Contenu du sommaire

According to the philosopher Heidegger, what we see worst is the pair of spectacles which, in front of our eyes, we see through. This saying is still pertinent. The prince, as a metaphor of those who hold power, has turned his eyes toward other objects: the overriding concern is no longer the imbalance of trade but unemployment. But does he freely choose his pair of glasses? Lenses have changed, but the powers-that-be still too often eschew contact with reality.

The International Accounting Standards Board and International Association for Statistical Computing produce information for investors. These private international organizations draw legitimacy for setting bookkeeping standards from the English-speaking world but have no power to actually enforce the standards they approve. They have to constantly prove their legitimacy and seek support from more powerful organizations, such as the International Institute for Facilitation and Consensus (IFAC), the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) or the European Union, itself divided between a shareholder model (in English-speaking lands) and a partnership model (on the European mainland). The recent rejection of standards 32 and 39 suggests that supporters of the continental model are opposing specifications based on the Anglo-Saxon model.

In analysing the reaction of the local workforce to the management style introduced by Lafarge in its cement division subsidiary in China, we came up against a general question that puzzles companies rooted in the West but with subsidiaries in that country. These firms seem to face a key dilemma: should they adapt themselves to “Chinese” management? Or should they – and can they – practise management in conformity with the orientations taken by the parent company? Or yet again, should they look to implement some sort of synthesis taking into account both Chinese and “Western” practises (with all the ambiguity implied by the latter)?

For anyone familiar with journals in management, Gérer & comprendre stands out. Its many graphics are offbeat in relation to the text; and its articles appear under unusual headings: Overlooked...; Trial by fact; Other times, other places; Live; In quest of theories. In addition, the date of creation on the cover is intriguing: 1794. These peculiarities are to be set down to the environment in which the journal was created and the opportunities at that time. After explaining this, this article concludes that, rather than trying to blend in with a set of standards, international exchanges would be more beneficial if they capitalized on the diversity of traditions and institutions around the world.

English-speakers, who make up only 11,3% of humanity, are proud to speak the language supposedly used in the global village. However, many other people seem to speak an odd version of English, called Globish by the author. Non-English-speakers are often fluent in it, whereas English-speakers pain to speak and understand it. Might it not be time to recognize Globish as the world village's official language? This would free non-English-speakers from their complexes and force English-speakers to recognize how much effort they should make to be understood. And French would have a chance to thrive, along with many other national tongues that have difficulty maintaining a presence.1

As a sign of tension between natural and economic forces, failed landings in bad weather represent an original risk situation. Natural factors play their part, as wind and rain, crucial variables, are hard to determine precisely at any one time. But economic factors are equally important: rerouting is expensive, competition is strong, runway ends (known as blast pads) are managed to the square yard, etc...

Specialists of innovation usually talk about computers, automobiles, aeronautics, medicine or biotechnology. There was no book on innovations in techniques related to women and their bodies1. Teresa Riordan, a science journalist specialized in the study of patents (for The New York Times in particular), has taken up the challenge of writing the missing book2. The result is a gripping surprise with an original, offbeat view of innovation, its nature and processes.

Reading Timothy Mitchell's abrasive Rule of experts: Egypt, techno-politics, modernity forces us to change our way of looking at development policies, experts from international organizations, the social sciences, Egypt's history following independence... Everything is interrelated; nothing is neutral. Mosquitos are more dangerous than tanks; the system of land tenure is a war machine; cartography underlies the economy; the CIA manipulates anthropology; “Egyptian peasants” have been invented simply to justify the West's “mission” in the Mid-East. To obtain a clearer view, we must decompartmentalize the social sciences and draw the natural sphere closer to the social one, and technology closer to politics