From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Remuneration is the pay or other compensation provided in exchange for an employee's services performed (not to be confused with giving (away), or donating, or the act of providing to).[1] A number of complementary benefits in addition to pay are increasingly popular remuneration mechanisms.[citation needed] Remuneration is one component of reward management.
Remuneration can include:
For wage withholding purposes under U.S. income tax law, the term "wage" means remuneration (with certain exceptions) for services performed by an employee for an employer.[2]
The word "remuneration" is often misspelled as "renumeration", which simply means counting or re-counting.
- ^ remuneration - WordReference.com Dictionary of English
- ^ See generally subsection (a) of 26 U.S.C. § 3401.
This economics-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Categories:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
For other uses, see Damages (disambiguation).
Part of the common law series
Tort lawIntentional torts
Property torts
Defenses
Negligence
Liability torts
Nuisance
Dignitary torts
Economic torts
Liability and remedies
Duty to visitors
Other common law areas
At common law, damages are a remedy in the form of a monetary award to be paid to a claimant as compensation for loss or injury.[1] To warrant the award, the claimant must show that a breach of duty has caused foreseeable loss. To be recognised at law, the loss must involve damage to property, or mental or physical injury; pure economic loss is rarely recognised for the award of damages.[2]
Compensatory damages are further categorized into special damages, which are economic losses such as loss of earnings, property damage and medical expenses, and general damages, which are non-economic damages such as pain and suffering and emotional distress.[3] Rather than being compensatory, [4]at common law damages may instead be nominal, contemptuous or exemplary.[5]
Among the Saxons, a price called Weregild was placed on every human being and every piece of property in the Salic Code. If property was stolen, or someone was injured or killed, the guilty person would have to pay weregild as restitution to the victim's family, or to the owner of the property.
Judicial remediesLegal remedies (Damages)
Equitable remedies
Related issues
Main article: Proximate cause
Recovery of damages by a plaintiff in lawsuit is subject to the legal principle that damages must be proximately caused by the wrongful conduct of the defendant. This is known as the principle of proximate cause. This principle governs the recovery of all compensatory damages, whether the underlying claim is based on contract, tort, or both.[6] Damages are likely to be limited to those reasonably foreseeable by the defendant. If a defendant could not reasonably have foreseen that someone might be hurt by their actions, there may be no liability.
This rule does not usually apply to intentional torts (for example, tort of deceit), and also has stunted applicability to the quantum in negligence where the maxim Intended consequences are never too remote applies – 'never' is inaccurate here but resorts to unforeseeable direct and natural consequences of an act.
It may be useful for the lawyers, the plaintiff and/or the defendant to employ forensic accountants or someone trained in the relevant field of economics to give evidence on the value of the loss.[3] In this case, they may be called upon to give opinion evidence as an expert witness.
Compensatory damages[
edit]
Compensatory damages are paid to compensate the claimant for loss, injury, or harm suffered as a result of (see requirement of causation) another's breach of duty. (e.g., in a negligence claim under tort law). Expectation damages are used in contract law.[7]
Quantum (measure) of damages[
edit]
Liability for payment of an award of damages is established when the claimant proves, on the balance of probabilities, that a defendant's wrongful act caused a tangible, harm, loss or injury to the plaintiff. Once that threshold is met, the plaintiff is entitled to some amount of recovery for that loss or injury. No recovery is not an option. The court must then assess the amount of compensation attributable to the harmful acts of the defendant.[8]
Special damages compensate the claimant for the quantifiable monetary losses suffered by the plaintiff.[citation needed] For example, extra costs, repair or replacement of damaged property, lost earnings (both historically and in the future), loss of irreplaceable items, additional domestic costs, and so on.[9] They are seen in both personal and commercial actions.
Special damages can include direct losses (such as amounts the claimant had to spend to try to mitigate damages)[10] and consequential or economic losses resulting from lost profits in a business. Special damages basically include compensatory damages for the injury or harm to the plaintiff that result from the tort committed by the defendant.
