The impact of property rights and its limits

The empirical evaluation of the effect of land property rights typically suffers from selection problems. The allocation of property rights across households is usually not random but based on wealth, family characteristics, political clientelism, or other mechanisms built on differences between the groups that acquire property rights and the groups that do not. In this paper, we address this selection concern exploiting a natural experiment in the allocation of property rights. Twenty years ago, a homogenous group of squatters occupied a piece of privately owned land in a suburban area of Buenos Aires, Argentina. When the Congress passed an expropriation law transferring the land from the former owners to the squatters, some of the former owners surrendered the land (and received a compensation), while others decide to sue in the slow Argentine courts. These different decisions by the former owners generated an allocation of property rights that is exogenous to the characteristics of the squatters. We take advantage of this natural experiment to evaluate the effect of the allocation of urban land property rights. Our preliminary results show significant effects on housing investment, household size, and school attrition. Contradicting De Soto's hypotheses, we found nonsignificant effects on labor income and access to credit markets.

Open innovation and the challenges of human resource management

This paper considers challenges of Human Resource Management (HRM) in Open Innovation processes. It examines which strategies managers used to overcome these problems in the case of the Brazilian Oil and Gas company Petrobras. By conducting an inductive case study it develops a contextual model based on the use of grounded theory. It argues that the most important categories were to overcome problems of (a) the interpersonal relationship, (b) power shifting inside the organization, and (c) making people more valuable to the organization and shows how managers tackled these challenges. It contributes with a deep analysis of HRM challenges in Open Innovation that is important for a better understanding of management problems that can come along with Open Innovation processes.

Important, unimportant a critical anticipation of the assumptions of legal positivism in Alice in Wonderland

Almost a full century separates Lewis’ Alice in Wonderland (1865) and the second, lengthier and more elaborate edition of Hans Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law (1960; first edition published in 1934). And yet, it is possible to argue that the former anticipates and critically addresses many of the philosophical assumptions that underlie and are elemental to the argument of the latter. Both texts, with the illuminating differences that arise from their disparate genre, have as one of their key themes norms and their functioning. Wonderland, as Alice soon finds out, is a world beset by rules of all kinds: from the etiquette rituals of the mad tea-party to the changing setting for the cricket game to the procedural insanity of the trial with which the novel ends. Pure Theory of Law, as Kelsen emphatically stresses, has the grundnorm as the cornerstone upon which the whole theoretical edifice rests2. This paper discusses some of the assumptions underlying Kelsen’s argument as an instance of the modern worldview which Lewis satirically scrutinizes. The first section (Sleepy and stupid) discusses Lewis critique of the idea that, to correctly apprehend an object (in the case of Kelsen’s study, law), one has to free it from its alien elements. The second section (Do bats eat cats?) discusses the notion of systemic coherence and its impact on modern ways of thinking about truth, law and society. The third section (Off with their heads!) explores the connections between readings of systems as neutral entities and the perpetuation of political power. The fourth and final section (Important, Unimportant) explains the sense in which a “critical anticipation” is both possible and useful to discuss the philosophical assumptions structuring some positivist arguments. It also discusses the reasons for choosing to focus on Kelsen’s work, rather than on that of Lewis’ contemporary, John Austin, whose The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (published in 1832) remains influential in legal debates today.

Direitos humanos e justiça internacional em Dworkin: uma comunidade de estranhos?

Além de suas conhecidas contribuições para a teoria do direito no âmbito doméstico, Dworkin escreveu sobre direito internacional. Sua teoria dos direitos humanos estabelece uma distinção entre justiça e legitimidade, sendo que a primeira orienta o domínio do direito doméstico e a segunda, o domínio dos direitos humanos. A distinção tem a vantagem de garantir aos membros da comunidade internacional uma autonomia política compatível com a soberania. No entanto, a concepção de direitos humanos de Dworkin não se ajusta suficientemente à prática do direito internacional e revela um contraste entre o modo pelo qual o autor trata a teoria do direito no âmbito do Estado nacional e no âmbito do direito internacional. Dworkin define a comunidade política doméstica como uma sociedade unida por princípios comuns, enquanto a comunidade internacional é definida pelo mesmo autor como orientada por regras decorrentes de soluções de compromisso ou negociações de interesse sem explicar esse contraste.