Should rangeland rehabilitation be paid for from the public purse?

1990 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 61 ◽  
Author(s):  
RK Lindner
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Market Failure ◽  
Policy Issue ◽  
Stocking Rate ◽  
Existence Value ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Purse ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Do So

The issue addressed in this paper is the appropriate source of funding for rangeland rehabilitation. Two subsidmy questions are pertinent to this policy issue. Is it profitable for private managers of pastoral properties to rehabilitate rangeland? If not, then on what grounds might it be in the public interest to do so? Evidence is presented that it is privately profitable to rehabilitate slightly to moderately degraded range, by destocking during seasons when there are good prospects for seedlings to become established, but otherwise matching the stocking rate to feed availability. Conversely, it is unprofitable to rehabilitate severely degraded range unless the cost of reseeding is subsidized by at least $5/ha. The relevance of various market failure arguments to the case for public fun- of rangeland rehabilitation to the extent of $100million is discussed, and the need to estimate the existence value of rangelands vis a vis other conservation goals is identified.

Guarding the Public Interest: England's Coroners and Organ Transplants, 1960–1975

2015 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 926-946 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen MacDonald
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Spare Part ◽  
Organ Transplants ◽  
Legal Requirement ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Law ◽  
Do So

AbstractFrom the mid-twentieth century, England's coroners were crucial to the supply of organs to transplant, as much of this material was gleaned from the bodies of people who had been involved in accidents. In such situations the law required that a coroner's consent first be obtained lest removing the organs destroy evidence about the cause of the person's death. Surgeons challenged the legal requirement that they seek consent before taking organs, arguing that doing so hampered their quick access to bodies. Some coroners willingly cooperated with surgeons while others refused to do so, coming into conflict with particular transplanters whom they considered untrustworthy. This article examines how the phenomenon of “spare part” surgery challenged long-held conceptions of the coroner's role.

Investigations and Public Interest Winding-Up Petitions

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glen Davis
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Regulatory Authority ◽  
The Public ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
A Company ◽  
Do So

Serious misconduct, or breaches of duty by a company or its directors affecting the company’s relationships with members of the public, may trigger an investigation by the Secretary of State into the manner in which the company’s business has been conducted, or even the appointment of inspectors and publication of a formal report. In an appropriate case, the Secretary of State or a regulatory authority may petition the court to wind the company up on the basis that it is ‘just and equitable’ to do so in the public interest. Such a liquidation need not be predicated on insolvency. A winding-up order terminates the directors’ powers of management and is the logical response to misconduct or mismanagement by directors which is revealed by an inspector’s report.

Antitrust as Public Interest Law: Redistribution, Equity, and Social Justice

2020 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-101
Author(s):  
Dina I. Waked
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Competition Policy ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Allocative Efficiency ◽  
Consumer Welfare ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Interest Law ◽  
Antitrust Laws ◽  
History Of ◽  
Do So

This article proposes the use of antitrust law to reduce poverty and address inequality. It argues that the antitrust laws are sufficiently malleable to achieve such goals. The current focus of antitrust on the efficiency-only goals does not only lead to increasing inequality further but is also inconsistent with the history of antitrust. This history is presented through the lens of the public interest that emerges into the balance between private property and competition policy. Tracing the public interest at different historical moments, we get to see how it has been broad enough to encompass social welfare concerns. Over time, the public interest concern of antitrust was narrowed to exclusively cover consumer welfare and its allocative efficiency. Once we frame antitrust as public interest law, in its broadest sense, we are empowered to use it to address inequality. A proposal to do so is exposed in this article.

scholarly journals Penerapan Pendekatan Rule Of Reason Oleh Kppu Dalam Dugaan Pengenaan Harga Eksesif (Studi Kasus Putusan KPPU Nomor Perkara 03/Kppu-I/2017)

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Indra Sanjaya
Keyword(s):  
Market Power ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
The Public ◽  
Rule Of Reason ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Abuse Of Dominant Position ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Case Number

To assess whether a particular action of a business actor violates the provisions in Statute Number 5 of 1999, the KPPU and the Court may apply the per se illegal approach or rule of reason, depending on the formulation of the provisions allegedly violated. The rule of reason approach is an approach used by business competition authorities to make an evaluation of the consequences of certain agreements or business activities, to determine whether an agreement or activity is inhibiting or supporting competition. This paper analyzes the rule of reason approach applied by KPPU in cases with Case Number 03 / KPPU-I / 2017 to determine whether PT. Angkasa Pura II (Persero) which does not reduce the cost of shipping and taking cargo at Kualanamu Airport, even though its workload has been reduced, can be classified as a form of monopolization and constitutes a violation of the provisions of Article 17 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Statute Number 5 of 1999. The results of the study showed that the application of the rule of reason by KPPU was carried out through 4 (four) steps, namely: (1). Market identification; (2) Identification of market power; (3) Identification of abuse of dominant position; (4) Identification of impacts on the public interest. Through the application of the rule of reason, KPPU decides that the actions of PT. Angkasa Pura II is a form of monopolization and that the action fulfills the elements in Article 17 paragraph (1) and (2) of Statute Number 5 of 1999.

scholarly journals Psychiatry in Australia: economic and service delivery aspects

1991 ◽  
Vol 15 (7) ◽  
pp. 446-449 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gavin Andrews
Keyword(s):  
Health Insurance ◽  
Public Sector ◽  
Service Delivery ◽  
National Health Insurance ◽  
Private Practice ◽  
Public Practice ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Purse ◽  
Simple Basis ◽  
The Cost

