Search

The concept of condominium in Denmark is traditionally associated with owner apartments used for residential purposes (individually owned by the resident). The condominium law translated from Danish: “Law of owner apartments” was primarily intended to support the housing market and was mainly introduced to allow renters to become owners of a rental apartment in a high-rise building, i.e., making it possible forthem to enter the housing market without having to invest in an (often more expensive) traditional house on a real property. However, the law also applies on other nonresidential rooms in a building, thus the expression, many faces, is appropriate. The ownership right to a condominium unit includes a share in all components of the common property. This share also includes the responsibility to pay for common expenses regarding the common components. In traditional high-rise (single-use) buildings the common components of the condominium property include e.g., the outer walls, roof, cellar and a staircase or an elevator. Because of the nature of (single-use) buildings it is often fair to say that all condominium units have an equal benefit of the common components. Thus, it is regarded as being fair that all condominium units contribute to expenses to maintain and renew those common components. Therefore, the condominium law is partly designed to support this benefit-all principle, and the allocation of rights and responsibilities is done mainly by using a co-ownership share, where each condominium unit’s share is calculated using the relative value and size of each condominium unit. The benefit-all principle does not consider the actual benefit of each condominium unit. However, the rise of mixed-use developments in Danish urban planning has made it necessary to further develop and customize the allocation of ownership rights in such mixed-use condominium schemes in order to specify the allocation of ownership rights and responsibilities of common components

The concept of condominium in Denmark is traditionally associated with owner apartments used for residential purposes (individually owned by the resident). The condominium law translated from Danish: “Law of owner apartments” was primarily intended to support the housing market and was mainly introduced to allow renters to become owners of a rental apartment in a high-rise building, i.e., making it possible forthem to enter the housing market without having to invest in an (often more expensive) traditional house on a real property. However, the law also applies on other nonresidential rooms in a building, thus the expression, many faces, is appropriate. The ownership right to a condominium unit includes a share in all components of the common property. This share also includes the responsibility to pay for common expenses regarding the common components. In traditional high-rise (single-use) buildings the common components of the condominium property include e.g., the outer walls, roof, cellar and a staircase or an elevator. Because of the nature of (single-use) buildings it is often fair to say that all condominium units have an equal benefit of the common components. Thus, it is regarded as being fair that all condominium units contribute to expenses to maintain and renew those common components. Therefore, the condominium law is partly designed to support this benefit-all principle, and the allocation of rights and responsibilities is done mainly by using a co-ownership share, where each condominium unit’s share is calculated using the relative value and size of each condominium unit. The benefit-all principle does not consider the actual benefit of each condominium unit. However, the rise of mixed-use developments in Danish urban planning has made it necessary to further develop and customize the allocation of ownership rights in such mixed-use condominium schemes in order to specify the allocation of ownership rights and responsibilities of common components

The concept of condominium in Denmark is traditionally associated with owner apartments used for residential purposes (individually owned by the resident). The condominium law translated from Danish: “Law of owner apartments” was primarily intended to support the housing market and was mainly introduced to allow renters to become owners of a rental apartment in a high-rise building, i.e., making it possible forthem to enter the housing market without having to invest in an (often more expensive) traditional house on a real property. However, the law also applies on other nonresidential rooms in a building, thus the expression, many faces, is appropriate. The ownership right to a condominium unit includes a share in all components of the common property. This share also includes the responsibility to pay for common expenses regarding the common components. In traditional high-rise (single-use) buildings the common components of the condominium property include e.g., the outer walls, roof, cellar and a staircase or an elevator. Because of the nature of (single-use) buildings it is often fair to say that all condominium units have an equal benefit of the common components. Thus, it is regarded as being fair that all condominium units contribute to expenses to maintain and renew those common components. Therefore, the condominium law is partly designed to support this benefit-all principle, and the allocation of rights and responsibilities is done mainly by using a co-ownership share, where each condominium unit’s share is calculated using the relative value and size of each condominium unit. The benefit-all principle does not consider the actual benefit of each condominium unit. However, the rise of mixed-use developments in Danish urban planning has made it necessary to further develop and customize the allocation of ownership rights in such mixed-use condominium schemes in order to specify the allocation of ownership rights and responsibilities of common components

The concept of condominium in Denmark is traditionally associated with owner apartments used for residential purposes (individually owned by the resident). The condominium law translated from Danish: “Law of owner apartments” was primarily intended to support the housing market and was mainly introduced to allow renters to become owners of a rental apartment in a high-rise building, i.e., making it possible forthem to enter the housing market without having to invest in an (often more expensive) traditional house on a real property. However, the law also applies on other nonresidential rooms in a building, thus the expression, many faces, is appropriate. The ownership right to a condominium unit includes a share in all components of the common property. This share also includes the responsibility to pay for common expenses regarding the common components. In traditional high-rise (single-use) buildings the common components of the condominium property include e.g., the outer walls, roof, cellar and a staircase or an elevator. Because of the nature of (single-use) buildings it is often fair to say that all condominium units have an equal benefit of the common components. Thus, it is regarded as being fair that all condominium units contribute to expenses to maintain and renew those common components. Therefore, the condominium law is partly designed to support this benefit-all principle, and the allocation of rights and responsibilities is done mainly by using a co-ownership share, where each condominium unit’s share is calculated using the relative value and size of each condominium unit. The benefit-all principle does not consider the actual benefit of each condominium unit. However, the rise of mixed-use developments in Danish urban planning has made it necessary to further develop and customize the allocation of ownership rights in such mixed-use condominium schemes in order to specify the allocation of ownership rights and responsibilities of common components

