Death penalty Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words - 2

Death penalty - Research Paper Example Opponents also assert that the practice is overtly costly and racially biased while not realizing the intended outcome. Proponents think it is neither cruel nor unusual, quite the opposite, they think it fair and just. The objective of this study is to discuss the moral and legal concerns that literally are a life and death issue and is a key barometer when measuring a cultures collective conscience. The ‘eye for an eye’ faction not only accepts but insists that the death penalty be sustained and has supporting rational to back up their argument which will be covered comprehensively in this discussion. It will also take into account the opponents’ reasoning concerning why it should be eliminated along with the legal precedents concerned in an effort to achieve a comprehensive view of the capital punishment debate. Legal speaking, capital punishment is not unusual, by definition, unless one acknowledges the racial bias that exists throughout the justice system. The law cannot define whether it is cruel or not. Cruelty can be defined only by the collective social conscious of a society. The legal interpretation of the combined ‘cruel and unusual’ is open to debate, to some extent but the general usage of the word ‘cruel’ refers to vicious punishments that cause extreme pain. Most legal scholars agree that punishments that include body dismemberment or torture are unquestionably classified as cruel. The term torture was evidently open for debate during the past decade but the word means essentially the same universally; causing unwanted physical or mental anguish. The word ‘unusual’ is normally understood to mean going beyond what is an equitable application of punishment for an offense. For instance, if ten people were ticketed for a traffic violation and judge fined nine of them $150 but one was charged $1500, this punishment would be considered ‘unusual.’ Taken together in the phrase, †˜prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment’ signifies that the penalty should be apportioned equitably according to the specific offense committed. A ‘life’ prison sentence is an acceptable punishment but not if this punishment was imposed for jaywalking, that would be an obviously unacceptable sentence imposition because it is considered excessive and extreme given the nature of the offense. Excessive is a term that is also open to broad interpretation in both the legal and public realm. Some would contend, for example, that any amount of time imposed for ‘crimes’ such as the possession of drugs, prostitution and gambling should be interpreted as excessive consequently ‘unusual.’ The Supreme Court has on many occasions judged the merits of the death penalty and this action is interpreted as punishment which is cruel and unusual by the Constitution. The Court has consistently ruled the language of the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit t he death sentence as punishment. The Constitution was meant to be and is a malleable document, however. The judicial interpretation of the Eighth Amendment has evolved to some extent throughout the years. Therefore the Court could potentially reverse this standpoint at a future time as result of changing societal values. For instance, whipping convicted criminals was routine until the late Eighteenth Century. This practice is now considered to be inappropriate because society’s attitude changed to define it as a ‘cruel’ punishment. With respect to capital punishment, however, â€Å"

Introduction to Banking Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 words

Introduction to Banking - Essay Example Despite the fact that the borrower was pursuing a professional course which needed the inputs of expensive photographic equipments; the borrower had never ever approached the bank even for a student loan. (ii) A prime factor responsible for the borrower not approaching the bank for even a student loan is the financial resourcefulness and entrepreneurship skills exhibited by the borrower as a freelance photographer even while she was a student. She was able to sell her work as a freelancer. This implies that she had developed substantial trade contacts over all these years which are now going to stand in good stead for the sale of photographs from her current project. Case facts go on to reveal that she is on the threshold of some category of fame in photography circles. Her entrepreneurial abilities provide further comfort to the banker. (iii) Case facts reveal that her parents are generous and thereby affluent () and have supported their daughter liberally in the past. They have been cited as one of the reasons that she was not required to obtain loan during her student days. For the purpose of the present project it may be good idea to accept collateral securities from such parents. They can also be utilized as guarantors for the present loan. Her background check thus reveals no factor which would be an inhibiting factor in extending her the loan. However following specific questions may be asked to her during her loan interview to complete the appraisal process: (a) She may be asked to furnish a firm and complete itinerary of her project in Africa. She may be asked to indicate clearly the number of days she intends to stay in Africa, the number of locations she would visit, her boarding and lodging arrangements at each such location, her local conveyance and other expenditures. Case facts reveal that borrower has sought the loan for air tickets and photographic equipment; it is apparent that most of the above expenditure she wishes to put in through her own sources as margin. It is important to estimate this margin available with her as otherwise rest of the project and bank lent funds would be of no specific use. Thus bank must estimate all such expenditures and probe her sources and their availability at the project start date. These sources could include her own savings, her parents support, support from any other photograpy association, magazine or institution or even any grant or fellowship. (b) The next pertinent set of questions would be on specific items she is seeking loan for viz.air tickets and photographic equipment and accessories. Borrower may be asked to furnish the names of the specific airlines she would be traveling on to Africa along with her assistant. In case enquiries reveal that the airlines she proposes to use is expensive or that other airlines are offering more economical round tickets then the borrower would be asked the reason for preferring the chosen airlines. She may also be advised to avail of the cheaper airlines. Coming to her other need viz of photographic equipment and accessories queries may be framed on the specific equipment she proposes to buy for her project and why she thinks that such equipment is more suitable both in terms of price and performance, from amongst other same genre equipment. The banker may like the borrower to show the process of narrowing down

The electoral system Essay Example for Free

