Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine Canadian law governing “regulatory takings” – the state's interference in a landowner's use and enjoyment of his property as a consequence of regulation. It considers whether the way that the law has developed in this area poses a risk of “legal incoherence” – a contradiction in the law itself, either between two discrete areas of law (“external incoherence”) or within a single discrete area of law (“internal incoherence”).

This paper draws upon and expands a conception of coherence articulated by past commentators and applies it to reported judgments comprising the Canadian law in this area.

The extra‐constitutional nature of restrictions on the state's power to take, and a lack of doctrinal rigour are shown to have allowed the risk of incoherence to materialize in Canada by creating a distorted body of law. The modest constraints which Canadian law imposes upon regulatory takings fail to cohere to rights conferred upon landowners under various treaties and declarations to which Canada has subscribed. The law is therefore incoherent in an external sense. Recent jurisprudence also reveals an internal incoherence as the law purports to recognize a distinction between an expropriation and a regulatory taking, whilst simultaneously requiring that a regulatory taking demonstrate a quality unique to an expropriation.

This paper clarifies the distinctions between an expropriation and a regulatory taking, explains the Canadian law governing both, and illustrates the tenuous state in Canada of public authority liability for restricting private use and enjoyment of land.

The implications for domestic law of international obligations respecting regulatory takings are highlighted. This paper's reference point of coherence offers a novel standpoint for assessing the quality of judge‐made regulatory takings law.

Trans theory (also known as transgender studies) is a rapidly expanding interdisciplinary field in which activism, scholarship and lived experience are coalescing around questions of embodiment, personhood, and intersections of race/ethnicity/class/ability/gender/sexuality. Trans-themed research, whether explicitly located in trans theory or not, is a growing area of academic exploration. As a trans researcher and trans person, I am interested in two questions: how does autoethnography fit within trans and queer theory, and how can people who do not live in trans communities undertake ethical trans-related research? A symbolic interactionist perspective informs my understanding of trans theory and the social construction of identity and embodiment. I explore my own femme transmasculinity through autoethnography, and also consider my experience interviewing other trans people as part of researching masculinity. I suggest that researchers who are not trans (who are cisgendered, meaning they identify with the sex/gender they were assigned at birth) must accept that trans people have what Talia Bettcher (2009a, 2009b) terms First Person Authority over their embodiment, experience, and narratives. Having established this, I examine self-identification and intersubjective recognition in relation to my own experience of femme transmasculinity, asking what is femme incoherence and how does this relate to queer and trans theory/politics?

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the obligations imposing localism and the presumption in favour of sustainable development in English planning law.

The paper uses doctrinal analysis to examine section 38 PCPA 2004 and the NPPF to assess whether the obligations are coherent when considered as stand-alone obligations, and whether they are compatible when combined. Case law and the statutory provisions are examined to assess this. Planning theory is also examined to bring a multidisciplinary focus to the analysis.

The paper concludes that there are problems with these legal obligations when considered as stand-alone obligations. There is imprecision over the meaning of key terms; the “presumptions” established do not operate as true presumptions; and there is an ambiguity as to the hierarchy of norms and the allocation of decision-making control. When combined, the incoherence increases. It is argued that this occurs thanks to underlying disagreements in key concepts in planning theory.

This paper examines the new structures of planning law introduced under the Localism Act 2011 and the NPPF and considers how this structure works in practice. It does so from the multidisciplinary viewpoint of planning law and planning theory and links these two approaches. This is not replicated elsewhere in the literature. It considers in detail the ensuing case law, and the contradictions that appear. Again, there is little surveying the overall framework of planning law in the UK.

This article explicates a conceptual framework that might be used to study how fanatical managers make decisions. It reviews literature on fanatics produced by psychologists, sociologists, cultural theorists, political scientists, theologians, and marketers, and then places their multidisciplinary insights into a management context. It identifies two familiar features of fanatics – intensity and intolerance – but suggests that a third feature – incoherence between thinking, behaviour and goals – might be the conceptual key to understanding fanatical managers, measuring their fanaticism and interpreting their management decision making. This conceptual framework may also assist the chaos, complexity and non‐linear movements in management research as well as practitioners who want an easy‐to‐understand template against which to evaluate their planning, thinking and managerial behaviour.

