Location
Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. Our mission is to unlock people’s potential with the best learning and research solutions. Our vision is a world of learning and research inspired by Cambridge.
Our peer-reviewed publishing lists comprise over 53,000 titles covering academic research, professional development, over 350 research journals, school-level education, English language teaching and Bible publishing. This list is growing every year and spans subjects from aesthetics through to zoology, with authors ranging from Shakespeare to English language teaching author, Ray Murphy.
A pioneer in our field, we are committed to supporting innovation in learning and teaching. We publish without boundaries, ensuring our resources are accessible across the globe, in print, online and other digital formats.
We take pride in supporting community programmes across the globe. Staff are encouraged to offer practical help, advice and funding to nurture vital charitable, educational and voluntary partnerships.
Playing a leading role in today's global market place, we have over 50 offices around the globe, and distribute our products to nearly every country in the world. We publish 50,000 authors based in over 100 different countries.
Members:
Resources
Displaying 66 - 70 of 79Conservation and concealment in SpeciesBanking.com, USA: an analysis of neoliberal performance in the species offsetting industry
Market-based strategies are promoted as neoliberal governance solutions to environmental problems, from local to global scales. Tradable mitigation schemes are proliferating. These include species banking, which enables payments for the purchase of species credits awarded to conserved areas to offset development impacts on protected species elsewhere.
Saving liberal peacebuilding
Liberal peacebuilding has become the target of considerable criticism. Although much of this criticism is warranted, a number of scholars and commentators have come to the opinion that liberal peacebuilding is either fundamentally destructive, or illegitimate, or both. On close analysis, however, many of these critiques appear to be exaggerated or misdirected.