Owners Of Property Rights Research Articles

The Impact of Corporate Governance upon the Performance Level of Jordanian Public Joint stock Industrial Companies Through Using the Balanced Scorecard (BSC)

The study aimed to identify the impact of corporate governance upon the performance level of Jordanian public joint stock industrial companies through using the balanced scorecard. The population of the current study consists of financial managers who were working in Jordanian public joint stock industrial companies. The number of those companies is sixty six (66) companies. The researcher of the current study proposed several recommendations. The researcher found the number of results. There is a statistically significant impact for having an effective framework for corporate governance upon the performance level of Jordanian public joint stock companies that are listed on the Amman Stock Exchange through using the balanced scorecard (BSC). There is a statistically significant impact for equity and the main functions of the owners of property rights on the performance level of Jordanian public joint stock companies that are listed on the Amman Stock Exchange through using the balanced scorecard (BSC). These recommendations are represented in the following ones. The researcher recommended having an effective framework for implementing corporate governance due to the major impact it has upon companies’ performance level. The researcher recommended increasing the transparency level of the disclosed financial statements of the company.

Corporate Governance in the Oil and Gas Industry: Cases from Poland, Hungary, Russia and Ukraine in a Comparative Perspective

This working paper analyses the corporate governance of post-socialist companies. In the broadest sense, represented by the stakeholder approach, corporate governance covers a company’s relationship to its owners, employees, suppliers, creditors and customers. In the narrower sense, embodied by the shareholder approach, and which will be applied here, corporate governance focuses solely on the owners of property rights in a company.

Characterization of Romanian agricultural holdings

Agricultural holding constitute it self as a form of organization, existent and in operation of the production process from agriculture. Organization and operation of agricultural holdings can be realized under various forms, from the easiest way - family farms, to private companies, family businesses and even private agricultural societies in case of companies with state capital (public etc.). The changes that occurred in Romania postdecembrieste agriculture are based on Law 18/1991, law which determined mainly changes regarding the land ownership, meaning its transfer into private ownership and acquisition by the former owners of property rights on earth. Application of land reform from 1991 and re allotment of Romanian peasants has as effect the increased fragmentation of agricultural land. So, the existence and functioning of a land market involves, primarily, the establishment of some farms profitable, of larger size, with a high degree of profitability and witch to allow all at once obtaining some competitive agricultural products with those of European countries.

Proprietary Estoppel and Responsibility for Omissions

The ‘acquiescence’ category of proprietary estoppel is a rare example of responsibility for pure omissions in private law. On liberal‐individualistic theories of ownership, the policy considerations against liability for nondoing are exceptionally powerful in the context of rights over land. Nevertheless, I argue that in proprietary estoppel the law is justified in imposing a duty on the right‐holder to alert a stranger when his actions are based on a mistake. Owners of property rights are under what Honoré termed a ‘special duty’ to contribute to the social good of efficient market for land by publicising their rights. This ‘duty to speak’ is however relatively weak and cannot completely suppress considerations against liability for omission. While liability in the acquiescence category can be justified in principle, the current law, in which owners who failed to correct the mistake of the relying party incur similar liability to owners who actively encouraged the other party to rely, is untenable.

Generation-C: creative consumers in a world of intellectual property rights

Generation-C is a generational movement consisting of creative consumers, those who increasingly modify proprietary offerings, and of members of society who in turn use the developments of these creative consumers. It is argued that their respective activities, creating and using modified products, are carried out by an increasing number of people, everyday, without any moral and legal considerations. The resulting controversies associated with existing intellectual property rights are discussed, and suggestions put forward that the future can only bring conflict if such legislation is not changed so that derivative innovations are allowed to flourish. The article concludes with important messages to organisations, intellectual property rights lawyers, owners of property rights, governments and politicians, suggesting they reconsider their respective stances for the good of society.

Redressing the Past with An Eye to the Future. The Impact of the Passage of Time on Property Rights Restitution in Post-Apartheid South Africa

How should the law respond to a period of grave injustice in which certain categories of people were systematically deprived of their property rights and what is the impact of the passage of time on restitution issues in dynamic societies'? The argument will be made, first, that, irrespective of the passage of time, the implementation of a certain policy of restitution of property rights is a necessary step in the (re-) establishment of a democratic legal order. However, law's function in dealing with past deprivations of property rights will vary with the passage of time. If the lapse of time between the moment of past injustice and the moment of restitution has been relatively short, it is possible to conceive of the restitution process as a problem of corrective justice: as conflicts between original owners of property rights and current owners in ‘good’ or ‘bad’ faith. After a substantial lapse of time, the financial burden of the restitution process will shift to the collective as a whole and the restitution process will become entangled in redistributive and future-oriented policies. The complexity of law's function in dealing with injustices in the far past will be illustrated with a brief look at the contemporary land restitution process in post-Apartheid South Africa.

Property rights and private initiatives: An introduction

Exploring alternatives to customary land use planning Land use planning is an activity of a government body carried out in order to achieve certain goals chosen by that body. The activity almost always consists of making plans and testing applications for permission to build against those plans, and often against other rules like building codes. In that sense, planning 'intervenes' in the market; it 'interferes' with what people would have done if they were not required to get approval to build on or develop their land. Often land use planning is carried out in other, complementary, ways too: a government body provides and maintains shared facilities such as open spaces, public squares and roads. In that sense, there is public provision of certain goods and services. This combination of activities we call 'customary' land use planning. Nowadays, the role of governments in general is being widely questioned, and the budgets of public bodies are being cut. It is thus not surprising that land use planning is also being questioned, as Sorensen (1994) and others have pointed out. It is a 'welfare-state' activity, it requires heavy government involvement and expenditure, it is subject to the general criticism that governments act too slowly and unresponsively to 'what people want', it cannot be refined to take account of particular circumstances, so it is inevitably not very effective. At the same time, many people want to have land use planning, so as to create a certain type of order, and are often not dissatisfied with what it has produced. Political parties that want to abandon land use planning are not found, or are insignificant, in Western Europe. So the question arises - can the general goals of land use planning be retained and achieved but with a less direct involvement from public bodies? That is the question posed in this special issue. And we look for an answer in one particular direction, namely, could the goals of land use planning - or at least some of those goals - be realised by redelineating and reassigning property rights in such a way that the owners of the property rights in land achieve these public goals while pursuing their own interests? However, it is realised that that will not be achieved just by government bodies withdrawing from making land use plans, from development and building control, and from providing and maintaining shared spaces. When these activities are left to 'the market', the results are not always what we want. In Pigovian terms there are 'market imperfections' and land use planning is often justified economically as a way of correcting for those imperfections. If the owners of property rights in land are to be given more freedom in how they use those rights 'in the market', and if it is still wished to realise the goals of land use planning, then the rules of the market must first be changed. This approach to land use planning is based on the idea that markets can be structured purposefully in such a way that the outcome can be influenced. This structuring is, in certain respects, more fundamental than the Pigovian approach to land use planning. For it can require that property rights be changed. The premise is that property rights are not 'natural' nor do they evolve 'naturally'. They are social constructions that are shaped (within limits) by the state. As Bromley (1991, 5) puts it, rights can be an instrumental variable. Then the question is: what do we know about purposefully organising markets in property rights so as to achieve planning goals in a situation in which we have relied so long on public regulation and intervention to do that? What could purposefully organising markets, or other institutional arrangements that stimulate private initiatives in particular directions, involve? Can the existing goals of land use planning be achieved with less direct government involvement? That is, can the same outcomes be achieved in a different way? Moreover, it could well be that self-organising communities consisting of private parties 'using' property rights produce 'better' outcomes. …