Search

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5850.2007.00891.x Byline: SOREN LOENTOFT HANSEN (1), MICHAEL U. DOTHAN (2), FRED THOMPSON (2) Abstract: Budgetary decision-making is prone to myopia and to tunnel vision. Pension commitments suffer from both of these pathologies. In this case, we look closely at the State of Oregon's Public Employee Retirement System to show how the disclosure standards adopted by the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) help correct the fiscal vision of state and local governments and further conclude that postemployment commitments ought to be comprehensively examined in GASB's review of its accounting and reporting standards scheduled for 2008, ideally from the standpoint of present-value budgeting. Author Affiliation: (1)University of Southern Denmark, Nansensgade 21, 2. tv., 5000 Odense C, Denmark (2)Atkinson Graduate School of Management, Willamette University, 900 State Street, Salem, OR 97301

The requests for assistance to an assistance service provider of international assignees and their dependents employed in corporate, governmental and non-governmental organisations were compared in terms of closing diagnoses and case outcome types. Using institutional theory and the resource-based view of the firm, we hypothesise that these sectors have different approaches to duty of care that lead to different medical diagnoses and outcomes when international assignees need assistance for issues impacting their health. The findings indicate that there are differences in duty of care between the sectors with international assignees sent by government and non-governmental organisation employers experiencing different medical diagnoses and case outcomes upon diagnosis from those sent by corporate employers. These results have important implications for managing the duty of care considerations and the necessity of providing support for international assignees and their dependents.