Accounting and the welfare-state: The missing link

In recent years, accounting regulation has been internationalized with the extensive use and adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) by nation-states, which points at least to a formal convergence between accounting regulatory systems. However, major differences between national accounting systems persist. In this paper, it is argued that a country's accounting system is influenced by the type of the welfare-state. This allows us to see accounting in a broader social perspective. The societal attitudes influencing the accounting system are captured by using the Esping-Andersen (1990) classification of welfare states. To show that there is a connection between the typology of welfare-states and the way in which various corporate constituencies' interests are balanced, we compare Germany as an example of a conservative welfare-state and the UK as an example of a liberal welfare-state. This comparison shows that the type of welfare state exerts an influence on the system of accounting and, therefore, can be seen as an explanatory variable for persisting differences between accounting regulatory systems. -- In den letzten Jahren deuten zahlreiche Veränderungen im Bereich der nationalen Regulierung der Rechnungslegung zumindest auf eine formale Konvergenz zwischen den regulatorischen Systemen der Rechnungslegung hin. Abgeleitet werden kann dies aus der mittlerweile weitreichenden Anwendung und Einführung des internationalen Rechnungslegungsstandardwerkes IFRS durch zahlreiche Nationalstaaten. Allerdings bestehen auch weiterhin wesentliche Unterschiede zwischen nationalen Rechnungslegungssystemen fort. Mit diesem Arbeitspapier wird die Hypothese vertreten, dass das Rechungslegungssystem in einem Land und damit die Unterschiede zwischen Ländern maßgeblich durch den Typ des Wohlfahrtsstaates beeinflusst werden. Dieses erlaubt eine weitergefasste gesellschaftliche Perspektive auf den Bereich der Rechungslegungsregulierung. Die einflussnehmenden gesellschaftlichen Werte werden hierbei durch die Wohlfahrtsstaatentypologie von Esping-Andersen (1990) erfasst. In einem abschließenden Länderfallbeispiel werden Deutschland (konservativer Wohlfahrtsstaatstyp) sowie Großbritannien (liberaler Wohlfahrtsstaatstyp) miteinander verglichen. Hierbei soll gezeigt werden, dass eine Verbindung zwischen dem Typ des Wohlfahrtsstaates und der Art und Weise besteht, wie Interessen verschiedener Anspruchsgruppen des Unternehmens ausgeglichen werden. Der Vergleich zeigt, dass ein Zusammenhang zwischen dem Wohlfahrtsstaatstyp und der Rechungslegungsregulierung hergestellt werden kann. Der Wohlfahrtsstaatstyp ist dementsprechend als ein wesentlicher Erklärungsfaktor für den Fortbestand von nationalen Unterschieden in der Rechnungslegungsregulierung zu sehen.

Types and indices of democratic regimes

Today democracy is seen as the only legitimate form of government almost all over the world. That it can be institutionalized differently leads to the question which kind of democracy might be better or worse. This question can be answered normatively, but also on the basis of different performances that can be determined empirically. The latter requires an adequate theoretical conceptualization of types of democratic regimes and the operationalization of these types in the form of indices. This is the subject of the analysis. Types and indices of democratic regimes that figure in the current comparative and empirical research on democracy are compared against the background of a theoretical framework. They are categorized as presidentialism-parliamentarism-approaches or veto-playerapproaches. Thereby, the analysis implies a comparison of these two basic approaches to the construction of types and indices of democratic regimes. -- Die Demokratie wird heute nahezu weltweit als die einzig legitime Herrschaftsordnung angesehen. Daß sie in unterschiedlicher Weise institutionalisiert werden kann, führt zu der Frage, welche Form der Demokratie besser oder schlechter ist. Diese Frage kann normativ beantwortet werden, aber auch auf der Grundlage von empirisch feststellbaren Performanzen. Letzteres setzt aber eine theoretische Konzeptualisierung unterschiedlicher Typen demokratischer Regime voraus und die Operationalisierung dieser Typen durch Indizes. Das ist das Thema der Analyse. Typen und Indizes demokratischer Regime werden vor dem Hintergrund eines theoretischen Rahmens miteinander verglichen. Sie werden zu zwei allgemeineren Ansätzen zusammengefasst: dem Präsidentialismus- Parlamentarismus- und dem Veto-Spieler-Ansatz. Das ermöglicht auch einen Vergleich dieser unterschiedlichen Vorgehensweisen bei der Konstruktion von Typen und Indizes demokratischer Regime.

Mishpat Ivri, Halakhah and Legal Philosophy: Agunah and the Theory of “Legal Sources"

In this paper, I ask whether mishpat ivri (Jewish Law) is appropriately conceived as a “legal system”. I review Menachem Elon’s use of a “Sources” Theory of Law (based on Salmond) in his account of Mishpat Ivri; the status of religious law from the viewpoint of jurisprudence itself (Bentham, Austin and Kelsen); then the use of sources (and the approach to “dogmatic error”) by halakhic authorities in discussing the problems of the agunah (“chained wife”), which I suggest points to a theory more radical than the “sources” theory of law, one more akin to the ultimate phase of the thought of Kelsen (the “non-logical” Kelsen) or indeed to some form of Legal Realism (with which that phase of Kelsen’s thought has indeed been compared)? I finally juxtapose an account based on internal theological resources (a “Jurisprudence of Revelation”). Downloadable at at http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/JSIJ/jsij1.html

THE DESIGN OF A PLURAL LAND USE PLANNIG SYSTEM - A TENTATIVE PROPOSAL FROM AN ITALIAN PERSPECTIVE

The main approaches to planning developed during planning history are essentially three: the ritual one, the engineering one and the ethical one. With reference to the last category, classical ethical approaches to planning are those based on the principles of utilitarian (oriented to ensure efficiency and effectiveness for spatial changes), contractualist (oriented to pursue ends of social and environmental equity) and dialogical type (oriented to define planning ends in a public fair dialogue). But these ethical approaches seem inadequate, in their pure forms, to respond to policy-making requirements in our complex urban and regional societies. A really effective and fair system of spatial planning should instead respond not only to situations where ends and means are clear and well-defined but also to situations where there is strong conflict as regards the ends and to situations – perhaps the most frequent ones – where both ends and means are at the same time uncertain. From this standpoint it would seem that experiences (with particular reference to the Italian context) tending towards mixed and plural planning systems, should be regarded with interest. In this perspective, the contribution of the paper is finally addressed towards the definition of a mixed and plural, but loosely coupled, spatial planning system.

Evaluating Rawls: Equality in the Family

This paper examines the latest developments in feminist critiques of the seminal Theory of Justice, written by John Rawls, the late preeminent American moral philosopher. Rawls is recognized as one of the most influential moral political philosophers of the twentieth century and is increasingly relevant because of his discussions on pluralist societies. With the current diverging of liberal, conservative and libertarian philosophies among Americans, as well as the fragmentation of parties to accommodate an increasingly diverse public, a clear philosophy and understanding of liberal theory is necessary for its future in American politics. The current pressure to address the needs of oppressed groups such as women and sexual minorities has created a philosophical tipping point. What is to be considered equality, how the government should involve itself, and how this will be done feasibly and throughout generations need answers defined on all sides of the discussion. Gender and sexual inequality, when considering what should be done, is one of the most significant challenges because of its effect on the traditional family, on centuries of preconceived notions of gender and sexuality, and the heavy commitment it may take to extinguish. To analyze the social contract approach and the theory of justice as fairness, I will examine and then follow Rawls’ own method of the original position to determine in which manner the family should be situated within society to result in the best accordance to the two principles. Furthermore, the arguments on the reasonability of religion in a political conception will be used to promote a fair and stable society. The overall aim is to develop a Rawlsian solution to gender equality in society that is both fair and sustainable in a pluralistic society. Focusing on the role of the family in society, I argue that Rawls’ fundamental concept of justice – “justice as fairness” – does not develop a clear and convincing stance on how gender equality will be produced (and reproduced) in a pluralistic society. Debate has risen between feminist and liberal philosophers in distinguishing the relationship between Rawls’ two principles of justice and their intervention in family hierarchy, duties, and responsibilities. The two principles are known as: First Principle: Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all; Second Principle: Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: They are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; They are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle). (JF, 42-43) The distinction between an indirect and direct interaction between principles of justice and the basic structures of society (family being one of them) will shape the way the political arena promotes equality. This is the case, provided that the procedure in which Rawls utilizes is fair in itself, which has come into contention among feminist thinkers. Once the family is situated in the original position, the feasibility of the theory will be discussed within the parameters of a property-owning democracy as well as, more specifically, a deliberative democracy. This solution should bring a reflective justification for the principles abilities to deal with injustices outlined by feminists

Should (and Could) We Ban Prescriptions?

In a simple model of social interaction I analyze the welfare effects of positive (prescriptive) and negative (proscriptive) social norms, together with the private incentives for their enactment. I find that imposing no law is socially optimal when individual actions have no significant externalities, while bans become socially optimal as the externalities increase. Prescriptions are generally the worst choice, but when the externalities involved are very high. However, in the political arena support is rarely won for non intervention or for a ban, since an alternative majority will generally be found in favor of some prescription. This remains true even when strategic voting is considered, and provides an argument for the idea that a liberal state cannot be liberally enforced by rational voters.Norms, Bans, Liberalism, Anarchy, Strategic voting.