The electoral system Essay How are the number of electoral votes decided for each state? How many electoral votes are in your home state? Which Presidential candidate (Obama or Romney) won your state’s electoral votes in the 2012 election? 2. Briefly explain the â€Å"pros and cons† of the electoral system. Why do we have the electoral system? What are some arguments against it? 3. In a few sentences, explain what you think. Should the U.S. maintain the current Electoral College system, move toward a national popular vote system, or use the â€Å"proportional voting† system for the Electoral College used by Maine and Nebraska? Electoral College consists of 538 electors chosen by the candidates political party. Electoral voters are decided by the equal number of members in its Congressional Representatives plus two for your senators. There are 16 electoral votes in the state of Georgia which is the state I am from. Mitt Romney won my states electoral votes. We have the electoral system because with popular votes it would be unfair to the smaller populated states if the larger populated states voted more to one way than their state. Also if a candidate was from the south he or she would be more likely to campaign in those states and not in the northern states. Then those states may feel like they wouldnt be â€Å"their† president. It is also good because there is less likely to be a dispute over the outcome of an Electoral College vote than a popular vote. Some cons are that is may turn off some voters if their state isnt voting for the political party they are wanting to vote for. The arguments against it are that it is undemocratic that the people should decide who their president is not congress. In my opinion I agree with the Electoral voting, at first before I read more about how it works I did not agree. Now that I have read about it I believe it is really the only way that smaller states have any say in who the president is. Also I believe its a good idea to keep the candidates from campaigning more in one part of the country than the other are only the larger states with a larger population. The only thing I can see that would be bad would be if your state is not voting for the political party you would vote for. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/map/historic.html http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#whyec http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

Improving Pay for Performance with SOP

Improving Pay for Performance with SOP INTRODUCTION: Executive pay has been a big controversial issue over the past twenty years due to various governance failures which have generated a forceful policy debate on the appropriate role of shareholder voice in corporate governance (e.g., Bebchuk 2007; Bainbridge 2006). Some say the pay is too high and is set by captured boards while some say it reflects the marketplace in action. Therefore, some companies are either willing to or mandated to give shareholders an advisory vote on the prior years compensation of top executives-a say on pay (SOP). SOP is a term used for a rule in corporate governance whereby stakeholders are given the opportunity to vote on the enumeration of executives. SOP potentially not only gives shareholders an advisory vote on pay practices, but also increases scrutiny from shareholders over top managements compensation at most companies. Therefore, this study illustrates how SOP improves pay for performance. Under certain circumstances, this study will show that pay for performance has been increasing significantly after the adoption of SOP. When further decomposing executive pay into its cash-based and equity-based components, this study finds evidence of an increase at most companies in the relationship between performance and these compensation components, and the potential to enhance transparency, governance, and accountability, which, in turn, should lead to greater efficiency and social responsiveness (Bebchuk, Friedman, and Friedman, 2007). MAIN: This study is going to discuss further about the principal of SOP and its effect on pay for performance in firms and the related principal-agency problems in corporate governance. SOP might have not been a new concept in corporate governance in the UK, but some firms in developed and developing countries have been implementing this concept over these years around the world. SOP is known as one of the recent phenomenon of shareholder activism, a voice mechanism for shareholders (Hirschman, 1970). It is the effectuation of providing shareholders the right to vote on executive compensation program at the annual meeting. The regulation changes a variety of attitudes toward corporate governance and disclosure habitudes of all public companies. This concept allows shareholders to either raise their voices or express their opinions against executive compensation programs. In other words, instead of letting top executives to decide the level of compensation plans, shareholders can use their voting rights to either approve or give advice on executive compensation plans that link to top executives performance. To clearly justify, SOP is seen as a friendly tool to express, improve the dissent, giving advice on remuneration, but not an aggressive governance rule to destroy firm value or dissociate the relationship between principal and agent. While companies are not bound by SOP advisory votes, the act not only requires firms to disclose the vote results after the shareholders meeting, but also report whether and how the board considers the voting results in the following year. Consistent with this argument, De Franco, Hope and Larocque (2013) find that additional disclosures improves board effectiveness at monitoring executive c ompensation and in strengthening the link between pay and performance. SOP was used formally in UK in 2003, but in fact it was unofficially started and practiced in July 1999 as non-binding vote on executive compensation or remuneration. In the early of 2001, there are various companies beginning to propose the remuneration committee report, and there is an evidence that the number of firms submitting the proposal grew rapidly in 2002. After the UK, several EU countries consequently adopted this principle such as Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, then it spreaded to Australia and USA. It has been lasting for nearly 15 years in the UK while in the USA, this concept started in 2010 and became compulsory in the same year, which is relatively brief and the current knowledge of SOPs results and effects are still limited along with many academic discussion and practices. Basically, the objectives and models of SOP vary considerably across the world. Under Dodd-Frank, SOP in the USA requires companies to hold a non-binding vote on compensation at least once every three years. Afterwards, firms are also required to request shareholders to regulate the frequency of future say on pay votes at least once every six years but no less than that, also the shareholders are given the option of doing annually or every two or three years. However, in the UK, the government presented the Directors