v1n4: Zwolinski on Mayer
Posted: February 20, 2013 Filed under: Journal of Business Ethics, Markets, Uncategorized Leave a comment“Are Usurious? Another New Argument For the Prohibition of High Interest Loans?” by Matt Zwolinski
A COMMENT ON Robert Mayer (2012), “When and Why Usury Should be Prohibited,” J Bus Ethics OnlineFirst (September), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1483-3
Abstract: Robert Mayer argues that certain kinds of high-interest payday loans should be legally prohibited. His reasoning is that such lending practices compel more solvent borrowers to cross-subsidize less solvent ones, and thus involve a kind of negative externality. But even if such cross-subsidization exists, I argue, this does not necessarily provide a ground for legal prohibition. Such behavior might be a necessary component of a competitive market that provides opportunities for mutually beneficial transactions to willing customers. And the alternative of a government-mandated interest rate faces severe problems of its own.
To download the full PDF, click here: Zwolinski on Mayer.
Update! Now see also Mayer’s response to Zwolinski.
v1n3: Néron on Whelan on Political CSR
Posted: February 18, 2013 Filed under: Business Ethics Quarterly, Uncategorized Leave a comment“Toward a Political Theory of the Business Firm? A Comment on ‘Political CSR'” by Pierre-Yves Néron
A COMMENT ON Glen Whelan (2012), “The Political Perspective on Corporate Social Responsibility: a Critical Agenda,” Bus Ethics Q 22(4): 709–737. DOI: 10.5840/beq201222445
Abstract: Glen Whelan (2012) attempts to advance what he refers to as a “critical research agenda” for the “political perspective on corporate social responsibility (CSR).” Although I think his is a worthy attempt to build a political conception of the business firm and could represent a great intellectual journey, I make some remarks about the meaning and scope of this research agenda. My argument is simple: Rawlsian egalitarianism provides resources for a political theory of the business firm, but one that leads us in different directions than Whelan’s political CSR.
To download the full PDF, click here: Néron on Whelan.
v1n2: Smith on Wettstein
Posted: February 14, 2013 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a comment“Corporate Human Rights Obligations: Moral or Political?” by Jeffery Smith
http://doi.org/10.12747/bejr2013.01.02
A COMMENT ON Florian Wettstein (2012), “CSR and the Debate on Business and Human Rights: Bridging the Great Divide,” Bus Ethics Q 22(4): 739–770.
Abstract: This discussion reviews Florian Wettstein’s conclusion that multinational corporations should assume greater “positive” obligations to protect against and remedy violations of human rights. It thereafter suggests an alternative to his defense that remains open to his conclusion, but sketches a moral, rather than political, grounding of those obligations.
To download the full PDF, click here: Smith on Wettstein.
Update: Now see also Wettstein Replies to Smith.
v1n1: Jaworski on Heath
Posted: February 14, 2013 Filed under: Uncategorized 16 Comments“Moving Beyond Market Failure: When the Failure is Government’s” by Peter Jaworski
http://doi.org/10.12747/bejr2013.01.01
A COMMENT ON Joseph Heath (2006), “Business Ethics Without Stakeholders,” Bus Ethics Q 16(4): 533–557.
Abstract: Joseph Heath lumps in rent seeking with cartelization, taking advantage of information asymmetries, seeking a monopoly position, and so on, as all instances of behaviour that can lead to market failures in his market failures approach to business ethics. The problem is that rent and rent seeking, when they fail to deliver socially desirable outcomes, are instances of government failure. I try to argue that this is so, offer an amendment to Heath’s approach, and then explain why accurately describing the failure matters.
To download the full PDF, click here: Jaworski on Heath.
Update! Now see also Heath’s reply to Jaworski.
Business Ethics Journal Review 