The Structural Attributes of Press Freedom: Private Ownership, Public Orientation, and Editorial Independence: Randall P. Bezanson

Author(s):  
Ying Tay Lee ◽  
Devinaga Rasiah ◽  
Ming Ming Lai

Human rights and fundamental freedoms such as economic, political, and press freedoms vary widely from country to country. It creates opportunity and risk in investment decisions. Thus, this study is carried out to examine if the explanatory power of the model for capital asset pricing could be improved when these human rights movement indices are included in the model. The sample for this study comprises of 495 stocks listed in Bursa Malaysia, covering the sampling period from 2003 to 2013. The model applied in this study employed the pooled ordinary least square regression estimation. In addition, the robustness of the model is tested by using firm size as a controlled variable. The findings show that market beta as well as the economic and press freedom indices could explain the cross-sectional stock returns of the Malaysian stock market. By controlling the firm size, it adds marginally to the explanation of the extended CAP model which incorporated economic, political, and press freedom indices.


2002 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-100
Author(s):  
Raffaele Caterina

“A system of private ownership must provide for something more sophisticated than absolute ownership of the property by one person. A property owner needs to be able to do more than own it during his lifetime and pass it on to someone else on his death.”1 Those who own things with a long life quite naturally feel the urge to deal in segments of time. Most of the owner's ambitions in respect of time can be met by the law of contract. But contract does not offer a complete solution, since contracts create only personal rights. Certain of the owner's legitimate wishes can be achieved only if the law allows them to be given effect in rem—that is, as proprietary rights. Legal systems have responded differently to the need for proprietary rights limited in time. Roman law created usufruct and other iura in re aliena; English law created different legal estates. Every system has faced similar problems. One issue has been the extent to which the holder of a limited interest should be restricted in his or her use and enjoyment in order to protect the holders of other interests in the same thing. A common core of principles regulates the relationship between those who hold temporary interests and the reversioners. For instance, every system forbids holder of the possessory interest to damage the thing arbitrarily. But other rules are more controversial. This study focuses upon the rules which do not forbid, but compel, certain courses of action.


Relation ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 267-280
Author(s):  
Laeed Zaghlami
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Ekaterina Pravilova

“Property rights” and “Russia” do not usually belong in the same sentence. Rather, our general image of the nation is of insecurity of private ownership and defenselessness in the face of the state. Many scholars have attributed Russia's long-term development problems to a failure to advance property rights for the modern age and blamed Russian intellectuals for their indifference to the issues of ownership. This book refutes this widely shared conventional wisdom and analyzes the emergence of Russian property regimes from the time of Catherine the Great through World War I and the revolutions of 1917. Most importantly, the book shows the emergence of the new practices of owning “public things” in imperial Russia and the attempts of Russian intellectuals to reconcile the security of property with the ideals of the common good. The book analyzes how the belief that certain objects—rivers, forests, minerals, historical monuments, icons, and Russian literary classics—should accede to some kind of public status developed in Russia in the mid-nineteenth century. Professional experts and liberal politicians advocated for a property reform that aimed at exempting public things from private ownership, while the tsars and the imperial government employed the rhetoric of protecting the sanctity of private property and resisted attempts at its limitation. Exploring the Russian ways of thinking about property, the book looks at problems of state reform and the formation of civil society, which, as the book argues, should be rethought as a process of constructing “the public” through the reform of property rights.


Author(s):  
Douglas J. Cumming ◽  
Aurelie Sannajust ◽  
Monika Tarsalewska ◽  
Jie Zhu

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Freille ◽  
M. Emranul Haque ◽  
Richard Kneller
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document