The Social Dynamics of Corporate Insolvency Law and Workers and Employees of Distressed Companies: Comparing Select Asian Jurisdictions

This chapter deals with fundamental issues of corporate insolvency (bankruptcy) law. Particular attention is paid to the agency problems related to “insolvency (bankruptcy) governance” of corporations and how these problems are addressed in various jurisdictions. Methodologically, the chapter is based on a functional approach that compares different legal regimes against the yardstick of economic efficiency. The structure of the chapter follows the issues as they arise in time in a corporate insolvency proceeding: objectives of insolvency laws, opening and governance of proceedings, ranking of claims and the position of secured creditors and shareholders, and rescue proceedings. The chapter also covers the contractual resolution of financial distress. It concludes with thoughts on the reasons for the identified jurisdictional divergences and an outlook on the worldwide efforts toward harmonization of (corporate) insolvency laws. In terms of jurisdictions, the chapter mainly draws on the corporate insolvency laws in the US, England, France, and Germany.

The insolvency of a privatised utility raises problems of balancing the general public's interest as consumers of the essential service and the interests of other stakeholders particularly creditors. One mechanism of dealing with this conflict is to incorporate the notion of the public interest within insolvency regulation. This article discusses theoretical justifications for incorporating public interest issues into insolvency law when dealing with insolvent utilities. The article argues that while that the indeterminacy argument provides a strong rationale for refusing to open up insolvency law to all interests that might have a nexus to financial distress of ordinary trading companies, the special nature of essential services tips the balance in favour of a limited use of the public interest within insolvency regulation of utilities. One problem with incorporating the public interest within regulation relates to definitional difficulties and the article discusses the different ways in which theorists have approached the problem of providing a coherent basis for identifying the public interest. The article identifies 6 elements that may comprise the public interest in utility insolvencies.

This book analyses in a comprehensive manner the phenomenon of 'public interest' in different areas of law, both public and private. The term 'public interest' can be found in a wide range of legislation and it is used extensively in judicial practice and public administration. Yet, it has received surprisingly little attention in academia. As a result, it is used for various, often contradictory purposes. Justifications for its application are rarely convincing and the concept is often confused with similar legal institutions such as state interest, societal interest and public welfare, which, however, serve quite different purposes. Further to the relevant 'public' being defined, the weight of public interest in case of conflict with other considerations will be examined and the legal consequences of its breach (e.g. nullity, damages and penalties) considered. The book's objectives are therefore manifold. First and foremost, it aims to provide a definition of the notion of public interest and to determine its main attributes, particularly against the background of the notion of private interest. In order to achieve this, the concept's philosophical underpinnings will be outlined, as will its historical developments and its application in different times and socio-economic conditions. Consequently, the book will assist in applying the concept of public interest with a clear understanding of its substance, normative function and its relationship to other relevant legal institutions. The book focuses on the concept's application across the spectrum of legal disciplines ranging from constitutional and administrative law to corporate and insolvency law, from criminal law to environmental law, and from competition law to labour law. In order to provide concrete examples of legislative and judicial practice, the book analyses three jurisdictions in particular - Austria, the Czech Republic and the European Union. This book is not only an important addition to legal scholarship but, importantly, contributes to the improvement of decision-making processes at all levels of government. It will be of interest to scholars, practicing lawyers, judges and officials in public administration alike.

Economics and the New RightThe economic perspective that I label Christian is predicated on two things. One is the inerrant Bible and the other is the neoclassical economic paradigm. The former is cited to support the latter, in particular the economic theory's assumptions and implications concerning a capitalistic free-market economy, individual freedom and limited government. The particular position I will address is promulgated by the Contemporary Economics and Business Association (CEBA), head-quartered at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. The CEBA may be seen as a branch of the political movement often known as the New Right. The following passage provides a succinct introduction to this position.The most potent justifications for the orientation to economic growth and material success within American culture have been those that imbue this orientation with broader religious meaning....American conservative ideology captures the libertarian emphasis on material progress and individual success, but envelopes these within an appeal to divine providence, transcendent values, and collective social bonds. In this way, contemporary American conservatism affirms both God and capitalism. (Himmelstein 22-23, emphasis added)The CEBA in fact seems to find God in capitalism and its supporting market theory, the neoclassical paradigm.The neoclassical economic paradigm presents an ideal image of market behavior where each economic actor has equal power and perfect knowledge, resulting in individual behavior that is rational and optimizing; actors in an economic market are always maximizing their utility or profit while minimizing their cost. Further, economic actors are assumed voluntarily and independently to enter the market about which they have full knowledge, each individual market transaction being viewed independently from any other. These assumptions combine to result not only in the maximization of individual satisfaction, whether profit or utility, but also in the best, most efficient solution to the economic problem (i.e., scarce resources combined with unlimited wants) for society--the great good for the greatest number. This is an economically optimal, allocatively efficient solution in which no one can be made any better off without anyone else being made worse off. In the competitive market economy of neoclassical economics, prices efficiently ration goods and services, and distributive justice is thereby achieved in the private sector with the resulting distribution of economic resources.One function the neoclassical economic paradigm performs for economists is that of a bridge between God and capitalism. Interestingly however, when economists cite Scripture to legitimize the tenets of neoclassical economics, they never mention the story of Judas. Judas is an example of an economic man enjoying independent freedom of choice, of self-interested behavior that these proponents of economics at least theoretically laud. The story goes: Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests, and said to them, 'What will you give me, and I will deliver to you?' And they covenanted with for thirty pieces of silver. And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him (Matthew 26:14-16).The neoclassical economic paradigm celebrates this ever-optimizing individual whose behavior, by definition, insures the just distribution of economic resources. According to its assumptions, economic actors should follow their Internal subjective motivations concerning their own actions. Actions follow logically, rationally and consistently from values. But tautological problems plague the neoclassical paradigm because it cannot differentiate among behaviors. Behavior is accepted as evidence of values and results in utility maximization. So, since all behavior is maximizing, whatever the individual economic actor does will promote the most efficient solution to the economic problem. …

This chapter deals with fundamental issues of corporate insolvency law. Particular attention is paid to the agency problems related to “bankruptcy governance” and how these are addressed in various jurisdictions. Methodologically, the chapter is based on a functional approach that compares different legal regimes against the yardstick of economic efficiency. The structure of the chapter follows the issues as they arise in time in a corporate insolvency proceeding: objectives of insolvency laws, opening and governance of proceedings, ranking of claims and the position of secured creditors and shareholders, and rescue proceedings. The chapter also covers the contractual resolution of financial distress. It concludes with thoughts on the reasons for the identified jurisdictional divergences and an outlook on the worldwide efforts towards harmonization of (corporate) insolvency laws. In terms of jurisdictions, the chapter mainly draws on the corporate insolvency laws in the US, England, France and Germany.

The social market economy requires multifaceted care to preserve its essence (standard) and the appropriate balance between ‘marketisation’ and ‘socialisation’. This should be fostered by defining the content of the ‘public interest’ clause, and the social interest in particular, when determining all circumstances related to the functioning of the social market economy because it is in the public (social) interest for the market economy to be linked to social needs. The public (social) interest is at the same time the premise for the formation and development of what is to be regarded as the ‘social economy’. The same interest requires that the created social economy should be supported by providing it with the assistance of both a subjective and functional nature.

One of the primary objectives underlying the EU was the creation of a fully integrated European single market. Initiatives regarding European integration and the furthering of the Internal Market have been more prolific in policy areas characterised by high level of transnational transactional exchanges. Initially the creation of the Single Market required the abolition of domestic rules acting as barriers to cross-border economic exchange. As the single market developed, so did cross-border dealings between companies, their shareholders and creditors. A second phase moved from abolition of barriers to harmonisation of commercial law standards to improve integration. Corporate insolvency law was seen as a fundamental part of the European economic system and therefore was brought to the fore through harmonisation initiatives. In the current crisis addressing business failure on a pan-European level is vital to the concerns of stakeholders and to wealth preservation in the EU.The paper tackles the theoretical and practical issues of the current corporate insolvency and rescue laws at European level. It addresses the difficulties facing harmonisation initiatives stemming from the fundamental distinctions that exist between domestic legal frameworks, in particular regarding the rules on business failure. The paper considers the implications of the variations that can be found in the different Member States for the harmonisation of insolvency laws at EU level. The article evaluates the adequacy of the existing European rules and analyses the current changes occurring within the EU. It especially looks at the European insolvency legal framework, notably the 2000 European Insolvency Regulation and the scope of the reform currently occurring.

This chapter deals with fundamental issues of corporate insolvency law. Particular attention is paid to the agency problems related to “bankruptcy governance” and how these are addressed in various jurisdictions. Methodologically, the chapter is based on a functional approach that compares different legal regimes against the yardstick of economic efficiency. The structure of the chapter follows the issues as they arise in time in a corporate insolvency proceeding: objectives of insolvency laws, opening and governance of proceedings, ranking of claims and the position of secured creditors and shareholders, and rescue proceedings. The chapter also covers the contractual resolution of financial distress. It concludes with thoughts on the reasons for the identified jurisdictional divergences and an outlook on the worldwide efforts towards harmonization of (corporate) insolvency laws. In terms of jurisdictions, the chapter mainly draws on the corporate insolvency laws in the US, England, France, and Germany. For the second edition, the chapter has been updated and revised, in particular, in light of worldwide reforms of restructuring procedures.

