Abstract
What, if anything, is wrong with price gouging? Its defenders argue that it increases supply of scarce necessities; critics argue that it is exploitative, inequitable and vicious. In this paper, I argue for its moral wrongness and legal prohibition, without relying on charges of exploitation, inequity or poor character. What is fundamentally wrong with price gouging is that it violates a duty of easy rescue. While legal enforcement of such duties is controversial, a special case can be made for their legal enforcement in this context. This account distinguishes, morally, price gouging by corporations from that of individual entrepreneurs.
Abstract
This paper examines the reasons for and consequences of the resort to traditional spiritual justice in spite of increasing awareness of state civil law structures. The paper helps us theorise on how economic disputes resulting from lack of effective legal enforcement yields itself easily to the deployment of spiritual justice. The significance of this study is that it contributes perspectives into issues of law and political modernisation and their interrelationships with religious imaginations. It departs from previous accounts that focus on the pervasiveness of religion in the contemporary Ghanaian public sphere. Instead, the current study devotes attention to the conditions that occasion the deployment of religion in the public domain.
This article answers the question of whether the adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) reduces the cost of equity capital, with a focus on the tourism industry. We employ a set of global tourism companies and find that mandatory IFRS adoption has a significantly negative relation with the cost of equity capital. However, we find that this relation is varied with different business cultures and geographic areas. Moreover, from interactive analyses of country institutions for the relation between mandatory IFRS adoption and tourism firm’s cost of equity, we show that adopting IFRS complements the deficiencies of various country institutions, such as investor protection, the strength of legal enforcement, and corporate governance.
Abstract
This paper examines the reasons behind the failure of EU and national policy interventions to protect unaccompanied migrant children’s (unaccompanied minors – uams) rights during the refugee crisis in Europe. By drawing on policy documents and empirical data, it is argued that the deficient protection of uam s’ child rights was essentially a failure of responsibility allocation in line with the “bystander effect” analytical explanation. While this argument does not disregard the role of other explanatory factors, such as the lack of European solidarity, poor legal enforcement and financial reasons, among others, it is claimed that the diffusion of responsibility (in theory and practice) between various policy systems at the national level, as well as between the EU and domestic levels, contributed to the failure to protect uam s’ child rights across Europe.
Whose Children? Protecting Unaccompanied Migrant Children in Europe: A Case of Diffused Responsibility?