Search

This article focuses on the strategic role played by a multilateral development bank, the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), and a bilateral development bank, the UK BII (formerly the CDC Group), during the COVID-19 pandemic. In detail, we will compare the initial activity of these two development banks (DBs) during the first phase, in 2020, with their actions in the following period. The analysis will also reflect on the role of safeguard policies in ensuring that the activities of DBs are in line with the fulfilment of their public purpose mandates and whether these rules were sufficiently broad and flexible enough to respond to an unexpected event such as the COVID-19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Turkey’s public banks performed a double function during the Covid-19 pandemic, repeating but also extending the scope of their actions in the 2010s. These institutions provided temporary financial relief to low-income households, while simultaneously extending extraordinary support to capital groups organically linked to ruling circles. During this period, the public bank mandates were not legally revised but recurrently reinterpreted by state managers, postponing the financial troubles of some social groups and disproportionately benefiting corporations. Such public bank actions raise questions concerning a public purpose approach to public financial capacity during economic crises and emergencies. The double function of Turkish public banks in recent years indicates that short-term financial support to low-income groups worked almost as a countervailing intervention, yet producing contradictory results amid the lack of democratic oversight and strategies for the self-empowerment of disadvantaged groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The traditional public purpose of development banks is to promote economic development by mitigating market failures in the provision of finance to public and private initiatives. However, the dynamic theory of public banks suggests that development banks functions and actions are not predetermined, but rather depend on the dynamic economic, social and political context in which they are embedded. In this paper, we focus on the case of Cassa Depositi e Prestiti (CDP), and analyse how its mission expanded since its privatization in 2003, till and further its recognition as the Italian National Development Bank in 2015. We find that CDP range of action expanded rapidly under political, economic and institutional pressures (especially from European institutions), sometimes beyond what is traditionally expected of public banks. We also analyse how CDP corporate governance evolved, highlighting strengths and weaknesses with respect to other European Development banks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Mexican state-owned bank Banco del Bienestar (BB) — Bank of Welfare — has received a lot of attention for its role in the current Government’s ambitious political project to create an ‘alternative to neoliberalism’ and turn Mexico into a ‘moral economy’. This article analyzes the activities of Banco del Bienestar, with special attention to the recent economic crisis induced by the Covid-19 pandemic. We conclude that BB has followed a path from a state developmentalist-corporatist, to a neoliberal, to a postneoliberal, ‘financial populist’ model, under changing political cultures and with an increasing historical importance for state-society relations. The BB currently operates as a government-funded public entity serving the distribution of non-repayable social benefits to large, vulnerable population groups, while maintaining links with financial markets. We interpret this shift from the neoliberal to the financial populist era of public banking as consolidation of a ‘fix’ of neoliberalism’s failures, which is based on the definitive acceptance of the reality of development perspectives of the Global South. ‘Public purpose’ in this context becomes based on a social imaginary where the ‘public’ is comprised of those that are permanently taken care of by the paternalistic state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 'Great Recession' of 2008 exposed banks and banking systems as frail economic entities, posing a threat to the real economy and society at large. This context of near economic collapse made clear the societal responsibility of banks to conform to business ethics respectful of both individual and collective interests. We argue that banks are primarily institutions of capitalism that must rely on resilient systems of reasonable values. The paper focuses on three Swiss banks to determine their ethical properties and their social ends. Such a societal dimension that we thrust on banks implies rethinking the responsibility of banks to society and their contributions to the public interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The sudden impact of the Covid-19 global pandemic threw societies into crisis, with their capacity to respond effectively dependent on existing public infrastructure. This article examines the case of Germany and its large public development bank, the KfW, during the pandemic. This paper argues that the KfW’s pandemic responses substantiate the bank as ‘essential public infrastructure’ and, moreover, as one that can function according to public purpose. That is, the KfW functions were essential to enabling society to respond to Covid-19 according to public purpose that was in the public interest. The lessons of the KfW, Covid-19, and public purpose have relevance to the future of public development bank financing of green and just transitions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The nullity of administrative acts becomes a power held by the public administration either through a request by a party via a challenge or ex officio with the purpose of rendering administrative acts that contain a defect without effect as long as their rectification is not allowed or conservation. In the present case, the misuse of power in appearance becomes a lawful act, however, the issuing agent uses said appearance to satisfy either personal interests directly or indirectly, with which the administrative act ends up being a motive for the achievement of an illegal purpose, using the position he holds, thus contravening the general interest. For this reason, it's necessary to study its nature, conceptual and procedural treatment in order to determine if it allows its detection or, on the contrary, if other measures are required to warn of the production of actions that transgress the public purpose that comes with the issuance of administrative acts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The decision issued pursuant to Art. 124 of the Real Property Administrationt Act has the character of a special regulation, as it leads to the limitation of the constitutionally protected right to property. The admissibility of using this institution is connected with the necessity to realization a public purpose investment which is reflected in planning documents. Obtaining a public legal title to use the real estate depends on the obligation to conduct negotiations with the owner of the real estate and the payment of compensation in case of damage. These legal regulations are an expression of protection of the owner's rights against uncontrolled violation of his rights. Therefore, it is extremely important to assess whether the conditions for the application of this institution have been done.

