德国行政赔偿制度的特色与成因

德国行政赔偿制度有着不同于大陆法系国家和普通法系国家行政赔偿制度的特色,这种特色突出体现在行政赔偿基础的赔偿请求权和对行政赔偿案件进行救济的赔偿审理制度两个方面。德国行政赔偿制度的特色是由在漫长的历史过程中所形成的思想因素、制度因素和文化因素造就而成。     

试论权利的演变及其成本——基于政府实现公共利益能力的视角

无论从任何角度考察，权利都以政府的巨大财政成本作为后盾，否则权利便无从实现。当现代政府的公共利益责任与权利成本发生矛盾时，如何协调二者之间的关系，将权利成本最小化、公共利益最大化，就成为理论界与实务界必须承担的责任。     

公共行政道德建设浅析

实现以德治国,提升整个社会的道德水准,只有加快以限权为中心的政府体制改革,改变政府的不道德作为,推进行政道德的法制化建设,加强行政人员的思想道德教育,建立道德的社会惩戒机制,把道德考核作为职务晋升的重要依据,才能实现高度的政治文明、精神文明和物质文明。     

译者责任和文化现实

纵观中国的翻译史 ,不难看出译者在各个历史时期都发挥了不可替代的作用。然而 ,不同时代的译者所发挥的作用是不同的 ,因为他始终受到社会文化现实的影响和制约。本文结合当今时代特点 ,提出译者要对祖国语言负责 ,对祖国文化负责     

Statutory Bodies: How Distinctive and In What Ways?

This article sets the organizational scene for the symposium. It does this by addressing statutory bodies, first in terms of their distinctive statutory foundations, and thereafter with reference to arrangements which they have in common with other types of organizations. Their distinctiveness results from the required legislative action, coupled with forms of political maneuvering and policy analysis. Their other features include their structures, ownership, work, legal power and relationships. Overall, they are legitimate, purposeful and responsible entities with a need to respond to various integration and autonomy arenas in which they are located.     

Lei Feng Spiritt and the Valuo Tropiam of Contemporary Youth

在建设社会主义核心价值体系过程中，典型人物的引领和示范作用是重要载体，回顾与雷锋精神相关的争论和对雷锋精神的不同理解，有助于我们了解当代青年价值取向转型的特点。因此，学习雷锋精神，加强青年核心价值观教育，应强调以职业道德建设为切入点来继承雷锋精神，强调以诚信、责任等价值理念的倡导推进雷锋精神的再传播、再学习、再延伸和再发展。     

主观感知还是客观责任? ——中国农民工作回报期望影响因素研究

理清农民工作回报期望的影响因素进而精准施策,对于破解城乡发展不平衡和满足农民对美好生活的向往意义重大。利用Multinomial Logistic模型和CGSS2015相关数据的实证研究结论发现:以主观社会经济地位和外出务工经历为代表的主观感知性因素是影响农民工作回报期望的关键,而以养老责任和未成年子女数量为代表的客观责任因素的影响则不显著。同时,受教育程度也是影响农民工作回报期望的重要因素,受教育程度为初中及以下的农民对生理回报和安全回报有更强烈的诉求。     

Demand for decision autonomy and the desire to avoid responsibility in risky environments: Experimental evidence

This paper experimentally studies individuals’ willingness to pay for the authority to make risky decisions for themselves, and the willingness to take responsibility for others, as primary determinants of leadership willingness. We consider a setup involving a pair of individuals, where one individual is designated to make both parties’ decisions by default. Depending on treatment, either party can express a willingness to pay to change this situation. If one’s willingness to pay to make her own decision herself is positive (negative), we interpret it as a demand for autonomy (a desire to delegate). On the flip side, if one’s willingness to pay to avoid making a decision on behalf of another person is positive (negative), we interpret it as a desire to avoid responsibility (a demand for authority). We find that on average, individuals are willing to pay positive amounts of money to make their decisions themselves, and incur positive but smaller opportunity costs for the right to make decisions for others. Certain individual and contextual characteristics emerge as important predictors. Notably, (1) men are more likely to demand both autonomy and authority at the same time, (2) individuals with other regarding preferences are more likely to pay to avoid taking responsibility for others’ decisions when the probability of loss is high. Exploring differences between individuals’ own decisions and the decisions they make on behalf of others, we find that subjects with other-regarding preferences tend to “cautious-shift” when making decisions on behalf of others. Also, we find that individuals who would like to avoid responsibility also tend to “shift” their decisions when put in a decision-making role. The results have implications for the allocation of decision-making authority in pairs and leadership.     

降低刑事责任年龄否定论

降低刑事责任年龄的提议主要立足于三个命题:“犯罪低龄化”现象严重,降低刑事责任年龄是解决“低龄犯罪人”问题的应然手段,低龄未成年人已具备相当的辨认、控制能力。通过对实证数据与相关论据的收集分析,前两个命题得到证伪,第三个命题无法证明,由此可以否定降低刑事责任年龄观点的合理性依据。从我国历史与近代刑事责任年龄设定的发展历程来看,调整年龄节点的主张从未停止,援用的理由相差无几,经历过多次变动与论证后延续至今,具备符合我国社会发展实践的合理性与稳定性。从我国的义务教育设置与年龄之间的对应关系出发,刑事责任年龄确定的基准点应以义务教育的结束为合理节点,采取“从高到低”的刑事责任年龄设定逻辑。综合上述理由,兼顾少年司法“教育为主、惩罚为辅”刑事政策导向,最终得出当前的刑事责任年龄设置合理,不需降低的结论。     

美国医疗援助制度中的联邦——州财政权责关系

美国的医疗援助制度（Medicaid）是专向负担不起卫生保健费用的贫困、老年、残疾等弱势群体提供医疗保健等服务的福利项目。该制度采取联邦与州共担资金的筹资模式。但在具体管理上．联邦政府只负责制定宏观的指导原则。而州政府负责具体实施和管理。本文试图通过对联邦与各州的权责分配、联邦与州在医疗援助计划中的相互关系、以及联邦对州医疗援助拨款比例等方面做出具体分析：探讨美国医疗援助制度在实现各州资金公平分配、有效控制医疗费用等方面的成果和经验：并对我国的医疗援助制度提出相关政策建议,以利于我国医疗救助制度的改革与完善．