Remuneration report to record for a shareholders vote on current level of compensation at every annual general meeting. Pay for performance is currently a big issue in corporate governance due to several executive compensation scandals. Additionally, House Report 110088 noted that the average of a CEO in a top company earned approximately 140 times higher than the pay of a regular employee in 1991; nonetheless, this ratio increased exponentially to about 500 to 1 in 2003. The compensation for CEOs is divided into 2 parts which are fixed compensation such as cash and bonuses, and variable compensation ,also called performance-based compensation. The variable compensation which strongly relates to CEOs performance, including option grants, stocks option,.etc will be determined comprehensively in this study so as to favour the practical impact of SOP. Refer to Jensen and Meckling (1976), the traditional principal-agent theories stated that the owner of the firm constructed the compensation contracts to the agent in terms of maximizing the value of the firm. Muller-Kahle (2013) finds some evidence that, w hen CEOs have a dominant ownership stake, firm monitoring is diminished and firm performance suffers. However, most of public companies generates it infeasible for shareholders to debate the managerial compensation. In the phenomenon, the executive compensation scandals occurred frequently and severally than we could imagine. For examples, Tyco International was reported a CEOs scandal in 2005, its CEO Dennis Kozlowski and CFO Mark H. Swartz were convicted of stealing $600 million, these money was symbolized as the excess of executive remuneration, i.e. Kozlowski gave his wife $2 million birthday gift on Islands Mediterranean at companys expense. From our point of view, if Say on Pay was introduced and implemented earlier, those compensation scandals would had possibly not happened and also its reasonable to achieve and practice the SOP policy at the moment. According to Vicente Cuà ±at, Mireia Gine, and Maria Guadalupe (2013), the main purposes of Say on Pay is to raising shareholders voices, concentrating on the shareholders interests but also focusing on values that CEOs added to the firm and the transparency of CEOs interests. It leads to the improvement of the agency problem. Although a variety of evidence are against the benefits of Say on Pay, Bebchuk (2007) contended that a formalized say on pay vote is able to overcome the psychological barriers and support the negotiation of better compensation contracts. Indeed, many articles suggest that the approach of SOP does have a positive correlation between both firms value and the issue of pay for performance. We believe that there is nothing 100% right or wrong in all circumstances and its inherently difficult to determine precisely influences of any corporate governance regulation. Hence, the objective of this paper is to approve the improvements of Say on Pay on pay for performance in corporations in terms of increasing firms values, shareholders values, reducing agency problems and enhancing the transparency of executive compensation under certain conditions. First condition is firms with excessive or ineffectiveness CEO remuneration, as stated by Core at el. (1999), less effective boards are regularly related to high abnormal CEO compensation and low sensitivity pay for performance, which means that SOP is likely to benefit to the firm with weaker corporate governance and incompetent remuneration design. Secondly, firms with independent-minded shareholders willing to vote against management are likely to face more pressure if the say on pay is achieved; thirdly, firms are willing to b oost performance, enhance compensation and reform as a consequence of shareholder pressure. Due to Baird and Stowasser (2002), the first benefit of implementing SOP is certainly promoting accountability and transparency in the compensation report. To earn stakeholders support or prevent litigation, boards not only have sought to enhance disclosures concerning executive compensation plans but also publish an annual directors remuneration report over the past year, which causes directors more carefully to consider shareholder interests when designing executive pay plans. The recent trend confirmed the increased directors accountability after the introduction of say on pay (Cai et al. 2007, 2009; Del Guercio et al. 2008). As found in the previous articles, Davis (2007) stated that the Say on Pay proposal did associate smoothly with the communication and relationship between shareholders and board of directors. Refer to the UK evidences, after annual general meeting and the accurately analysis of remuneration report, there is a substantially development in the connection and tr ansmission between compensation committees and shareholders. Firms are more opened to a dialogue with shareholders to justify a broader compensation decisions and practices. Companies will not only have the opportunity to include additional resolutions on specific compensation decisions, but also have the opportunity to ask shareholders views on specific compensation decisions, including decisions related to various aspects or categories of pay. Each company, however, will be required to permit shareholders to vote on a resolution addressing all of the compensation disclosed in the annual proxy. This finding may advance scrutiny and also lead to more informed voting decision and the acceptance of a remarkable premium. Also, Deane (2007) and Davis (2007) suggested that SOP probably superior adjusts for principal-agent interests and enhance corporate governance and performance. The SOP allows shareholder to raise their voices in executive which definitely better align with CEO and shareholders interests, consequently, it comes up with the reduction of agency cost and a more adequately compensation contracts. Due to Peter Iliev and Svetla Vitanova (2015), the market reacted positively to the practices of Say on pay votes and the general supports of directors from shareholders are spotted to be increased. In practices in the UK, the impact of SOP was found to be positive as well, Fabrizio and David A. Maber (2013) analysed that the adoption and implementation of say on pay to the UK regulation was escorted with positive stock price reactions at firms with high dissent compensation conflicts and particularly practices diluting punishment for poor performance. By the same token, enforcing SOP may potentially increase Earnings per shares (EPSs), Return on assets (ROA) and Return on equity (ROE), the appliance also gains profitability and efficiency, higher growth in labour yield and constructive effect on accounting statement in the following years after the binding vote. As a result of Vicente Cuà ±at, Mireia Gine, and Maria Guadalupe (2013), the shareholder value increased by 5.4 percent after Say on Pay implementation, this such high market gains were explained by the improvement of CEOs performance under shareholder pressure and the effect of better alignment of pay for performance and also the reduction of pay for failure. Those evidences are