The concept of condominium in Denmark is traditionally associated with owner apartments used for residential purposes (individually owned by the resident). The condominium law translated from Danish: “Law of owner apartments” was primarily intended to support the housing market and was mainly introduced to allow renters to become owners of a rental apartment in a high-rise building, i.e., making it possible forthem to enter the housing market without having to invest in an (often more expensive) traditional house on a real property. However, the law also applies on other nonresidential rooms in a building, thus the expression, many faces, is appropriate. The ownership right to a condominium unit includes a share in all components of the common property. This share also includes the responsibility to pay for common expenses regarding the common components. In traditional high-rise (single-use) buildings the common components of the condominium property include e.g., the outer walls, roof, cellar and a staircase or an elevator. Because of the nature of (single-use) buildings it is often fair to say that all condominium units have an equal benefit of the common components. Thus, it is regarded as being fair that all condominium units contribute to expenses to maintain and renew those common components. Therefore, the condominium law is partly designed to support this benefit-all principle, and the allocation of rights and responsibilities is done mainly by using a co-ownership share, where each condominium unit’s share is calculated using the relative value and size of each condominium unit. The benefit-all principle does not consider the actual benefit of each condominium unit. However, the rise of mixed-use developments in Danish urban planning has made it necessary to further develop and customize the allocation of ownership rights in such mixed-use condominium schemes in order to specify the allocation of ownership rights and responsibilities of common components

The Chinese economy has transformed significantly since 1979, and the spread of mixed-ownership firms since the late 1990s is a notable, if under-explored part of it. Mixed ownership, combining state and private capital, presents a challenge to mainstream economic ideology and, as widely used as it is in China, may represent an alternative mode of capitalism. This dissertation draws from the varieties of capitalism, post-socialist transition, and developmental state literatures to explore economic strategies that may guide the implementation of mixed-ownership across all industries, competing with, and replacing both state- and privately-owned businesses. Using the Chinese Economic Censuses from 2004 and 2008, the Annual Survey of Industrial Firms from 1998-2007, and my own impressions and information gathered from fieldwork in China, I approach this topic with industry-level data from across the entire economy, as well as 361,450 firm-years’ worth of detailed firm-level data. I use summary statistics to show that the implementation of mixed-ownership as a general type of firm is both widespread, occurring in every sector of the economy, and making a significant proportion of firms within many industries. However, various regression models show that, while mixed ownership is progressing and evolving as a significant part of the economy, any cohesive strategy for the utilization of these firms– by state or private investors- is only beginning to become evident by the end of the period in the study. Furthermore, I show that firm registration is only occasionally based upon the sources of capital within that firm, a fact that shows the complexity and ephemerality of the very specific forms of institutions in the economy. At this time, it remains difficult to categorize the Chinese economy because, even after more than thirty years, the transformation continues. I argue that China does not conform well to existing models of capitalism in part due to mixed ownership, and

The Chinese economy has transformed significantly since 1979, and the spread of mixed-ownership firms since the late 1990s is a notable, if under-explored part of it. Mixed ownership, combining state and private capital, presents a challenge to mainstream economic ideology and, as widely used as it is in China, may represent an alternative mode of capitalism. This dissertation draws from the varieties of capitalism, post-socialist transition, and developmental state literatures to explore economic strategies that may guide the implementation of mixed-ownership across all industries, competing with, and replacing both state- and privately-owned businesses. Using the Chinese Economic Censuses from 2004 and 2008, the Annual Survey of Industrial Firms from 1998-2007, and my own impressions and information gathered from fieldwork in China, I approach this topic with industry-level data from across the entire economy, as well as 361,450 firm-years’ worth of detailed firm-level data. I use summary statistics to show that the implementation of mixed-ownership as a general type of firm is both widespread, occurring in every sector of the economy, and making a significant proportion of firms within many industries. However, various regression models show that, while mixed ownership is progressing and evolving as a significant part of the economy, any cohesive strategy for the utilization of these firms– by state or private investors- is only beginning to become evident by the end of the period in the study. Furthermore, I show that firm registration is only occasionally based upon the sources of capital within that firm, a fact that shows the complexity and ephemerality of the very specific forms of institutions in the economy. At this time, it remains difficult to categorize the Chinese economy because, even after more than thirty years, the transformation continues. I argue that China does not conform well to existing models of capitalism in part due to mixed ownership, and

Previous research on hybrid organizations has drawn attention to the accountability gap that is believed to emerge when the provision of public services is transferred to a hybrid organization. In this article we take our point of departure in that research and use a case study method to explore whether this gap can be bridged by existing corporate governance systems or if governance systems specially tailored to hybrid forms need to be developed. The result of the study shows that the process is equally important as the system in place. That is, it is not only the actual system but also how the system is implemented and used that affects the ability to bridge the accountability gap.Points for practitioners This article provides insight into how the hybrid form alters the relationship between citizens, elected politicians and organizations performing public services and, consequently, how the ability to secure accountability in public services changes. The results presented in the article provide politicians and managers in the public sector with knowledge regarding how, by focusing on organizational processes, relationships between stakeholders and performance evaluation can work with improving accountability in hybrid organizations. Further, the article stresses the need for performance evaluation to encompass not only financial aspects, but also the societal values of the public services performed by the hybrid organization.

Across the U.S., wildfires have become increasingly destructive and costly over the past few decades, with impacts particularly severe in the State of Florida. Because of an increase in wildfire frequency and severity and the number of people living in fire-prone areas the issue of wildfire risk management is of growing significance. One of the most important wildfire risk reduction tools is prescribed fire to reduce fuel loads, thereby reducing wildfire intensity and resulting damages. Because fire moves across a landscape and ownership boundaries, the spatial pattern of fuel load reduction may influence individual landowners' decisions about fire risk management on their own property. We develop and empirically test a spatial econometric model to study the interaction between Florida landowners in their wildfire risk management decisions.