After 40 years of neoliberalism, even governments believe that they are inefficient when compared to the private sector. And economics, in its swing to the right, reinforces this view. The philosophy behind public expenditure for social purposes and the criteria for judging such projects has not been a subject of public debate until recently. In particular, industrial policy was very simple: leave it to the private sector to allocate resources as the market prompts. In Keynes's time, this was not the case. This article reviews some of the issues concerning the industrial policy that was aired in the interwar period. The debate needs to be revived, revisited and, where appropriate, revised to suit the present day, but on basic principles there is much to learn from the interwar discussions. The contrast between the recent (2018) UK government's White Paper on industrial strategy and the Liberal Industrial Inquiry's Britain's Industrial Future (1928) is quite instructive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Development and benefit accrued from development has always been a subjective issue because it implies the gain of one and the loss of another. With the creation of the State greater importance was assumed by public purpose since it was now the State which acquired property and created something useful for all. Throughout the course of Indian history private rights and collective rights have been pitted against each other and recently this tussle has been highlighted by the proposed Lakshadweep Town and Country Planning Regulation, 2021. The research is aimed towards firstly, to understand the ecosystem of Lakshadweep and the suitability of the regulation; secondly, to look into the implementation mechanism and whether it allows for a participatory process. Since the regulation draws powers of acquisition from the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 which is a general law to acquire land and the Regulation provides for a special scenario, therefore, the modification of public purpose for this special purpose shall become the third component of the paper. Public purpose has always been construed in the economic sense therefore towards the end of the paper the viability of this economic construction shall be examined especially with respect to Lakshadweep. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Progress. Journal of Young Researchers is the property of University of Gdansk / Uniwersytet Gdanskim and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In honor of Lynn Stout's efforts to better suit the business corporation for the pursuit of long-term, publicly-beneficial purposes, the present essay reviews critically the historical process by which the corporation's tie to public purposes—a precondition of the earliest grants of corporate powers to business enterprisers—was slowly severed. And it explores a form of corporate control, once widespread in the U.S. and easily revivable, that could partially restore corporate emphasis on public benefits—the foundation-controlled corporation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The relationship between education and public purpose has been historical and remains fundamental to the core mission of the higher education sector. Alongside the growth of engaged scholarship and practice, increasing and, at times, competing forces work to influence institutional focus and direction. Key amongst these are global university ranking systems, which have begun to shift their gaze beyond traditional notions of academic excellence to also consider impact and engagement. The tension between external and internal drivers for social engagement can fragment institutional focus and undermine community impact. In the face of this challenge, holistic institutional frameworks that systemically and culturally underpin, enable and make inherent engaged scholarship remain scarce. Their absence risks marginalising engaged university practice, teaching and research, thereby limiting the potential impact of universities. This article aims to address this gap in the literature by examining the question of how universities can create a whole-of-institution approach to their public purpose agenda. Using the University of Technology Sydney as a case, the development of the UTS Social Impact Framework is shared here. We detail the use of Appreciative Inquiry and Theory of Change as underpinning participatory methodologies that have resulted in a systems approach to change, based on institutional strengths. The resulting framework articulates a shared vision and outlines a guiding roadmap encompassing six domains of change, expressed as outcomes, and an additional three preconditions. Woven together, these create a robust image of the systemic and cultural dynamics needed to realise the shared vision of the university, ensuring that contribution to social outcomes remains a core mission of this higher education institution. The adopted approach used in this study can inform the development of contextually relevant frameworks across the sector, with potential to reposition engagement, beyond an aspect of practice, as a systemic precondition that enables broader social change.