consistent with the aims of this study that say on pay is used as a value-creating governance mechanism to contribute value to firm and shareholders. According to Stephen Davis Millstein Center Fellow (2007), advisory Say on Pay votes are extensively seen as having been an influential committing factor in taming the rate of increase, reduce controversial compensation of CEO, pressure firm to increase sensitivity between compensation and performance curbing opportunities for reward for failure and tying compensation dramatically closer to performance. As we mentioned above, not every firms reported the same results on the impact of SOP. However, we do find the strong positive influence in the firm with high dissent between shareholders and directors and the firm with excessive CEOs compensation based on the managerial power viewpoint (Bertrand (2009), Frydman and Jenter (2010), Murphy (2013). As documented by Fabrizio and David A. Maber (2013), their tests were coherent with Core et al(1999) s research that the introduction of SOP was followed by positive stock price reaction, especially in the firms with controversial compensation report and those which abate penalties for poor performance. Correa and Lel (2013) also recorded a numerical decrease in CEO pay of 6.1% after implementation of Say-on-Pay regulation in a sample of countries. Moreover, by using regression analysis on large sample of UK firms, Fabrizio and David (2013) tested on some vital elements in CEO pays including bonuses, equity awards to evaluate whether the sensitivity of CEO compensation is highly adequated to performance along with economics factors before and after the regulation. In general, they concluded that even though others economic elements persist unchanged, there is still a significant rise in the sensitivity of CEO pay to poor performance in less observable elements of pay. Moreover, this finding is consistent with the result of Ertimur, Muslu, and Ferri (2011) which is the most pronounced in high dissent firms and firms maintaining excessive executive compensation before SOP, means that SOP policy does reduce the excessive performanced-base salary to create value and link the remuneration more dramatically to the performance. Various companies either removed or altered provisions that investors considered as rewards for failure such as generous severance contracts and low performance hurdles, often in response to institutional investors explicit requests. Fabrizio and David A. Maber (2013) examined this issue on high dissent(HD) firm (with 20% dissent vote) and low dissent(LD) firm (with less than 5% dissent vote) before and after the vote , the result showed that the high dissent firms reducing the notice periods of severance contracts after the first vote (80%) are likely to be higher than before the vote (20%) and also substantially higher than the low dissent firms (33.3%). Therefore, this figures suggested that say on pay is the reason of reduction of controversial compensation, besides, 70% of low dissent firms scaling down the notice period before the vote which is the evidence of elimination of dissension between shareholders and executives. Moreover, a variety of firms established a formal proces s for proactive consultation with their major shareholders going forward (Ferri and Maber, 2011). As a result, the threat of a vote was effective in inducing firms to revise CEO pay practices ahead of the annual meeting and decreasing the situation of pay for failures and the growth rate of pay. Meanwhile, they also analysed the second most influenced remuneration item which is performance-based vesting conditions in equity grants. During the following years that performance targets are not accomplished, this retesting provision is seemed to contribute for reexamining and subsequently assists for the potential pay for failure. After the research, they concluded that before the first vote, HD firms and LD firms achieved 5% and 25% respectively to reduce or remove this issue. Nonetheless, the result changed significantly after the SOP vote, HD firms agreed to shorten or abolish retesting provision with statistically 76.3%, while the LD gained 28%. Generally, several evidences support that these contractual modification are the direct repercussion of SOP regulation. Base on the top 100 companies 2016 surveys in the US, SOP is raising shareholders voices and putting more pressure on CEO in order to perform better, however, we found that shareholder doesnt empower themselves to manipulate the CEOs compensation. In fact, the number of companies adopting this policy is increasing, in 2016 there are 95 over top 100 US companies holding say on pay vote in 2016, 94 out of 95 firms held approval say-on-pay votes which is higher than 2015 and only 1 firm didnt approve which also failed in both 2014 and 2015. As being reported, 41 corporations reviewed and elected not to significantly change the compensation report, while 20 noted modification into the remuneration in response to the vote. In table 4, the Say on Pay approval rate in 2016 is relatively high with 78% receiving approval rates in excess of 90% and only 6% for-voting below 70%. This figures coordinate with data in the last 2 years 2014 and 2015, which the approval rates are comparably high. Th is finding suggests that the even shareholders have more control power in the firm, they are not likely to destroy the value or raise the unfairness and dissension through the firm. In contrast, they seem to use this policy as a friendly tool, not an aggressive regulation, to raise their voice and cut down excessive expense in compensation. Furthermore, this regulation is contributing to the competitiveness of the British economy and the attraction of London as an international capital market (Stephen Davis Millstein Center Fellow,2007). The UK Department of Trade and Industry confirmed that the votes lead to a better planning by corporations, fewer surprises, better dialogue with shareholders, and apparently, it can reduce downside risks and big scandals among quoted companies in recent years. Due to London Stock Exchange, by involving Say on Pay voting rights, London will possibly be equipped with a more competitive border in order to attract capital, comparing to New York. Last but not least, while companies are not bound by SOP advisory votes, it requires companies to disclose the vote results after the shareholders meeting. In addition, firms must report whether and how the board considers the voting results in the following year. Ferri and Maber (2013) study the market reaction in 2002 to SOP that mandates non-binding but advisory vote on the compensation report and find that firms with high dissent alter the compensation composition, thereby improving pay for performance. Moreover, in a sample of the largest UK companies from 2002 to 2006, boards reduced excess salary as well as the dilutive effect of stock option grants in response to past negative non-binding votes (Carter and Zamora,2009). Consequently, shareholders right of non-binding votes could provide a useful mechanism that addresses the potential problem of