Search research centre
Publications
Newsletters
Conference reports
Impact case studies
Sustained success
There was quite a reaction when the world’s most famous investor went high-tech. Warren Buffett, who reportedly doesn’t even own a mobile phone and spends his business hours at one of the last remaining computer-free desks in civilisation, announced last November that he had quietly accumulated in excess of $10bn in IBM stock – enough for a five per cent stake in the company.
Buffett has traditionally shunned the high-tech sector, instead favouring the more predictable earnings derived from less glamorous industrial companies. His long-standing argument was that he simply didn’t know enough about the technology sector to profit from it.
So what does he know about it now? This is probably the question that first sprang to most investors’ minds when the news emerged. After all, Buffett has a remarkable record for second-guessing the markets, and his investment decisions are often widely imitated. Should lesser seers now slavishly follow suit?
Many investors still shudder at the memory of their previous foray into technology. The height of the dotcom boom in the late ’90s sucked in millions of speculators who, despite the subsequent rise and profitability of the likes of Google, went on to suffer sizeable losses. A number of related funds have since been wound up, merged or sold on.
Yet even the most traumatised victims of the bubble must occasionally look at a product such as, say, the iPhone and feel encouraged to try again. New ideas have an inherent appeal. One needs only to stop and reflect on how we now live our lives – and, indeed, how we spend our money – for the temptation to become close to overwhelming. The smartphone is practically indispensible. The tablet computer is among the current must-haves. We download music and shop online. We communicate through Facebook and Twitter. We do business via the internet. We use and interact with technology more and more each day.
Naturally, there are risks. The technology sector and the firms that populate it have a distinctly chequered history of overpromising and under-delivering. Not every company is an Apple – a debt-free, cash-rich, supra-tech brand that unveils an ergonomic paradigm with near-relentless aplomb. As in any sphere, the firms that miss a trick almost inevitably pay the penalty. Nokia’s sales, profits and share price have tumbled since the former undisputed master of the mobile universe allowed its rivals to comprehensively trump its comparatively Luddite smartphone ethos.
One enviable attribute that has helped Buffett earn his ‘Sage of Omaha’ soubriquet – and, of course, his billions – is his aforementioned insistence on having the fullest grasp of an investment before he commits to it. He wants to know not just how it has made money in the past but how it will make money in the future. Bearing this in mind, let us re-examine IBM’s appeal.
A conclusion it would be all too easy to jump to is that Buffett is investing in what we might loosely term the computer industry, much as one might invest in Dell, Hewlett-Packard, software producers or manufacturers of monitors and keyboards. He is not. As befits someone who is renowned for taking a long-term view, he is investing in a certain form of innovation that, absolutely crucially, is sustainable on a truly global scale.
Rewind to 2009 and consider Buffett’s mega-move into railroads (to employ the US vernacular). Until then, reasonably enough, these were pretty low on most people’s lists of “sexy” investments. To a level of astonishment similar to that which greeted his IBM eye-opener, Buffett ploughed almost $35bn into Burlington Northern Santa Fe because he saw it as an enduring play on the country’s infrastructure.
Now look beyond IBM’s more well-known activities. First and foremost, the company no longer assembles PCs. In fact, only a fraction of its revenue now comes from software and what we might strictly define as technology.
The Smarter Planet initiative, for example, is rooted in the firm’s nascent ability to re-envisage and modernise infrastructure. This is the Burlington Northern Santa Fe of the next generation. So it is not a case of backing a company to usurp the iPad or conceive a smartphone that survives as a market leader for the next two years. It is a case of investing for the long haul in a proxy for national economic growth.
This is far from a US-centric move. It is the very opposite. Emerging economies whose infrastructure is under increasing pressure from spiralling urbanisation are particularly ripe for the kind of sweeping transformation proposed by a scheme like Smarter Planet, however incremental the metamorphosis might prove initially.
The earnings potential of delivering such a groundbreaking vision to China or India, for instance, is every bit as monumental as the challenge of doing so. And equally exciting is the prospect of bringing a concept such as Smarter Planet to nations unencumbered by a mass of existing infrastructure – comparatively “blank canvas” countries where cutting-edge technology can be introduced without the need to first remove outmoded institutions.
