Vulnerability and industrial hazards in industrializing countries: an integrative approach

The extra vulnerability of industrializing countries to environmental problems and industrial accidents cannot be understood or solved by a ‘normal’ scientific analysis. Aspects of the social and institutional context must be included, through analyses based on post-normal science. The standard two-dimensional classification of PNS is modified to have axes ‘social ‘and institutional vulnerabilities’ and ‘complexity of technological hazards’. The analysis is mainly applied to the case of the relatively rare accidents with catastrophic potential. In these, the deaths per accident in India, Mexico and Brazil are much greater than in the industrialized countries. This discrepancy arises partly from location of such plants near residential communities for marginalized workers and their families. Other socio-political factors are relevant, as the role of these countries in the global production system, the enforcement of safety and planning laws, quality of housing, and lifestyle of residents. Reducing the vulnerability of industrializing countries will therefore require major social policies and a comprehension of the limits of the normal scientific and economic approaches to such problems.     

A new statutory director’s duty for Australia — a ‘duty’ to be concerned about employee entitlements in the insolvent corporation

Australia has introduced legislation that is aimed at preventing a person from entering into agreements or conducting transactions with the intention of defeating the recovery of employee entitlements. It is essentially aimed at directors and their behaviour in the pre‐appointment period. This paper discusses the history leading up to such a legislative move and the likely benign impact now that the Corporations Act in Australia prohibits such behaviour. Further, the paper argues that mooted changes to the legislation giving employees a ‘maximum priority’ ahead of secured creditors is unnecessary. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Additive and Multiplicative Uncertainty Revisited: What Explains the Contrasting Biases?

above the certainty level while for additive uncertainty the price should be lower than the certainty level. This note gives an intuitive explanation for the result after first presenting a parsimonious review of the two models. We also discuss which, if either, of the two models is more realistic. Received December 14, 2001; revised version received July 16, 2002 Published online: April 30, 2003 We thank referees for helpful comments. Ciaran Driver would like to acknowledge the research facilities from ANU, Canberra for their help in writing this paper.     

Measuring the Impact of Regulation: A Study of Canadian Basic Cable Television

We evaluate the appropriateness of regulation within the Canadian cable television industry by applying both parametric and non-parametric approachesto measure scale efficiency. Although we begin with a sample offering adequatedegrees of freedom for parametric estimation, important policy issues lead us toconsider further estimation over sub-samples. Since some of these sub-samplesare small enough that parametric models cannot guarantee reliable estimates, weobtain production characteristics non-parametrically through data envelopmentanalysis. The nonparametric results for scale efficiency support the parametricresults. We find evidence against a natural monopoly argument that might havejustified continuation of the mandated monopolization of Canadian cable televisionservice. By the end of the sample period, there were no longer substantial economiesof scale in most relevant markets.     

The Why's of Business Revisited

One can determine the nature of something by asking what it is for. For example one understands what a chair is when one understands it is for sitting on. This involves understanding its purpose. One type of corporation is the for-profit-corporation. This seems to indicate that this type of corporation, the business corporation, has as its purpose to make a profit. Is that as obvious as it first appears? The favorite way for philosophers to arrive at the "purpose" of anything is to ask the question "Why?" But there are at least two answers to the question "Why"? when addressed to a social practice such as business. One might be asking for a psychological account (explanation) of "Why" a person does business, and this is primarily answered by discovering the motives behind business activity; or one might be asking for a justificatory reason (justification) for the practice – what purpose legitimates business as a human activity. These two answers are often conflated and thus the purpose of business is often considered to be answered by giving the psychological account of the self-interested profit-making motive. This paper will attempt to highlight the importance of making the distinction between motive and purpose clearly, show what confusions arise when the distinction is ignored, and hint at some of the structural philosophical reasons why the distinction got blurred in the first place.     

The effect of accounting firm size and member rank on professionalism

The relationship between the number of employees in a firm, their rank, and the level of professionalism among firm members is evaluated in 19 accounting firms, involving 325 accountants engaged in public practice. Professionalism is measured using five individual traits plus a composite. Results indicate that one trait (i.e. a belief that the profession provides a service to society) and the composite were inversely related to firm size. Rank or position in the firm hierarchy demonstrated an even stronger, independent effect on three professionalism traits and the composite, with higher member rank associated with higher levels of professionalism. Issues related to the future study of professionalism among accountants are discussed.     

Regulation Fair Disclosure and Earnings Information: Market, Analyst, and Corporate Responses

With the adoption of Regulation Fair Disclosure (Reg FD), market behavior around earnings releases displays no significant change in return volatility (after controlling for decimalization of stock trading) but significant increases in trading volume due to difference in opinion. Analyst forecast dispersion increases, and increases in other measures of disagreement and difference of opinion suggest greater difficulty in forming forecasts beyond the current quarter. Corporations increase the quantity of voluntary disclosures, but only for current quarter earnings. Thus, Reg FD seems to increase the quantity of information available to the public while imposing greater demands on investment professionals.