Navigating communities: race,place, and travel in the history of maritime Southeast Asia

This paper examines intersecting notions of distance, place and community across Insular Southeast Asia for the last several hundred years. The piece is not an attempt to chronicle all these affiliations over time and space, but is rather an effort to re-think how people have moved in Southeast Asian history, who they did this with and why. The essay is divided into three parts. The first section looks at some of the meanings of place in the last five centuries, as place has pertained to communities in ‘centers’ and maritime ‘peripheries’, as well as in several supposedly discrete arenas. The second section focuses on people, and how different communities in Southeast Asia have envisioned the terms and conditions of movement in divergent ways. The last third of the paper concentrates on period, or how conceptions of community, distance and travel have changed over time. It is hoped that this essay will show how all three of these variables – people, place, and periodization – have intersected in specific, complicated ways in shaping local notions of ‘community’.     

Informational Regulation of Environmental Risks

This paper examines the law and economics of informational regulation (IR) of environmental risks. Informational regulation here means regulation which provides to affected stakeholders information on the operations of regulated entities, usually with the expectation that such stakeholders will then exert pressure on these entities to comply with regulations in a manner which serves the interests of stakeholders. As such, IR reinforces and augments direct regulatory monitoring and enforcement through third-party monitoring and incentives. The paper provides two contrasting frameworks, from law and economics, to analyze the costs and benefits likely to arise from IR and concludes with a discussion of the appropriate scope of IR as a substitute for and complement of traditional environmental regulation and law.     

Board size,director compensation,and firm transition across stock exchanges: evidence from Canada

Journal of Management and Governance - In this study, we examine the relationship between the role and compensation structure of non-executive directors when firms on the TSX Venture Exchange...     

Uncertainty of Population Risk Estimates for Pathogens Based on QMRA or Epidemiology: A Case Study of Campylobacter in the Netherlands

Epidemiology and quantitative microbiological risk assessment are disciplines in which the same public health measures are estimated, but results differ frequently. If large, these differences can confuse public health policymakers. This article aims to identify uncertainty sources that explain apparent differences in estimates for Campylobacter spp. incidence and attribution in the Netherlands, based on four previous studies (two for each discipline). An uncertainty typology was used to identify uncertainty sources and the NUSAP method was applied to characterize the uncertainty and its influence on estimates. Model outcomes were subsequently calculated for alternative scenarios that simulated very different but realistic alternatives in parameter estimates, modeling, data handling, or analysis to obtain impressions of the total uncertainty. For the epidemiological assessment, 32 uncertainty sources were identified and for QMRA 67. Definitions (e.g., of a case) and study boundaries (e.g., of the studied pathogen) were identified as important drivers for the differences between the estimates of the original studies. The range in alternatively calculated estimates usually overlapped between disciplines, showing that proper appreciation of uncertainty can explain apparent differences between the initial estimates from both disciplines. Uncertainty was not estimated in the original QMRA studies and underestimated in the epidemiological studies. We advise to give appropriate attention to uncertainty in QMRA and epidemiological studies, even if only qualitatively, so that scientists and policymakers can interpret reported outcomes more correctly. Ideally, both disciplines are joined by merging their strong respective properties, leading to unified public health measures.