Damages in tort are awarded generally to place the claimant in the position in which he would have been had the tort not taken place.[11] Damages for breach of contract are generally awarded to place the claimant in the position in which he would have been had the contract not been breached. This can often result in a different measure of damages. In cases where it is possible to frame a claim in either contract or tort, it is necessary to be aware of what gives the best outcome.
If the transaction was a "good bargain", contract generally gives a better result for the claimant.
As an example, Neal agrees to sell Mary an antique Rolex for £100. In fact the watch is a fake and worth only £50. If it had been a genuine antique Rolex, it would have been worth £500. Neal is in breach of contract and could be sued. In contract, Mary is entitled to an item worth £500, but she has only one worth £50. Her damages are £450. Neal also induced Mary to enter into the contract through a misrepresentation (a tort). If Mary sues in tort, she is entitled to damages that put herself back to the same financial position place she would have been in had the misrepresentation not been made. She would clearly not have entered into the contract knowing the watch was fake, and is entitled to her £100 back. Thus her damages in tort are £100. (However, she would have to return the watch, or else her damages would be £50.)
If the transaction were a "bad bargain", tort gives a better result for the claimant. If in the above example Mary had overpaid, paying £750 for the watch, her damages in contract would still be £450 (giving her the item she contracted to buy), however in tort damages are £700. This is because damages in tort put her in the position she would have been in had the tort not taken place, and are calculated as her money back (£750) less the value of what she actually got (£50).
Incidental and consequential losses[edit]
Special damages are sometimes divided into incidental damages, and consequential damages.
Incidental losses include the costs needed to remedy problems and put things right. The largest element is likely to be the reinstatement of property damage. Take for example a factory which was burnt down by the negligence of a contractor. The claimant would be entitled to the direct costs required to rebuild the factory and replace the damaged machinery.
The claimant may also be entitled to any consequential losses. These may include the lost profits that the claimant could have been expected to make in the period whilst the factory was closed and rebuilt.
Breach of contract duty - (ex contract)[edit]
On a breach of contract by a defendant, a court generally awards the sum that would restore the injured party to the economic position they expected from performance of the promise or promises (known as an "expectation measure" or "benefit-of-the-bargain" measure of damages). This rule, however, has attracted increasing scrutiny from Australian courts and legal commentators.[12][13][14]
When it is either not possible or not desirable to award the victim in that way, a court may award money damages designed to restore the injured party to the economic position s/he occupied at the time the contract was entered (known as the "reliance measure")[15][16] or designed to prevent the breaching party from being unjustly enriched ("restitution") (see below).
Parties may contract for liquidated damages to be paid upon a breach of the contract by one of the parties. Under common law, a liquidated damages clause will not be enforced if the purpose of the term is solely to punish a breach (in this case it is termed penal damages).[17] The clause will be enforceable if it involves a genuine attempt to quantify a loss in advance and is a good faith estimate of economic loss. Courts have ruled as excessive and invalidated damages which the parties contracted as liquidated, but which the court nonetheless found to be penal. To determine whether a clause is a liquidated damages clause or a penalty clause, it is necessary to consider:
i) Whether the clause is 'extravagant, out of all proportion, exorbitant or unconscionable'[18]
ii) Whether there is a single sum stipulated for a number of different breaches, or individual sums for each breach[19]
iii) Whether a genuine pre-estimate of damage is ascertainable[19]
Breach of tort duty - (ex delicto)[edit]
Damages in tort are generally awarded to place the claimant in the position that would have been taken had the tort not taken place. Damages in tort are quantified under two headings: general damages and special damages.
In personal injury claims, damages for compensation are quantified by reference to the severity of the injuries sustained (see below general damages for more details). In non-personal injury claims, for instance, a claim for professional negligence against solicitors, the measure of damages will be assessed by the loss suffered by the client due to the negligent act or omission by the solicitor giving rise to the loss. The loss must be reasonably foreseeable and not too remote. Financial losses are usually simple to quantify but in complex cases which involve loss of pension entitlements and future loss projections, the instructing solicitor will usually employ a specialist expert actuary or accountant to assist with the quantification of the loss.