incomplete firms management, suggesting that monitoring and reward mechanism dynamics can effectively coexist between owners and firm managers, thereby improving corporate governance (Kimbro and Xu, 2016). Conclusion To conclude, we investigate the impact of the right of shareholders non-binding but advisory votes on say-on-pay. We find evidence that firms either modified or altered their compensation structures in order to win shareholders positive votes. CEOs compensation decreases in most firms while larger decreases are found in firms that overpaid their CEOs in the previous year. Similarly, affected firms linked their pay mix to more close for performance. In terms of voting itself, shareholders are not more likely to vote for executive compensation when the firm pays excessive pay for top management, or has a large increase in CEO compensation compared to previous years. Moreover, among the components of the compensation plan, shareholders are more likely to vote against the plan when they contain other compensation, such as private bonuses unrelated to performance, which have been opposed by critics of executive pay. Most importantly, SOP does not limit the level of compensation or empower shareholders to control the interests of top management. It can be seen as a friendly corporate governance tool to prevent conflicts of the issues between top management and shareholders regarding pay for performance. Additionally, this study finds that the increase in pay for performance after the implementation of SOP is larger in firms with excessive pay for CEO relative to firms with average level of pay for CEO. The evidence suggests that SOP do increase the executive compensation monitoring ability for investors who care about the long-term value of a firm but who are lack of the ability to influence executive compensation structure before SOP. By contrast to most prior studies on the impact of SOP on executive incentives and compensation, the evidence shown in this study is consistent with SOP improves rather than weakens the alignment of managerial wealth and shareholder interests in certain circumstances. References: Bainbridge S. 2006. The Case for Limited Shareholder Voting Rights. UCLA Law Review, 53: 601-636. Bainbridge, Stephen M. The Corporate Governance Provisions of Dodd-Frank. (2010). Bainbridge, Stephen M. Is Say on PayJustified?. (2009). Baird, J. and Stowasser, P. (2002) Executive compensation disclosure requirements: The German, UK, and US approaches, PracticalLaw.com, PLC Document 4-101-7960, September 23. BBC News. 2003. Glaxo defeated by shareholders. May 19. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3038381.stm Bebchuk, L. (2007) Written testimony submitted before the Committee on Financial Services, United States House of Representatives, Hearing on Empowering Shareholders on Executive Compensation, March 8. Bebchuk, L., Friedman, A. T., Friedman, W. J. 2007. Empowering shareholders on executive compensation: hearing on H.R. 1257 before the H. Comm. on Fin. Ser., 110th Cong. 68: Cai J. and R. Walkling. 2007. Shareholders Say on Pay: Does It Create Value?. Working Paper, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA. Cai J., J. Garner and R. Walkling. 2009. Electing Directors. Journal of Finance   forthcoming. Carter, M. E., Zamora, V. 2009. Shareholder remuneration votes and CEO compensation design, Work. Pap. Boston College. Cheffins B. and R. Thomas. 2001. Should shareholders have a greater say over executive pay? Learning from the US experience. Working Paper, Vanderbilt University Law School, Nashville, TN. Choi, S., J. Fisch and M. Kahan, 2009. Director Elections and the Role of Proxy Advisors. Southern California Law Review 82, 649-702. Core, J.; R. Holthausen; and D. Larcker. Corporate Governance, Chief Executive Officer Compensation,and Firm Performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 51 (1999), 371-406. Core, J., and W. Guay. The Use of Equity Grants to Manage Optimal Equity Incentive Levels. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 28 (1999), 151-184. Cuà ±at, V., Ginà ©, M. and Guadalupe, M. (2013). Say Pays! Shareholder Voice and Firm Performance. Review of Finance, 20(5), pp.1799-1834. Davis, Stephen. Does say on paywork? Lessons on making CEO compensation accountable. Policy Briefing 1 (2007). Deane, S. Say on Pay: Results from Overseas. The Corporate Board (July/August 2007), 11- 18. De Franco, G. Hope, O.K., Larocque, S. 2013. The effect of disclosure on the pay-performance relation. J. Account. Public Policy 32(5), 319-341. Del Guercio, D., L. Wallis, and T. Woidtke. 2008. Do Boards Pay Attention When Institutional Investor Activists Just Vote No? Journal of Financial Economics 90: 84-103. Deloitte, Executive Directors Remuneration (London: September 2006) Digital.shearman.com. (2017). Corp Gov Survey 2016 Corporate Governance Survey. [online] Available at: http://digital.shearman.com/i/739764-2016-corporate-governance-survey/59? [Accessed 22 Mar. 2017]. Ertimur, Yonca, Fabrizio Ferri, and David Oesch. Shareholder votes and proxy advisors: Evidence from say on pay. Journal of Accounting Research 51.5 (2013): 951-996. Ertimur, Y., F. Ferri, and V. Muslu. 2011. Shareholder Activism and CEO Pay. Review of Financial Studies 24(2): 535-592. Ferri, F., and D. Maber. Solving the Executive Compensation Problem Through Shareholder Votes? Evidence from the U.K. Working paper, Columbia University and Harvard Business School (2007). Ferri, F., Maber, M. 2013. Say on pay votes and CEO compensation: Evidence from the UK. Rev. Financ. (17), 527-563. Financial Times (1998) The fat cats keep getting fatter, August 1. Fortune.com. (2017). Surprise surprise: Say on Pay appears to be working. [online] Available at: http://fortune.com/2015/07/08/say-on-pay-ceos/ [Accessed 22 Mar. 2017]. Gordon, J., 2009. Say on Pay: Cautionary Notes on the U.K. Experience and the Case for Shareholders Opt-in. Harvard Journal on Legislation 46:323-64. Hodgson, Paul. A brief history of say on pay. Ivey Business Journal 73 (2009): 1. Kimbro, Marinilka B., and Danielle Xu. Shareholders have a say in executive compensation: Evidence from say-on-pay in the United States. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 35.1 (2016): 19-42. Jensen, M. C., and W. H. Meckling. Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 4 (1976), 305-360. Jeffrey N. Gordon, Say on Pay: Cautionary Notes on the U.K. Experience and the Case for Shareholder Opt-in, 46 Harv. J. Legis. 323, 325 (2009) Larcker, David F., et al. Ten Myths ofSay on Pay. (2012). List25.com. (2017). Cite a Website Cite This For Me. [online] Available at: http://list25.com/25-biggest-corporate-scandals-ever/ [Accessed 22 Mar. 2017]. Magnan, Michel, and FCA Claudine Mangen. Is say on pay an effective governance tool? Analysis and recommendations. (2011). Manifest and MMK, The Executive Director Total Remuneration Survey (London: May 2007); RREV, Trends in Executive Remuneration 2006 (London: April 2007); New Bridge Street Consultants, The 2006 FTSE 100 Executive Directors Remuneration Survey (London: 2006); PIRC Corporate Governance Annual Review 2006 (London: 2006). Muller-Kahle, M. I. 2013. The impact of dominant ownership: The case of Anglo-American firms . J. Manage. Gov. 19(1), 71-89. . SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, 2010. Concept Release No. 34-62495, available at:http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/2010/34-62495.pdf

