s p o n s o r e d   l i n k s

Search

Your search yielded no results

  • Check if your spelling is correct.
  • Remove quotes around phrases to match each word individually: "blue smurf" will match less than blue smurf.
  • Consider loosening your query with OR: blue smurf will match less than blue OR smurf.

Ebook Developing effective housing management policies to address problems of anti-social behaviour

This report presents research undertaken by the AHURI Southern Research Centre to develop effective housing management policies to address problems of anti social behaviour (ASB). In recent years, public housing has increasingly become the tenure for individuals with limited incomes and a high level of social need. Furthermore, deinstitutionalisation policies in mental health provision have meant that individuals who in the past would have been provided with institutional care are now often residing in public housing. The intensive needs of many tenants result in a new set of challenges for housing managers in terms of supporting sustainable tenancies.

The term anti social behaviour is used to denote a range of activities from the very minor (such as the dropping of litter) to more extreme forms of criminal behaviour (such as burglary and harassment). Though residents who engage in ASB may be few in number, their activities have a significant negative impact on the quality of life for their neighbours. There is a wide-ranging debate about the causal factors associated with ASB. The dominant view within the Australian housing profession and academia is that ASB is a symptom of wider structural factors such as unemployment and poverty. Therefore, the most desirable policies are those that are community focused and seek to address the causal factors associated with ASB. However, there is a strand of literature based on the ‘underclass’ theory that draws upon the work of Charles Murray (1994) claiming that individual fecklessness is the root causal factor for ASB. Such underclass theories have been especially influential in informing the contemporary practices undertaken by housing authorities in the USA and, to a lesser extent, the UK.

Ebook How Do Creditors Value Corporate Diversification? Evidence from Bank Loan Contracting

Whether corporate diversification increases or destroys firm value has been the subject of extensive investigation in the finance literature. Earlier evidence generally shows that diversified firms sell at a discount relative to focused firms and suggests that diversification destroys share value (e.g., Lang and Stulz, 1994; Berger and Ofek, 1995). Recent studies have argued, however, that diversification per se does not cause a discount (e.g., Graham et al. (1999); Lamont and Polk (1999); Villalonga (2004); Campa and Kedia (2001)). Using a plant-level database that covers the entire U.S. economy, Villalonga (2005) even finds that diversified firms are traded at significant premia compared to focused firms in the same industry.

A corporation embeds the claims of various stakeholders including shareholders, managers, and creditors and each group may attach a different value to diversification. For example, managers may value diversification because it allows them to have greater discretion on the firm’s cash flows by creating an internal capital market, and because it reduces the potential risk in managerial compensation linked to the firm’s overall performance. Or, diversification may be of value for equity-holders if they are able to diversify their own individual investment portfolios only at higher cost. While substantial evidence has accumulated on the effect of corporate diversification on equity holders and on managerial behavior, little is known about creditors’ assessment of the merits of corporate diversification.

Ebook Designing Anti-Corruption Strategies for Developing Countries

Corruption, broadly defined as the abuse of public office for private gain by the World Bank, has been acknowledged as a universal problem. In the words of Myint (2000) — corruption occurs in all nations, both developed and developing countries, in public and private sectors, as well as non-profit organizations.“ The problem of corruption within or across nations is not a recent phenomenon, nor is it exclusively a Third-Word problem (Ghazanafar & May, 2000). However, corruption exists both in developed and developing countries in different forms, degrees and has differing consequences.

Furthermore, within countries falling under the category of developing countries, ranging from a bigger, relatively well-developed country as Indonesia to smaller to a relatively poorly developed country as Uganda, we observe differences in corruption practices pertaining to the unique economic, political, and social features of a given country. However, we can safely argue that developing countries already suffering from poverty, poor health, high levels of illiteracy, low economic growth, and political instability would be much more prone to corruption and more seriously harmed by it than the developed countries.

Get Updates By Email:

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner