Search results

The received wisdom underlying many guides to ethical research is that information is private, and research is consequently seen as a trespass on the private sphere. Privacy demands control; control requires consent; consent protects privacy. This is not wrong in every case, but it is over-generalised. The distorted perspective leads to some striking misinterpretations of the rights of research participants, and the duties of researchers. Privacy is not the same thing as data protection; consent is not adequate as a defence of privacy; seeking consent is not always required or appropriate. Beyond that, the misinterpretation can lead to conduct which is unethical, limiting the scope of research activity, obstructing the flow of information in a free society, and failing to recognise what researchers’ real duties are.

Building on the literature of hybrids in the context of public organizations, this paper aims to discuss under which conditions hybrids can adequately provide “critical services”, a subset of public services characterized by their simultaneous exposure to externalities, socio-economic cohesion and legitimacy concerns.

The authors collect indications from two stylized examples, prisons and defense, to develop propositions as a step toward assessing the potential role of hybrids as alternatives to direct public provision or full privatization in the delivery of critical services.

This paper examines the conditions under which hybrid arrangements outperform the polar cases of public bureaus and full privatization in the delivery of a specific subset of public goods that the authors identify as “critical services”.

The authors suggest that there might be comparative advantages in relying on hybrid arrangements rather than the usual solutions of fully private or fully governmental provision. However, they also submit that these advantages are conditional to the capacity of hybrids to reconcile competing interests to achieve socio-economic cohesion, to combine capabilities dispersed among partners to benefit from positive externalities and to satisfy legitimacy concerns with respect to the role of government.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the roles and responsibilities of non-state actors (NSAs) in contributing to disaster governance from an international human rights law (IHRL) perspective. In particular, it examines how non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and business enterprises are implicated.

The paper analyzes a range of IHRL instruments, particularly treaties and international soft-law documents, and it utilizes the concepts “human rights-based approaches” (HRBAs) and “direct”/“indirect” human rights obligations to frame and understand how IHRL responsibilities for NSAs arise from these instruments.

IHRL not only includes relevant standards for NSAs in the area of disaster management, but NGOs and businesses also actively engage with IHRL and HRBAs by means of (soft) self-regulatory instruments to further clarify their responsibilities.

The findings are of interest to all actors involved in disaster governance, and are instructive for NGOs and businesses seeking to improve the design of disaster management activity. The research addresses only the responsibility of NGOs and private companies, but the framework of analysis set out is equally of interest to other actors’ activities.

The implications of IHRL for NSAs involved in disaster management are still poorly understood, despite their vast engagement. This study contributes by clarifying the roles and IHRL responsibilities of NGOs and businesses specifically, and articulates how applications of HRBAs may improve the protection of persons.

Since the core issue of Chinese economics is to elucidate the logical relationship between socialism and the market economy, it necessitates a robust foundation for microeconomic analysis to uncover the behavioral patterns and characteristics of microeconomic agents in a socialist market economy and identify the conditions and methods for the functioning of market mechanisms.

The core issue of microeconomics with Chinese characteristics is to identify the economic logic of how market mechanisms play a decisive role in resource allocation under the basic socialist economic system based on China's reform.

The core issue in building the foundation of microeconomic analysis of Chinese economics is addressing the compatibility issue between SOEs and a market economy.

In the author’s view, this can be achieved under the logic of classified reform so as to build the microeconomic foundation for the effective functioning of a socialist market economy.

Rights and duties are involved in every area of business and markets, and society and governments. Most often, rights and duties involve serious ethical and moral issues of conflict. A good theory of the ethics of rights and duties, obligations, and responsibilities will empower us to understand the impact of our actions on various stakeholders. Additionally, a deep understanding of rights and duties could help us to analyze better the impact of our executive actions on various stakeholders and, in particular, to fathom the damaging effects of rights and duties violated by the man-made current financial crisis when seen from an ethical and moral point of view. Our coverage on the ethics of corporate rights and duties will comprise of two parts: Part 1: The Nature of Corporate Business Rights and Duties, and Part 2: Respecting Corporate Rights and Duties. The chapter will feature Newcomb Wellesley Hohfeld’s framework of legal interests such as claims, privileges, power, and immunity and its various applications to contemporary market and corporate executive situations. We illustrate the theory of rights and duties using several cases from the current turbulent markets.

The study examines how introducing joint municipal arm's length bodies (ALBs) into municipal waste management has influenced the preconditions of democratic governance.

The authors describe and explain the democratic implications of joint municipal agencification by reviewing the perspectives of representative and participative democracy. Through this approach, the authors apply the exit–voice framework developed by Albert Hirschman to highlight the potential roles and rights of citizens. This research includes country case studies of Finland and Norway. The authors analyse and systematize Finnish and Norwegian waste and organizational policies by reviewing national regulatory documents, commentaries and guidance materials to identify the fundamental missions and institutional traditions of the alternative organizational forms of joint ALBs.

The study findings highlight that joint agencification has an adverse effect on the democratic governance of waste management policy and services even though these are public monopoly services. They also demonstrate that all joint municipal ALBs limit the classic elements of representative democracy in general, and that private-law ALBs limit residents' rights to influence and participate.

This study contributes to local public management studies by applying Hirschman's theory to comparative reviews of joint agencification and ALBs. It revealed the similarities and differences between the different organizational forms of joint ALBs applied in Finland and Norway. It also demonstrated how the democratic rights of residents depend on how municipalities collaborate.

The article addresses the tension between Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and the right to work in times of the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, it explores the operation of corporations in adopting policies of mandatory vaccination and the role of the courts regarding these CSR patterns.

The article examines court case studies of CSR practices regarding unvaccinated employees during the COVID-19 pandemic in Israel and the United States.

The findings show that the Israeli system adopted the regulating for individual discretionary CSR approach, whereas the American system adopted the regulating for ethical-public CSR approach. Adopting the latter infringes upon the right to work of unvaccinated employees. While in Israel, the possibility of compelling employees to vaccinate is denied, in the American model, mandatory vaccination is possible. As opposed to the American model, in the Israeli model, there is an obligation to consider proportionate measures to isolate the employees while allowing them to continue working.

The article introduces two possible notions of regulating CSR in times of the pandemic – regulating for individual discretionary CSR which is labor-oriented and regulating for ethical-public CSR which is focused on public aspects. While the former posits that corporations should advance individual interests of employees and their right to work, the latter claims that corporations should advance the public interest in health. Following the problems resulting from the Israeli and American cases, the article draws on the lines for a suggested approach that courts should embrace.