Can grassroots organisations and NGOs substitute for the State in Russia? A review of the literature and suggestions for a future research agenda

The paper investigates the relationship between civil society and the state. Using the unique lens of the state-substitution (the process whereby civil society organisations take on government roles) the paper reviews the literature and highlights three key issues: - Civil society is weak in Russia and its contribution to democracy development is limited - The Russian State has be withdrawing from its responsibilities to care for its citizens, leaving a field of opportunity for civil society organisations. - The state has subsequently began to encroach on civil society organisations mainly through the use of legislative changes and government sponsored organisations These trends have far reaching implications for civil society organisations, in particular those which take up or take over government roles and responsibilities. The literary evidence shows that the Russian state leverages its political power into the sphere of civil society similar to how it regained control over the economy in the early 2000s. This Russian variant of civil society attributes the state as a key player in all societal spheres.

Cutting the Gordian knot [?]:a response to Lukka and Vinnari (2014)

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to constructively discuss the meaning and nature of (theoretical) contribution in accounting research, as represented by Lukka and Vinnari (2014) (hereafter referred to as LV). The authors aim is to further encourage debate on what constitutes management accounting theory (or theories) and how to modestly clarify contributions to the extant literature. Design/methodology/approach – The approach the authors take can be seen as (a)n interdisciplinary literature sourced analysis and critique of the movement’s positioning and trajectory” (Parker and Guthrie, 2014, p. 1218). The paper also draws upon and synthesizes the present authors and other’s contributions to accounting research using actor network theory. Findings – While a distinction between domain and methods theories … may appear analytically viable, it may be virtually impossible to separate them in practice. In line with Armstrong (2008), the authors cast a measure of doubt on the quest to significantly extend theoretical contributions from accounting research. Research limitations/implications – Rather than making (apparently) grandiose claims about (theoretical) contributions from individual studies, the authors suggest making more modest claims from the research. The authors try to provide a more appropriate and realistic approach to the appreciation of research contributions. Originality/value – The authors contribute to the debate on how theoretical contributions can be made in the accounting literature by constructively debating some views that have recently been outlined by LV. The aim is to provide some perspective on the usefulness of the criteria suggested by these authors. The authors also suggest and highlight (alternative) ways in which contributions might be discerned and clarified.

Rescission and substitute property:Bainbridge v Bainbridge [2016] EWHC 898 (Ch)

One of the unresolved issues concerning equity’s jurisdiction to set aside dispositions for mistake is the nature of the proprietary consequences that ensue. The decision in Bainbridge v Bainbridge sheds further light on this important issue, but also illustrates that some important aspects concerning the application of rescission needs further clarification. The key issue concerned the rescission of a trust, where parts of the land had been sold by the trustees who had used the proceeds of sale to buy two new plots of land. Part of the reasoning used by Master Matthews relied upon authorities, developed in the context of fraudulently induced transfers of money, which requires careful consideration of the relationship between the principle in Pitt v Holt and unjust enrichment.