Suchergebnisse

Justice is, in part, a form of remembrance: memory occupies a vital place at the heart of justice & its struggle to keep the victims, crimes, & perpetrators among the unforgotten. I argue that this memory-justice at once informs core judicial practices & ranges beyond them in a manner that leaves judicial closure incomplete. It reminds us of a duty to keep crimes & their victims from the oblivion of forgetting, of a duty to restore, preserve, & acknowledge the just order of the world. Yet, in the shadow of remembrance, other human goods can wither, goods located in the temporal registers of present & future. This latter lesson is important, but it is one with which we are familiar. I emphasize another, with which we are perhaps less at home: the intimacy of memory's bond with justice, not as an obsession or as a syndrome, but as a face of justice itself. 125 References. Adapted from the source document.

I take up the question of political identity as the continuity of a community across time. In particular, I examine what it means to think of a political community as the subject of attribution across generations, that is what is meant when it is made the bearer of responsibility for the past and a custodian of the future. In doing that, I focus on identity, memory, and responsibility and discuss that cluster of concepts using as an illustrative example the idea of constitutional patriotism and its relationship to the past. (American Political Science Review / FUB)

We analyse 1234 judicial decisions to estimate political activism amongst judges arbitrating dismissal disputes in Australian labour courts. The political colour of the appointing political party and judges' work background affect probability of employee

We analyse 1234 judicial decisions to estimate political activism amongst judges arbitrating dismissal disputes in Australian labour courts. The political colour of the appointing political party and judges' work background affect probability of employee

AbstractRecent literature focuses on liquidity provision as a unique service provided by financial intermediaries. In this paper, we address why commercial banks dominate the provision of these services. Liquidity provision in lending is reflected in offering loan commitments. We argue that commercial banks have a unique advantage in providing this form of liquidity. This unique advantage derives from their access to deposit insurance, and perhaps to a lesser degree, their access to the discount window of the Federal Reserve System. We empirically examine business loans offered by commercial banks, investment banks, and insurance companies. We show that commercial banks have a comparative advantage in offering loan commitments with fixed‐formula floating interest rates. Other major financial intermediaries such as investment banks favor bridge loans for corporate restructuring, and insurance companies favor longer term fixed interest rate spot loans. These results are consistent with commercial banks' unique corporate lending role (that of liquidity provision) deriving from their access to fixed‐price deposit insurance.

AbstractWe confirm previous findings that both large‐cap and small‐cap stock returns in the US exhibit a presidential cycle pattern, i.e. returns are significantly higher in the last 2 years than in the first 2 years of the presidential term. We attempt to examine if this presidential cycle pattern can be explained away by the traditional business cycle proxies, namely the term spread (TERM), dividend yield (D/P), and default spread (DEF). Our motivation arises from the political business cycle theory that monetary and fiscal measures undertaken by presidents are usually translated into the business cycle. We find that the presidential cycle has explanatory power beyond business conditions proxies shown to be important in explaining stock returns. Tests of slope parameters show that stock returns are less sensitive to only the D/P during the last 2 years of the presidential term. The presidential cycle effect prevails even after controlling for the party in power and the incumbent versus nonincumbent presidents.

AbstractThis paper tests the hypothesis that the small‐firm effect can be explained on the basis of investor preference for positive skewness. Traditional stochastic dominance methodology is extended to consider portfolios including variable weights of investment in a riskless asset. Including a riskless asset provides the result that small‐firm portfolios stochastically dominate all other portfolios. This result, which is derived on the basis of 19 years of monthly returns, indicates that the small‐firm effect cannot be fully attributed to tax effects, benchmark error, or incorrect assumptions of the CAPM about investor risk aversion.