Indeed, the challenge of sustainability extends everywhere. Nottingham University Business School recently contributed to a Royal Academy of Engineering report that argues Britain needs to develop a culture of radical innovation if it is to bring about economic recovery and compete on the global stage. The very real risk is that industries and organisations will remain mired in systemic short-term thinking unless there is a significant shift towards creativity and transformation.
We have to drive home the message that many of the “old ways” are no longer fit for purpose. Ingenuity can offer a remarkable counter to all the doom and gloom. This is the era of crowd-funding and crowd-sourcing, an age when the capability to exchange ideas has never been higher and the barriers to innovation have never been lower. In the words of John Seely Brown, the celebrated champion of digital culture and ubiquitous computing: “Increasingly, we need to think about designing the types of institutions we need to get things done in this rapidly accelerating world.”
In May this year the World Business School Council for Sustainable Development, a prestigious inter-disciplinary think-tank, is due to deliver a major report on how business managers and leaders can make a “game-changing contribution… to resolving the world’s environmental and social challenges” by embracing sustainability. The project is being supported by the Principles for Responsible Management Education Secretariat, which is itself backed by the United Nations.
This alone speaks volumes. We should be in no doubt that sustainability and innovation are poised to have an ever-larger impact on how organisations are structured, how they operate and how they perform. And there is therefore every reason to believe they will be core components of an investment theme that will grow and grow during the years and decades ahead.
Ultimately, the man without a mobile still makes no great claim to comprehending apps or Android. What Warren Buffett understands now is what he has understood for years: a proven record and a capacity to deliver long-term value to shareholders. He might struggle to download an album from iTunes, but he is certainly no-one’s fool.
Simon Mosey is a Professor of Entrepreneurship and Innovation at Nottingham University Business School.
A version of this article originally appeared in the FT publication Investment Adviser on April 9 2012.
UK energy policy plagued by ’sense of drift’
Britain’s energy policies are in increasing danger of being paralysed by a growing “sense of drift”, the chairman of an influential commission has warned.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath said the UK might risk being unable to deal with “formidable challenges” if it fails to decide upon a clear direction in the near future.
He was speaking at a debate organised by the University of Birmingham’s Policy Commission on Nuclear Energy, which is due to publish its findings later this year.
The Commission aims to evaluate nuclear power’s likely role in Britain by exploring technical, environmental, political, sociological and economic factors.
Addressing an audience of policymakers, industry figures and academics, Lord Hunt noted George Osborne’s failure to mention nuclear power in his Budget speech.
He said: “The Chancellor emphasised renewables. He talked about the cheapness of gas and getting the greatest possible amount of gas and oil from the North Sea.
“He talked about the carbon price floor. But there was no explicit reference to nuclear power. Does that mean the case for nuclear power isn’t quite as strong as it was?”
Leading anti-nuclear campaigners, including Jonathon Porritt, co-founder of Forum for the Future, took part in the debate, held at Westminster’s Institution of Civil Engineers.
Lord Hunt, a former Minister of State in the Department of Energy and Climate Change, said: “One thing we all agree on is a sense of drift on energy policy in the UK.
“The key message is that we have to engage the public. A massive change is coming in our society. One way or another, we’ve got to start a realistic debate with the public.”
Commission member Professor Martin Freer, Director of the Birmingham Centre for Nuclear Education and Research, urged those on both sides of the debate to “take a step back”.
He said: “It’s fine having a discussion in this room, but what’s required is a broader public debate. We need some sort of scale and a sense of perspective.
“People find the issues around nuclear power very complex, and what we can do is make those issues more accessible so that people can make informed judgments.”
The UK remains committed to targets for cutting emissions and increasing the use of renewable energy sources by 2020, but Porritt cast doubt on these being met.
He told the debate: “The reality is that not enough will be done quickly enough, and at some point politicians will wake up and say: ‘Oh, god, we’ve got to do something about this.’
“Either we’ll end up in an overcooked world or we’ll end up with governments belatedly trying to pull the plug on hydrocarbons, which will mean absolute economic chaos.”
Ron Bailey, author of A Corruption of Governance?, a report that claims to reveal how MPs were misled over nuclear power, described current policy as “astonishing”.
He said: “Let’s do the thing no-one has yet done – assess the full potential for cost-effective energy efficiency – and then we’ll know how much energy we need to generate.
“At the moment we have a policy without knowing that. To me that’s astonishing. Whether you’re pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear, we should be worried about that.”