General damages compensate the claimant for the non-monetary aspects of the specific harm suffered. This is usually termed 'pain, suffering and loss of amenity'. Examples of this include physical or emotional pain and suffering, loss of companionship, loss of consortium, disfigurement, loss of reputation, loss or impairment of mental or physical capacity, hedonic damages or loss of enjoyment of life, etc.[20] This is not easily quantifiable, and depends on the individual circumstances of the claimant. Judges in the United Kingdom base the award on damages awarded in similar previous cases.
General damages are generally awarded only in claims brought by individuals, when they have suffered personal harm. Examples would be personal injury (following the tort of negligence by the defendant), or the tort of defamation.
Speculative damages[
edit]
Speculative damages are damages that have not yet occurred, but the plaintiff expects them to. Typically, these damages cannot be recovered unless the plaintiff can prove that they are reasonably likely to occur.[21]
Statutory damages are an amount stipulated within the statute rather than calculated based on the degree of harm to the plaintiff. Lawmakers will provide for statutory damages for acts in which it is difficult to determine the value of the harm to the victim. Mere violation of the law can entitle the victim to a statutory award, even if no actual injury occurred. These are different from nominal damages, in which no written sum is specified.
Nominal damages are very small damages awarded to show that the loss or harm suffered was technical rather than actual. Perhaps the most famous nominal damages award in modern times has been the $1 verdict against the National Football League (NFL) in the 1986 antitrust suit prosecuted by the United States Football League. Although the verdict was automatically trebled pursuant to antitrust law in the United States, the resulting $3 judgment was regarded as a victory for the NFL. Historically, one of the best known nominal damage awards was the farthing that the jury awarded to James Whistler in his libel suit against John Ruskin. In the English jurisdiction, nominal damages are generally fixed at £2.[citation needed]
Many times a party that has been wronged but is not able to prove significant damages will sue for nominal damages. This is particularly common in cases involving alleged violations of constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech.
Contemptuous damages[
edit]
Contemptuous damages are a form of damage award available in some jurisdictions. They are similar to nominal damages awards, as they are given when the plaintiff's suit is trivial, used only to settle a point of honour or law.[22] Awards are usually of the smallest amount, usually 1 cent or similar. The key distinction is that in jurisdictions that follow the loser-pays for attorney fees, the claimant in a contemptuous damages case may be required to pay his or her own attorney fees.[23]
Traditionally, the court awarded the smallest coin in the Realm, which in England was one farthing, 1/960 of a pound before decimalisation in the 1970s. Court costs are not awarded.[24]
Punitive damages (non-compensatory)[
edit]
Main article: Punitive damages
Generally, punitive damages, which are also termed exemplary damages in the United Kingdom, are not awarded in order to compensate the plaintiff, but in order to reform or deter the defendant and similar persons from pursuing a course of action such as that which damaged the plaintiff. Punitive damages are awarded only in special cases where conduct was egregiously insidious and are over and above the amount of compensatory damages, such as in the event of malice or intent. Great judicial restraint is expected to be exercised in their application. In the United States punitive damages awards are subject to the limitations imposed by the due process of law clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
In England and Wales, exemplary damages are limited to the circumstances set out by Lord Devlin in the leading case of Rookes v. Barnard. They are:
- Oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional actions by the servants of government.
- Where the defendant's conduct was 'calculated' to make a profit for himself.
- Where a statute expressly authorises the same.
Rookes v Barnard has been much criticised and has not been followed in Canada or Australia or by the Privy Council.
Punitive damages awarded in a US case would be difficult to get recognition for in a European court, where punitive damages are most likely to be considered to violate ordre public.[25]
Some jurisdictions recognize a form of damages, called, aggravated damages, that are similar to punitive or exemplary damages. Aggravated damages are not often awarded; they apply where the injury has been aggravated by the wrongdoer's behaviour, for example, their cruelty.[26]
Restitutionary or disgorgement damages[
edit]
In certain areas of the law another head of damages has long been available, whereby the defendant is made to give up the profits made through the civil wrong in restitution. Doyle and Wright define restitutionary damages as being a monetary remedy that is measured according to the defendant's gain rather than the plaintiff's loss.[27] The plaintiff thereby gains damages which are not measured by reference to any loss sustained. In some areas of the law this heading of damages is uncontroversial; most particularly intellectual property rights and breach of fiduciary relationship.
