Suchergebnisse

Selon la Legal Origins Theory, les origines juridiques d'un État ont une influence significative sur sa croissance économique. Née dans l'orbite du droit des sociétés, elle a d'abord été défendue par un collectif d'auteurs à l'occasion de l'étude du niveau de protection accordé aux actionnaires minoritaires dans différents États à travers le monde. Ils en ont tiré la conclusion que les États appartenant à la culture juridique de Common Law accordaient le plus haut degré de protection, source d'un marché financier efficace et synonyme de croissance économique. La Legal Origins Theory s'est ensuite étendue à d'autres domaines juridiques et s'est attachée à démontrer plus globalement l'efficience générale du modèle de Common Law. Dans la foulée, elle fut au cœur des rapports Doing Business de la Banque mondiale. Cette théorie a suscité de nombreuses critiques que la présente contribution a pour ambition d'exposer. Après l'analyse de la théorie et des critiques émises à son encontre, l'étude tente de dégager les présupposés philosophiques sous-jacents à la Legal Origins Theory, à travers la pensée de deux auteurs : Friedrich von Hayek et Bruno Leoni. ; The Legal Origins Theory argues that the legal origins of a state have a significant influence on its economic growth. This theory originated mainly and prospered in the field of company law. A group of researchers has enquired about the degree of protection granted to minority shareholders in various states throughout the world. They concluded that states belonging to the legal family of common law granted the best protection, sourcing an efficient market and easing their economic growth. The Legal Origins Theory spread out widely and expanded to several other legal domains, while continuing to emphasize and highlight the efficiency of the common law. It was furthermore at the heart of the "Doing Business" reports of the World Bank. This theory has led to many critiques, which the present paper aims to show. Beyond this analysis and the review of criticisms, our study finally attempts to identify the philosophical assumptions that support the Theory of Legal Origins, through the review of the developments authored by Friedrich von Hayek and Bruno Leoni. ; Peer reviewed

This text is constructed as follows. It is organised as follows: classifications; a reminder of the foundations of the stakeholder theory; stakeholder theory, empirical or normative theory? ambiguities in stakeholder theory; the ethical and political foundations of stakeholder theory; stakeholders as a possible basis for deliberative democracy). ; Ce texte est construit de la manière suivante. Il est organisé de la manière suivante : les classifications ; le rappel des fondements de la théorie des parties prenantes ; la théorie des parties prenantes, une théorie empirique ou normative ?; les ambiguïtés de la théorie des parties prenantes ; les fondements éthiques et politiques de la théorie des parties prenantes ; les parties prenantes comme fondement possible d'une démocratie délibérative). ; This text is constructed as follows. It is organised as follows: classifications; a reminder of the foundations of the stakeholder theory; stakeholder theory, empirical or normative theory? ambiguities in stakeholder theory; the ethical and political foundations of stakeholder theory; stakeholders as a possible basis for deliberative democracy). ; Doctoral

How to theorize communication in social sciences? This text has two goals. First, to rely on the work of Louis Quéré, revealing the strengths and weaknesses of the two dominant models of two dominant models: an epistemological model enrolling the theory of information and cybernetics in an instrumental aim; a political model that aims at inter-understanding at the service of self-determination of the citizens in the elaboration of norms that govern them. Moreover, we wish to add to this review, two models which go beyond the limits of the first two approaches: a praxeological model that relies on praxis as an organizing activity of shared perspectives; a model of incommunication that reverses the situation and makes the impossibility of achieving intercomprehension the norm.

