Effects of Risk Representation and Scope on Willingness to Pay for Reduced Risks: Evidence from Tokyo Bay, Japan

When applying the contingent valuation method (CVM) in risk reduction studies, some studies report that willingness to pay (WTP) is insensitive to the magnitude of risk reduction while other studies do not. On the other hand, social-psychological research has shown that the affect heuristic biases judgments on probability, relative frequency, and risk. This article examines both magnitude (or scope) effect and affect heuristic (or representation) effect on WTP for risk reduction measures against tsunamis by introducing two experimental (i.e., absolute and relative) systems with four different representations to evaluate public behaviors in two different scenarios of risk reduction. Two common denominators (100 and 10,000) are introduced into absolute risk reduction representation (i.e., "of every 100 persons, from present 2 deaths to 1") to form different formats (i.e., "of every 10,000 persons from 200 to 100," and "of every 100,000 persons from 2,000 deaths to 1,000"). There is little evidence that WTP estimates are sufficiently sensitive to the magnitude of risk reduction, but relative risk reduction representations may be better than the absolute one given in CVM mail surveys when the risk is small. There is a statistically insignificant effect of risk reduction representations on respondent frequency, but mixed effects on the monetary values of WTP at the level of 0.05. The representation effect of absolute risk reduction on the WTP value varies with the common denominator. The larger the common denominator, the less the WTP to reduce the risk of tsunamis, and the significance probability is improved to less than the level of 0.05 when the common denominator becomes large enough. The findings suggest that improved methods are required for estimating the rates of tradeoff between fatality risk and other goods among consumers.     

Health insurance system financing reforms in the Netherlands,Germany and France: Repercussions for coverage and redistribution?

For a number of years, the Dutch, German and French health insurance systems have been attempting to contain costs and diversify their sources of finance, which traditionally have come mainly from social contributions. Diversification may involve broader‐based public finance, as well as greater recourse to private resources and operators. In the case of the Netherlands and Germany, the reforms go hand in hand with efforts to introduce competition between health insurance bodies. In France, private complementary insurance has become indispensable for adequate access to health care. However, these measures have repercussions for redistribution, which social assistance programmes have difficulty in addressing.     

环境污染责任的构成要件研究——基于《侵权责任法》第八章的分析

环境污染责任属无过错责任,原则上以环境污染行为、损害事实、行为与损害之间的因果关系这三项为构成要件。环境污染责任作为一种危险责任,不要求污染行为具有违法性。环境污染责任的保护范围主要限于物质性人格权和物权．不包括环境权。环境污染的损害类型包括人身损害、财产损害、精神损害。在因果关系方面,我国相关法律确立的举证责任倒置模式与比较法上一些采用因果关系推定的新理论存在差异。     

保险代位权制度的几个问题及完善

传统观点认为保险代位求偿权仅是财产保险中的一项重要制度,文章则认为,保险代位求偿权不应仅仅局限于财产保险,其适用的范围应是损害保险——即包括财产保险和人身保险中有损害填补性质的保险。我国保险法对于保险代位求偿权的规定并不完善,实践中出现诸多问题,鉴于此,文章试图探求保险代位求偿权的真正内涵,重点阐述现行立法有关保险代位权规定中存在的问题,并提出相关完善措施,以期对完善我国保险代位求偿权制度有所参考。     

合金组合物权利要求保护范围的界定及评述方法

本文主要讨论了在合金组合物领域包含性能、参数、用途或制备方法特征的产品权利要求保护范围的界定原则,以及对在评述中如何判定是否隐含特定结构和/或组成进行了辨析。     

浅论刑法的谦抑性

刑法的谦抑性是刑事法治的重要理念之一,对规范刑事法治、防止刑罚权滥用发挥着重要作用.我国刑法改革的方向应当秉承“严而不厉”思想.刑罚的谦抑性要求有限度的适用刑罚,并且应避免过于苛厉的刑罚.民事纠纷的刑事化现象,扩大了刑罚的适用范围,加重了法律制裁的严厉程度,不符合刑罚的谦抑性要求.     

论以公信力为标准的公益性非营利组织税法体系

我国的慈善事业正值成长壮大时期,而相应的公益性非营利组织税法体系尚未建立。对域外慈善税收立法经验进行比较研究发现,我国存在税收优惠政策不公平、免税资格和免税范围认定困难等问题,已经影响到慈善事业和民间慈善组织的可持续发展。文章指出,应当摒弃我国目前以慈善组织与政府的关系为税收优惠的标准,构建以公信力为标准的公益性非营利组织税法体系,进一步区别非营利组织和公益组织,明确公益组织的免税资格和免税范围,以促进我国慈善事业的进一步发展。     

政府责任的宏观分析

政府承担责任是其公权属性及其＂权责一致＂运行原则的逻辑必然。政府责任的产生具有内生与外生的双向特点,其责任属性也有积极与消极的二元区分。对于积极性责任而言,政府责任范围涉及域外与域内两个场域,其动力源泉在于内在道德机制与外在强力机制的功效发挥,其责任践履结果有待合民意性与合效能性的两维校验。     

论行政问责的效力范围

作为一种行政活动,行政问责的效力作用于一定的主体和事物,问责的效力范围即由问责的主体范围和客体范围所决定。行政问责效力范围的确定,既有利于保护基于问责形成的法律状态,又能防范问责机关之权力的滥用,保护公务员之正当权利免受不当问责之侵害。行政问责约束的行为主体包括：违法行为人,表明违法行为人需承担相应的不利性后果;问责机关,表明问责机关不能随意撤销、变更问责决定,亦不能对违法行为人进行重复评价;不特定主体,表明其需尊重基于问责形成的法律状态。行政问责作用客体则包括：劳动关系,表明问责机关可以解除与违法行为人的劳动关系;职务关系,表明问责机关可以撤销违法行为人之职务;岗位关系,表明问责机关可以调整违法行为人的工作岗位。