In 1987 there were 1,428 psychiatrists in Australia, 8.8 per 100,000 population (Burvill, 1988), 55% identified as in private practice and 45% in public sector practice. Let us be clear about terms. Public sector practice means that each week you receive a salary from the public purse whether you have seen one or a hundred patients. Private practice means that you are paid on a piece-work basis, also largely from the public purse (national health insurance or Medicare), but the income (at about $100 per hour) depends exactly on the number of hours spent with patients. On average, private psychiatrists in Australia gross about $150,000 per year, out of which they must pay practice expenses. The pay for public sector psychiatrists probably averages $70,000 to which, for the purposes of our calculation, we will add the cost of rooms, telephone and secretary provided by the hospital which at $30,000 brings the cost of a public sector psychiatrist to about $100,000 per year. If 45% of psychiatrists are in public practice then the averaged cost of a psychiatrist in Australia can be calculated as $127,500 per annum, and as there are 8.8 psychiatrists per 100,000 the cost, calculated on this simple basis, is $1.12 million per 100,000 population (Andrews, 1989).

scholarly journals Truth Distancing? Whistleblowing as Remedy to Censorship during COVID-19

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 375-381
Author(s):  
Vigjilenca ABAZI
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Public Attention ◽  
Timely Manner ◽  
The Public ◽  
Reporting Systems ◽  
The World ◽  
Other Information ◽  
The Usa ◽  
And Control ◽  
Do So

In the COVID-19 pandemic, whistleblowers have become the essential watchdogs disrupting suppression and control of information. Many governments have intentionally not disclosed information or failed to do so in a timely manner, misled the public or even promoted false beliefs. Fierce public interest defenders are pushing back against this censorship. Dr Fen and Dr Wenliang were the first whistleblowers in China to report that a new pandemic was possibly underway, and ever since, numerous other whistleblowers around the world have been reporting on the spread of the virus, the lack of medical equipment and other information of public interest. This paper maps the relevant whistleblowing cases in China, the USA and Europe and shows that many whistleblowers are initially censored and face disciplinary measures or even dismissals. At the same time, whistleblowing during the COVID-19 pandemic has drawn public attention to the shortcomings of institutional reporting systems and a wider appreciation of whistleblowers as uniquely placed to expose risk at early stages. Ultimately, whistleblowing as a means of transparency is not only becoming ever less controversial, but during COVID-19 it has become the “remedy” to censorship.

Lobbying Across Venues: An Issue-Tracing Approach

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Jourdain ◽  
Simon Hug ◽  
Frédéric Varone
Keyword(s):  
Interest Groups ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Policy Process ◽  
Policy Issue ◽  
Policy Preference ◽  
Ballot Initiative ◽  
Policy Goals ◽  
Advocacy Activity ◽  
Public Interest Groups ◽  
Do So

This study examines lobbying activity during four California policymaking processes and through the four institutional venues available in that state: the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, and the ballot initiative. It shows that past advocacy activity explains future mobilization on the same policy issue. Groups that fail to reach their policy goals will be more likely to mobilize later if the policy process changes venue, compared with those that have achieved their policy preference. Thus, the availability of multiple venues provides a counterweight to the possible advantages received by certain group types in each venue. Furthermore, public interest groups are more likely to mobilize across venues and repeatedly within a venue, while business groups are less likely to do so.

The road back from Kafka’s castle: Towards a better system of visa application and review in Australia

2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 216-220
Author(s):  
Victor Kline
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Process ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Road ◽  
Public Purse ◽  
Difficult Time ◽  
Visa Application ◽  
The Cost

The processes for administrative, judicial and appellate challenges to a visa refusal are difficult, time consuming and costly. It is not uncommon for an applicant to be involved in processes in excess of five or 10 years. The cost to the public purse can be exorbitant. This article suggests a system whereby the process would be confined to a two-stage judicial process. As such it would be much more discernible to the litigant, many of whom are unrepresented. It would also result in significant savings to the litigant and to the taxpayer.

Offenses and Defenses against Patients: A Psychoanalyst's View of the Borderline between Empathic Failure and Malpractice

1993 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 265-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
John A. Sloane
Keyword(s):  
Social Change ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Clinical Experience ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Social Process ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
Vicious Cycle ◽  
The Public ◽  
Do So

The behaviour of physicians is increasingly coming under scrutiny and attack, both from patients and from institutions that represent the public interest. This social process is partly a necessary and healthy quest for healing and partly a retaliatory response to inevitable failures on the part of physicians to live up to the standards expected of them. The process can assume such ruthless and pervasive forms that physicians are becoming exposed to impossible demands and even abuse at the hands of those they are trying to help. As a result, many physicians become defensive, withdrawing from patient care or reasserting their own needs in regressive ways that further offend or injure their patients. This increases public anxiety and outrage resulting in regressive and even violent “solutions” creating a vicious cycle in which mutual trust and respect is eroded and true health eludes our grasp. Physicians who practise psychotherapy are particularly aware of such regressive emotional pressures and therefore their experience can be taken as a bellwether of social change. Stirred by recent encounters with colleagues who have undergone public inquisition, humiliation and punishment, and drawing on personal clinical experience with patients whose regressive self-expression could at times be considered “borderline”, the author attempts to understand the nature of the emotional forces being experienced by members of the profession at large. As in therapy, so in social change; the outcome depends on how well we understand, contain and channel the powerful feelings that underlie whatever actions are taken. Failure to do so makes the situation worse, while recognition of empathic failure at all levels can provide an opportunity for healing and for reintegration rather than polarization of opposing forces at the border between what is acceptable and what is not.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document