Decommodification and the Workfare State

Two related concepts have been used to understand the welfare state –'decommodification' and the 'workfare' or the 'competition' state, as it relates to processes of 'recommodification'. I show how these related literatures may be integrated in order to enhance our understanding of current labour market policies. Applying these concepts to an analysis of the ideas and policies of New Labour leads to the conclusion that state welfare services are being reconfigured to serve more effectively the needs of the market, through a process of 'administrative recommodification'.     

The development of corporate governance in China

Over the last decade there have been significant economic reforms in China. Foreign investment is encouraged and there are increasing numbers of joint ventures with foreign partners. The stock exchanges of Shanghai and Shenzen have developed quite rapidly, and the expansion of China's economy and the growing importance of foreign investment has implications for the development of corporate governance structures in China. The internationalization of institutional portfolios ensures that there is a cross‐border interest in corporate governance, and that China's steps in developing corporate governance will be watched with interest. In this paper, we will explore the existing cultural aspects of China, the structure of share ownership in China, recent developments that have taken place in China's capital markets, including the growing foreign influence, and their implications for corporate governance developments. We compare and contrast the influences on corporate governance in the West with those in China. We conclude that any model of corporate governance which develops in China is likely to embody the special role of the state and certain idiosyncratic cultural aspects of China, whilst taking on certain of the characteristics of an Anglo‐Saxon corporate governance model.     

Lies Matter

Law and Philosophy -     

Agenda Control, the Median Justice, and the Majority Opinion on the U.S. Supreme Court

Some scholars argue that the author of the majority opinion exercises the most influence over the Court's opinion-writing process and so can determine what becomes Court policy, at least within the limits of what some Court majority finds acceptable. Other students of the Court have suggested that the Court's median justice effectively dictates the content of the majority opinion: whatever policy the median justice most wants, she can get. We test these competing models with data on Supreme Court decision making during the Burger Court (1969–86). While we find substantial evidence for both models, the agenda control model gains greater support. This suggests that opinions on the Court on each case are driven, in general, by the interaction of three key variables: the policy preferences of the majority opinion author, the policy preferences of the median justice, and the location of the legal status quo .