The Role of Individual Variables, Organizational Variables and Moral Intensity Dimensions in Libyan Management Accountants’ Ethical Decision Making

This study investigates the association of a broad set of variables with the ethical decision making of management accountants in Libya. Adopting a cross-sectional methodology, a questionnaire including four different ethical scenarios was used to gather data from 229 participants. For each scenario, ethical decision making was examined in terms of the recognition, judgment and intention stages of Rest’s model. A significant relationship was found between ethical recognition and ethical judgment and also between ethical judgment and ethical intention, but ethical recognition did not significantly predict ethical intention—thus providing support for Rest’s model. Organizational variables, age and educational level yielded few significant results. The lack of significance for codes of ethics might reflect their relative lack of development in Libya, in which case Libyan companies should pay attention to their content and how they are supported, especially in the light of the under-development of the accounting profession in Libya. Few significant results were also found for gender, but where they were found, males showed more ethical characteristics than females. This unusual result reinforces the dangers of gender stereotyping in business. Personal moral philosophy and moral intensity dimensions were generally found to be significant predictors of the three stages of ethical decision making studied. One implication of this is to give more attention to ethics in accounting education, making the connections between accounting practice and (in Libya) Islam. Overall, this study not only adds to the available empirical evidence on factors affecting ethical decision making, notably examining three stages of Rest’s model, but also offers rare insights into the ethical views of practising management accountants and provides a benchmark for future studies of ethical decision making in Muslim majority countries and other parts of the developing world

The dominant Anopheles vectors of human malaria in Africa, Europe and the Middle East: occurrence data, distribution maps and bionomic précis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This is the second in a series of three articles documenting the geographical distribution of 41 dominant vector species (DVS) of human malaria. The first paper addressed the DVS of the Americas and the third will consider those of the Asian Pacific Region. Here, the DVS of Africa, Europe and the Middle East are discussed. The continent of Africa experiences the bulk of the global malaria burden due in part to the presence of the <it>An. gambiae </it>complex. <it>Anopheles gambiae </it>is one of four DVS within the <it>An. gambiae </it>complex, the others being <it>An. arabiensis </it>and the coastal <it>An. merus </it>and <it>An. melas</it>. There are a further three, highly anthropophilic DVS in Africa, <it>An. funestus</it>, <it>An. moucheti </it>and <it>An. nili</it>. Conversely, across Europe and the Middle East, malaria transmission is low and frequently absent, despite the presence of six DVS. To help control malaria in Africa and the Middle East, or to identify the risk of its re-emergence in Europe, the contemporary distribution and bionomics of the relevant DVS are needed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A contemporary database of occurrence data, compiled from the formal literature and other relevant resources, resulted in the collation of information for seven DVS from 44 countries in Africa containing 4234 geo-referenced, independent sites. In Europe and the Middle East, six DVS were identified from 2784 geo-referenced sites across 49 countries. These occurrence data were combined with expert opinion ranges and a suite of environmental and climatic variables of relevance to anopheline ecology to produce predictive distribution maps using the Boosted Regression Tree (BRT) method.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The predicted geographic extent for the following DVS (or species/suspected species complex*) is provided for Africa: <it>Anopheles </it>(<it>Cellia</it>) <it>arabiensis</it>, <it>An. </it>(<it>Cel.</it>) <it>funestus*</it>, <it>An. </it>(<it>Cel.</it>) <it>gambiae</it>, <it>An. </it>(<it>Cel.</it>) <it>melas</it>, <it>An. </it>(<it>Cel.</it>) <it>merus</it>, <it>An. </it>(<it>Cel.</it>) <it>moucheti </it>and <it>An. </it>(<it>Cel.</it>) <it>nili*</it>, and in the European and Middle Eastern Region: <it>An. </it>(<it>Anopheles</it>) <it>atroparvus</it>, <it>An. </it>(<it>Ano.</it>) <it>labranchiae</it>, <it>An. </it>(<it>Ano.</it>) <it>messeae</it>, <it>An. </it>(<it>Ano.</it>) <it>sacharovi</it>, <it>An. </it>(<it>Cel.</it>) <it>sergentii </it>and <it>An. </it>(<it>Cel.</it>) <it>superpictus*</it>. These maps are presented alongside a bionomics summary for each species relevant to its control.</p