The Effect of Profitability Ratios on Market Capitalization in Jordanian Insurance Companies Listed in Amman Stock Exchange

This study aims to examine the effect of profitability ration on market capitalization in the Jordanian insurance companies listed in Amman stock exchange (ASE) by examining time series data collected over a period of four years from (2010 – 2013) which included 25 companies and utilizing  content analysis to extract the data from the company's annual reports. The finding indicated that there's an effect of Return on Investment (ROI) upon market capitalization for the companies operating in the insurance sector listed in the ASE. In terms of the effect of Return on Equity (ROE) on market capitalization, the study revealed that ROE does not affect the market capitalization for the companies operating in the insurance sector listed in ASE.  In respect of the effect of Return on Asset (ROA) on market capitalization, the result indicated that there is an effect of ROA on Market Capitalization for the companies operating in the insurance sector listed in ASE. Additionally,  by examining the effect of the independent variables (ROA, ROI, and ROE) combined in the market capitalization variable, the study revealed that all of ROA, ROI, ROE combined effects on the market capitalization and thus the main hypothesis was accepted and requires that there is an effect of profitability measured by (ROA, ROI, ROE) on market capitalization for the companies operating in the insurance listed in (ASE). Finally, the study contributes by utilizing a content analysis for a time series data in order to track the relation between financial performance indicators and market capitalization in an emerging economy such as Jordan, specifically Jordanian insurance sector. Keywords: Profitability Ratios, Market Capitalization, Insurance Sector, Jorda

Endeavor agility on consumption value through affirming an acceptable degree of utilization esteem for new items

Purpose: This comparative study holistically assesses the agility that turns into the standard of business and methods for progress. Design/Methodology/Approach: The contribution and the relevant methodology based on a duality of purposes. They are (i) quantitative research system that utilized to complete the investigation and (ii) both fundamental and auxiliary sources used to assemble information. Findings: Based on the holistically implied arguments and yielded results, it proposed that the writing audit results various parameters to clarify nimbleness and utilization esteems, which utilized to build a survey. At that point, the examination led to design a fitting example between use esteems and hidden agility measurements. Practical implications: Addressing to dual purposes, this study sheds new light on the Mallintercept method block strategy that utilized to gather reactions. Originality/Value: Although this study organically builds upon recent studies, this area gives a detail examination of the investigation. The survey has a field containing the segment profile of the respondents. This examination applies the utilization esteem model as the essential system, which incorporated the practical worth, the social worth, the passionate worth, the epistemic worth, and the restrictive worth.peer-reviewe

Duncan Kennedy on Constitutional Theory and Palestine

In this brief contribution I would like to acknowledge Duncan Kennedy's influence on my thinking and work in the past years. My own work has focused on constitutional law and theory—and although this was not a primary concern of Duncan’s scholarship— in this piece I will focus on two aspects of his work and career that influenced me as his student, political ally, and friend: radical left theoretical thought and radical left practice. Indeed, this combination is the reason why many of us admire him. He is one of the few scholars who were able to commit in his long career to both projects: intellectual critique and a left-wing politics. He was able to prevent the stifling of critique by the political, and at the same time to perform critique without undermining the political. He did not fall to the trap of either the free-floating intellectual or that of the simple party member

Unmasking Juridical Humanity

Taking the British colonial occupation of Egypt as her case study, Samera Esmeir shows in her outstanding book "Juridical Humanity" how the law was implicated in producing the ‘human’ and constructing ‘humane’ practices. Through a genealogy of the colonial career of the construction of the ‘human’, Esmeir convincingly argues that the production of the ‘human’ was intertwined with violence, discipline and dis- possession. For that purpose Esmeir assembles an impressive range of historical data, which she analyses through the lens of sophisticated theoretical tools. This essay offers one possible reading — my reading — of this rich book. Parts I and II summarise the book’s main arguments. Part I presents the descriptive background to the concept of ‘juridical humanity’. Part II shows how the book challenges both liberal and anti-colonial accounts of law since they both presuppose ‘juridical humanity’. Parts III and IV situate the book within critical traditions and critically examine some of its primary themes. In particular, Part III argues that the book can be read as a contribution to the scholarly strand that seeks "liberation of nature" rather than "liberation from nature", i.e. that which seeks empowerment rather than the imposition of an artificial order and the fabrication of "human nature". Part IV focuses on the book's notions of indeterminacy and coercion. Whereas the book locates law's indeterminacy in the split between the factual and the ideal, the Legal Realists and Critical Legal Studies find indeterminacy more pervasive and hence is located in the ideals of humanity themselves. A legal left perspective cannot be satisfied by demanding openness to a plurality of conceptions of the "human", because openness may admit conceptions of the human that are no less coercive than juridical humanity, and are inconsistent with the goals of the liberation of nature. The need to demarcate the acceptable limits of openness and plurality is inescapable. Esmeir’s book provides us with a first remarkable step towards envisaging such a project by clarifying the conceptual field and illustrating the potential negative normative effects of juridical humanity

Liberal Zionism, Comparative Constitutionalism, and the Project of Normalizing Israel

The second half of the 1990s witnessed the forceful introduction of the phrase“a state for all its citizens,” into the Israeli public debate, mainly by leaders and intellectuals of the Palestinian minority. Palestinian citizens of Israel challenged the Jewishness of the state and demanded democratization and equality. In reaction to these challenges, many Zionists formulated defenses of the “Jewish and democratic” state. Others attempted to enact laws and draft constitutions or consensus-formation documents that would entrench the Jewish character of the state. This essay is a critical scrutiny of one recent prominent example of a defense aimed at normalizing Israel-Alexander Yakobson and Amnon Rubinstein’s book Israel and the Family of Nations: the Jewish Nation-State and Human Rights (english edition, Routledge, 2009). The focus will be on the use of the comparative method in the service of this project. As I argue and demonstrate below, this project is, first, an attempt to escape from the demanding aspects of liberal theory; second, a legitimation project; third, it uses functionalism as the comparative method to achieve the required result; fourth, it is selective in employing the comparative method in order to ensure the lowest common denominator; fifth, it often ignores the gap between form and practice; and sixth, it focuses on law-as-text to present legal and constitutional arrangements as free from ideological manipulation

The State of Progressive Constitutional Theory: The Paradox of Constitutional Democracy and the Project of Political Justification

Every time the Supreme Court strikes down a law enacted by Congress or a state legislature the age-old debate over the “counter-majoritarian difficulty” resurfaces. Theories of judicial review, new and old, are offered to answer this tension between constitutionalism and democracy. But what explains the persis- tence and contestability of this difficulty? Why has the existing wealth of schol- arship failed to resolve this difficulty? In this Article, I address such questions while contextualizing “counter-majoritarianism” within larger liberal theoreti- cal frameworks. I offer a typology and map the prominent progressive liberal answers deployed to justify judicial review in constitutional democracies. This typology and map fill a gap in the existing literature, which has been largely preoccupied with advancing positions within the debate rather than assessing it holistically. This reconstructive exercise both organizes the field of constitu- tional theory and identifies the discursive moves and patterns of reasoning used within the field. The Article evaluates the similarities and differences between the different positions. By mapping these differences and relations, I show that the supposed distinction between democracy and constitutionalism has been un- dermined without resolving the underlying tension between these competing val- ues. The collapse of the distinction exposes the circular movement of the debate around the tension. Ultimately, I conclude, the existing body of literature offers no satisfying method for assessing whether the ruling in any controversial case is “counter-majoritarian.” I suggest that rather than attempting to solve the difficulty, scholars should recognize its irreconcilability, because only then would a better understanding of the role of law in society emerge