Search results

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the current status of ownership of patient information from a Lockean perspective and then present Datenherrschaft (German for “mastery over information”) as a new model for patient ownership of patient information.

This paper is theoretical in approach. It is based on arguments derived from Locke’s Two Treatises of Government. Legal examples of the current situation are derived from Finnish, UK and Swedish legislation.

Current legislation concerning patient information is not clearly formulated and so recognising a new right on the part of the patient, Datenherrschaft, would be an ethically justifiable way of remedying the issue.

The legal analysis was limited to Finland, the UK and Sweden, and so other legislation should be looked at in future research. Datenherrschaft is used as an example of an ethically justified way of regulating patient information ownership and should be analysed further.

Patient information ownership is an issue that is not unambiguously solved in many countries, nor has it, in our view, been ethically justified. The potential solution presented in this paper is clear and has strong ethical justifications.

What is the relationship between human rights and corruption? This question can take different forms, including moral, legal, socio-political and economic variants. This paper focuses on two key moral questions, asking whether corruption can violate or impact on people’s natural rights (on the one hand) or human rights (on the other). In answer, I aim to establish a strong conceptual link between (a) corruption’s ‘abuse of entrusted power’; (b) the ‘arbitrary power’ targeted by natural rights theorists like John Locke and the broader republican tradition and (c) the ‘arbitrary interference’ with protected freedoms prohibited by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I argue that the deep thematic links between systemic corruption and violations of human rights are stronger than have hitherto been recognized. In the twenty-first century, corruption should be recognized as a ‘standard threat’ (in Shue’s sense) to human flourishing and protected freedoms, vindicating the human right to freedom from systemic corruption.

New developments in concepts and approaches to job stress should incorporate all relevant types of resources that promote well-being and health. The success resource model of job stress conceptualizes subjective success as causal agents for employee well-being and health (Grebner, Elfering, & Semmer, 2008a). So far, very little is known about what kinds of work experiences are perceived as success. The success resource model defines four dimensions of subjective occupational success: goal attainment, pro-social success, positive feedback, and career success. The model assumes that subjective success is a resource because it is valued in its own right, triggers positive affect and emotions (e.g., pleasure, cf., Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), helps to protect and gain other resources like self-efficacy (Hobfoll, 1998, 2001), has direct positive effects on well-being (e.g., job satisfaction, cf., Locke & Latham, 1990) and health (Carver & Scheier, 1999), facilitates learning (Frese & Zapf, 1994), and has an energizing (Locke & Latham, 1990, 2002) and attention-directing effect (Carver, 2003), which can promote recovery by promoting mental detachment from work tasks in terms of absence of job-related rumination in leisure time (Sonnentag & Bayer, 2005).

The model proposes that success is promoted by other resources like job control (Frese & Zapf, 1994) while job stressors, like hindrance stressors such as performance constraints and role ambiguity (LePine, Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005), can work against success (Frese & Zapf, 1994). The model assumes reciprocal direct effects of subjective success on well-being, health, and recovery (upward spiral), and a moderator effect of success on the stressor–strain relationship. The chapter discusses research evidence, measurement of subjective occupational success, value of the model for job stress interventions, future research requirements, and methodological concerns.

This article examines relationships between capitalism and democracy as perceived by contending perspectives within the liberal capitalist‐liberal democratic tradition(s). Bentham and the Mills are taken as initiating both this tradition and the core elements of the debate within it. Pre‐Benthamite theories are first reviewed. Then, after discussion of Bentham and James Mill and of John Stuart Mill, Mill's late nineteenth and early twentieth century successors are examined. We then go on to consider hypotheses concerning the “exceptional” quality of relationships between capitalism and democracy in the United States. The penultimate section of the article adumbrates the main contours of mid‐twentieth century pluralist‐elitist theories. We conclude with a summary.