Sue Ion, Vice-President of the Royal Academy of Engineering, and Keith Parker, Chief Executive of the Nuclear Industry Association, also took part in the debate.
Speaking afterwards, Professor Freer said: “Opinions on nuclear power and our other energy options remain polarised, and it’s no wonder the public is confused or suspicious.
“The Commission’s belief is that it’s still not too late to begin couching the wider discussion about these vital issues in language that will inform rather than alarm.
“Above all, we have to involve the public in a way that encourages balanced judgments and allows everyone to contribute to the enormously important decisions that lie ahead.”
Feeding the Dragon
It has been suggested in some academic quarters that Chinese consumerism will replace its US counterpart as the engine of global economic growth by as early as 2014.
Such a landmark would have been unimaginable 30 years ago. Even more recently, when the potential scale of the repercussions of China’s economic and political liberalisation was still to be fully appreciated, the prospect might have seemed remarkable. Now it appears not only inevitable but in many ways essential.
China, after all, has become the epicentre of worldwide trade, the focal point of the financial and economic nexus, the superpower-elect, the shining yang to the West’s increasingly dismal yin. This being the reality, there can be no dispute that during the coming years its consumers will play a major part not just in powering the global economy but in shaping it.
There are, however, extremely complicated underlying issues that need to be considered when assessing the likely direction their role will take. Chief among them is the matter of Chinese consumer ethnocentrism, the precise nature of which, despite its manifest and enormous importance, has long remained unresolved.
Escalating domestic consumer incomes in China have fuelled a ravenous appetite for luxury and branded products – a demand that currently cannot be fully satisfied by domestic firms. Foreign companies can thus contemplate vast commercial opportunities to sell their products in China, whose worth to international marketers, especially amid the worsening crisis in the West, is plain.
Particular institutional conditions nonetheless present challenges for foreign multinationals. A politically motivated rejection of overseas products, such as was seen during the Beijing Olympics, can hamper the expansion of international businesses in China. Government policies that benefit local firms can be unfavourable. Compliance with international standards and quality controls – so insouciantly overlooked in the past – is now habitually implemented and deemed vital to boosting home-grown enterprises and bolstering consumer confidence.
Taking all of the above into account, the popular perception, on balance, is that Chinese consumers are moving away from foreign goods and towards domestic products. Along with the resurgent nationalism so fundamental to China’s modern history, Chinese companies’ nascent ability to compete with their foreign rivals by creating or reinventing their own brands apparently lends extra weight to this view.
This conclusion, however, must be set against the inherent inadequacies of the techniques routinely used to assess and measure consumer ethnocentrism. Work in this sphere has been hindered by the constraints of accepted methodologies, and it is perhaps only now that we are starting to appreciate how we might overcome these innate difficulties.
In the past many research studies have measured how well consumers’ ethnocentric attitudes predict their purchasing intentions of imported goods. However, this kind of approach does not tell Western firms about the chances of successfully penetrating markets in China with their imports compared with other Asian nations. What is needed is a gauge of how ethnocentric Chinese consumers are in absolute terms.
Moreover, elicited purchase intentions and product evaluations are less than dependable indicators of actual consumption behaviour. To the extent that consumer ethnocentrism is associated with moral and/or self-image considerations, the answers of survey respondents may be biased towards expressing socially acceptable sentiments such as social patriotism. Equally, standard experimental procedures in economics that have been designed to surmount this problem suffer in turn from a laboratory setting’s lack of realism.
New research by Nottingham University Business School took a notable step towards empirical clarity. It did so by adopting a field experiment approach and using experimental tools to naturalistically elicit the actual consumption decisions of Chinese consumers under conditions in which they had no reason not to disclose their true preferences.
Around 450 people participated in the experiment, which was conducted in a shopping centre in Ningbo, Zhejiang Province, China. The study took pairs of similar and identically-priced products – one made in China, the other manufactured overseas – and invited subjects to choose.
The first test used two scratchcards offering the chance to win a digital camera, one model Chinese and the other Japanese; the second used two small bags of sweets, one Chinese and the other South Korean; and the third used two T-shirts, one made in China and the other in Thailand. Some volunteers were told the products’ origins, others not, and all completed a survey that examined their choices and attitudes in greater detail.