In England and Wales the House of Lords case of Attorney-General v. Blake opened up the possibility of restitutionary damages for breach of contract. In this case the profits made by a defecting spy, George Blake, for the publication of his book, were awarded to the British Government for breach of contract. The case has been followed in English courts, but the situations in which restitutionary damages will be available remain unclear.
The basis for restitutionary damages is much debated, but is usually seen as based on denying a wrongdoer any profit from his wrongdoing. The really difficult question, and one which is currently unanswered, relates to what wrongs should allow this remedy.
See also: American rule (attorney's fees) and English rule (attorney's fees)
In addition to damages, the successful party is entitled to be awarded their reasonable legal costs that they spent during the case. This is the rule in most countries other than the United States. In the United States, a party generally is not entitled to its attorneys' fees or for hardships undergone during trial unless the parties agreed in a contract that attorney's fees should be covered or a specific statute or law permits recovery of legal fees, such as discrimination.[28]
Damages in personal injury cases[
edit]
The examples and perspective in this section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this section, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate.
(June 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Damages" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR
(October 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)The quantification of personal injury is not an exact science. In English law solicitors like to call personal injury claims as "general damages" for pain and suffering and loss of amenity (PSLA). Solicitors quantify personal injury claims by reference to previous awards made by the courts which are "similar" to the case in hand. The guidance solicitors will take into account to help quantify general damages are as hereunder:
The age of the client[
edit]
The age of the client is important especially when dealing with fatal accident claims or permanent injuries. The younger the injured victim with a permanent injury the longer that person has to live with the PSLA. As a consequence, the greater the compensation payment. In fatal accident claims, generally the younger deceased, the greater the dependency claim by the partner and children.
The nature and extent of the injuries sustained[
edit]
Solicitors will consider "like for like" injuries with the case in hand and similar cases decided by the courts previously. These cases are known as precedents. Generally speaking decisions from the higher courts will bind the lower courts. Therefore, judgments from the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal have greater authority than the lower courts such as the High Court and the County Court. A compensation award can only be right or wrong with reference to that specific judgment. Solicitors must be careful when looking at older cases when quantifying a claim to ensure that the award is brought up to date and to take into account the court of appeal case in Heil v Rankin[29] Generally speaking the greater the injury the greater the damages awarded.
Personal attributes and fortitude of the client[
edit]
This heading is inextricably linked with the other points above. Where two clients are of the same age, experience and suffer the same injury, it does not necessarily mean that they will be affected the same. We are all different. Some people will recover more quickly than others. The courts will assess each claim on its own particular facts and therefore if one claimant recovers more quickly than another, the damages will be reflected accordingly. It is important to note here that "psychological injuries" may also follow from an accident which may increase the quantum of damages.
When a personal injury claim is settled either in court or out of court, the most common way the compensation payment is made is by a lump sum award in full and final settlement of the claim. Once accepted there can be no further award for compensation at a later time unless the claim is settled by provisional damages often found in industrial injury claims such as asbestos related injuries.
- ^ International principle: Trans-Lex.org, Garner, p.416
- ^ See, e.g., Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd [1973] 1 QB 27; Electrochrome v Welsh Plastics [1968] 2 All ER 205,, and British Celanese v Hunt [1969] 1 WLR 959
- ^ Jump up to:a b Larson, Aaron (25 July 2016). "How Are Damages Calculated After an Injury or Lawsuit". ExpertLaw. Retrieved 19 September2017.
- ^ "Actual Damages". Wex. Cornell Law School. Retrieved 19 September 2017.
- ^ "Punitive Damages". Wex. Cornell Law School. Retrieved 19 September 2017.
- ^ Brinig, Brian P., JD, CPA (2011). Finance & Accounting for Lawyers. Portland, OR: BV Resources, LLC. p. 200. ISBN 978-1-935081-71-5.