To one aware of the persistence and severity of ancient and modern attacks on private property, the allegiance to private property characteristic of contemporary proponents of human rights may appear remarkable, indeed, mind‐boggling. However, I believe that philosophers committed to human rights identify private property with the human right to property because of their unwarranted confidence in the moral justifiability, and hence the moral acceptability, of private property. In company with John Locke, today's supporters of the view that persons have the human right to property believe that moral reasoning based upon the foundational beliefs of a doctrine of human rights ultimately establishes property to be a human right. Subsequently, they diligently seek morality's sanction for the appropriation, accumulation, and the use and disposal of things in the manner associated with private property. Private property is, therefore, virtually unopposed in its bid for the property chair in the exclusive human rights club. Though decried by opponents as robbery and massively unjust, in theory this form of ownership is remarkably unscathed behind a fortress of arguments. In practice, many societies currently purporting to have instantiated private property in their institutional arrangements have so mitigated property rights that the concept of private property is inapplicable. However, in combination with widespread and strong commitment to private property, the fortress of moral justification for a human right to private property is a serious obstacle to changing a society's property arrangements.

The purpose of this study is to ascertain the best predictors of customer satisfaction by analysing and comparing the variables of two classical paradigms: the confirmation/disconfirmation model; and Locke's model of general satisfaction.

Following a literature review and the development of a conceptual framework in which various problems in the two models are identified, the paper presents a field study that investigates the extent to which the satisfaction of customers of a bank can be explained by these models and by two modified models (regression design).

The study finds: that the inclusion of “importance” in Locke's model does not provide a better prediction of satisfaction than the variables of “performance” and “expectation” in the confirmation/disconfirmation model; that the absolute level of the expectation‐performance difference is a better predictor of customer satisfaction than the simple relative difference; and that “performance” is a much more reliable predictor of satisfaction than “expectation” and/or “importance”.

The study is limited to the specific setting of bank customers; it is uncertain whether the findings can be generalised to other fields.

The study provides an original critique and comparison of the classical models and identifies their limitations. The study also demonstrates that the absolute level of the expectation‐performance difference is a better prediction of customer satisfaction than the simple relative difference. The study shows that “performance” is the most powerful predictor of satisfaction and that it is therefore not necessary, in practice, to conduct a differentiated survey of other predictors.

Corporate governance is the practice of balancing various stakeholder interests within the legal device of the chartered business. Recent changes in the competitive capitalism including the Great Recession, now entering its second decade, have called for reforms within the defined corporate system. To sketch a wider picture of corporate governance issues and the debate over time, this paper aims to identify two philosophical traditions, a British and liberal tradition and a continental statist tradition, which have bearings for how the legal device of the corporation is understood.

This conceptual paper combines legal philosophy and legal studies, management studies, economics and economic sociology literatures.

In the former tradition, the firm and its ownership are exclusively associated with irreducibly individual rights. In the latter tradition, property rights remain the core of legal systems, but rather than being an end in itself (as in the liberal tradition), such property rights are merely the starting point for the individual’s wider engagement in social and public affairs. These two traditions enact the firm differently and emphasize specific benefits. In the former tradition, associated with a shareholder primacy model, individual rent-seeking is foregrounded; in the latter tradition, associated with legal and management scholarship, the team production qualities of the firm are emphasized.

This conceptual paper offers an analysis of the roots of differences between Anglo-American and continental corporate governance traditions, a scholarly study that is of great theoretical and practical relevance in the era of the Great Depression.

Grounded theory (GT) is a very crucial qualitative tool in research inquiry. It embraces systematic, inductive, and comparative inquiry method to construct a theory. GT is mostly appropriate to investigate organizational phenomena, which involves a change process. In this chapter, the authors focus on the emergence of GT as a research inquiry tool with the focus how GT evolves from classis grounded theory to constructivist ground theory. In the detailed method of GT, a focus is given on coding method along with theoretical sampling and theoretical saturation points. Despite being a powerful technique, GT has drawn a number of criticisms. Majority GT researchers consider the technique as an inductive method with a few exceptions, where it has been deliberated as a deductive method. However, in the line of Corley (2015), it can be argued that GT should be considered as a methodological approach to study inductive phenomena having less understanding of theoretical perspective. Chapter concludes with identifying future scope of study in the field of GT.