the paper is to examine features and impact of recent reforms introduced by the Philippines government to deal with the longstanding shortcomings in its procurement system.Design/methodology/approachThe research for the paper is based on reports by international organizations, official documents of the Philippines government, surveys by international and domestic organizations, interviews with relevant officials and media reports.FindingsThe findings show that the reforms have focused on fostering competition, increasing transparency, standardizing procedures, enhancing end‐product quality and contractor reliability, ensuring proper planning and budgeting, combatting corruption, and strengthening accountability. These reforms were intended to create a procurement system more in line with international best practices. However the paper shows that the impact has been less than promised. This is due to limitations of certain provisions of the reforms and weaknesses in both implementation and in the accountability of the procuring entities. A key factor in undermining the reforms is widespread corruption, which continues to affect many aspects of the procurement system. The article identifies two important and related reasons for such failings: elite capture of the government and bureaucracy by a powerful network of business leaders from well‐established landed families, who have close links with the political establishment; and second, a long‐established culture of informal influence in the Philippine state bureaucracy (what may be termed the informal bureaucracy), which has been used to maximum effect by the elite network of business leaders. As a result, this network has been able to influence the reforms to serve its own interests and ensure its continued dominance of the procurement market.Originality/valueThe value of the paper is to show how administrative reforms, no matter how well formulated they are, may be readily undermined in the process of implementation by elite groups able to influence government bureaucracy through an informal culture.

show abstract

The feudal model and the study of modern organizations

Cited by 3 publications

References 89 publications

Feudal America: Elements of the Middle Ages in Contemporary Society

Feudal America: Elements of the Middle Ages in Contemporary Society

Feudal America : Elements of the Middle Ages in Contemporary Society

Procurement reform in the Philippines: the impact of elite capture and informal bureaucracy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About