Investor disagreement: the modern approach

Disagreement between economists is a well know fact. However, it took a long time for this concept to be incorporated in economic models. In this survey, we review the consequences and insights provided by recent models. Since disagreement between market agents can be generated through different hypotheses, the main differences between them are highlighted. Finally, this work concludes with a short review of nowcasting using google trends, emphasizing advances connecting both literatures.

Islamic law and international law: the terms of a relationship

The relationship between Islamic Law and other legal systems (basically western type domestic legal orders and international law) is often thought of in terms of compatibility or incompatibility. Concerning certain subject matters of choice, the compatibility of Islamic (legal) principles with the values embedded in legal systems that are regarded as characteristic of the Modern Age is tested by sets of questions: is democracy possible in Islam? Does Islam recognize human rights and are those rights equivalent to a more universal conception? Does Islam recognize or condone more extreme acts of violence and does it justify violence differently? Etc. Such questions and many more presuppose the existence of an ensemble of rules or principles which, as any other set of rules and principles, purport to regulate social behavior. This ensemble is generically referred to as Islamic Law. However, one set of questions is usually left unanswered: is Islamic Law a legal system? If it is a legal system, what are its specific characteristics? How does it work? Where does it apply? It is this paper`s argument that the relationship between Islamic Law and domestic and international law can only be understood if looked upon as a relationship between distinct legal systems or legal orders.

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.

Making decisions in the absence of clear facts: a historical perspective

Recently, a claim has been made that executive decisions makers, far from being fact collectors, are actually fact users and integrators. As such, the claim continues, executive decision makers need help in understanding how to interpret facts, as well as guidance in making decisions in the absence of clear facts. This report justifies this claim against the backdrop of the modern history of decision making, from 1956 to the present. The historical excursion serves to amplify and clarify the claim, as well as to develop a theoretical framework for making decisions in the absence of clear facts. Two essential issues are identified that impact upon decision making in the absence of clear facts, as well criteria for decision making effectiveness under such circumstances. Methodological requirements and practical objectives round off the theoretical framework. The historical analysis enables the identification of one particular established methodology as claiming to meet the methodological requirements of the theoretical framework. Since the methodology has yet to be tried on information-poor situations, a further project is proposed that will test its validity.

A sociometric analysis for the creation of an integrated multicultural work team

This research aimed to apply the sociometric theory and its methodology to create an integrated multicultural work team. The study focused on the application of the sociometry theory, developed by Jacob L. Moreno in 1934, to analyze the small multicultural group. In the beginning, a review of the literature was done to have a better understanding of Sociometric Theory as well as the modern tools and software developed to analyze and map the social networks. After this part of the study, the qualitative study was done, in which 26 students from 12 countries, which studied together in a Corporate International Master (2014-2015), developed by Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business, Corporate Master of Business Administration from ESADE Business School and FGV/EBAPE, were surveyed and asked them to choose people, among the selected group, who they attracted, rejected or they were neutral towards, in 4 different scenarios: work team, leadership, trip (leisure time) and personal problem. Additionally, there were, two questions asked about how they felt when they answered the survey and which question(s) was/were difficult to answer and why. The focus on these two questions was to understand the emotional state of the respondents when they answered the survey and related this emotional state to the Sociometric Theory. The sociometric matrix, using Microsoft Excel, was created using the answers and the total of the positive, negative and neutral choices were analyzed for each scenario as well as the mutualities and incongruences of the choices. Furthermore, the software Kumu was used to analyze the connections between the people in the selected group using three metrics: size, degree centrality and indegree. Also Kumu was used to draw the social maps or sociometric maps. Using the relationship level analyses of the sociometric matrix and maps, it was possible to create an integrated multicultural work team. In the end, the results obtained suggest that it is possible to apply the sociometric methodology to study the relationships inside companies, project teams and work teams and identify the best work team based on the interrelationship between the people as well as the lack of communication among the team members, project team or inside the company as a whole.