- ^ Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Ex Rep 850
- ^ See, e.g., the U.S. Supreme Court cases of "The Conqueror, 166 US 110, 17 S. Ct. 510, 41 L. Ed. 937 (1897)". Google Scholar. Google. Retrieved 19 September 2017. and "Palmer v. Connecticut Railway & Lighting Co., 311 US 544, 61 S. Ct. 379, 85 L. Ed. 336 (1941)". Google Scholar. Google. Retrieved 19 September 2017.
- ^ Morris, Clarence (March 1959). "Liability for Pain and Suffering". Columbia Law Review. 59 (3). JSTOR 1120125.
- ^ "Duty to Mitigate". Wex. Cornell Law School. Retrieved 19 September 2017.
- ^ Goldberg, John C.P. (2005). "Two Conceptions of Tort Damages: Fair v. Full Compensation". DePaul Law Review. 55: 435. Retrieved 19 September 2017.
- ^ Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd [2009] HCA 8, High Court (Australia).
- ^ Clark v Macourt [2013] HCA 93, High Court (Australia).
- ^ Winterton, David. "Clark v Macourt: Defective Sperm and Performance Substitutes in the High Court of Australia". (2014) 38(2) Melbourne University Law Review 755.
- ^ McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission [1951] HCA 79, (1951) 84 CLR 377, High Court (Australia).
- ^ Commonwealth v Amann Aviation [1991] HCA 54, (1991) 174 CLR 64, High Court (Australia).
- ^ Amev-Udc Finance Ltd v Austin [1986] HCA 63, (1986) 162 CLR 170 (4 November 1986), High Court (Australia).
- ^ Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd [2003] FCA 1225 (7 November 2003), Federal Court (Australia).
- ^ Jump up to:a b Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] UKHL 1, [1915] AC 847 (26 April 1915).
- ^ Beaman, Richard (2010-09-22). "Loss of Amenity". Douglas Wemyss Solicitors. Leicester. Archived from the original on 2010-11-15.
- ^ "Speculative Damages". Wex. Cornell Law School. Retrieved 19 September 2017.
- ^ "Contemptuous damages". Oxford Reference. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 19 September 2017.
- ^ Oliphant, Ken; Lunney, Mark (2008). Tort Law: Text and Materials. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. p. 865. ISBN 0199211361.
- ^ Spetz, Steven E (1974). "Civil Court Procedure And Remedies For Tort". Can I Sue? An Introduction to Canadian Tort Law. Toronto: Pitman. p. 219. ISBN 0-273-04189-4.
- ^ Koziol, Helmut; Wilcox, Vanessa (2011). 3709109647. Springer Vienna. ISBN 3709109647. Retrieved 19 September 2017.
- ^ Behand, Nadine (2009). How To Run Your Own Court Case. Sydney: Redfern Legal Centre. p. 145. ISBN 978-1-921410-83-3.
- ^ Doyle, S; Wright, D. "Restitutionary damages - the unnecessary remedy". (2001) 25(1) Melbourne University Law Review 1.
- ^ "Remedies for Employment Discrimination". Retrieved July 4,2010.
- ^ Heil v Rankin & Another [2000] EWCA Civ 84, Court of Appeal
- Black, Stephen (2011). "A Capital Gains Anomaly: Commissioner v. Banks and the Proceeds from Lawsuits". St. Mary's Law Journal. 43: 113. SSRN 1858776.
Authority control
Categories:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Part of a series on
Economic systems
By ideology[show]
By coordination[show]
By regional model[show]
Sectors[show]
Property types[show]
Transition[show]
Coordination[show]
Other types[show]
For other uses, see Expropriation.
Nationalization, or nationalisation, is the process of transforming private assets into public assets by bringing them under the public ownership of a national government or state.[1] Nationalization usually refers to private assets or assets owned by lower levels of government, such as municipalities, being transferred to the state. The opposites of nationalization are privatization and demutualization. When previously nationalized assets are privatized and subsequently returned to public ownership at a later stage, they are said to have undergone renationalization. Industries that are usually subject to nationalization include transport, communications, energy, banking, and natural resources.
