Search results

The purpose of this paper is to offer an insider account of the establishment of Hong Kong University (HKU’s) Master of Social Sciences in Criminology.

The paper is biographical in approach, based on the author’s recollections and departmental documentation relating to the establishment of the MSocSc criminology degree.

The author argues that for all the practical complications, a distinctive criminological tradition was forged in the early years that has had a lasting influence. The paper concludes by considering the challenges faced by criminology in contemporary Hong Kong.

The paper provides an account of the origins and development of academic criminology in Hong Kong.

Examines work investigating the impact of the crisis on social welfare policies two Asian countries — Hong Kong and Korea, and argues that these two states were not prepared for the crisis. States that Hong Kong is adopting a neoliberal approach to social welfare, contrasting this with Korea taking unprecedented steps to restructure the social security system, after its economy nearly collapsed, taking a more developmental approach to social policy. Posits that only time will tell whether Korea’s momentum of change can be sustained, while in Hong Kong social security policy will still be dictated by a neoliberal agenda in the near future.

Examines the extent to which social policy adopted by the colonial government in Hong Kong (prior to its hand‐over China in 1997) has set the agenda for the government of the newly formed Special Administrative Region (SAR). Chronicles the historical development of social policy in Hong Kong since the inception of the colonial government in 1842; identifies that, with the exception of a short‐lived period of expansionism (stimulated by social unrest in the mid‐1960’s) social welfare provision appears to have been low on the government’s agenda and incremental in nature ‐ the emphasis being on economic growth, rather than public spending on welfare programmes. Examines the strengths and weaknesses of this incremental approach; outlines the commitment of the SAR government to the market economy and its proposals for a modest increase in welfare provision, essentially building on the legacy left behind by the colonial government.

This paper, aims to contribute to the wider project of understanding the production of knowledge about crime and justice and, “to cultivate and sustain a reflexive awareness about the conditions under which such knowledge is (or is not) produced” (Loader and Sparks, 2012, p. 6). In reviewing the core issues and concerns about crime and control from the 1980s as articulated in these research dissertations, the authors seek to be self-reflexive about academic criminology as a field of enquiry in Hong Kong.

In this research, 209 dissertations, completed between 1988 and 2015, are categorized on the basis of the main subject or theme of investigation carried out by each of the research paper.

This discussion is among the first and few attempts to look at the development of criminology in the Hong Kong China region and draws from the unique perspectives of practitioners – those working on the front lines – in their attempts to understand crime and its control with a criminological imagination.

Following the Supreme Court’s 1988 decision in Basic, securities class plaintiffs can invoke the “rebuttable presumption of reliance on public, material misrepresentations regarding securities traded in an efficient market” [the “fraud-on-the-market” doctrine] to prove classwide reliance. Although this requires plaintiffs to prove that the security traded in an informationally efficient market throughout the class period, Basic did not identify what constituted adequate proof of efficiency for reliance purposes.

Market efficiency cannot be presumed without proof because even large publicly traded stocks do not always trade in efficient markets, as documented in the economic literature that has grown significantly since Basic. For instance, during the recent global financial crisis, lack of liquidity limited arbitrage (the mechanism that renders markets efficient) and led to significant price distortions in many asset markets. Yet, lower courts following Basic have frequently granted class certification based on a mechanical review of some factors that are considered intuitive “proxies” of market efficiency (albeit incorrectly, according to recent studies and our own analysis). Such factors have little probative value and their review does not constitute the rigorous analysis demanded by the Supreme Court.

Instead, to invoke fraud-on-the-market, plaintiffs must first establish that the security traded in a weak-form efficient market (absent which a security cannot, as a logical matter, trade in a “semi-strong form” efficient market, the standard required for reliance purposes) using well-accepted tests. Only then do event study results, which are commonly used to demonstrate “cause and effect” (i.e., prove that the security’s price reacted quickly to news – a hallmark of a semi-strong form efficient market), have any merit. Even then, to claim classwide reliance, plaintiffs must prove such cause-and-effect relationship throughout the class period, not simply on selected disclosure dates identified in the complaint as plaintiffs often do.

These issues have policy implications because, once a class is certified, defendants frequently settle to avoid the magnified costs and risks associated with a trial, and the merits of the case (including the proper application of legal presumptions) are rarely examined at a trial.