Toward a Dynamic Conception of ousia :: Aristotle Aristotelian Legacy

Toward a Dynamic Conception of ousia This paper is an initial attempt to develop a dynamic conception of being which is not anarchic. It does this by returning to Aristotle in order to begin the process of reinterpreting the meaning of ousia, the concept according to which western ontology has been determined. Such a reinterpretation opens up the possibility of understanding the dynamic nature of ontological identity and the principles according to which this identity is established. The development of the notions of energeia, dynamis and entelecheia in the middle books of Aristotle’s Metaphysics will be discussed in order to suggest that there is a dynamic ontological framework at work in Aristotle’s later writing. This framework lends insight into the dynamic structure of being itself, a structure which does justice as much to the concern for continuity through change as it does to the moment of difference. The name for this conception of identity which affirms both continuity and novelty is "legacy." Th is paper attempts to apprehend the meaning of being as legacy. There is perhaps no idea in the history of western ontology with a more powerful legacy than Aristotle’s conception of ousia. Traditionally construed, "ousia" stands for the primary, foundational principle of being. It can be said that ontology has historically been ousiology – the search for ultimate foundations. In this quest for ultimates, the ousia names the absolute arche, the foundational principle that reigns over and orders all being. The political tone of this formulation is intentional; it is designed to frame the ontological question concerning the meaning of ousia in ethico-political terms. The impetus behind this strategy is to suggest that western ontology has been largely determined by an authoritarian tendency that seeks to establish a single ultimate principle in order to secure a firm and certain foundation. On the one hand, this authoritarian tendency may be traced back to Aristotle, for ousia is precisely such a hegemonic principle; on the other hand , Aristotle also suggests another conception of ousia, one that can be drawn upon in the attempt to resist this authoritarian tendency. In what follows, I trace both the authoritarian and this resistant conception ousia in Aristotle. Aristotle’s Authoritarian Ontology To apply the political term "authoritarian" to an ontological account may at first seem to be a simple category mistake. However, this first impression fails to recognize that many of the terms that have come

The Importance of an Ant :: Personal Narrative Ants Essays Insects

The Importance of an Ant I gaze carefully. My little red friend scrambles across my keyboard. Amazing, all those limbs and joints bending and stretching in a rhythmic fluidity, tiny feelers waving excitedly. He approaches a friend, and they tap each other in friendly camradrie, perhaps even love. He waves in understanding and he is off again, this time swiftly scampering toward the Collegiate Coupon book sitting on my desk. He surges upwards a few millimeters and slips into the crack between the pages. Okay. So my desk isn’t exactly Walden Pond. The last time I saw leaves change color in here was when my plant died last year. And there certainly are no long lines of wisdom-seekers at my door searching for inspiration. But the ants don’t care. They simply go about their business, whatever it may be. I used to think their existence was pointless. Now I know it is. They spend their lives migrating from the radiator to my computer and back. I have no idea what they could possibly eat in my room, unless they somehow discovered how to eat through the canned kidney beans or the dried pasta stored under my bed. Even their movements have no purpose. I watch in stupefaction as they turn around at least ten times while traveling a mere six inches. Maybe the most pitiful thing is that the ants have no individual identity. â€Å"Oh, that ant! The red one with the three body segments and the six legs. The one that likes to scurry. Why didn’t you say so?† Have you ever seen an ant smile? Have you swapped stories with an ant over a warm cup of cocoa? Do the ants that live by the Great Pyramids or by the Taj Mahal appreciate these wondrous monuments? Do they feel sympathy for the victims at the World Trade Center? No. My little friends just continue to walk around aimlessly. They are born in obscurity and they die in obscurity. Unlike ants, humanity has achieved greatness. We marvel at the intellect of Leonardo da Vinci or the musical genius of Beethoven.

The History Of The Systemic Approach Education Essay

In fact, survive with computing machines in the schoolroom, it is a spot like populating with an elephant, it is nerve-racking, it is cumbrous, it is upseting. What do you make with an elephant. We try to chasten the otherwise tame. This is engineering, efforts to incorporate them into learning pattern. But how? Changing wonts and behaviour. But alteration is complicated, it requires be aftering, must be checked and it is non easy to pull off an elephant, nor the usage of computing machine equipment. A A A About 25 old ages ago that we are working to incorporate â€Å" new † engineerings in different states. At different rates, depending on altering the joys, successes and failures in sequence – some losing forbearance, argue that it is an ageless – and yet†¦ Each cringle of the coiling brings us innovative farther in front. The school exchange and usage of progressively engineerings and digital resources to consolidate these alterations. Change, innovate, integrate, absorb engineering â€Å" new † â€Å" The engineering in the school will be † new â€Å" if teaching method that employs is new. ‘ A A A One manner to alter their instruction patterns is to incorporate digital engineerings in their instruction patterns. But it must be remembered that this alteration does non introduce. For there to be invention, ICT integrating should advance the development of one or more of the undermentioned rules: A A A A increased contact teachers-students or distance ; A A A A promote high outlooks vis-a-vis pupils A A A A support larning reactive, proactive and synergistic ; A A A A facilitate effectual and immediate feedback ; A A A A better and increase the clip of survey and reading ; A A A A promote diverse endowment ; A A A A enhance cooperation among pupils. A A A If the usage of ICT is non contributing to the development of one or the other of these rules, so there is alteration, but there is no pedagogical invention. But how and with what tools can we heighten the educational development of these rules? The â€Å" public presentations † of new engineerings in schools are non connected to the power or edification