At the end of the experiment everyone who took part was given the products they chose, and scratchcard winners were also subsequently presented with their prizes. As far as we are aware, this represented the first incentivised test of consumer ethnocentrism and, as such, provided an effective alternative to the flawed approaches commonly employed.
The key outcome of the study is that it uncovered no meaningful evidence whatsoever of Chinese consumer ethnocentrism. Indeed, the results question the phenomenon’s very existence. This leads us to posit that the widespread belief that Chinese consumers are fiercely loyal to products made in their own country may be mistaken.
Crucially, in contrast to previous claims that mainland China might be less open to foreign products than other Asian markets, our findings indicate Chinese consumers do not discriminate against foreign products in their consumption choices. They seem to make choices based largely on their individual preferences with regards to a product’s intrinsic characteristics, irrespective of its nationality.
It could be the case, then, that nationalism and its relationship with ethnocentrism and consumer behaviour are taking a different course in China than seen elsewhere. How do we begin to explain this?
Firstly, it should be noted that ethnocentric consumers believe the negative effect on the domestic economy – jobs in particular – makes it wrong or inappropriate to purchase foreign goods. The positive associations of “hybrid” products – for example, Apple computers designed in California and built in China – can help overcome this. It may be that Chinese consumers do not feel they are putting compatriots out of work by buying foreign goods, since most foreign-branded products are actually made domestically.
The question of patriotism is also worth bearing in mind. Patriotism in a Chinese context refers to the loyalty of all Chinese people towards the state for the benefit of the country as a whole, in which circumstances foreign sellers and promoting the consumption of their products is regarded not as anti-nationalistic but as a means to propel China on the global stage and foster economic growth.
The overarching inference is that Chinese consumers can be as pragmatic as they wish without threatening their allegiance to their nation or being condemned as unpatriotic.
This could have significant implications for both East and West, not least as the latter increasingly looks to China to reignite the global economy and in so doing deliver hope that Europe and the US can cling to its tail when the Dragon truly learns how to fly. Should this ultimately prove the case, Chinese consumers themselves might be far from alone in revelling in their new status.
Robert Hoffmann is an Associate Professor of Economics at Nottingham University Business School, where he is Director of the International Centre for Behavioural Business Research. His research interests include behavioural economics and decision-making; game theory; economics and culture; experimental economics; and computational and evolutionary economics.
A version of this article originally appeared in the FT publication Investment Adviser on March 12 2012.
We all have much to learn from Fukushima
The dramatic events that unfolded at the Fukushima nuclear power plant after the Japanese tsunami of March 11 last year are commonly referred to as “the Fukushima disaster”. We perhaps need look no further than this curious case of semantics to begin explaining the significant misconceptions that surround nuclear energy.
It was the tsunami, the result of the largest earthquake ever to strike Japan, that killed more than 16,000 people, destroyed or damaged some 125,000 buildings and left the country facing what its Prime Minister described as its biggest crisis since World War Two. Yet it is Fukushima that is habitually accorded the “disaster” tag.
In truth, although what happened was truly shocking, the events in the hours and days after a giant wave slammed over the plant’s protective seawall might be interpreted as a remarkable testament to nuclear power’s credentials. There is certainly a sound argument to support this claim.
While it is clear that the impact on the environment for those living close to Fukushima may take many years to remediate, the response in many quarters – not least in Germany, Switzerland and other nations that immediately condemned and retreated from nuclear energy – once again typified an enduring lack of knowledge in relation to two fundamental issues.
The first of these is safety. The second is our limited understanding of radiation. We need to promote a much more inclusive and informed dialogue on both if the nuclear option is to be assessed on its genuine merits rather than dismissed on the grounds of little more than ignorance and intransigence. Gaining the trust of the public is essential, and information and understanding are crucial components.
It is fascinating that so many people would ban nuclear power when so few would ban air travel. This might seem a bizarre statement, but there are parallels between the two industries that are central to the question of safety.
We are often told air travel, statistically speaking, has a better safety record than any other form of transport. The numerous interrelated reasons for this might usefully be summarised by comparing a plane to a penny-farthing.
We all appreciate a plane is a remarkably sophisticated device and a penny-farthing is not. We also acknowledge the consequences of a plane crash are liable to be far more catastrophic than, say, those of a cyclist clipping a kerb on his way home from the shops. Accordingly, the method of designing and manufacturing a plane is many times more demanding and thorough than the act of assembling the bone-shaker.
The same can be said of nuclear reactors, of which there are currently approximately 450 around the world. The fact is that the industry’s safety record is second to none when measured against those of its rivals. This is no coincidence. Like planes, nuclear reactors are conceived and constructed to mind-boggling standards. Indeed, to take the analogy to its ultimate, an analysis conducted for the Nuclear Energy Institute in 2002 showed a nuclear reactor would withstand the impact of a fully-laden Boeing 747.
For all the tension and fear that enveloped the fight against meltdown, we should not forget that Fukushima – and with it the very notion of a nuclear energy industry – was subjected to a test that was extraordinary in the strictest sense of the word. Were it not for some design flaws that would not be repeated today, Fukushima might well have survived intact – and history would be so very different
What blinds critics to this reality is the difference between perceived risk and actual risk. Unfortunately, we live in an age in which we are wont to attach a heightened risk to almost anything, often in the absence of the slightest meaningful evidence.
Nuclear energy is a safer proposition now than ever before, but for many the mere spectacle of an event like Fukushima – quite irrespective of the outcome – is sufficient to draw the polar-opposite conclusion. If a 747 did crash into a nuclear facility we would be unlikely to hear calls for all planes to be outlawed, but the clamour for every reactor on the planet to be shut down immediately would very probably be deafening.
Remember, too, that Fukushima was built in the 1970s and the technology on which it was based dated from a decade earlier. Its modern-day and future successors are radically different in how they work, as is the regulatory framework that sets astonishing new benchmarks for the care and quality required at every stage of the process. This is another crucial point that is frequently overlooked when hearts rule heads.
Yet another is our inadequate comprehension of radiation. We know the corollaries of high levels of exposure, but what happens at the other end of the scale is less clear. The world is full of radioactivity – walls, concrete and even bananas contain traces – and our bodies have adapted to that. In countries such as Brazil and India people live in environments that have 20 to 200 times the radiation commonly found in Britain, apparently with no negative genetic effects. Some experts even say we may need a degree of radioactivity to stimulate our immune systems.
The bottom line is that the case against nuclear power is deeply rooted in concerns over safety in general and radiation in particular. Fukushima having reinforced too many opinions and reshaped too few, it is vital we at last make an effort to bring clarity to these issues – especially for those nations, the UK among them, whose notion of a sustainable energy policy remains worryingly undetermined.
Of course, there remain concerns around the extremely important issues of waste disposal and proliferation. Again, consensual debate is required.
We need to formulate a roadmap that tells us where we stand and what we have to do. We need to create the necessary culture within industry and academia. And we need to encourage people to think and reflect more. Above all, we need to enhance the public’s grasp of the energy sector as a whole.
At present there is too much “I know” and “This is what I firmly believe”, frequently from voices of influence, when in many instances there is no incontestable right or wrong. It is still not too late – not quite – to start couching the broader discussion in language that will inform rather than alarm and in terms that will help develop well-balanced judgments rather then further entrench long-held biases.
Martin Freer is a Professor of Nuclear Physics at the University of Birmingham, where he is Director of the Birmingham Centre for Nuclear Education and Research. He is a member of the University of Birmingham’s policy commission on nuclear energy, Nuclear Power: What Does the Future Hold?, which is due to publish its recommendations later this year.
Versions of this article originally appeared in various publications around the world on March 11 2012, the first anniversary of the Japanese tsunami.
NHS Scotland and the value of partnerships
It is not unreasonable to suggest that the NHS in Scotland has developed the most ambitious labour-management partnership so far attempted in the UK public sector. More than that, it continues to make it work.
A full and independent assessment of its remarkable effectiveness is contained in the final version of a major new report by Nottingham University Business School. It highlights the factors that have proved vital to sustaining a system that consistently succeeds in devising and delivering policies and initiatives, driving organisational change and formulating and implementing apposite workforce strategies.
The study involved a detailed examination of scores of meetings held by NHS Scotland forums between 1999 and 2011. As well as attending in person whenever possible, researchers analysed relevant documents and minutes and interviewed numerous participants. The ultimate aim was to enhance understanding of the enduring accomplishments of NHS Scotland’s partnership agreements by investigating the development, structure, frequency, scope, “voice” and behaviour of interested parties’ discussions.