With the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in 1996, Congress ended “welfare as we know it” and formally adopted a workfare approach. However, families continue to be trapped in the “low-wage ghetto”. Therefore, research is needed that investigates effective routes out of poverty. Studies have found that welfare recipients with higher educational attainment work more and earn significantly higher income than those with lower educational attainment. However, very little research exists around the relationship between social capital and labor force participation. Four research questions guided this study: (1) How do demographic variables affect social capital and human capital among single women who use welfare? (2) How do social capital and human capital affect employment outcome? (3) Do social capital and human capital act as mediators between demographic variables and employment outcome? (4) How do macro-level variables (i.e., city unemployment rate and state TANF policy) affect employment outcome? This study analyzed Wave 2 (2005-2007) data from the Making Connections Cross-Site Survey database. 1,428 women with no spouse/partner present in the household who indicated use of a TANF/welfare office in the last 12 months were selected for inclusion in the study sample. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted to extract factors that underlie the social capital construct and to identify the indicators that were associated with each of those factors. Five social capital factors emerged: support giving social capital, bonding social capital, bridging social capital, value sharing social capital, and support receiving social capital. Structural equation modeling was used to answer the major research questions in this study. This study found that older participants had a lower level of human capital, support giving social capital, and support receiving social capital than their younger counterparts. Additionally, older recipients had a worse employment outcome. Human capital and support giving social capital were positively associated with employment outcome, meaning that a higher level of human capital and giving support to family and friends were associated with a better employment outcome. In contrast, receiving support from family and friends was associated with a worse employment outcome. Human capital, support giving social capital, and support receiving social capital were found to mediate the relationship between age and employment outcome. Furthermore, more generous state TANF policy was associated with a worse employment outcome. Finally, there was sufficient evidence that factor loadings differed across race/ethnicity, presence of child under the age of 6, and ownership of a vehicle. This study has implications for policy, practice, and research. First, federal TANF policy should be amended to encourage the accumulation of human capital. Second, community participatory interventions are needed to increase social capital. Third, research is needed that will develop a measurement tool that can be tailored to measure social capital among low-income families. Longitudinal research is needed to examine the impact of social capital on employment in the long-term.

In this article we show that associational relationships and social norms of villages in rural Tanzania are both capital and social. After outlining the various concepts of social capital we tell how and why we created data on social capital using a large-scale household survey in rural Tanzania that was designed to query households about their social connections and attitudes. By using the Social Capital and Poverty Survey (SCPS) and data from a different survey, which also had information on incomes, we show that a village’s social capital has an effect on the incomes of the households in that village, an effect that is empirically large, definitely social, and plausibly causal. Finally, we use the two data sets to examine a number of proximate channels through which social capital appears to operate.