Nationalization may occur with or without compensation to the former owners. Nationalization is distinguished from property redistribution in that the government retains control of nationalized property. Some nationalizations take place when a government seizes property acquired illegally. For example, in 1945 the French government seized the car-makers Renault because its owners had collaborated with the Nazi occupiers of France.[2]
Nationalization is to be distinguished from "socialization", which refers to the process of restructuring the economic framework, organizational structure, and institutions of an economy on a socialist basis. By contrast, nationalization does not necessarily imply social ownership and the restructuring of the economic system. By itself, nationalization has nothing to do with socialism, having been historically carried out for various different purposes under a wide variety of different political systems and economic systems.[3] However, nationalization is in most cases opposed by laissez-faire capitalists as it is perceived as excessive government interference in, and control of, economic affairs of individual citizens.
Since nationalized industries are state owned, the government is responsible for meeting any debts. The nationalized industries do not normally borrow from the domestic market other than for short-term borrowing. If they are profitable, the profit is often used to finance other state services, such as social programs and government research, which can help lower the tax burden.
The traditional Western stance on compensation was expressed by United States Secretary of State Cordell Hull during the Mexican nationalization of the petroleum industry in 1938, saying that compensation should be "prompt, effective and adequate". According to this view, the nationalizing state is obligated under international law to pay the deprived party the full value of the property taken.
The opposing position has been taken mainly by developing countries, claiming that the question of compensation should be left entirely up to the sovereign state, in line with the Calvo Doctrine.
Socialist states have held that no compensation is due, based on the view that private ownership over socialized assets is illegitimate, exploitative, or a hindrance to further economic development.
In 1962, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 1803, "Permanent Sovereignty over National Resources", which states that in the event of nationalization, the owner "shall be paid appropriate compensation in accordance with international law". In doing so, the UN rejected the traditional Calvo-doctrinal view and the Communist view. The term "appropriate compensation" represents a compromise between the traditional views, taking into account the need of developing countries to pursue reform, even without the ability to pay full compensation, and the Western concern for the protection of private property.
In the United States, the Fifth Amendment requires just compensation if private property is taken for public use.
Social democracy
Development[show]
Ideas[hide]
Variants[show]
People[show]
Organizations[show]
Related[show]
Nationalization was one of the major mechanisms advocated by reformist socialists and social democrats for gradually transitioning to socialism. In this context, the goals of nationalization were to dispossess large capitalists, redirect the profits of industry to the public purse, and establish some form of workers' self-management as a precursor to the establishment of a socialist economic system.[4]
In the United Kingdom after the Second World War, nationalization gained support by the Labour party and some social democratic parties throughout Europe. Although sometimes undertaken as part of a strategy to build socialism, more commonly nationalization was also undertaken and used to protect and develop industries perceived as being vital to the nation's competitiveness (such as aerospace and shipbuilding), or to protect jobs in certain industries.
A re-nationalization occurs when state-owned assets are privatized and later nationalized again, often when a different political party or faction is in power. A re-nationalization process may also be called "reverse privatization". Nationalization has been used to refer to either direct state-ownership and management of an enterprise or to a government acquiring a large controlling share of a publicly listed corporation.[citation needed]
Nationalization can have positive and negative effects.[5] A 2018 Stanford study of Chinese firms found their State-owned enterprises (SOEs) to be significantly less productive,[6] aligning with the general consensus that private firms are more efficient.[7] However, the Chinese government has argued that they can improve their SOEs to be globally competitive.[8][undue weight? – discuss]
See also: List of nationalizations by country
In 1972, the Chilean government acquired control of the major foreign-owned section of the Chilean copper mining industry. The process, commonly described as the Chilenización del cobre,[9] started under the government of Carlos Ibáñez del Campo and culminated during the government of President Salvador Allende, who completed the nationalization.
Granahorrar Bank was a bank based in Colombia (1972–1998). When it was open, it was part of a business conglomerate called Grupo Grancolombiano. The conglomerate also owned Banco de Colombia (Bancolombia), Colombia's largest bank. In 1982, the conglomerate underwent a period of crisis. Consequently, the Colombian government nationalized Granahorrar Bank and effectively took over the bank by force from its private owners.[10]
The railways were nationalized after World War I. The German railway company Deutsche Bahn is owned by the Federal Republic. In 2008, it was agreed to "float" a portion of the business, meaning an end to the 100% share the German Federal Republic had in it, with a plan that 25% of the overall share would be sold to the private sector.[11] However, the onset of the financial crisis of 2007–08 saw this cancelled.[12]
In 1982, President José López Portillo started the nationalization of the Mexican banking system in response to the debt crisis. Under the Carlos Salinas de Gortari presidency (1988–1994), the nationalized banks were privatized very rapidly between 1991 and 1992 to Mexican family groups.[13]
Since 2007, the government of Hugo Chávez started the nationalization of different companies. It started on May 1, 2007 with the world's biggest oil companies. On April 3, 2008, Chávez ordered the nationalization of cement industry and the nationalization of Venezuelan steel mill, among other industries such as cement and rice processing and packaging plants, on April 9.[14][15][16][17]
- ^ "Definition of NATIONALIZATION". www.merriam-webster.com.
- ^ Chrisafis, Angelique (December 14, 2011). "Renault descendants demand payout for state confiscation". The Guardian. London.
- ^ Hastings, Mason and Pyper, Adrian, Alistair and Hugh (December 21, 2000). The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought. Oxford University Press. p. 677. ISBN 978-0198600244. At the heart of its vision has been social or common ownership of the means of production. Common ownership and democratic control of these was far more central to the thought of the early socialists than state control or nationalization, which developed later...Nationalization in itself has nothing particularly to do with socialism and has existed under non-socialist and anti-socialist regimes. Kautsky in 1891 pointed out that a ‘co-operative commonwealth’ could not be the result of the ‘general nationalization of all industries’ unless there was a change in ‘the character of the state’.
- ^ The Economics of Feasible Socialism Revisited, by Nove, Alexander. 1991. (P.176): "Nationalisation arouses no enthusiasm, in the minds of most socialists and anti-socialists. It would probably be agreed that hopes which reposed on nationalisation have been disappointed. Conservatives hold that this is due to defects inherent in nationalisation, that private enterprise based on private ownership is inherently superior. (Mrs Thatcher’s government tried to ensure that this was so by preventing essential investments and ordering the nationalized industries to sell off their more successful undertakings.)...The original notion was that nationalization would achieve three objectives. One was to dispossess the big capitalists. The second was to divert the profits from private appropriation to the public purse. Thirdly, the nationalized sector would serve the public good rather than try to make private profits...To these objectives some (but not all) would add some sort of workers' control, the accountability of management to employees."
- ^ https://www.britannica.com/topic/nationalization
- ^https://kingcenter.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/1037wp.pdf
- ^ Megginson and Nettor, 2001; Djankov and Murrell, 2002; Estrin et al., 2009
- ^ "China aims to improve State-owned enterprises to compete globally - China - Chinadaily.com.cn". www.chinadaily.com.cn. Retrieved 2019-07-14.
- ^ The History of Codelco.
- ^ "Pelea de Socios". Semana (Sección Economía) (in Spanish). No. 815. 12 January 1998. Retrieved 24 May 2018.
- ^ "Partial sale of DB agreed" Railway Gazette International May 2008 page 289.
- ^ "DB flotation on hold" Railway Gazette International November 2008 page 843.
- ^ Marois, Thomas (2008). "The 1982 Mexican Bank Statization and Unintended Consequences for the Emergence of Neoliberalism". Canadian Journal of Political Science. 41 (1): 143–167. doi:10.1017/s0008423908080128.
- ^ Al Jazeera English - Americas - Chavez nationalises cement industry Archived 2008-05-11 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ "Venezuela Seizes Cemex - Forbes.com". Archived from the original on October 10, 2008.
- ^ "Venezuela to nationalize steelmaker Sidor: union". Reuters. April 9, 2008.
- ^ "Chavez sends army to rice plants". BBC News. March 1, 2009. Retrieved May 20, 2010.
Look up nationalization in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Authority control
show
Social democracy
Categories:
