The Concept of Governance in the Spirit of Capitalism

Through combining insights from political economy and sociology, this article explains the early genesis of the policy notion of governance in relation to ideological changes in capitalism. Such an approach has tended to be neglected in existing conceptual histories, in the process, undermining a sharper politicization of the term and how it became normalized. The argument dissects how the emergence of governance can be understood in light of a relationship between political crises, social critique and justificatory arguments (centered around security and justice claims) that form part of an ideological ‘spirit of capitalism’. Through a distinctive comparison between the creation of ‘corporate governance’ in the 1970s and the formulation of a ‘governance agenda’ by the World Bank from the 1980s, the article elucidates how the concept, within certain policy uses, but by no means all, can reflect and help constitute a neoliberal spirit of capitalism

General practitioners knowledge and management of whiplash associated disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder: Implications for patient care

© 2016 The Author(s). Background: In Australia, general practitioners (GPs) see around two-thirds of people injured in road traffic crashes. Road traffic crash injuries are commonly associated with diverse physical and psychological symptoms that may be difficult to diagnose and manage. Clinical guidelines have been developed to assist in delivering quality, consistent care, however the extent to which GPs knowledge and practice in diagnosing and managing road traffic crash injuries concords with the guidelines is unknown. This study aimed to explore Australian GPs knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding the diagnosis and management of road traffic crash injuries, specifically whiplash associated disorders (WAD) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Method: A cross-sectional survey of 423 GPs across Australia conducted between July and December 2014. We developed a questionnaire to assess their knowledge of WAD and PTSD, confidence in diagnosing and managing WAD and PTSD, frequency of referral to health providers, barriers to referral, and attitudes towards further education and training. Factor analysis, Spearman's correlation, and multiple ordered logistic regressions were performed. Results: Overall, GPs have good level knowledge of WAD and PTSD; only 9.6 % (95 % CI: 7.1 %, 12.8 %) and 23.9 % (95 % CI: 20.8 %, 28.2 %) of them were deemed to have lower level knowledge of WAD and PTSD respectively. Key knowledge gaps included imaging indicators for WAD and indicators for psychological referral for PTSD. GPs who were male, with more years of experience, working in the urban area and with higher knowledge level of WAD were more confident in diagnosing and managing WAD. Only GPs PTSD knowledge level predicted confidence in diagnosing and managing PTSD. GPs most commonly referred to physiotherapists and least commonly to vocational rehabilitation providers. Barriers to referral included out-of-pocket costs incurred by patients and long waiting times. Most GPs felt positive towards further education on road traffic crash injury management. Conclusion: This study has enhanced understanding of the knowledge skills and attitudes of GPs towards road traffic crash injury care in Australia, and has identified areas for further education and training. If delivered, this training has the potential to reduce unnecessary imaging for WAD and optimise the early referral of patients at risk of delayed recovery following a road traffic crash

Say on Pay: A wolf in sheep’s clothing?

This paper debates whether Say on Pay can fix executive pay. We argue that Say on Pay benefits executive pay when shareholders’ voice offsets CEO power and mitigates directors’ information deficiencies. We admonish however that Say on Pay may raise novel problems. The pay resulting from Say on Pay can harm stakeholders whose interests differ from those of shareholders influential in pay- setting. Moreover, boards may resist shareholders’ intervention in pay-setting and, accordingly, manage compensation disclosures to ensure a passing shareholder vote. Consequently, Say on Pay may not only fail to remedy suboptimal pay but also legitimize it

Are all private benefits of control ineffective? : principal‐principal benefits, external governance quality, and firm performance

Private benefits of control (PBC) are benefits that controlling shareholders consume, but that are not shared with minority shareholders. Research focusing on the value protection role of corporate governance typically frames PBC as principal–principal (PP) agency costs, and interprets them as a form of minority shareholder expropriation that decreases firm performance. Taking a value creation perspective of corporate governance, however, we propose a more nuanced role for PBC. Specifically, we see them also as PP agency benefits that compensate controlling shareholders for their monitoring and advisory services, which can increase firm performance. Since both PP costs and benefits affect firm performance, we theorize that PBC enhance firm performance at a diminishing rate. Furthermore, we show that the effect of PBC on firm performance is more positive when country‐level external governance mechanisms are strong