Roles in construction projects: analysis and terminology

Standard form contracts are typically developed through a negotiated consensus, unless they are proffered by one specific interest group. Previously published plans of work and other descriptions of the processes in construction projects tend to focus on operational issues, or they tend to be prepared from the point of view of one or other of the dominant interest groups. Legal practice in the UK permits those who draft contracts to define their terms as they choose. There are no definitive rulings from the courts that give an indication as to the detailed responsibilities of project participants. The science of terminology offers useful guidance for discovering and describing terms and their meanings in their practical context, but has never been used for defining terms for responsibilities of participants in the construction project management process. Organizational analysis enables the management task to be deconstructed into its elemental parts in order that effective organizational structures can be developed. Organizational mapping offers a useful technique for reducing text-based descriptions of project management roles and responsibilities to a comparable basis. Research was carried out by means of a desk study, detailed analysis of nine plans of work and focus groups representing all aspects of the construction industry. No published plan of work offers definitive guidance. There is an enormous amount of variety in the way that terms are used for identifying responsibilities of project participants. A catalogue of concepts and terms (a “Terminology”) has been compiled and indexed to enable those who draft contracts to choose the most appropriate titles for project participants. The purpose of this terminology is to enable the selection and justification of appropriate terms in order to help define roles. The terminology brings an unprecedented clarity to the description of roles and responsibilities in construction projects and, as such, will be helpful for anyone seeking to assemble a team and specify roles for project participants.

A new framework for understanding inequalities between expatriates and host country nationals

An interdisciplinary theoretical framework is proposed for analysing justice in global working conditions. In addition to gender and race as popular criteria to identify disadvantaged groups in organizations, in multinational corporations (MNCs) local employees (i.e. host country nationals (HCNs) working in foreign subsidiaries) deserve special attention. Their working conditions are often substantially worse than those of expatriates (i.e. parent country nationals temporarily assigned to a foreign subsidiary). Although a number of reasons have been put forward to justify such inequalities—usually with efficiency goals in mind—recent studies have used equity theory to question the extent to which they are perceived as fair by HCNs. However, since perceptual equity theory has limitations, this study develops an alternative and non-perceptual framework for analysing such inequalities. Employment discrimination theory and elements of Rawls’s ‘Theory of Justice’ are the theoretical pillars of this framework. This article discusses the advantages of this approach for MNCs and identifies some expatriation practices that are fair according to our non-perceptual justice standards, whilst also reasonably (if not highly) efficient.

Forgotten children: work-family reconciliation in the EU

At the core of this article is a discussion of how, why and with what implications, considerations of children’s needs are missing from the EU’s work-family reconciliation framework. Part I demonstrates how the EU has failed to properly identify, let alone acknowledge or promote, children’s interests in relation to work-family reconciliation. An examination of relevant legislation and case law shows how children are ‘missing’ from this policy area, which has huge implications for their day to day lives. Part II then considers the reasons behind, and consequences of, this reluctance to engage with children’s interests in reconciliation laws and shows how children’s well-being could be better incorporated into relevant policies and within the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice. This section highlights, for example, how the EU has been willing and able to promote children’s interests in other legal fields and suggests that changes in the Treaty, post Lisbon, offer a means to improve the current approach.

Corporate institutions in a weakened welfare state: a Rawlsian perspective

This paper re-examines the import of Rawls’s theory of justice for private sector institutions in the face of the decline of the welfare state. The argument is based on a Rawlsian conception of justice as the establishment of a basic structure of society that guarantees a fair distribution of primary goods. We propose that the decline of the welfare state witnessed in Western countries over the past forty years prompts a reassessment of the boundaries of the basic structure in order to include additional corporate institutions. A discussion centered on the primary good of self-respect, but extensible to power and prerogatives as well as income and wealth, examines how the legislator should intervene in private sector institutions to counterbalance any unfairness that results from the decline of the welfare state.

From Rio to Copenhagen: multilateral agreements, disagreements and situated actions

Governing climate change is arguably one of the most complex problems, environmental or otherwise, that the global community has had to contend with. This chapter highlights the innovations in governance that have characterized the global climate change regime as it sought to respond to and manage these complexities, political imperatives and competing interests. We suggest that the key contestations and innovations within climate governance can be understood in terms of four themes/questions all of which relate to issues of justice and equity.

Parliamentary sovereignty, popular sovereignty, and Henry Parker's adjudicative standpoint

Discussions of popular sovereignty in early modern England have usually been premised upon a sharp distinction between ‘legal/constitutional’ forms of discourse (which merely interpret the law) and ‘political’ ones (which focus upon the right to make it). In such readings of the period, Henry Parker has a pivotal position as a writer who abandoned merely legalistic thinking. This chapter takes a different view. It argues that Parker’s major intellectual achievement was not so much to abandon legal/constitutional discourse as to offer a theorisation of its most distinctive features: he offered an account of a new kind of politics in which concern for ‘interests’ in property and in self-preservation replaced humanist concern with promotion of virtue. Parker drew upon ideas about representation best expressed by Sir Thomas Smith and ideas about law best expressed by Oliver St John. The theory he developed was not intended as a justification of legislative sovereignty, but of adjudicative supremacy. His picture of the two Houses as supreme adjudicators was meant to block the path to direct democracy. But the adjudicative standpoint they came to occupy presupposed that freeborn adults had ‘interests’ in life, liberty, and possessions. This had democratising implications.