Outside the Voucher: Evaluating the Creative Voucher Scheme

This chapter seeks to elaborate on what one might have expected to be the straightforward task of delivering and evaluating Creativeworks London’s (CWL) Creative Voucher scheme.1 What made the project difficult was that the notion of the “creative” voucher has not been used before; it was not a policy developed from a direct evidence base. Moreover, the Creativeworks London project was premised on the delivery of three funding streams of which the vouchers were one; indeed something approaching half of these funds were targeted to resource creative vouchers. This chapter offers a discussion of how we implemented the creative vouchers, the product of which makes up most of this volume. It also raises the question of what and how one might evaluate vouchers; something, we argue, that does not gain from a reduction to a limited set of quantitative indicators. Indeed, our reflections on the process projected us into a far more exploratory and nuanced narrative account of the vouchers; hence the chapters of this book which represent a range of different facets and experiences of the creative voucher scheme. Traditional evaluations of innovation and knowledge transfer are based upon simplistic mono-causal models whereby the dominant notion is that knowledge will naturally diffuse from high concentrations to low concentrations: like a gas; this of course is a social physics model. The failure to diffuse evenly, it is normally hypothesized, must be due to some “blockage” or “barrier.” In keeping with mechanical analogies, much policy action is focused on “fixing the plumbing” that is the leaky knowledge pipelines. The challenge is that the logic behind knowledge transfer, let alone policies such as vouchers, are seldom explicitly stated, but rather assumed as common sense. As we experience the transformation from mass production economies to those based on what are variously termed service economies, knowledge economies, or even cultural economies the physical movement of goods, innovation and ideas materialized as “solutions” (as “technology” has commonly been) has been replaced by weightless or virtual goods: ideas. Physicalist analogies might have been helpful in an old manufacturing economy; it is clear that they are less helpful in either dematerialized production, or the realm of ideas exclusively. Moreover, the Creativeworks London project was explicitly funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) with a view to demonstrating the role of what the arts and humanities can contribute to the processes of knowledge transfer between universities and the creative economy (see Chapter One). It is obvious that the arts and humanities favor different approaches to knowledge than that of the sciences; in particular the humanities focus on the nature of human experience and ideas—one might argue that it is the ideal type of knowledge transfer. The humanities has a rather more nuanced and relational perspective on knowledge and human experience than the sciences, focused as they often are on physical processes and outcomes. We saw it as our task to explore and reflect on creative vouchers and meanings. Whereas the individual voucher stories provide a rich narrative of what the knowledge exchange process “looks like” and at times what it might “feel like,” and what meanings it produces for those involved, this chapter attempts to examine a linked story across the voucher process. It is not seeking to generalize or summarize, rather it explores the voucher process. In this sense we resist the traditional notion of evaluation, arguing that it is necessary to understand the process before we can possibly evaluate it against objectives, personal, institutional or political

Convergence, Culture and Contract Law in China

At the height of the Industrial Revolution, Britain was called the Workshop of the World. 1 That title surely belongs to the People\u27s Republic of China (PRC) 2 today. For example, China already is the world\u27s fastest-growing large economy and the second largest holder of foreign-exchange reserves. 3 Furthermore, China is now the world\u27s largest producer of coal, steel, and cement. 4 It is the second largest consumer of energy and the third largest importer of oil. 5 China\u27s exports to the United States have grown by 1600% over the past fifteen years, and U.S. exports to China have grown by 415%. 6 Lastly, China is a huge manufacturer and exporter of consumer goods, producing two thirds of the world\u27s copiers, microwave ovens, DVD players, shoes, and toys.

The Limits of Business Limited Liability: Entity Veil Piercing and Successor Liability Doctrines

The quest for limited liability in business enterprises and transactions has been a driving force in the development of business organization law for centuries. The historical development of corporations and limited partnerships evidences this primary goal. The recent development of the modern forms of limited liability partnerships and limited liability companies proves that this quest continues unabated. In addition, parties to significant business transfer transactions have long sought by construct and contract to apportion and limit their respective legal responsibilities and liabilities. Counterbalancing this inexorable trend toward limited liability has been the penchant of common law jurisprudence to define its limits. Common law theories of piercing the corporate veil and successor liability, among others, have been developed and expanded by the courts as equitable restraints on the strength of business limited liability protections, making these protections more akin to presumptions than unassailable principles. … This article seeks to make sense of the recipe and the ultimate concoction that is Johns v. Harborage I, Ltd. (collectively “Johns”). The legal substance of the case involves the use by business parties of devices to limit their liabilities. Part II describes the development of limited liability entities (“LLEs”), and the use of limited liability transactions, such as those employed by the defendants in Johns, as well as exceptions to the applicable presumptions of limited liability. Part III parses the facts and history of the multiple Johns decisions. Part IV explains and explores the rulings in Johns in light of the legal and equitable principles surrounding the evolution of business limited liability and its exceptions