Career success is defined as the positive psychological or work-related achievements one obtains through work experiences. For individuals, career success reflects the self-actualization of individuals. In an organization, employees' personal career success means the organization's making the best of its human resources and eventually contributing to its success. As career success is of concern not only to individuals but also to organizations, many researchers continue to identify the individual and organizational factors that facilitate employees' career success. At the individual level, demographic, social capital, human capital, motivational and work-family variables are possibly associated with career success. At the organizational level, organizational variables such as firm size, industry sector, organizational support and geographic location may also be related to career success. Though Chinese organizational researchers have identified many determinants of career success and some have qualitatively reviewed partially the related literature, no large-scale systematic attempt has been made to systematically summarize the existent literature. In order to quantitatively review the career success literature, we use meta-analysis which is of appropriate for several reasons. Firstly, meta-analysis is a quantitative review technique that can reduce the measurement error from sampling and unreliability in individual studies. Secondly, a critical review and synthesis of the related body of research can play an important role in theory development and building. Thirdly, as former scholars have already identified some factors that determined objective and subjective career success, it would, therefore, be theoretically valuable to review and compare the strength of predictors in determining the objective and subjective career success in order to guide future research and management practices. In this study, we use meta-analysis to examine the relative importance of three career competencies(i.e., human capital, social capital, and psychological capital) and their underlying mechanism of predicting career success. Four inclusion criteria were used to select individual studies for this. Firstly, we focused on studies with dependent variables including at least one kind of operationalizations such as promotion, salary or subjective career success. Secondly, participants had to be employees in Mainland China. Thirdly, correlations were reported in the study. Fourthly, if the same sample was repeatedly included in different studies, then only the study that including most number of variables would be used in the present study. According to the above four criteria, we identified 76 studies that covered 78 dependent samples and 21,570 employees. Based on the intelligent career framework, contest and sponsored mobility, the theory of market transition, and the imbedding perspective of social capital, we put forward our hypotheses. To test our hypotheses, we obtained a correlation matrix first through four steps(i.e., encoding, correcting for correlations, composition of correlations and calculation of effective seizes). Then, we utilized LISREL8.30 to test our hypotheses. The results showed:(1) human capital, social capital and psychological capital were positively related to objective and subjective career success;(2) while human capital could explain more variance of objective career success, psychological capital could explain more variance of subjective career success;(3) organization sponsorship partially mediated the relationship between human capital, social capital and career success; it also partially mediated the relationship between psychological capital and subjective career success. The relationship between psychological capital and objective career success was fully mediated through organization sponsorship;(4) psychological capital could predict better much better organization sponsorship. This study contributes to the career success literature. One major contribution is that our results reveal the differential effects of the three career competency on objective and subjective career success. This finding isimportant both to theoretical development and to the methodology of measuring career success. Secondly, we examined the underling mechanism on how human, social and psychological capital may affect career success. Thirdly, it is important to find the kind of criteria used by elites and its agents to give candidates sponsorship. This theoretical question is examined in the present study using meta-analysis. Our study also offers implications for managerial practices. First, managers should focus on developing subordinates' human, social and psychological capital. Second, individuals should be aware of the fact that career success does not only affect human, social and psychological capital, but also others sponsorship. Several limitations have been noted in the current study. First, potential moderators may exist in the relationships among the three career competencies and career success. But we have not examined the moderating effects. A third limitation of this study is that we have not been able to explore the synergy among the three career competencies by examining their interactions due to the limitation of meta-analysis. Third, like other meta-analyses that examine mediating process, the current meta-analysis has not included control variables in hypotheses testing because many studies have not provided correlations with these control variables.

This note argues that the competitive paradigm of neoclassical economics breaks down in the presence of constant returns to scale (CRS). With CRS, all goods can be produced at identical unit costs by all economic agents, making self-production a feasible alternative to market production. In the event, an infinite number of equilibria become possible with a mix of markets and self-production. If labor is the only factor of production, self-production is the only option and the market economy ceases to exist. All too often the competitive paradigm of neoclassical economics has been faulted for its unrealistic assumptions, but rarely for logical inconsistency. These critics have also developed several new variants of economics based on more realistic assumptions. 2 Nevertheless, these critiques have failed to dislodge the competitive paradigm from its preeminent position in economics. Kenneth Arrow (1994: 451) has argued that this is because the competitive paradigm “is still the only coherent account of the entire economy.” Others point to the ideological function of neoclassical economics: in particular, its defense of the capitalism of unfettered markets. 3 This note presents a different critique: it shows that the competitive paradigm is inconsistent with constant returns to scale (CRS). At least since Leon Walras, economists have constructed mathematical models to establish the exact conditions under which a market economy – with fixed resources, tastes and technology – can attain an equilibrium that is also Pareto-efficient. CRS – or the more general assumption of non-increasing returns to scale – has been a cornerstone of all these models. Allyn Young (1928) and later Nicholas Kaldor (1967 and 1972) have shown that equilibrium economics becomes irrelevant in the presence of increasing returns to scale. We argue that neoclassical economics is in trouble even with CRS: and this is a problem that has gone unnoticed. Our concern is not with the existence – or uniqueness and stability – of solutions to the system of equations that define the neoclassical economy. Instead, we ask a more basic question. Can a market economy exist in the presence of CRS?

