Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Preface -- Contents -- Notes on Contributors -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- 1 Vietnam, Land of Opportunity -- 1.1 Introduction -- 1.2 The Country of Vietnam -- 1.2.1 Geography and Climate -- 1.2.2 History and Society -- 1.3 More Recent Economic Policy and Performance -- 1.4 Doing Business in Vietnam -- 1.5 Conclusion: Vietnam and Business Opportunity -- References -- 2 The Road to Doi Moi in Vietnam -- 2.1 Early Attempted Reforms -- 2.2 The Economic Reform Policy of the Sixth Congress of 1986 -- 2.2.1 Reorganizing the Structure of Production and Investment -- 2.2.2 Conducting the Socialist Transformation -- 2.2.3 Reforming the Economic Management Mechanism -- 2.2.4 Solving the Urgent Problems of Distribution and Circulation -- 2.3 The Amendments and Supplements of the Doi Moi Policy -- 2.3.1 Recognizing the Market Economy -- 2.3.2 Developing a Multi-Sector Economy -- 2.3.3 Expanding Foreign Trade -- 2.3.4 Attracting Foreign Investment -- 2.4 Major Economic Achievements of Doi Moi -- 2.5 Conclusion -- References -- 3 State-Owned Enterprises in Vietnam: Challenges Hindering the Privatization Process -- 3.1 Introduction -- 3.2 SOEs in Vietnam -- 3.3 Challenges for the Privatization Process in Vietnam -- 3.3.1 Strategy -- 3.3.1.1 Compensation Paid to Sell-Side Advisors Is Too Low -- 3.3.1.2 Timeline Does Not Meet Investors' Needs -- 3.3.2 Lack of Incentives and Political Will -- 3.3.2.1 Lack of Meaningful Incentives for SOE Management and Employees -- 3.3.2.2 Reluctance from the Local Government and Proprietor Ministries -- 3.3.3 Corporate Governance Issues -- 3.3.3.1 Lack of Corporate Governance -- 3.3.3.2 Poor Information Disclosure by SOEs -- 3.3.3.3 Land Asset Valuation Is Complicated -- 3.3.3.4 Transactions Are Not Always at Arms-Length -- 3.3.4 Supervision and Accountability -- 3.3.4.1 Law on Equitization Has Not Been in Place.

1. Southeast Asia and the AEC, an Introduction -- 2. The Philippines -- 3. The Vietnamese Economy at the Crossroads -- 4. Thailand -- 5. Malaysia: Trade, Foreign Direct Investment and Regional Integration -- 6. Singapore: Working Towards Prosperity -- 7. Indonesia: Choosing between the Privileged and Prosperity -- 8. Brunei Darussalam, a Country Profile -- 9. Cambodia: Growth with a Red Flag -- 10. Laos in Need of Bolder Reforms for AEC Integration -- 11. Myanmar: On a Bumpy Road of Transition -- 12. China and the ASEAN Economies: Interdependence and Rivalry -- 13. ASEAN's Economic Community: ASEAN Way or Beijing's Way? -- 14. Conclusion: The ASEAN Economic Community

"A complete and accessible explanation of the factors contributing to the onset of the 2007 financial and economic crisis. The myriad factors are explained in an orderly way with simple terms. The anticipation (or not) and reception of the crisis by mainstream economists and by Austrian economics leads to reflection on the state of economic theory"--

AbstractContemporary shifts in legal pluralism theory (from weak, intra-state pluralism to strong, extra-state pluralism and from socio-scientific tocriticallegal pluralism) have raised important new questions about law as a normative phenomenon. This article argues for the significance of implicit and inferential legal norms. It begins by considering a movement of thought—evangelicalism—that subordinates the implicit and informal to the explicit and authorized. The essay then outlines the principal features of a non-chirographic legal pluralism and explores how regimes of written rules are consistently made over by those whose conduct they are presumptively meant to govern.

L'objectif de l'auteur est de montrer comment notre attirance vis-à-vis des chartes des droits et libertés, comment notre propension à négocier, amender ou promulguer des textes constitutionnels, nous conduisent peut-être à escamoter la question des fondements politiques du droit étatique, sinon les fondements sociologiques de la normativité.

RésuméLa décision du gouvernement canadien de cesser de financer la Commission du droit du Canada, à l'automne 2006, était du même tenant que celle de 1993, de supprimer l'ancienne Commission de réforme du droit du Canada. Comme on pouvait s'y attendre, la création de la Commission du droit du Canada fut justifiée par les mêmes arguments généraux invoqués lors de l'établissement de la Commission de réforme du droit. La clôture eut lieu, en 1993, après que la Commission de réforme du droit avait plus ou moins abandonné son mandat originel et se limita à des fonctions exercées par des organismes provinciaux de réforme du droit. Celle de 2006 advint, par contre, parce que la Commission du droit n'avait pas abandonné son mandat légal. Cette note explore les conceptions du droit, de la réforme et des commissions (comme structures institutionnelles) grâce auxquelles la participation et l'engagement publics à ré-imaginer le droit ont été poursuivis à l'échelle fédérale. Plutôt que de lamenter sur la disparition des deux Commissions, nous proposons une évaluation optimiste des choix de politiques qu'un parlement avisé et sage pourrait prendre pour la prochaine réitération de l'idée de réforme du droit.

The fact that we are celebrating the 20thanniversary of the Report of the SSHRC Consultative Group on Research and Education in Law and that the event is cast as a celebration of the Arthurs Report signals two key features of legal research and legal education in Canada today.To begin, it tells us that, at least in certain scholarly circles, theReporthas had an impact. That impact can be seen both in the mirror of the past, and in the lens of the present. Looking backwards, the early success of this Association and the founding of its review - theCanadian Journal of Law and Society– attest to the immediate galvanic effect of theReport; its continuing influence is manifest, notably, in the decision of the SSHRC last year to create a separate adjudication panel for law and society research. Between these salient bookends, one observes that theReporthas been called in aid of numerous projects, programmes and initiatives. Let me mention only two (with which I had some prior association) that took on a relatively permanent institutional form: the Law and Society (later Law and the Determinants of Social Order) Programme of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research that flourished between 1986 and 1996; and the re-establishment in 1997 of a multi-disciplinary federal law reform agency – the Law Commission of Canada – that was charged with pursuing a law and society research mandate.