Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
24,195
result(s) for
"justification"
Sort by:
Income Inequality Influences Perceptions of Legitimate Income Differences
This article argues that public opinion regarding the legitimacy of income differences is influenced by actual income inequality. When income differences are perceived to be high, the public thinks of larger income inequality as legitimate. The phenomenon is explained by the system justification motivation and other psychological processes that favor existing social arrangements. Three experiments show that personal experiences of inequality as well as information regarding national-level income inequality can affect which income differences are thought of as legitimate. A fourth experiment shows that the system justification motivation is a cause of this effect. These results can provide an empirical basis for future studies to assume that the public reacts to inequality with adapted expectations, not increased demands for redistribution.
Journal Article
The Economics of Disclosure and Financial Reporting Regulation: Evidence and Suggestions for Future Research
This paper discusses the empirical literature on the economic consequences of disclosure and financial reporting regulation, drawing on U.S. and international evidence. Given the policy relevance of research on regulation, we highlight the challenges with (1) quantifying regulatory costs and benefits, (2) measuring disclosure and reporting outcomes, and (3) drawing causal inferences from regulatory studies. Next, we discuss empirical studies that link disclosure and reporting activities to firm-specific and market-wide economic outcomes. Understanding these links is important when evaluating regulation. We then synthesize the empirical evidence on the economic effects of disclosure regulation and reporting standards, including the evidence on International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) adoption. Several important conclusions emerge. We generally lack evidence on market-wide effects and externalities from regulation, yet such evidence is central to the economic justification of regulation. Moreover, evidence on causal effects of disclosure and reporting regulation is still relatively rare. We also lack evidence on the real effects of such regulation. These limitations provide many research opportunities. We conclude with several specific suggestions for future research.
Journal Article
Justice, democracy and the right to justification : Rainer Forst in dialogue
\"Over the past 15 years, Rainer Forst has developed a fundamental research programme within the tradition of Frankfurt School Critical Theory. The core of this programme is a moral account of the basic right of justification that humans owe to one another as rational beings. This account is put to work by Forst in articulating - both historically and philosophically - the contexts and form of justice and of toleration. The result is a powerful theoretical framework within which to address issues such as transnational justice and multicultural toleration. In this volume, Forst sets out his ideas in an extended essay, which is responded to be influential interlocutors including: Andrea Sangiovanni, Amy Allen, Kevin Olson, Anthony Laden, Eva Erman and Simon Caney. The volume concludes with Forst's response to his interlocutors\"-- Provided by publisher.
Book
JUSTIFICATION AS EXCUSE PLUS
Under what conditions are we justified in acting? This paper considers an answer that, to my knowledge at least, goes largely unexplored in the literature. According to the answer in question, D has a justification for performing an act only if two conditions are met. First, there must be an undefeated reason for D to perform the act. Second, it must be the case that, were D to lack this reason, D would have an excuse for performing it. So understood, the conditions of justification incorporate the conditions of excuse-one satisfies the former by satisfying the latter, and by satisfying an additional condition. Justifications, simply put, are excuses plus.
Journal Article
Justification and emancipation : the critical theory of Rainer Forst
\"A collection of essays on the work of German political theorist Rainer Forst, covering subjects such as justice, toleration, and the critique of power from within a normative theory of justice and law\"-- Provided by publisher.
Book
Noninferential Antiskepticism and the Problem of Easy Knowledge
How should epistemologists respond to skepticism about knowledge of the external world? Michael Bergmann advocates noninferential antiskepticism. The thought is that, to reply to a skeptical argument, we should start with premises that do not require inference. I argue that Bergmann’s reasoning runs into the problem of easy knowledge and propose an alternative inferential antiskepticism. This view faces the problem of vicious circularity. I agree that, if we go down the inferential path, a certain type of circularity is unavoidable. I deny, however, that this type of circularity is vicious.
Journal Article
Constitutionalism justified : Rainer Forst in discourse
\"Rainer Forst is a leading German political philosopher and was named \"the most important political philosopher of his generation\" upon his 2012 receipt of the Leibniz Prize. This book brings together discussion from political philosophy, constitutional theory, and legal philosophy to examine Forst's theory of justice, paying special attention to the application of his moral theory to legal fields. Forst then responds to his interlocutors in a concluding chapter. The book is structured from the general to the specific, and begins by examining Forst's \"right to justification\" as the basis for justice. This right is in the second section extended to the realm of constitutional theory. The third section addresses justification and proportionality within constitutional law. The concluding section sees Forst respond to the foregoing chapters\"-- Provided by publisher.
Book
Playing the Woman Card: Ambivalent Sexism in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Race
Late in the 2016 U.S. Presidential primary, Donald Trump attacked Hillary Clinton for playing the \"woman's card.\" Theories of system justification suggest that attitudes about gender, particularly endorsement of hostile and benevolent sexism, likely shaped reactions to this campaign attack. Using a set of two studies, we find that hostile sexists exposed to the attack showed increased support for Trump and decreased support for Clinton. Benevolent sexists, however, reacted to Trump's statements with increased support for Clinton, consistent with benevolent sexism's focus on protecting women (Study 1). We further found that the woman card attack produced distinct emotional reactions among those with low and high levels of hostile and benevolent sexism. The attack also increased political participation among hostile sexists (Study 2). Our results offer new insights into the role of sexism in the 2016 presidential contest and further the discipline's understanding of the gendered dimension of negative campaigning.
Journal Article