You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items

  • Author or Editor: William T. Daniel x
Clear All Modify Search
You do not have access to this content

Andrea S. Aldrich and William T. Daniel

While the EU does not set specific legal requirements for its Member States’ electoral systems, it is perhaps one of the world’s best learning laboratories for comparing the effects of electoral design. The EU is also, in many ways, a leader in the policy space of gendered representation – with a proportionality principle roughly applied across the Commission and Court of Justice, as well as one of the most descriptively representative spaces for female legislators in the European Parliament. In this chapter, we assess the role of the EU in the promotion of women’s descriptive representation. Using the broad variation found in national electoral laws and party organization guiding policies, we are able to assess how national expectations of gendered representation commingle within the EU legal space. In doing so, our work brings to light new descriptive information on the state of gendered representation at the EU, national and party levels of Europe.

This content is available to you

William B. Gartner, Bruce T. Teague, Ted Baker and R. Daniel Wadhwani

This chapter explores this question: What was known about “opportunity” before scholars began treating it as the “distinctive domain of entrepreneurship” (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000)? The chapter focuses on uncovering and recognizing a significant amount of past scholarship on opportunity that we suggest has value for helping entrepreneurship scholars, now, re-conceptualize the idea of opportunity as well as reformulate and contextualize methods and situations for studying opportunity as an aspect of entrepreneurship. We suggest that the concept of opportunity, historically, is much richer and more nuanced than is recognized in current scholarship. Second, there is a strong foundation of prior scholarship on the nature of opportunity from the strategic management area (e.g. Dutton and Jackson, 1987; Jackson and Dutton, 1988) that laid a strong foundation for any subsequent pursuit of opportunity as a subject of scholarship. Third, the idea of opportunity as a primary characteristic of entrepreneurship appears to have been first proposed by Stevenson (1983), and his subsequent work has, essentially, been ignored. We suggest that an ignorance of prior thought, theory and evidence has been detrimental to subsequent theory building and empirical research on the importance of opportunity as an idea that has value for understanding the nature of entrepreneurship. We offer some suggestions for how this prior research and theory might be fruitfully integrated into current scholarship on opportunity. Finally, we offer some thoughts for how a historical approach to entrepreneurship scholarship might be useful for informing the development of theory and practice.