Successor Liability

The phrase mergers and acquisitions, or M&A for short, signifies both the business activity of growing (or divesting) corporate operations and the legal rules surrounding that activ- ity. One typical acquisition technique is the purchase of busi- ness assets by one company from another. Indeed, General Mo- tors and Chrysler utilized this transactional structure in their bankruptcy reorganization following the recent global financial crisis, with the United States Government as a part owner of the purchasing entities.1 Asset sales transactions have various benefits, one of which is that the purchaser presumptively does not assume any of the seller‘s liabilities as part of the purchase transaction. With respect to this ability to purchase assets without also assuming liabilities, the Supreme Court declared over 120 years ago that ―[t]his doctrine is so familiar that it is surprising that any other can be supposed to exist

Successor Liability

The phrase mergers and acquisitions, or M&A for short, signifies both the business activity of growing (or divesting) corporate operations and the legal rules surrounding that activ- ity. One typical acquisition technique is the purchase of busi- ness assets by one company from another. Indeed, General Mo- tors and Chrysler utilized this transactional structure in their bankruptcy reorganization following the recent global financial crisis, with the United States Government as a part owner of the purchasing entities.1 Asset sales transactions have various benefits, one of which is that the purchaser presumptively does not assume any of the seller‘s liabilities as part of the purchase transaction. With respect to this ability to purchase assets without also assuming liabilities, the Supreme Court declared over 120 years ago that ―[t]his doctrine is so familiar that it is surprising that any other can be supposed to exist

Corporate Governance at the Millennium: The Decline of the Poison Pill Antitakeover Defense

As recently as twenty years ago, the ability and desire of corporate shareholders to mount a challenge over corporate governance 4 seemed unlikely. After all, shareholders were considered to be passive, impotent, and unconcerned with anything but the value of their investment. Although shareholders of decades past were admittedly passive and powerless, today\u27s shareholder activism is fueled largely by the institutional investor. In short, a shareholder revolution has occurred, highlighted by the ascendancy of the institutional investor. Accompanying the institutional investors\u27 growth and concentration of share ownership is their desire and ability to participate meaningfully in governance issues. An extraordinary ferment of activity in the field of corporate governance has resulted

Transforming Trepidation into Transactional Lawyering

Those of us teaching the Business Associations course in law schools are almost universally presented with a combination of circumstances that provides a unique opportunity for transformative teaching. These circumstances start with the outstanding quality of our students but also include their limited educational exposure and experience in business matters, their indoctrination into the “lawyer as litigator” model of the first-year curriculum, their lack of contact with transactional and collective decision making, and their unfamiliarity with the concept of lawyer as value creator

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act: A Functional Failure

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act was enacted in 1974 as (1) a consumer protection statute designed to provide accurate information to and about consumers involved in credit transactions, and (2) an antidiscrimination statute designed to shield protected classes of consumers from discrimination in the granting of credit. The Federal Reserve Board promulgated regulations to further these statutory goals. Congress intended that the Act would be enforced through both private litigation and public compliance programs. Few private lawsuits have been brought under the Act, however, and public enforcement efforts have neither checked credit discrimination nor halted perpetuation of prior discrimination. Professor Matheson believes that courts, government enforcement agencies, and consumers should focus on substantive (rather than procedural) violations of the Act and its implementing regulations. The Act should be amended to allow for a minimum damage recovery for successful plaintiffs. The definition of adverse action in the regulations should be amended to acknowledge that credit granted on different terms than those requested by an applicant may indicate illegal discrimination. Detailed statistical information must be kept by credit-granting institutions and made available to private litigants and government enforcement agencies to assist them in identifying and eliminating credit discrimination. Professor Matheson believes that these changes will help create a statutory and regulatory framework that will promote better compliance by creditors with the Act\u27s provisions and enhance enforcement efforts by both private parties and public agencies