of machines†¦ can non assist believing that it is easier to fault the machines need educational†¦ Finally, everything is at that place, new engineerings in schools will be â€Å" new † if the teaching method that employs is â€Å" new † or instead renewed. ‘ A A A Is that correct? Are at that place baronial utilizations of engineering in instruction live togethering with enfeebling or unworthy intents? This is improbable. It is instead a inquiry of development, integration measure. We must larn to utilize simple engineerings before embarking into complicated utilizations. A A A To introduce through engineering, we must foremost be concerned pupils and so take attention of tools. This is the foundation of a humanistic, interdisciplinary and â€Å" anthropocentric † and a systemic attack to invention in instruction and basic reengineering the school utilizing engineering. A A A Too frequently, the execution of information engineering is under the mark of improvisation. We believed, and still believe one of the â€Å" innovators † , the diffusion of an invention in instruction is by osmosis and contagious disease nearby. This vision of â€Å" Utopian † procedure returns as follows: a instructor sets up an advanced undertaking utilizing ICT in the schoolroom. Spontaneously, co-workers, intrigued by both invention and covetous of such a success, eager to transform their teaching method, innovate and take part in this educational success. Just direct them the know-how. The shriveling expands and shortly the whole school is â€Å" tainted † by the new engineerings, each wishing to have an elephant in its category! A A A Unfortunately, invention is non spread in this manner in the field of instruction. It agree, this scheme has non vicarious delivered the expected consequences. Few thousand early adoptive parents have non wholly spread in their schools. Colleagues in the â€Å" innovator † did non spontaneously coveted innovate or chambarder their teaching method, or rearrange their classs. They did non instantly agreed that the success of an invention undertaking was due to the engineering, even if it was really present in the undertaking. In this vision of â€Å" spontaneousness † of the diffusion of invention, we must oppose systematic and systemic attack. A A A The systemic attack is divided into four phases. First measure, the system is in equilibrium functional school. Each histrion ( manager, instructors, pupils, professionals, director, support staff ) takes his function and the system is runing usually. It accomplishes its mission decently and wholly? If so, there is no demand to interrupt, the chambarder. Otherwise, the school does non let pupils to develop adequately its function in society. The school system is so critiqued and challenged. It is clip to alter it. Second measure, given the insufficiencies of the school riotous inventions are introduced doing daze moving ridges and instability. Third phase, the school system responds to this instability in two ways: a ) rejection of freshness to maintain the same old balance unstable and unsatisfactory B ) if the first maneuver did non work so the school system efforts to incorporate new, but minimising its effectivity and impact†¦ It is riotous and instructors seeking to incorporate engineering but altering nil in their instruction. Teachers try once more with these new tools the same as before but more frequently and more rapidly. Fourth measure, if the tactical integrating harmonic rejection or non fonctionnees so the system tries to absorb new engineering and animate a new systemic functional balance. Then there is reclamation of learning patterns. These four stairss are carried out consecutive and the procedure can be accelerated or stopped at any clip. This is why it is so of import when presenting technological inventions in instruction planning in continuance, to persist and to maximise the disruptive and destabilizing. Until a new equilibrium is non reached systemic one can state that an establishment is in the procedure of integrating but non assimilation. If the advanced release system force per unit area on the freshness consequence may regress and everything can be once more. A A A Furthermore, it is of import non to pout and success when instructors say the engineering used in their pattern non yet to the full renewed you must cognize the clip encouraged to go on doing the coveted alterations. Thus the â€Å" innovators † , backed up by the governments, can distribute the freshness and â€Å" contaminated † the whole community. 3. The â€Å" formula † for a successful execution â€Å" Let us all engineerings, but Lashkar-e-Taiba ‘s slave ordinal number ‘ A A A Already in 1987, the â€Å" innovators † of the integrating of engineering in learning had discovered the â€Å" formula † for a successful execution. [ 5 ] Here it is: 3.1. Ingredients A A A A Strong political will which beef up local directors in their attempts and back up â€Å" firm † instructors. A A A A Significant fiscal resources and provided yearly for several old ages, conditions for long-run planning. A A A A Many computing machines, efficient, dependable, accessible, networked and connected to the Internet for teleco and learning communities. A A A A Powerful applications, stable, dedicated, easy to utilize, user friendly and supply entree to content and quality digital resources seamlessly incorporate subjects. A A A A Information and support in good measure and at a changeless flow and steady. A A A A A systemic integrating consequence of a happy complicity between the spouses in instruction ( instructors, principals, counsellors, engineering directors ) . A A A A Time for instructors, clip for contemplation, for preparation, for planning of larning state of affairss and rating ( SAE ) authentic, contextualized and described in conformity with the preparation plan. 3.2 Preparation A A A Each of these ingredients should be available in good measure and assorted in proportions that meet regional liberty and the sensitiveness of local histrions ( schools ) . For illustration, the Commission scolaire de la Seigneurie-des-Mille-Iles lists five phases of ICT integrating in instruction: entry, acceptance, version, appropriation and innovation. The innovation is the phase where the instructor imagine new utilizations for enriching the preparation plan [ 10 ] . Depending on the phase identified resource demands, preparation and support may change. This is the first component to see when planning integrated and contextualised by a systemic attack. A A A Regarding pupils, without desiring to give the urban fable sing the genetically programmed acquisition who would be born â€Å" between a mouse and a keyboard † , we must acknowledge that many are non expected the chance to step into the schoolroom, or connected Television chance to collaborate. A A A If readying and ingredients are non sufficient quality and measure, mayonnaise may non acquire as stressed this illustrated â€Å" Barriers to ICT for instructor. tekki â€Å" . 