The purpose of the study was to the XRL project and its integration with the city and people, focusing on whether it can reduce the phenomenon of social exclusion and improve public participation. A thorough discourse analysis of local newspapers was conducted to compare the comments from the public and the government. The results revealed that: 1) the information from both sides was fragmented and unequal, 2) the government’s promises have not been realized; and 3) the information was circulated with low level of transparency. This report suggests three possible resolutions for the XRL project: 1) balance and sustainability, 2) public accountability; and 3) transparency. The study findings may serve as a guide for further research on public transport and social exclusion.
Nick Anstead, University of East Anglia Bruce Baker, Coventry University Clyde Barrow, University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth Daniel Beland, University of Saskatchewan Christine Bellamy, Nottingham Trent University Lynn Bennie, University of Aberdeen Mark Bevir, University of California, Berkeley Donald Bligh, University of Exeter Tessa Brannan, University of Manchester Jacqui Briggs, University of Lincoln Charlotte Burns, University of Leeds Helen Callaghan, Max Planck Institute, Cologne Christopher Carman, University of Strathclyde Terrell Carver, University of Bristol Nicholas Cheeseman, University of Oxford Daniel Chernilo, University of Loughborough Ruth Costigan, Swansea University Oliver Daddow, Loughborough University Malcolm Fairbrother, University of Bristol Oliver Feeney, National University of Ireland, Galway Mark Garnett, Lancaster University Brian Girvin, University of Glasgow James Gledhill, London School of Economics Lisa Harrison, University of the West of England Richard Hayton, University of Sheffield Ludger Helms, University of Innsbruck, Austria Jonathan Hopkin, London School of Economics Adam Humphreys, University of Oxford David Karol, University of California, Berkeley Francesca Klug, London School of Economics Andrew Knapp, University of Reading Raymond Kuhn, University of London Justine Lacroix, Université Libre de Bruxelles Chris Lamont, University of Ulster Ana Langer, University of Glasgow Annabelle Lever, London School of Economics Simon Lightfoot, University of Leeds Rodney Lowe, University of Bristol Tom Lundberg, University of Glasgow Gabrielle Lynch, University of Leeds Philip Lynch, University of Leicester Eileen McDonagh, Northeastern University Cillian McGrattan, University College Dublin POLITICS: 2010 VOL 30(3), 202–203
meaning-making. Chapter 10 concludes by suggesting ways for organizations to challenge gendered leadership stereotypes by re-evaluating ‘mental blueprints’ of leadership and ‘building reflexivity into the organizational mindset’ (p. 135). In applying an innovative methodology to investigate a hitherto underexplored context, the book offers a number of fascinating insights into the leadership experiences of women from several parts of Asia, highlighting the importance of the intersection of cultural context and gender norms for understanding leadership. However, despite illustrating truly captivating stories of Asian women, Horan does not seem to go far enough in substantially questioning the theoretical assumptions of ‘Western’ models of leadership, which means that the book falls a little short of its promise to offer ‘a new perspective’ on leadership (p. 2). Participants’ stories touch on a multitude of issues that undoubtedly call into question the ‘Western’-centred construction of leadership practices and the author repeatedly highlights the significance of the specificities of Asian contexts, such as values of collectivity, religious and family practices and social structures. Yet, the data are interpreted through the transformational leadership framework which, although admittedly more critical, is still a product of the ‘Western’ theoretical imaginary. There is also surprisingly little critique of the framework in light of the data. The in-depth nature of the research methodology and the author’s intimate knowledge of the context could have potentially allowed for a more grounded theory conceptualization of the meanings of leadership in the Asian context. The interrogation of such contextual differences could have made for a very critical discussion of the transformational leadership framework and other Western leadership conceptions. Finally, while the book’s title suggests a focus on female leadership, gender is not viewed as a theoretical core of its analysis. The book could have benefited from a more systematic use of the gender theories of leadership and a more critical interrogation of the relationship between cultural and structural factors and the formation of Asian women’s leadership styles and practices. Nonetheless, debates on the construction of the gendered nature of leadership are vital and any attempt to probe ‘Western’ frameworks by investigating a different cultural context is illuminating and most certainly welcome. The fascinating stories of Horan’s participants and her own reflections on researching the Asian context raise awareness of the complexity of factors shaping women’s leadership experiences, implying, perhaps, that there is no single way of doing transformational or any other kind of leadership. The book may therefore serve as an inspiration for further exploration of the entanglements of gender, culture and leadership.
also including a freedom not to choose career advancement. Freedom to participate in delegations and problem-solving groups, including the capability to air one’s views and be heard, is key to attaining professional freedom and development. Dean argues, however, that the capabilities approach falsely builds on a perception of the individual as an independent entity; and instead promotes a life first approach prioritizing human well-being. This is founded on an understanding that people do not need to be forced to work, as the neoliberal paradigm holds, but actually need to work, regardless of whether the work done is care work, informal, voluntary, or recreational. Finally, Méda contends that the crisis has exposed flexicurity as inadequate and unsustainable, with its implementation accompanying the dismantling of labour law and security. Méda proposes that priority be given instead to quality of employment and the primacy of social rights. Overall, the book’s contributors succeed in demonstrating that mainstream approaches to work and employment are simplistic and one-dimensional, overemphasizing the salience of economics and downplaying the importance of notions such as social justice, democracy, collective responsibility and solidarity. They argue for more attention to parameters as diverse as power asymmetries, institutions and human well-being. The analyses performed by the book’s contributors at times tend naturally to the schematic, particularly when advancing alternatives to flexicurity approaches. These are described in detail but with insufficient attention to how to bring them to life in differing contexts. This is reflected in the conclusion to Salais’s chapter: ‘Urgent questions to be addressed concern the political and institutional conditions [...] needed [...] to develop the capability for voice [...] how we [...] liberate the space necessary for the emergence of new modes of development’ (p. 132). In cases where the authors identify currently existing good practices, they come primarily from countries such as France and Germany, whose institutional, productive and labour market settings differ greatly from those in other European countries such as Spain or Greece. These practices are not necessarily ‘exportable’. Yet Deconstructing Flexicurity’s thorough treatment of the concept, its history and policy implications are perfectly timed, especially for scholars and policy makers who should not be too intimidated by the collection’s sometimes complex theoretical ideas and analyses. It will also be of use to all who, in the midst of the current severe crisis, may be seeking to re-think this controversial concept.