This paper's purpose is to account for liberal education's characteristic incoherence.

Its approach is to sketch a dilemma created by cultures being inherently conservative, while nations, in order to be internationally competitive, need to be innovative. The definitional and systemic bases of culture's conservatism offer no point of attack; but a third base is enculturation, which does.

Shortly after puberty, society's more promising young people are strongly urged to leave home for an extended period, and be exposed to ways of acting and thinking that often clash with how they have been brought up. They are encouraged to explore new subjects and indulge their curiosity; they are encouraged to “think outside the box” of their own enculturation. The incoherence of liberal education leaves them not with a sense of closure, but in a state of constructive confusion conducive to innovation in all aspects of life. Liberal education thus serves the social function of countering the anti-innovative tendency of culture.

Attempts to impose coherence on undergraduate educational experience by “tying things all together” for students are ill-advised.

Seeing incoherence as a desirable rather than deplorable feature of undergraduate liberal education can help us facilitate rather than inadvertently inhibit innovative thought and action in the rising generation.

Lays the groundwork for a conceptual framework that might be used to study fanatical consumers and consumption. We review literature on fanatics produced by psychologists, sociologists, cultural theorists, political scientists, theologists and marketers and then place their multidisciplinary insights into a consumption context. We identify two familiar features of fanatics – intensity and intolerance – but suggest a third feature – incoherence among thinking, behaviour and goals caused by intensity and/or intolerance might be the conceptual key to understanding fanatical consumers, measuring their fanaticism and interpreting their consumption experiences.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the link between operations of organization control and workers’ response to them in case of telework, a technology-embedded new way of working.

The authors adopted an interpretive approach to explore control and home-based teleworkers’ response in the Indian information technology industry. Interviews and non-participant observations were analysed using constructivist grounded theory.

The discourse of “telework as a privilege” served as a basis for normative control, helping managers exercise increased technocratic control. Combined with the discourse of “self-responsibility to client”, it led teleworkers to self-subjugate to long/unsocial work hours. However, the simultaneous exercise of technocratic and normative controls resulted in an inconsistency, creating space for teleworker’s resistance to technocratic control. Nonetheless, resistance to technocratic control ironically reinforced normative control.

The authors contribute to the recent discussion on compatibility and coherence of multiple control modes, and their relationship to resistance. The authors show how workers’ selves can be compatible with one control mode while being incompatible with other modes. The authors argue that when workers’ experience incoherence between control modes, they can appropriate the logic underlying compatible control mode(s) to resist incompatible control mode(s). Further, the authors demonstrate how resistance to incompatible control mode(s) can ironically reinforce compatible control mode(s), and thus explicate the micro-processes of control-resistance dialectic. Advancing the emergent understanding of resistance, the authors show that resistance is an exercise of strategic counter-power that seeks to exploit incoherence between control modes and inconsistencies between actions and rhetoric.

In the process of harmonizing International Accounting Standards (IAS/IFRS), scholars and standard setters still need to overcome unresolved issues related to both goodwill duration and accounting recognition. This paper aims to compare the academic background on goodwill with current IAS. Specifically, the goal is to criticize existing practices and advance a revision of accounting for goodwill.

The paper is based on a review of the relevant literature on notions, theories and accounting approaches on goodwill and on an investigation of IAS/IFRS on accounting for goodwill. By critically integrating literature and practices, the authors provide implications for a revision of IAS.

The findings show the two main internally coherent theoretical approaches and the incoherence in current goodwill accounting standards. The paper contributes to the debate on accounting for goodwill by suggesting new conceptual arguments in relation to the controversies related to its accounting treatment.

The findings offer insights and guidelines that can help standard setters revise current accounting standards. Inter alia, standards setters should revisit issues related to goodwill evaluation and record limitations in future debates to find better solutions.

This study shows the incoherence of current accounting standards. Furthermore, the findings contradict the general opinion that, in current IAS, goodwill can be recognized only if acquired in business combinations and not if internally generated. Thereby, the authors suggest to shift the international accounting standards board focus from the preference between amortization and impairment to the coherence of goodwill accounting approaches.