Digital Currency Studies In Islamic Perspective

This study aims to determine the best type of Digital currency according to Islam. This study uses the Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) method by developing several alternative digital currencies and attributes (indicators). In addition, this study also uses deductive qualitative analysis. Respondents in this study amounted to 100 people with the sampling technique Area Stratified Purposive Sampling and several selected respondents were interviewed. The results show that Gold-based Digital Money is the best type of Digital currency according to Islam. The main attribute of ownership in Gold-based Digital Money is Usury abolishment capability. Other factors are Gharar Eraducation, Maysir Eraducation, Justice / Fairness Principles, Medium of exchange, Measurement of value, Store of value and Differed payment instrument. In addition, this model can accommodate 7 criteria for the role of currency in the economy.

How Fairness Principles in the Climate Debate Relate to Theories of Distributive Justice

A central question in international climate policy making is how to distribute the burdens of keeping global average temperature increase to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. In particular, there are four distributional issues: how to allocate the total amount of greenhouse gases that can still be emitted, who should bear the costs of mitigation, who should bear the costs of adaptation to unavoidable climate change, and who should bear the costs of residual climate damage. Regarding these distributional issues the academic literature offers a plethora of fairness principles, such as ‘polluter pays’, ‘beneficiary pays’, ‘equal per capita rights’, ‘grandfathering’, ‘ability to pay’, ‘historical responsibility’ and ‘cost effectiveness’. Remarkably, there is a theoretical gap between these principles and the central theories of distributive justice in moral and political philosophy. As a consequence, it is unclear how these principles are related, whether they can be combined or are mutually exclusive, and what the fundamental underlying values are. This paper aims to elucidate that debate. Understanding the different underlying values may facilitate bridge-building and movement in negotiation positions.

The Concept of Fairness in Relation to Women Transport Users

This paper discusses the concept of ‘fairness’ in transport, specifically regarding women using public transport, future autonomous vehicle taxis or bicycle sharing. Women generally have varying and complex mobility patterns compared to men and suffer disproportionate fairness issues when using transport. Different concepts of fairness are explored, including: equality of opportunity, equity and justice (including procedural, social and distributional justice). While each of these concepts has different implications for women using transport, it is also recognized that fairness principles should apply to all people (regardless of sex, gender or other characteristics). Analysis of the different forms of mobility, as represented by public transport, autonomous vehicles and bicycle sharing, illustrate a variety of specific fairness issues. Factors such as safety and security, cost, physical design of infrastructure and vehicles, and characteristics such as low-income or childcare responsibilities arise in each case. The three cases also indicate a range of both horizonal fairness factors (similar people being treated similarly) and vertical fairness factors (such as more disadvantaged people receiving greater support). Further research is required into setting frameworks for a more comprehensive inclusion of, and balance between, different concepts of fairness and their interactions in both transport policy and practice.

Testing Fairness Principles for Public Environmental Infrastructure Decisions

Public infrastructure decisions affect many stakeholders with various benefits and costs. For public decisions, it is crucial that decision-making processes and outcomes are fair. Fairness concepts have rarely been explored in public infrastructure planning. We close this gap for a global issue of growing importance: replacing sewer-based, centralized by decentralized wastewater systems. We empirically study fairness principles in this policy-relevant context, and identify possible influencing factors in a representative online survey of 472 Swiss German residents. In a transition phase, innovative, decentralized pilot wastewater systems are installed in households. We designed two vignettes for this context to test the adhesion to principles of distributive justice—equality, equity, and need—at individual and community levels. A third vignette tests procedural justice with increasing fulfilment of fair process criteria. The results confirm our hypotheses: equity is perceived as fairer than equality at individual and collective levels. Contrary to expectations and literature, need is perceived as even fairer than equity. Procedural justice results confirm literature, e.g., the majority (92%) of respondents deems a policy fair that includes them in decision-making. Only few demographic and explanatory factors are significantly correlated with respondents’ fairness perceptions. Although unexpected, this is positive, implying that introducing decentralized wastewater technology can be designed for the entire population independent of characteristics of individuals. Generally, our results confirm literature: fairness perceptions depend on the circumstances. Hence, they should be elicited in the exact application context to be able to enter negotiation processes and provide concrete advice to decision makers.

Bridging research integrity and global health epidemiology (BRIDGE) guidelines: explanation and elaboration

Over the past decade, two movements have profoundly changed the environment in which global health epidemiologists work: research integrity and research fairness. Both ought to be equally nurtured by global health epidemiologists who aim to produce high quality impactful research. Yet bridging between these two aspirations can lead to practical and ethical dilemmas. In the light of these reflections we have proposed the BRIDGE guidelines for the conduct of fair global health epidemiology, targeted at stakeholders involved in the commissioning, conduct, appraisal and publication of global health research. The guidelines follow the conduct of a study chronologically from the early stages of study preparation until the dissemination and communication of findings. They can be used as a checklist by research teams, funders and other stakeholders to ensure that a study is conducted in line with both research integrity and research fairness principles. In this paper we offer a detailed explanation for each item of the BRIDGE guidelines. We have focused on practical implementation issues, making this document most of interest to those who are actually conducting the epidemiological work.

What is (un)fair? Political ideology and collective action

The established models predicting collective action have been developed based on liberal ideas of injustice perceptions showing that progressive collective action occurs when people perceive that the equality or need rule of fairness are violated. We argue, however, that these perceptions of injustice cannot explain the occurrence of social protests among Conservatives. The present work addresses one shortcoming in collective action research by exploring the interactive role of political ideology and injustice appraisals in predicting social protest. Specifically, we focused on injustice appraisals as a key predictor of collective action and tested whether the same or different conceptualizations of injustice instigate protest among Liberals versus Conservatives using data from two studies conducted in Germany (Study 1, N = 130) and in the US (Study 2, N = 115). Our findings indicate that injustice appraisals play an equally important role in instigating social protest both among Liberals and Conservatives. As we show, however, predicting collective action among individuals across the political spectrum requires accounting for ideological preferences for different fairness rules. Whereas Liberals are more likely to engage in protest when the equality and need rules are violated, Conservatives are more likely to protest when the merit rule is violated. We recommend that studies on collective action consider not only the strength of injustice appraisals but also their content, to assess which fairness principles guide one’s perceptions of (in)justice.

Responsive, Integrity, Morality and Fairness Law Enforcement as Social Change Instrument

This article reviews the essence of law enforcement as social change instrument. Law in the context of Indonesia that embrace democratic system is upholding the justice values in it that fairness principles for all Indonesian people. As positive law in a legal state, law enforcement is required to be professional, proportional, good, fair, and wisely so in accordance with the rules of expediency, kindness and equality in the law itself. The outcomes of the research indicate that law and community cannot be separated, for law the community is a resource that gives life (to nature) and move the law. The communities live the law with the values, ideas, concepts. And also contribute the community to implement the law.