Showing posts with label public. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public. Show all posts

Monday, 21 September 2015

Regulating the Public and the Private Economy

Regulating Transnational Companies: 46 Proposals

Blogger Ref http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Transfinancial_Economics

The following comes from



   
Henceforth, our country should be the universe. Flora Tristan *

                           
 
Translations: français (original) . Español .

This Proposal Paper hopes to provide an explanation of the constraints and a series
of proposals for a system for the regulation of transnational companies (TNCs). This requires us to first set out the fundamental
obstacles that make the question of regulating the activities of TNCs so
problematic. The crisis in the financial system that has hit economies worldwide has demonstrated the importance of regulating for-profit private and public transnational actors.

The difficulties states have in agreeing to a common set of rules reflect the scale of
the various factors that have to be reconciled if we are to prevent and repair damage
to the environment and violations to basic rights. Current negotiations on climate
change and tax havens are proof of this problem. The international context over
recent decades, marked by liberalization in the movement of goods, services and
people is, of course, one of the causes of these difficulties. But this should not serve
to mask the existence of a widespread web of principles and mechanisms found
in all legal, economic and social cultures. The challenge is not to think of these
principles and mechanisms in isolation, but as part of a whole, attempting then to
come up with new arrangements for the future that can express them in a manner
that accords with the idea of sustainable development. The challenge of corporate
social responsibility (CSR) lies in reconciling, within a company, the three pillars
of sustainable development—economic, social and environmental; the current position
is imbalanced in favor of the first of these dimensions.
Hoping to make a clear presentation of the challenges and areas for reflection, we
have adopted progressive levels of analysis that reflect the way in which a transnational
company develops: the TNC in its home country (2), the TNC in countries
where it operates (3) and the TNC and the international community (4). However,
we will start by examining the notion of a business itself (1). A new approach
to the concept is needed in order to bridge the widening gap between economic
and legal realities.
Our chosen approach requires us to move from the smallest dimension (what are
articles of association?) to the largest (what are suitable transnational institutional
arrangements?). For each level, the idea is to be able to identify the major obstacles
in place and the fundamental characteristics needed for TNCs to properly evaluate the negative impact caused by their activities. We draw links between each level
and the one that follows, similar to the way that a business defines its strategy beforehand
and then adapts it in accordance with the various geographical and legal
domains within which it operates.
We always favor a preventive approach, and will also be identifying mechanisms
for redressing harm or damage. Our basic hypothesis is that current irresponsibility
will persist in the absence of any suitable sanctions, bringing in its wake social and
environmental consequences that will weigh heavily on future generations. The
proposals set out below are therefore chosen to reflect the fact that the voluntary
nature of current CSR regimes has reached its limits. Our Proposal Paper aims to
provide suggestions for ways to create a clearer and more visible set of rules that
will provide better protection for both TNCs and the victims of their excesses.
See also (In French only) :
L’intégralité des interventions et débats des "Mercredi de la Coredem" sur Le pouvoir des sociétés transnationales
(2011 April)

Monday, 22 April 2013

Property Rights (Economics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
              Blogger Ref Link  http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Transfinancial_Economics

Jump to: navigation, search

Property rights are a controversial, theoretical construct in economics for determining how a resource is used, and who owns that resource—government, collective bodies, or individuals.[1] Property rights can be viewed as an attribute of an economic good. This attribute has four broad components[2] and is often referred to as a bundle of rights:[3]
  1. the right to use the good
  2. the right to earn income from the good
  3. the right to transfer the good to others
  4. the right to enforcement of property rights.
In economics, property usually refers to ownership (rights to the proceeds of output generated) and control over a resource or good.
The concept of property rights as used by economists and legal scholars (see property for the legal concept) are related but distinct. The distinction is largely seen in the economists' focus on the ability of an individual or collective to control the use of the good. For example, a thief who has stolen a good would not be considered to have legal (de jure) property right to the good, but would be considered to have economic (de facto) property right to the good.[citation needed]

Contents

[edit] Property-rights regimes

Property rights to a good must be defined, their use must be monitored, and possession of rights must be enforced. The costs of defining, monitoring, and enforcing property rights are termed transaction costs.[4][5] Depending on the level of transaction costs, various forms of property rights institutions will develop. Each institutional form can be described by the distribution of rights. The following list is ordered from no property rights defined to all property rights being held by individuals[6]
  1. Open access (res nullius)
  2. State property
  3. Common property
  4. Private property
Open-access property is property that is not owned by anyone. It is non-excludable (no one can exclude anyone else from using it) but may be rival (one person's use of it reduces the quantity available to other users). Open-access property is not managed by anyone, and access to it is not controlled. There is no constraint on anyone using open-access property (excluding people is either impossible or prohibitively costly). The tragedy of the commons should be called the tragedy of open access. 'Open-access property may exist because ownership has never been established, because the state has legislated it, or because no effective controls are in place, or feasible, i.e., the cost of exclusion outweighs the benefits. The state can sometimes effectively convert open access property into private, common or public property by legislating to define rights and enforce them'.[7] Examples of open-access property are the atmosphere or ocean fisheries.
State property (also known as public property) is property that is owned by all, but its access and use is controlled by the state. An example is a national park.[7]
Common property or collective property is property that is owned by a group of individuals. Access, use, and exclusion are controlled by the joint owners. True commons can break down, but, unlike open-access property, common property owners have greater ability to manage conflicts through shared benefits and enforcement.[7]
Private property is both excludable and rival. Private property access, use, exclusion and management are controlled by the private owner or a group of legal owners.

[edit] Property rights and the environment

Implicit or explicit property rights can be created by regulating the environment, either through prescriptive command and control approaches (e.g. limits on input/output/discharge quantities, specified processes/equipment, audits) or by more flexible market-based instruments (e.g. taxes, transferable permits or quotas).[7]
It has been proposed by Ronald Coase (Jnl of Law and Economics, 5 October 1960) that clearly defining and assigning property rights would resolve environmental problems by internalizing externalities and relying on incentives of private owners to conserve resources for the future. Critics of this view argue that this assumes that it is possible to internalize all environmental benefits, that owners will have perfect information, that scale economies are manageable, transaction costs are bearable, and that legal frameworks operate efficiently.[7]

[edit] See also

[edit] Related Terms and Disciplines

[edit] Economists working on property rights issues

[edit] References

  1. ^ Alchian, Armen A. (2008). "Property Rights," The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, 2nd ed.
  2. ^ "Economics Glossary". Retrieved 2007-01-28. 
       • Thrainn Eggertsson (1990). Economic behavior and institutions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-34891-9. 
       • Dean Lueck (2008). "property law, economics and," The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Editio. Abstract.
  3. ^ Klein, Daniel B. and John Robinson. "Property: A Bundle of Rights? Prologue to the Symposium." Econ Journal Watch 8(3): 193-204, September 2011.[1]
  4. ^ Barzel, Yoram (April 1982). "Measurement Costs and the Organization of Markets". Journal of Law and Economics 25 (1): 27–48. doi:10.1086/467005. ISSN 0022-2186. JSTOR 725223. 
  5. ^ Douglas Allen, (1991). What are Transaction Costs? (Research in Law and Economics). Jai Pr. ISBN 0-7623-1115-0. 
  6. ^ Daniel W. Bromley, (1991). Environment and Economy: Property Rights and Public Policy. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Pub. ISBN 1-55786-087-4. 
  7. ^ a b c d e Guerin, K. (2003). Property Rights and Environmental Policy: A New Zealand Perspective. Wellington, New Zealand: NZ Treasury