3.3 Tips and Tricks A A A This â€Å" recipe † known in 1987 and repeated in 1997 [ 13 ] , should be reissued in 2007 for everyone to retrieve that the universe of engineering has non appeared today and will non vanish with him. Sing its airing in instruction, there is a universe of distinction. A A A However, nowhere resources will non be sufficient to fulfill the impatient. Two digressive forces hinder this forced March towards ICT everyplace for everything and for all, at least in industrialised society. First, the human and fiscal resources are scarce and must be shared among multiple precedences. More money to engage instructors or purchase equipment? A A A There is so the opposition to alter. Throughout the West, school systems are shaken – interviewed – and this uncertainness before school decision makers and instructors do non desire to be confused disrupted rushed. The instructor of the present clip is a tired adult male band – and this schematisation of his public presentation ( Figure 2 below ) begins its resiliency and helps to deter. 4. The effectivity of digital engineerings for learning â€Å" It takes a small town to raise a kid†¦ with a computer. ‘ A A A For the school adapts to alterations in engineering and integrates computing machine and Internet, you need a vision-based acquisition ecology of the school is based on the construct of computerized acquisition environment, what, besides known as digital work environment ( DWE ) , practical campus or practical office work [ 16 ] . Specifying the school as a acquisition environment, it is refocusing on acquisition and, therefore, more efficient usage of its resources. This is when they are placed in rich acquisition environments, including effectual cognitive tools, these are existent or practical environments that kids every bit good as grownups, learn and develop intellectually and socially. A A A Christian Barrette, an analyst at the Association for Research in college ( CRA ) , has compiled a batch of research on the effectivity of new engineerings for learning and larning. [ 17 ] Barrette concludes that ICTs are effectual when they are portion of a structured educational finely diversified acquisition activities and pedagogical attacks. In other words, the course of study offers larning of cognition, thoughts, constructs, and accomplishments development ( cognition, know-how, accomplishments ) and the instructor must cognize how to utilize ICT sagely to accomplish all these ends. A A A Confirming the research of Professor Marcel Lebrun Louvain-La-Neuve [ 18 ] proposes to consolidate Barrette pedagogical attacks into three categories-behavioral attacks empiricist, positivist, humanist and cognitive-constructivist which it associates the technological point of position the applications and attacks reactive, proactive and synergistic. Should prefer the constructivist attack when utilizing ICT at school? Not needfully run into Barrette. We need to diversify pedagogical attacks, learning methods and digital tools. And the research worker noted that â€Å" Among these attacks, the emerging of societal constructivism in pedagogical discourse, but small in pattern. It has been said about it, it could be good served by these engineerings that facilitated communicating and exchange in the transmutation of information into cognition meaningful. â€Å" The empirical grounds, drawn from the research reviewed, indicate that it is possible that ICTs are besides centered a ttacks to knowledge transportation ( behaviourism reactive manner ) or witting control of cognitive accomplishments ( proactive manner and cognitivism reflexive ) . A A A The reappraisal of undertakings and technological devices for larning ( larning state of affairss or learning scenarios and computing machine system ) really shows that these devices fall into three households: A A A A devices bring oning larning public presentation ( behaviourism, reagent ) ; A A A A bespeaking devices metacognition ( cognitivism, proactive – reflexive ) ; A A A A devices back uping collaborative acquisition ( constructivism, synergistic – ego ) . A A A Lesson effectual digest of assorted surveies reviewed by Barrette is hence as follows have proved effectual preparation devices ( attack, method, activity, larning state of affairs, digital tools ) : A A A A bring oning larning public presentation ( expressed ) and utilizing adaptative tools and differentiated exercisings repeated as gymnastic apparatuss, tutorials, educational games, lifes, chiefly used in the schoolroom or computing machine lab A A A A seeking metacognition and utilizing tools such as tutorials, dynamic geometry, demos, simulators, scheduling, robotics, drawings, portfolios in single activities that extend beyond the schoolroom or research lab ; A A A A back uping collaborative acquisition with tools such as practical preparation environments, wikis, web logs, electronic mails, forums, preparation platforms, which support active communities of exchange and cooperation particularly outside of the schoolroom or computing machine lab. A A A Figure 3 summarizes these three pedagogical attacks and this for each definition of acquisition, the scholar, the instructor ‘s function, the position of cognition, learning methods and illustrations of digital tools preferred. You will besides happen the didactic rules that promote educational invention and educational success. Empiricism Behaviorism Rationalism Cognitivism Humanitarianism Constructivism Definition of larning alteration in discernible behaviours. Change in ways of thought and work outing jobs. Cognitive struggles. Change in ways of thought, in co-creation activities. Motivate. Definition of larning Learning reactive hearing, watching, reacts and attempts once more. Active acquisition, information processor, treat the information, automatic procedure, high outlook Interactive Learning, cognition builder which initiates a undertaking and self-regulating, reflective, high outlook Role of the instructor sender of information and cognition. It presents, describes, schematically, programs and cheques. Manager of acquisition, usher, leads, directs, advocate says, is sing jobs, regulates redress. Guide, Zanzibar copal, aid, cause, inquiries, organizes, provides, suggests redresss and allowed to move, suggests ego Status of cognition / skills nonsubjective external world that the pupil must get, assimilate and reproduce. External world that the pupil must incorporate its mental forms and reuse. Reflexivity. Objective external world but perceived and reconstructed competency = know how to move by mobilising Teaching methods Teaching group, explicit, E3, repeated pattern, immediate feedback, survey clip, frequent contacts. Individualized direction, differentiated strategic attack deductive – inductive survey clip, frequent contacts. Vicarious larning strategic, differentiated by undertakings inductive-deductive, less frequent contact, promotes cooperation. Digital tools preferred Gymnastic apparatuss, tutorials, games, ICT competency, life, web portfolio, trial hidden words quiz Net and others. Simulations, simulation, robotic, jobs, You ‘re the hero, programming, Create a Web page, DAO, experience, portfolio, geometry, practical research lab, SAE, Scoop, webquests..