Mad Money (Manchester University Press, 1998) es la versión completamente reescrita y actualizada de Casino Capitalism (Blackwells, 1986). Se ha sugerido —de ambos volúmenes— que no había en ellos una teoría subyacente en la discusión de Strange sobre el sistema financiero internacional. Esto, argumenta Strange en este working paper, no es en absoluto el caso. Los dos volúmenes se sustentan, siempre implícitamente y a veces explícitamente, en los temas dominantes del trabajo de Strange desde la publicación de "International Relations and International Economics: A Case of Mutual Neglect", International Affairs, 46, (2), 1970. Se trata de tres temas: primero, una necesidad de privilegiar las políticas del sistema financiero internacional en el estudio de las relaciones internacionales; una disciplina miope desde hace mucho, concentrada en el conflicto violento y en la guerra entre estados, a expensas de todo el resto. Segundo, una necesidad de ir más alla de la teoría política y económica liberal y de reconocer el significado del "poder estructural" en el sistema internacional. Tercero, una necesidad de reconocer que las "áreas de ignorancia significativa" dentro de nuestra comprensión del rol del sistema financiero internacional en una era de revolución tecnológica y globalización son cada vez mayores. Para Strange, el poder estructural del capital no es constante y, por ende, no puede acomodarse en la lógica de la economía liberal. Así, usando la definición de "loco" del diccionario —comportamiento errático, impredecible e irracional que daña no solo a quien lo sufre sino también a otros—, tenemos, como ella dice, un "dinero loco". ; Mad Money" (Manchester University Press, 1998) is the completely rewritten and updated version of "Casino Capitalism" (Blackwells, 1986). It has been suggested —of both volumes— that there was no theory underlying Strange's discussion of the international financial system in them. This she argues in this Working Paper is emphatically not the case, Both volumes always implicitly, and often explicitly, are underpinned by the dominant themes that are reflected in Strange's work since the publication of "International Relations and International Economics: A Case of Mutual Neglect", International Affairs, 46 (2) 1970. These themes are threefold: Firstly a need to privilege the politics of the international financial system in the study of international relations; a discipline too long myopic in its focus on violent conflict and war between states at the expense of all else. (ii) A need to go beyond liberal political and economic theory and recognise the significance of "structural power" in the international system. (iii) A need to recognise that "the areas of significant ignorance" in our understanding of the role of the international financial system in an era of technological revolution and globalisation are becoming greater rather than smaller. For Strange, the structural power of capital is not constant and, therefore, cannot be accommodated in the logic of liberal economics. Thus, using the dictionary definition of mad —erratic, unpredictable, irrational behaviour, damaging not only to sufferers but also to others— we have, as she puts it "mad money".

"Mad Money" (Manchester University Press, 1998) is the completely rewritten and updated version of "Casino Capitalism" (Blackwells, 1986). It has been suggested —of both volumes— that there was no theory underlying Strange's discussion of the international financial system in them. This she argues in this Working Paper is emphatically not the case, Both volumes always implicitly, and often explicitly, are underpinned by the dominant themes that are reflected in Strange's work since the publication of "International Relations and International Economics: A Case of Mutual Neglect", International Affairs, 46 (2) 1970. These themes are threefold: Firstly a need to privilege the politics of the international financial system in the study of international relations; a discipline too long myopic in its focus on violent conflict and war between states at the expense of all else. (ii) A need to go beyond liberal political and economic theory and recognise the significance of "structural power" in the international system. (iii) A need to recognise that "the areas of significant ignorance" in our understanding of the role of the international financial system in an era of technological revolution and globalisation are becoming greater rather than smaller. For Strange, the structural power of capital is not constant and, therefore, cannot be accommodated in the logic of liberal economics. Thus, using the dictionary definition of mad —erratic, unpredictable, irrational behaviour, damaging not only to sufferers but also to others— we have, as she puts it "mad money". ; Mad Money (Manchester University Press, 1998) es la versión completamente reescrita y actualizada de Casino Capitalism (Blackwells, 1986). Se ha sugerido —de ambos volúmenes— que no había en ellos una teoría subyacente en la discusión de Strange sobre el sistema financiero internacional. Esto, argumenta Strange en este working paper, no es en absoluto el caso. Los dos volúmenes se sustentan, siempre implícitamente y a veces explícitamente, en los temas dominantes del trabajo de Strange desde la publicación de "International Relations and International Economics: A Case of Mutual Neglect", International Affairs, 46, (2), 1970. Se trata de tres temas: primero, una necesidad de privilegiar las políticas del sistema financiero internacional en el estudio de las relaciones internacionales; una disciplina miope desde hace mucho, concentrada en el conflicto violento y en la guerra entre estados, a expensas de todo el resto. Segundo, una necesidad de ir más alla de la teoría política y económica liberal y de reconocer el significado del "poder estructural" en el sistema internacional. Tercero, una necesidad de reconocer que las "áreas de ignorancia significativa" dentro de nuestra comprensión del rol del sistema financiero internacional en una era de revolución tecnológica y globalización son cada vez mayores. Para Strange, el poder estructural del capital no es constante y, por ende, no puede acomodarse en la lógica de la economía liberal. Así, usando la definición de "loco" del diccionario —comportamiento errático, impredecible e irracional que daña no solo a quien lo sufre sino también a otros—, tenemos, como ella dice, un "dinero loco".