Introduction. One of the properties of the modern developed economy is the predominance of employment in the intangible and technological spheres, i.e., the neo-industrial economic system, as well as strengthening the role of intangible components: high-tech production and, in part, the active dependence of "simple" goods on the intellectual component of the enterprise: brands, reputation, competence (sometimes, even their personal qualities) of employees, PR, etc. Like any other resource, knowledge will acquire the properties of capital, only embodied as a productive force in the production process: the existence of knowledge, by itself, does not give it the characteristics of a value-generating mean, only its use by resource carriers turns this knowledge into capital. The aim of the article is to form a comprehensive view of intellectual capital as a factor of production from the standpoint of determining its role in the system of productive forces of society and value creation. The methodological basis of the research consists of general scientific theoretical methods of categories essence cognition, namely: dialectical analysis of phenomena causality, synthesis, methods of logical generalization; hypothesis. Results. To form a holistic view of the studied category, it is necessary to consider intellectual capital as a factor of production in the composition of "related" such factors in terms of defining not only singular, but also special and general for the systems of different orders, the objective source of which is human, i.e.: intellectual, human, social and labour capital. At the same time, the knowledge and labour, already separated from the carrier, that is, embodied in the "nonhuman" factors of production, we consider to be singular – inherent in the first of all above mentioned. It was determined that quite often intellectual capital is associated with intangible assets, however, a number of researchers identify it with human capital, social capital, and even "quality of labour". There was proved a necessity of structuring "human" productive factors, based on singular, special and general of these systems, which will allow a clear idea of intellectual capital and its structure. Using the concept of intellectual capital, in terms of its structure, its economic content and structure were concretized, namely: personal capital; human capital; structural capital; consumer capital; materialized capital. The study gives reason to talk about the intellectual capital as a source of innovative development and the new value creation. Thus, the prospect of further research is to substantiate the concept of intellectual economy as an economic system, the source of gross product of which is intellectual capital.

Social capital and human capital are two important elements that complement each other in the development of modern economies. While human capital refers to the economic contribution based on the knowledge, skills and abilities of individuals, social capital covers relational factors such as trust, cooperation and social networks within society. The synergy between these two types of capital increases innovation, supports economic growth and strengthens social solidarity. In modern economies, the value of human capital can be increased through investments in education and skills development programs, while social capital develops through strong social networks based on cooperation, trust and sharing. Especially in the digital world, social capital plays a critical role in the rapid dissemination of knowledge and the promotion of innovation. With education, workforce development and the strengthening of social relations, both human capital and social capital can grow in parallel. This process increases not only economic efficiency but also social welfare. The combination of social capital and human capital in the modern economy is not limited to the economic contributions of individuals; it also deeply affects social cooperation, trust and innovation processes. While human capital increases through education, experience and skills, social capital is shaped by the bonds that individuals establish with each other and the impact of these bonds on economic efficiency. Strong social networks, especially in the business world, accelerate knowledge sharing and create a collaborative innovation culture. This unity is a critical factor in economic sustainability and growth. For example, a highly educated workforce (human capital) in companies can only perform at their best with a strong environment of cooperation and trust (social capital). This increases the competitive advantage of companies and increases social welfare. As a result, policies that support equal access to social and human capital can make these two types of capital more effective in all segments of society. Education, professional development and strengthening social networks can make not only individuals but also the economy as a whole more flexible, creative and competitive. Keywords: social, human, capital, economy, development, experience, skills, workforce.

achieving relatively high levels of material equality? Do the liberal market economies excel in economic efficiency while producing substantial income inequalities? Or, alternatively, is the classic equity-efficiency tradeoff muted by institutions and policies of one or both varieties of capitalism, and, if so, does this suggest important crossnational lessons for the policymakers and citizens of democratic market economies? These are the general questions that motivate Jonas Pontusson's Inequality and Prosperity-an impressive and useful new survey of comparative political economy. Indeed, it is important to mention at the outset that even though Inequality and Prosperity contains some original analyses of recently available data, the book is selfconsciously a survey and synthesis of what we know about the answers to these questions. New empirical analysis is limited to tabular presentations of data, bivariate scatterplots, and simple linear regression models. More precisely, Inequality and Prosperity primarily provides an insightful integration of theories of varieties of capitalism (Hall and Soskice 2001), democratic corporatism (Katzenstein 1985), and welfare state regimes (Esping-Andersen 1990) as well as surveys of some of the best recent research on the focal questions and hypotheses from these theoretical streams. Pontusson's central analytic framework is built around the notion that, for the most part, contemporary capitalist democracies bifurcate into social market and liberal market economies. Social market economies are characterized by high levels of cooperation among private firms in order to achieve collective goods (for example, skills formation, stable labor-management and finance-producer relations, research and development, and technology transfer). They are also characterized by high levels of centralization or coordination of collective wage bargaining among densely organized and centralized labor and employers' associations. In addition, social market economies have welfare states that combine generous social provisions with extensive employment protections. As a group, Pontusson further divides social market economies into Nordic and continental variants (Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, on the one hand, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, and the Netherlands, on the other). The principal distinction here is that Nordic social market economies have relatively strong trade union movements and universalistic welfare states that combine generous transfers with publically provided social services for families, the elderly, and the unemployed. Although large in terms of shares of gross domestic product, continental social market economy welfare states are corporatist conservative, or dominated by generous occupationally based income transfer programs. Liberal market economies are, by contrast, characterized by low levels of