Mark Fenwick

‘Penal populism’ and penological change in contemporary Japan:

This article examines whether the concept of penal populism can be useful in understanding contemporary developments in Japanese criminal justice. In addressing this issue it is suggested that we need to draw a clear distinction between different conceptions of penal populism and, in particular, we should avoid equating penal populism with intensification of the severity of state punishment. A discussion of the Japanese experience highlights the importance of focusing on populism as a process by which new voices emerge and influence criminal justice policy as a result of an unmet demand for justice and security. This perception of a lack of security and justice is a global phenomenon that, nevertheless, expresses itself in distinctive, culturally specific ways. Although the extent of this shift should not be exaggerated, at least in a Japanese context, penal populism has contributed to an opening up of criminal justice and a disaggregation of state sovereignty.

New Directions in Cultural Criminology

Recent years have seen an increased level of interest in cultural criminology, and the publication of these three books along with a number of others (e.g. Presdee, 2000; Hamm, 2001; Kontos et al., 2003; Parnell and Kane, 2003; see also Ferrell et al., 2004) would appear to provide further confirmation of this trend. This review essay will focus on examining how each of these books contributes to on-going debates about the most effective way of incorporating a concern with the cultural significance of crime into the criminological enterprise. In particular, it will be argued that these works open up new lines of inquiry that seem to take cultural criminology beyond an earlier concern with supplementing ethnographic work on sub-cultures with techniques of media analysis derived from cultural studies. Without wishing to over-emphasize the similarities between what are, stylistically as well as substantively, three quite different contributions, there does seem to be a certain thematic convergence, specifically in the emphasis on certain forms of criminality as an active, situated R E V I E W E S S A Y

Fintech and the Financing of SMEs and Entrepreneurs: From Crowdfunding to Marketplace Lending

For the last decade economists have been preoccupied with the decline in bank financing to small businesses and entrepreneurs. We examine the market and policy instruments that in some sense encourage more bank lending to SMEs. This leads us naturally to explore the recent surge in Fintech lending that has affected the ability of SMEs and entrepreneurial firms to obtain loans. We consider recent evidence that the growth of alternative online lending has supplied new competition to traditional banks and is beginning to disrupt the tradition of business of lending. Finally, we examine the regulatory responses to Fintech in 17 jurisdictions. We examine the first time that venture capitalists invest in fintech companies to determine whether there is a meaningful connection between levels of investment and regulatory choice. Our findings have implications for how regulation is likely to play an important role in the development of Fintech.

Fintech and the Financing of Entrepreneurs: From Crowdfunding to Marketplace Lending

For the last decade economists have been preoccupied with the decline in bank financing to small businesses and entrepreneurs. This effort has produced a better understanding of the obstacles to external financing. We examine the market and policy instruments that in some sense encourage more bank lending to SMEs. This leads us to explore the recent surge in Fintech lending that has affected the ability of SMEs and entrepreneurial firms to obtain loans. We consider recent evidence that the growth of alternative online lending has supplied new competition to traditional banks and is beginning to disrupt the traditional of business of lending. Finally, we examine the regulatory responses to Fintech in seventeen jurisdictions. We examine the first time that venture capitalists invest in Fintech companies to determine whether there is a meaningful connection between levels of investment and regulatory choice. Our findings have implications for how regulation is likely to play an important role in the development of Fintech.

The Future of Capitalism: 'Un-Corporating' Corporate Governance

A corporate governance model built around hierarchical structures, in which authority and empowerment flows through the board of directors to management and eventually staff, and the board is responsible to shareholders (the owners) of a company, worked well in an era of industrial capitalism, but in a connected age it proves far less durable. Large firms that have adopted this hierarchical corporate governance model seem to be less responsive to competitive global markets, disruptive new technologies, cultural shifts in attitudes towards consumption and work, new demands for environmental sustainability, and looming automation. The reason for this is simple. An unintended side effect of the hierarchical model has been to feed the growth of a “corporate attitude”, i.e. a corporate culture in which conservative decision-making, short-term profit and formalistic compliance are prioritized. Firms dominated by such a corporate attitude are at risk of becoming “Dinosaurs”, i.e., lumbering giants facing extinction. In order to overcome this disconnect, it is necessary to re-visit the key elements of the firm - namely the product, people, process - and to examine the meaning of these elements in a contemporary context, i.e., in the context of global markets, disruptive new technologies, etc. This involves asking: What kind of products do firms need to deliver in order to disrupt markets and satisfy the dynamic needs of today’s consumers? What kind of corporate culture do firms need to put in place in order to attract the most talented “Millennials” who will shape the future of the firm? And what organizational processes are best placed to deliver such products and culture? The answer to these questions involves “un-corporating” corporate governance. By embracing this strategy, large firms give themselves the best opportunity to maintain relevancy in the context of rapid and profound transformations in the way we should think about capitalism.

