Search

Criticism and justification using the example of Nike. This paper deals, on the one hand, with the criticism of Nike's exploitative labour practices that has emanated from western industrial societies and, on the other hand, with the firm's subsequent attempts to secure legitimacy through adaptation and justification. By thawing upon Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot's sociological theory of justification it becomes possible to see the complex interrelationships between corporate responsibility, social responsibility, Fair Trade demands and the like. This perspective suggests that criticism is able to categorize and that this categorization is then incorporated as rules in legally formalized tests. This function has two consequences: First, it plays a role in setting morally induced profit maximization limits; and, second, it enables Nike to measure expectations and respond to them, thereby allowing Nike to promote an image of a socially responsible enterprise; an image that, in the end, generates value. The question therefore arises: For whom is this actually a story of success? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of the article This paper analysis Hurst exponents calculated with the use of the Siroky method in two time intervals of 625 (H625) and 1250 (H1260) sessions for the following assets: (the number of assets for a given group in brackets): Stock indices (74), currency pairs divided into segments: USD exchange rate in relation to 42 other currencies (USDXXX), EURO exchange rate in relation to 41 other currencies (EURXXX), JPY exchange rate in relation to 40 other currencies (JPYXXX) and other currency pairs (12). In total, 209 financial instruments were analyzed. Methodology: Hurst coefficient calculation with the use of the following methods; Siroky, Detrended Moving Average (DMA) and Detrended Fluctuation Analysis (DFA). Results of the research: The Hurst coefficient values calculated with the use of Siroky method are similar to the results obtained using DFA and DMA methods. The second main conclusion that was drawn from the research may be formulated as follows: exchange rates calculated for the developed-developed country currencies are more effective than in the case of the developed-emerging countries group.

The purpose of this study is to develop policy recommendations for indebted developing countries which have big balance of payment deficits due to high energy costs. For this reasons, the study initialy explores developed countries’ nuclear energy policies and hence, to guide developing countries (especially for Turkey and similar countries) who can adopt alternative energy resources to reach a sustainable and higher GDP per capita and to protect themselves against energy price volatilities. Therefore, in available theoretical studies, developing countries, also named as middle income countires whose GDP per capita is lower than developed countries, have been searching for different strategies to catch up the wealth level of developed countires from the aspect of catch-up effect in the Growth Theory. In the context of cross sectional and time series data, the paper anlaysis all available retroperspective panel data method which uses time interval between 1977-2014 for 14 developed and developing countires. The study employs Panel ARDL approach to serve the aim of the study. According to the emprical results, as expected, vector error correction coefficient was founded negaitvely and accepted numerical interval. Therefore, test results indicate that there has been significant and positive relationship between the increment of nuclear share in electricity production and GDP per capita. Countries, especially dependent on raw materials, can reduce reliance on energy import with nuclear energy sources, then they will have a stabilizer for a reasonable level of current deficits which may be necessary for economic growth. In conclusion, the results also indicates that nucluear energy production in developing countries can stimulate economic growth by lowering energy import related production costs in favor of country-wide producers.

The article discusses the effects of higher mobility and globalization on the expansion of imperialist societies at the beginning of the 20th century. It describes technological innovations and their effect on political and social policies in western countries towards developing countries. It then discusses discursive practices that led to developments in communication, knowledge transfers, and the acceleration of social evolution. Other subjects under discussion include the theories of historian Karl Schlögel, the historiography of globalization, and the effect of globalization on colonialism.

