Management’s collusion in poverty? Archetypes, conceits, and performative neophytism

Abstract

Mainstream management studies’ arm’s length engagement with poverty exemplifies its performative neophytism as field. It is enabled by its problematic archetypes of the poor and their poverty: (a) that the poor are deficient; and (b) conceptualizing poverty as distance. They make way for mainstream management studies’ conceits: (a) that it is separate from poverty and dispossession it causes, and (b) that it possesses the resources to ‘solve’ poverty. These conceits safeguard the field and legitimizes its scholars’ inventions and interventions, many of which evidence suggests do little for poverty alleviation. It is time for management studies to cease its performative neophytism.