Adjustment to Stagflation and Neoliberal Reforms in Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States

1998 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 602-632 ◽  
Author(s):  
NOBUHIRO HIWATARI

This article explains why the stagflation and neoliberal reforms that reinforced party polarization in the United Kingdom and the United States instead led to party convergence in Japan. In Japan, industry-centered adjustment and bureaucratic coordination distributed the costs of policy changes across societal groups and facilitated party convergence, whereas the lack of such societal and state institutions in the United Kingdom and the United States led to policy changes with polarizing consequences. Focusing on industry-centered adjustment brings the unions back into Japanese politics and provides an alternative to the pluralism-neocorporatism dichotomy of organizing societal interests. Bureaucratic coordination not only includes the opposition in the framework but also provides a more nuanced view than is assumed in the debate over whether the ruling party of the bureaucracy dominates the Japanese state. When combined, these conceptualizations of market and state go a long way toward explaining the dynamics of party competition.

2013 ◽  
Vol 103 (4) ◽  
pp. 1507-1528 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Cloyne

This paper provides new estimates of the macroeconomic effects of tax changes using a new narrative dataset for the United Kingdom. Identification is achieved by isolating “exogenous” tax policy changes using the Romer and Romer narrative strategy. I find that a 1 percent cut in taxes increases GDP by 0.6 percent on impact and 2.5 percent over three years. The findings are remarkably similar to Romer and Romer narrative estimates for the United States, reinforcing the view that tax changes have powerful and persistent effects. “Exogenous” tax changes are also shown to have contributed to important episodes in the UK business cycle. (JEL E23, E32, E62, H20, H61)


Author(s):  
Sameh N. Saleh ◽  
Ezimamaka Ajufo ◽  
Christoph U. Lehmann ◽  
Richard J. Medford

AbstractBackgroundMedical crowdfunding is increasingly used to finance personal healthcare costs in Canada (CAN), United Kingdom (UK), and United States (US) despite major differences in their healthcare systems. Yet, it lacks comparative descriptive research to guide policy changes that can promote equitable and accessible healthcare.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis of Canadian, British, and American campaigns between February 2018 and March 2019 on the GoFundMe platform (n=3,396). We extracted and manually reviewed variables from campaigns on each country’s GoFundMe discovery webpage, explored campaign characteristics, and compared each country’s campaign demographics to its respective national census. We fit multivariate linear regression models for funds raised for the cohort and for each country.ResultsWe examined 1,091 Canadian, 1,082 British, and 1,223 American campaigns. US campaigns (median [IQR] $38,204 [$31,200 to $52,123]) raised more funds than those in CAN ($12,662 [$9,377 to $19,251]) and the UK ($6,285 [$4,028 to $12,348]). Female (38.4% of campaigns vs. 50.9% of US census; p<0.001) and black (5.3% of campaigns vs. 13.4% of US census; p<0.001) beneficiaries were underrepresented in US campaigns. In the full cohort, blacks raised $4,007 less (95% confidence interval [CI] -$6,913 to -$1,101; p=0.007) and males raised $1,742 more (95% CI $583 to $2,901; p=0.003) per campaign. Cancer was the most common diagnosis represented overall (54.5%). Across all diagnoses, campaigns primarily for routine treatment expenses were three times more common in the United States compared to Canada and the United Kingdom (CAN 21.9% vs. UK 26.6% vs. US 77.9%; p<0.001). However, campaigns with routine care were less successful overall, raising $4,589 less per campaign (CI -$6,429 to - $2,749; p<0.001). Campaigns primarily for alternative treatment expenses were nearly five times as common for cancer (24%) than for non-cancer (5%) diagnoses.DiscussionThe trends observed suggest that there are important gaps in healthcare provision in all of the countries examined across a wide range of diagnoses. Although medical crowdfunding has the potential to provide short-term relief from medical financial burden for a privileged subset of patients, it may carry wider-reaching adverse societal effects including the promotion of racial and gender disparities in healthcare. Further work is needed to inform policy changes that promote equitable and accessible healthcare through this practice.FundingNone.


2020 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Rehana Cassim

Abstract Section 162 of the South African Companies Act 71 of 2008 empowers courts to declare directors delinquent and hence to disqualify them from office. This article compares the judicial disqualification of directors under this section with the equivalent provisions in the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States of America, which have all influenced the South African act. The article compares the classes of persons who have locus standi to apply to court to disqualify a director from holding office, as well as the grounds for the judicial disqualification of a director, the duration of the disqualification, the application of a prescription period and the discretion conferred on courts to disqualify directors from office. It contends that, in empowering courts to disqualify directors from holding office, section 162 of the South African Companies Act goes too far in certain respects.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document