For some years now a growing number of intergovernmental groupings have formed both within and parallel to the multilateral institutions. This proliferation of intergovernmental arrangements entails a real risk that it may contain the seeds that will ultimately cause the ongoing, overarching dialogue on global issues to unravel. At present this tendency toward fragmentation of the multilateral system is most clearly visible in the world trade regime. The course of the »Doha Round« has led to an accentuation of conflicts of interest between the industrialized countries and the developing and emerging nations. With a view to strengthening their bargaining positions, the countries of the South have formed a number of alliances and groupings (G20, G33, G90, etc.). Despite prophecies to the contrary, these new alliances have not proven to be a temporary phenomenon; indeed, they have led to a permanent change in the balance of power of the world trade regime. The dominance of the industrialized countries has given way to a growingly differentiated landscape of interests that rules out any one-sided dictates of the developed countries at the expense of the developing countries. This may be seen as a reflection of a »new trade geography« in which a number of emerging economies have made up considerable ground vis-à-vis the dominant industrialized nations. One way in which the new groupings differ from earlier attempts on the part of the countries of the South to form broad fronts defining their positions is that they are now seeking a pragmatic orientation and a coordination of interests within the logic of the liberal trade regime. Still, these new groupings have increased the complexity of the negotiating processes, making it more difficult to reach trade agreements in the future. Processes leading to the formation of discussion forums and informal coordination procedures may also be observed in the bodies created to manage the world economy. Here the impulses leading to the formation of new groups are for the most part provided by the economically powerful nations. Paradigmatic for this tendency is the G8, an informal forum bringing together the world's leading industrialized nations, and one that claims a global leadership role for itself. The ongoing shift in the balance of economic power between successful industrialized countries and rising countries from the South has opened up a legitimacy and efficiency gap between the G8's exclusive membership and the leadership role it has assigned to itself. Any persistent attempts to exclude the new powers of the 21st century would reduce the G8 to the status of an outdated summit forum neither capable nor legitimized to exercise leadership. The responses to this development include the formation of complementary, more inclusive forums like the G20, whose membership also includes some emerging nations that must be seen as important in »systemic« terms and discussions revolving around an expansion of or replacement for the G8. This increase in the formation of new groups points to a number of profound changes in the international system that are bound up with efficiency problems and a dramatic loss of legitimacy. If nothing is done to correct the power asymmetries inherent in the international system, the present system will prove to be obsolete and incapable of rising to meet the new global challenges. These newly formed alliances and groupings are a sign of resistance to the continuing dominance of the industrialized countries in global politics and at the same time a growing call to the new powers of the South to engage in more active policies in efforts to come to effective grips with global problems. Even though this may increase the complexity of multilateral negotiating processes', the new alliances and groupings should not be seen as a sign of any erosion of universal multilateralism.… [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The (temporary) breakdown of the Doha World Trade Round signals more than a critical development in the crisis-ridden WTO negotiations. Not only has the institution of the WTO been called into question, but also the very functioning of the multilateral order, the system of "global governance." Beyond that, it is a symptom of a profound crisis in the global (economic) order and also of bilateral and multilateral development policy which despite decades of efforts to that end has been unable to integrate poor countries into the global market as viable economies. For the majority of developing countries the WTO negotiations are one of the few possibilities of pursuing their interests in a fair and balanced trade system; only here can there be negotiations on opening up the markets of the industrialized countries and removing their harmful agricultural subsidies which lead to dumping. The majority of developing countries whose negotiating strength has increased through the G2O and improved coordination therefore have an interest in the resumption of negotiations as soon as possible, particularly so that important concessions and progress are not in vain. However, even a compromise in the agricultural negotiations which ostensibly are blocking progress would still not bring about a successful conclusion of the Doha Round because there are other issues of major importance, particularly for developing countries, which are not in prospect of early resolution. While for their part the industrialized countries make concessions dependent on quid pro quos from the developing countries and force the latter into extensive market opening, even newly industrialized countries do not feel up to the increasing competitive pressures and are in danger of "deindustrialization." A growing number of poor countries, of course, even in the case of "fair" market trading, cannot make use of it - or only to a limited extent - due to insufficient production capacity and product availability. In recent studies both the World Bank and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace have prognosticated benefits from growth as a result of further trade liberalization which are significantly smaller than believed hitherto and gains are strongly differentiated between regions and countries (and also within countries). Trade changes the structure of comparative advantages between national economies and therefore the respective gains and losses. The fears and reservations of many developing countries arise from the fact that they do not consider the offer of the industrialized countries as adequate and cannot regard it as beneficial for their countries. Without adapting the rules, special and differentiated treatment of developing countries and their "special products" renouncing "reciprocity" on the part of the industrialized countries, and additional support programs ("aid for trade"), successful integration of a large number of developing countries will not succeed. Finally, this will show whether a multilateral regime currently with more than 15O formally "equal" members can function and provide the global economy with an organizing framework. Basically, "global governance" is being fundamentally called into question without an alternative being apparent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]