The purpose of this paper is to discuss whether altruism justifies ad hoc legislation with reference to three different contexts. One is defined by the libertarian notion of liberty; a second framework corresponds to the egalitarian vision; and a third one originates from social-contract theory.
The authors review two stylized visions of liberty, and consider to what extent the current legal systems comply with one of these visions. Moreover, the authors analyse the implications of the contractarian approach.
It is shown that current legislation is rather ambiguous and sometimes even contradictory. By and large, the common-law view tends to favour the libertarian approach, while the civil-law visions are closer to what one might expect from social-contract theory. In these cases, however, it seems that the letter of the law is often questioned by the academic community as well as by the judiciary, and decisions eventually follow the judges’ discretionary power.
This analysis of altruism combines the economic and legal perspectives. Although altruism is always considered an important part of social capital and worthy of privileged treatment, it is shown that policymaking is frequently inconsistent and sometimes contradictory.
Companies often conduct general Employee Opinion Surveys (EOSs) to measure some features or outcomes of an organization. Converting data to results is routine and governed…
Companies often conduct general Employee Opinion Surveys (EOSs) to measure some features or outcomes of an organization. Converting data to results is routine and governed by the design of the EOS and the use of standard statistical methods. However, as one moves away from results to their meanings or conclusions, and from conclusions to recommendations, other factors and variables come into play. These factors and variables are governed more by the context, the presence of constraints, the intuition of the decision makers, and the actions by engaged agents. Essentially EOSs produce ambiguous conclusions and recommendations because they are “knobless,” or lacking underlying processes which are controllable by management. The theory of the organizational hologram has evolved operationally into a family of Organizational Diagnostic Survey (ODS) forms which generate sets of results representing managerially controllable processes or combinations of processes. That is, the ODS provides a set of x‐axis variables that can be employed to explain variability in EOS results, which are viewed as dependent variables plotted on the y‐axis. Every item in an ODS form is “knobby.” The relationships among the questions and higher order results are causal and structured with known interdependencies. Combining ODS and EOS allows knobby analyses of knobless survey items.