The findings offer important lessons not just for the NHS but for the public sector as a whole. After all, the efficacy of partnership agreements can tell us a lot about what “works” in industrial relations – not to mention something about the sagacity or otherwise of the choices made by the health services of England, Scotland and Wales over the course of the past decade or more.
In the wake of political devolution, as part of a determined campaign to engage staff in improving services, the NHS in Scotland set about developing partnership agreements at board and national level. This decision was in stark contrast to that of the NHS in England, which chose to augment its reliance on a market-based approach.
It perhaps should be stressed at this point that it was never the express intention of the study to compare the NHS in Scotland with the NHS in England. Indeed, while the former granted full cooperation, the latter was not a subject of the research. Nonetheless, before examining in detail the conclusions regarding NHS Scotland it is worth reflecting briefly on contemporary assessments of its counterpart south of the border.
In recent weeks alone the NHS in England has faced damaging criticism from the Care Quality Commission, the Health Service Ombudsman and the Patients Association, all of which have raised renewed concerns that nurses have become detached from patients or too busy. In addition, the Health Select Committee has branded the overhaul of the NHS in England a “disruption and distraction” that is impacting on its capacity to make the savings necessary to safeguard its future.
Meanwhile, the picture that emerges of NHS Scotland is one of an organisation in which everyone benefits from an extraordinary collective agenda. In achieving this, as highlighted by our report, all sides – government, employers and staff representatives – have strived to meet six key challenges.
1. A shared aim
In one form or another, partnership agreements now cover nearly a third of all British public sector employees – almost 1.5m of them in the NHS. The basis of these arrangements can be traced to the fact that a commitment to high-quality patient care and the service’s founding principles is widely shared.
From this positive starting point, the unique circumstances of political devolution north of the border fostered a consensus over the future direction of the health service in Scotland. Unlike the market-based reforms pursued elsewhere, this provided a supportive context.
2. Appropriate partnership structures
NHS Scotland’s partnership structure consists of the Scottish Partnership Forum (SPF), which debates the service’s strategic direction; the Scottish Workforce and Staff Governance Committee (SWAG), which develops workforce policies; and the Scottish Terms and Conditions Committee (STAC), which handles any outstanding negotiations. Smaller secretariats back all three.
The separation of major issues from comparatively trivial concerns is essential. “Big ticket” items – health policy, corporate governance and finance issues – are addressed only by the SPF, whereas workforce planning, pay and conditions, health, safety and wellbeing, training and equality and staff surveys are more likely to be discussed by SWAG.
3. Frequent partnership meetings
Up-front commitment is crucial to successful partnership. The time spent working together when first developing policies and the workforce practices to reinforce them cuts the time subsequently dedicated to negotiation and dealing with problems. Infrequent and poorly-attended meetings suggest significant decisions are taken elsewhere.
4. Scope
Meetings of broad scope extend staff-side representatives’ involvement in a range of issues surpassing those usually covered by collective agreements. The absence of repetition also reduces the risk of a debilitating “We’ve heard it all before” mentality.
5. Voice
Voice in partnership meetings brings together diverse views. Such an approach permits mutual interests to grow around a shared agenda and a joint commitment.
6. Positive behaviours
Accepted negotiating behaviour is generally unsuited to partnership meetings, as it involves defending positions as opposed to listening constructively to others.
All interactions have to be positive if a cooperative partnership climate is to flourish and endure. An open and trustful approach to joint problem-solving and the proactive inclusion of others in conversations are among the principal considerations.
NHS Scotland’s partnership agreements are the longest-established and most extensive of their kind in Britain. As such, they offer valuable evidence of the extent to which innovative industrial relations can contribute towards improving public service delivery. What they unequivocally demonstrate is that the enhanced participation of employees and their representatives does not just constrain management unilateralism: it grants those employees and representatives a crucial say in the decisions that affect their working lives and, in this instance, the quality of healthcare provision across Scotland.
Furthermore, there is every reason to conclude that the fostering of shared values, robust negotiation and consultation procedures and genuine staff involvement has left NHS Scotland well placed to cope with the realities of the ongoing squeeze on the public purse. On the other hand, the future for industrial relations in public sector organisations that pursue strictly market-based reforms at the expense of pluralist beliefs and values is likely to be at best stormy and at worst ruinous.
Dr Peter Samuel is a Lecturer in Human Resources Management at Nottingham University Business School. The research referred to here was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council.
A version of this article originally appeared in the March edition of Public Servant magazine.