Regulation Tomorrow: What Happens When Technology is Faster than the Law?

In an age of constant, complex and disruptive technological innovation, knowing what, when, and how to structure regulatory interventions has become much more difficult. Regulators can find themselves in a situation where they believe they must opt for either reckless action (regulation without sufficient facts) or paralysis (doing nothing). Inevitably in such a case, caution tends to trump risk. But such caution merely functions to reinforce the status quo and the result is that new technologies struggle to reach the market in a timely or efficient manner.The solution: lawmaking and regulatory design needs to become more proactive, dynamic and responsive. So how can regulators actually achieve these goals? What can they do to promote innovation and offer better opportunities to people wanting to build a new business around a disruptive technology or simply enjoy the benefits of a disruptive new technology as a consumer?

The New Firm: Staying Relevant, Unique & Competitive

This paper argues that the key to success for any business enterprise is to build and maintain relevancy in the market place, whilst also remaining relevant to all the various stakeholders within the firm (e.g., employees and investors). Relevancy in the market means delivering products or services that matter for consumers. Relevancy to stakeholders means offering a meaningful experience that allows individuals to develop a unique identity and related capacities; communicate an image; and participate in a fulfilling collaborative project. These two objectives are interconnected in the sense that a firm that remains relevant to stakeholders gives itself the best opportunity to remain relevant in the market place. One recent trend amongst large public companies - often encouraged by activist investors - is to go down the “break up�? route in an attempt to remain relevant or recapture relevancy. There is something to this strategy of splitting up or selling off certain parts of the business. The idea is that these newly formed - and smaller - companies will be able to better focus on their respective core competencies. We, however, suggest that firm size does not matter. What is important is to realise that the most innovative firms currently seek to achieve relevancy via the implementation of various “new�? corporate governance practices. This paper offers an interpretation of the principles underlying these practices - namely, flat hierarchy, open communication and inclusivity. Equally, these principles provide a starting point for a critical review of the existing legal framework. The current regulatory framework has a tendency to over-emphasise investor interests and this has created a number of unintended side-effects, namely “Dinosaurs�? (companies that find themselves in a process of slow and terminal decline); “Unicorns�? (large companies that remain private in order to avoid the stifling effects of post-IPO regulation); and “Governance Renegades�? (public companies that adopt unconventional corporate structures in order to retain the pre-IPO - start-up - feel). In the light of these unintended side-effects, we propose a recalibration of existing regulation based around the three principles, i.e., a relevancy based approach to regulation.

Alternatives to Silicon Valley: Building Your Global Business Anywhere

Entrepreneurs who are driven, ambitious and dream of building a global business that will change the world are going to have to survive the difficult period in the early stage of the life cycle of a company known as the “Valley of Death”. In order to be successful in this challenging task - after all, many businesses will fail at this early stage - they will need to raise a significant amount of money. But this need for money raises a series of daunting questions: “Who should they turn to for investment?”; “What kind of money do they want to attract?”; “When is the right moment to seek investment?”; and, “Where should they locate their company, if their dream is to build a global business?”This last question - we will refer to it as the “Where question” - is perhaps the most important of all, not least because it will determine the available options for answering the other questions. Research has consistently shown that over the last three decades Silicon Valley has been the place to go. Over recent years, however, this picture has become somewhat blurred. If deal growth is examined, for example, it is clear that more and more high risk venture capital deals are being put together far from California and that the correct answer to the “Where question” is becoming much less obvious. A global business really can begin anywhere.An important new development is the emergence of a global or “virtual” innovation eco-system. A metaphor for understanding various features of this new phenomenon is that of the Cloud.

Regulatory networks, population level effects and threshold models of collective action

In Regulatory Networks, Population Level Effects and Threshold Models of Collective Action, Mark Fenwick explores the question of whether we might push the network metaphor further and examine whether regulatory networks exhibit “network dynamics”. The study of networks dynamics is an inter-disciplinary field that has emerged at the intersection between sociology, social psychology and economics. The chapter suggests that one form of network dynamic, namely a threshold model of collective action, can be helpful in providing a new conceptual vocabulary for describing various features of regulatory networks. In particular, it allows us to move away from accounts that regard networks as expressing the collective normative preferences of participants and ideas of contractual consent.

Introduction: Networks and Networked Governance

A much-discussed feature of the emerging global legal order has been the proliferation of so-called transnational regulatory networks. These new institutional forms consist of routinized, purposive interaction between diverse actors that share a common sphere of expertise. Such networks are of different types, some involving cooperation between public bodies, others entailing interaction between public, private and quasi-public institutional actors. These networks perform diverse functions: e.g. ‘enforcement networks’, designed to make enforcement more efficient across international borders; ‘information networks’ aimed at promoting information exchange; and, ‘harmonization networks’ setting standards and seeking uniformity in substantive and procedural normative standards.