scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Waheed Hussain

Other affiliations: University of Toronto
Bio: Waheed Hussain is an academic researcher from University of Pennsylvania. The author has contributed to research in topics: Business ethics & Social movement. The author has an hindex of 8, co-authored 16 publications receiving 224 citations. Previous affiliations of Waheed Hussain include University of Toronto.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that Palazzo and Scherer's model does not actually address the democratic deficit that it is meant to solve, and they advocate removing business corporations from any policymaking role in political CSR and limiting participation to political NGOs and other groups that meet the standards they set out for a politically representative organization.
Abstract: According to Palazzo and Scherer, the changing role of business corporations in society requires that we take new measures to integrate these organizations into society-wide processes of democratic governance. We argue that their model of integration has a fundamental problem. Instead of treating business corporations as agents that must be held accountable to the democratic reasoning of affected parties, it treats corporations as agents who can hold others accountable. In our terminology, it treats business corporations as “supervising authorities” rather than “functionaries.” The result is that Palazzo and Scherer’s model does not actually address the democratic deficit that it is meant to solve. In order to fix the problem, we advocate removing business corporations from any policymaking role in political CSR and limiting participation to political NGOs and other groups that meet the standards we set out for a politically representative organization (PRO).

72 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Market System as mentioned in this paper is an excellent guide to thinking about the advantages and disadvantages of a market economy, and it is a good place to start a course on the normative dimensions of market society.
Abstract: Charles Lindblom has long been one of the country’s most interesting political theorists writing about the economy. In The Market System, he offers the general reader an excellent guide to thinking about the advantages and disadvantages of a market economy. Half of the book is devoted to an analysis of the market as a social institution. Lindblom’s account of the nuts and bolts of the system is fi rst-rate. He insists that we should think of the market as a mechanism for coordinating human behavior, much like a system of authority or a voting process. What is distinctive about the market is that it coordinates our activities through a process of “mutual adjustment.” There is no central authority here: each individual decides for himself how to respond to what other people are doing given the moves available to him under the rules. The image makes vivid to the reader one of the most attractive features of the market, namely the way that it simplifi es the enormously complex task of social coordination by decentralizing the decision-making process. The other half of the book is devoted to assessing the market in terms of values such as effi ciency, freedom, culture and democracy. Lindblom is at his best on democracy. He argues that the market does poorly in terms of both popular control over economic elites (e.g. bankers, fi nanciers and corporate executives) and popular control over political elites. One of the main problems lies in the fact that corporations participate in the political process as though they were ordinary citizens. His discussion of allocative effi ciency, on the other hand, could have been better. It never quite makes clear to the reader that the market generates outcomes that are “effi cient” in a sense that is much weaker than we normally associate with the idea of effi ciency. Overall, though, this book provides an excellent survey of the issues as well as some penetrating insights from Lindblom’s unique perspective. It would serve well as a companion piece to any general course on the normative dimensions of market society.

70 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examine the morality of one type of ethical consumerism, which aims to change wider social behavior and practices, and raise an important question about the boundary between the public and private spheres.
Abstract: Ethical consumerism has been around for a long time: many Americans protested against the Stamp Act of  by refusing to buy tea and other British goods. In recent years, however, it has become an increasingly prominent feature of social life as new forms of technology have allowed consumers to use their choices in the marketplace to address various environmental, labor, and trade concerns. Surprisingly, people have paid relatively little attention to the moral issues raised by ethical consumerism. Suppose that consumers are morally permitted to use their buying power to pressure companies to treat animals better or to reduce carbon emissions. Does this mean that they can also pressure pharmacies not to stock the “morning after” pill? Can they pressure Walmart not to sell books or music they find offensive? Even in cases where consumers are pressuring companies to do the right thing, do their actions amount to an impermissible form of vigilantism? In this article, I examine the morality of one type of ethical consumerism. Some ethical consumerism aims to change wider social behavior and practices. This type raises an important question about the boundary between the public and private spheres. Most philosophers believe that we are morally permitted to pursue our own ends in the market,

35 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors argue that the fundamental problem with the efficiency argument for profit maximization is not that markets in the real world are less than perfect, but rather that the argument does not properly acknowledge the personal sphere.
Abstract: The efficiency argument for profit maximization says that corporations and their managers should maximize profits because this is the course of action that will lead to an ‘economically efficient’ or ‘welfare maximizing’ outcome (see e.g. Jensen 2001, 2002). In this paper, I argue that the fundamental problem with this argument is not that markets in the real world are less than perfect, but rather that the argument does not properly acknowledge the personal sphere. Morality allows each of us a sphere in which we are free to pursue our personal interests, even if these are not optimal from the social point of view. But the efficiency argument does not come to terms with this feature of social life.

28 citations

Book ChapterDOI
16 Jul 2012

28 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is impossible that the rulers now on earth should make any benefit, or derive any the least shadow of authority from that, which is held to be the fountain of all power, Adam's private dominion and paternal jurisdiction.
Abstract: All these premises having, as I think, been clearly made out, it is impossible that the rulers now on earth should make any benefit, or derive any the least shadow of authority from that, which is held to be the fountain of all power, Adam's private dominion and paternal jurisdiction; so that he that will not give just occasion to think that all government in the world is the product only of force and violence, and that men live together by no other rules but that of beasts, where the strongest carries it, and so lay a foundation for perpetual disorder and mischief, tumult, sedition and rebellion, (things that the followers of that hypothesis so loudly cry out against) must of necessity find out another rise of government, another original of political power, and another way of designing and knowing the persons that have it, than what Sir Robert Filmer hath taught us.

3,076 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors introduce politics and power into the multi-level perspective of low-carbon transition and argue that the resistance and resilience of coal, gas and nuclear production regimes currently negates the benefits from increasing renewables deployment.
Abstract: While most studies of low-carbon transitions focus on green niche-innovations, this paper shifts attention to the resistance by incumbent regime actors to fundamental change. Drawing on insights from political economy, the paper introduces politics and power into the multi-level perspective. Instrumental, discursive, material and institutional forms of power and resistance are distinguished and illustrated with examples from the UK electricity system. The paper concludes that the resistance and resilience of coal, gas and nuclear production regimes currently negates the benefits from increasing renewables deployment. It further suggests that policymakers and many transition-scholars have too high hopes that ‘green’ innovation will be sufficient to bring about low-carbon transitions. Future agendas in research and policy should therefore pay much more attention to the destabilization and decline of existing fossil fuel regimes.

1,056 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is common practice in organizational research to restrict the concept of organization to formal organizations, and to describe the world outside these entities by such other concepts as institut... as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: It is common practice in organizational research to restrict the concept of organization to formal organizations, and to describe the world outside these entities by such other concepts as institut ...

400 citations

Journal ArticleDOI

174 citations