The relationship between education and public purpose has been historical and remains fundamental to the core mission of the higher education sector. Alongside the growth of engaged scholarship and practice, increasing and, at times, competing forces work to influence institutional focus and direction. Key amongst these are global university ranking systems, which have begun to shift their gaze beyond traditional notions of academic excellence to also consider impact and engagement. The tension between external and internal drivers for social engagement can fragment institutional focus and undermine community impact. In the face of this challenge, holistic institutional frameworks that systemically and culturally underpin, enable and make inherent engaged scholarship remain scarce. Their absence risks marginalising engaged university practice, teaching and research, thereby limiting the potential impact of universities. This article aims to address this gap in the literature by examining the question of how universities can create a whole-of-institution approach to their public purpose agenda. Using the University of Technology Sydney as a case, the development of the UTS Social Impact Framework is shared here. We detail the use of Appreciative Inquiry and Theory of Change as underpinning participatory methodologies that have resulted in a systems approach to change, based on institutional strengths. The resulting framework articulates a shared vision and outlines a guiding roadmap encompassing six domains of change, expressed as outcomes, and an additional three preconditions. Woven together, these create a robust image of the systemic and cultural dynamics needed to realise the shared vision of the university, ensuring that contribution to social outcomes remains a core mission of this higher education institution. The adopted approach used in this study can inform the development of contextually relevant frameworks across the sector, with potential to reposition engagement, beyond an aspect of practice, as a systemic precondition that enables broader social change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract This paper discusses the evolution, current status and future prospects of the governance framework on compulsory acquisition in Ghana with particular emphasis on the scope of the state's prerogative to determine the purpose for which compulsorily acquired lands may be utilized. The paper examines how the concept of public interest has been interpreted and applied in assessing the utilization of compulsorily acquired lands against the background of expanding developmental and infrastructural needs, the state's evolving role in economic development, increasing pressure on land resulting from rapid population growth and urbanization; and drastic changes in land use and demand in recent times. The paper comments on the judicial interpretation of the governance framework on compulsory acquisition in the 1992 Constitution and examines the legislative proposals on the utilization of acquired lands made in the Land Bill, which is currently under consideration by Parliament prior to enactment. Some recommendations are offered toward the achievement of a more balanced approach to the determination of legitimate uses of compulsorily acquired lands in Ghana based on the constitutional governance framework on compulsory acquisition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Research Papers of the Wroclaw University of Economics / Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wroclawiu is the property of Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny we Wroclawiu and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In this article the difference between public purpose and public interest in section 25(2) of the 1996 Constitution is considered. It is generally accepted that public purpose is a narrower category than public interest and that the distinction between public purpose and public interest does not make any practical difference. However, in this contribution it is suggested that the difference between public purpose and public interest makes no practical difference only in cases where expropriated property is used by the state for the realisation of a particular purpose. The difference between public purpose and public interest becomes more important when a particular expropriation also involves a third party transfer, since it indicates the level of scrutiny that the courts should apply in determining the lawfulness of the expropriation. When property is expropriated and transferred to a third party for the realisation of a public purpose, such as building and managing electricity plants, the lawfulness of the expropriation is not easily questioned. As such, the application of a rationality test to determine the legitimacy of the expropriation is generally easy to accept. However, this lenient approach cannot be as easily accepted where an expropriation and third party transfer takes place in the public interest. Examples of third party transfers in the public interest include land reform, slum clearance and economic development. In the examples of land reform and slum clearance the expropriation and third party transfer is usually authorised in legislation or, as is the case with land reform in South Africa, the 1996 Constitution. Because (as in the land reform example) the expropriation and third party transfer is authorised by the Constitution and regulated by legislation, the application of a rationality test to determine the legitimacy is acceptable. However, the application of a rationality test where property is expropriated and transferred to third parties for broader purposes such as economic development is problematic, especially if there is no specific legislation authorising such expropriation. Although an expropriation involving a third party transfer for purposes of economic development may well be in the public interest because it can lead to the creation of employment opportunities, it is argued that in the absence of specific legislation that authorises both the expropriation and the transfer of the property to third parties, the justification for the expropriation and the transfer is not entirely clear. Therefore, in the absence of a clear legislative scheme authorising the expropriation and transfer of property to third parties for the purpose of economic development, which can be said to fall within a very broad interpretation of the public interest requirement in section 25(2), the courts should apply a stricter scrutiny in evaluating its legitimacy.

The Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure (VGGT) call for governments to clearly define the term ‘public purpose’ to allow for judicial review of the goals of expropriations of property. However, recent research indicates that national-level legal frameworks that govern expropriation decision-making not only vary greatly from country to country but also often fail to comply with the VGGT standards on expropriation. This creates the potential for unpredictable and, in some cases, arbitrary applications of expropriation law in practice. Focusing on legal norms and jurisprudence applicable to ‘public purpose’ decision-making in South Africa and India, this article provides a comparative analysis of these countries’ legal frameworks as means of ascertaining (1) the current legal boundaries to decisions on the expropriation’s goal; (2) whether these boundaries comply with the VGGTs; and (3) what these two countries can learn from one another in terms enacting legislation and regulations that comply with the VGGTs. To conduct this comparative analysis, we thoroughly examine constitutional provisions, relevant case law, legislation, regulations, and relevant secondary sources to highlight the current status of India’s and South Africa’s law on ‘public purpose’ and how they relate to the VGGTs. We conclude by distilling some key findings that can inform the decisions of expropriation lawmakers in both countries, especially in South Africa where a draft Expropriation Bill is currently being considered.