Pub Date : 2007-07-01DOI: 10.5089/9781451867336.001
Thomas Harjes
There is growing concern in Europe over the impact of globalization on high and evenly shared living standards. These concerns have often surfaced in response to falling labor income shares in aggregate national income data. However, these data may tell little about the underlying distribution of incomes based on household disposable incomes. While summary measures of income distributions also suggest that inequality has increased in most industrialized countries, this development was very uneven and much less pronounced in euro-area countries, suggesting that broad phenomena such as trade liberalization and technological change may not be major drivers of inequality.
{"title":"Globalization and Income Inequality: A European Perspective","authors":"Thomas Harjes","doi":"10.5089/9781451867336.001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5089/9781451867336.001","url":null,"abstract":"There is growing concern in Europe over the impact of globalization on high and evenly shared living standards. These concerns have often surfaced in response to falling labor income shares in aggregate national income data. However, these data may tell little about the underlying distribution of incomes based on household disposable incomes. While summary measures of income distributions also suggest that inequality has increased in most industrialized countries, this development was very uneven and much less pronounced in euro-area countries, suggesting that broad phenomena such as trade liberalization and technological change may not be major drivers of inequality.","PeriodicalId":106035,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132014920","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper examines fungibility as a possible explanation for the "missing link" between foreign aid and economic growth. The composition of aid plays a crucial role in determining the composition of government spending and, consequently, the magnitude of fungibility and its impact on growth. Embedding fungibility as an equilibrium outcome in an endogenous growth framework, we show that the substitution away from domestic government investment is higher than from government consumption. This leads to a reduction in domestic productive public spending and completely offsets any positive impact that aid might have on growth. The main predictions of the model are tested using a panel dataset of 67 countries for 1972-2000. We find strong evidence of fungibility at the aggregate level: almost 70 percent of total aid is fungible in our sample. We also find that investment aid is more fungible than other categories of aid. In the presence of fungibility, there is no statistically significant relationship between foreign aid and economic growth.
{"title":"Where Has All the Money Gone? Foreign Aid and the Quest for Growth","authors":"S. Chatterjee, Paola Giuliano, Ilker Kaya","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.963433","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.963433","url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines fungibility as a possible explanation for the \"missing link\" between foreign aid and economic growth. The composition of aid plays a crucial role in determining the composition of government spending and, consequently, the magnitude of fungibility and its impact on growth. Embedding fungibility as an equilibrium outcome in an endogenous growth framework, we show that the substitution away from domestic government investment is higher than from government consumption. This leads to a reduction in domestic productive public spending and completely offsets any positive impact that aid might have on growth. The main predictions of the model are tested using a panel dataset of 67 countries for 1972-2000. We find strong evidence of fungibility at the aggregate level: almost 70 percent of total aid is fungible in our sample. We also find that investment aid is more fungible than other categories of aid. In the presence of fungibility, there is no statistically significant relationship between foreign aid and economic growth.","PeriodicalId":106035,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115458976","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
International monetary arrangements - the practices and rules governing the creation, distribution, and management of money and credit in the world economy - have received little attention from philosophers concerned with international distributive justice. A convincing account of the requirements of greater international distributive justice demands a description of such arrangements. Current international monetary arrangements at times have consequences that are difficult to justify morally. Empirical reasoning, normative reasoning and institutional imagination must be employed together in order to identify alternatives that are desirable and realizable.
{"title":"Just International Monetary Arrangements","authors":"S. Reddy","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.948736","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.948736","url":null,"abstract":"International monetary arrangements - the practices and rules governing the creation, distribution, and management of money and credit in the world economy - have received little attention from philosophers concerned with international distributive justice. A convincing account of the requirements of greater international distributive justice demands a description of such arrangements. Current international monetary arrangements at times have consequences that are difficult to justify morally. Empirical reasoning, normative reasoning and institutional imagination must be employed together in order to identify alternatives that are desirable and realizable.","PeriodicalId":106035,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131560042","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Media coverage of humanitarian crises is widely believed to influence charitable giving, yet this assertion has received little empirical scrutiny. Using Internet donations after the 2004 tsunami as a case study, we show that media coverage of disasters has a dramatic impact on donations to relief agencies, with an additional minute of nightly news coverage increasing donations by 0.036 standard deviations from the mean, or 13.2% of the average daily donation for the typical relief agency. Similarly, an additional 700-word story in the New York Times or Wall Street Journal raises donations by 18.2% of the daily average. These results are robust to controls for the timing of news coverage and tax considerations. We repeat the analysis using instrumental variables to account for endogeneity bias, and the estimates are unchanged. However, we also find that the effect of news coverage varies considerably by relief agency.
{"title":"Media Coverage & Charitable Giving After the 2004 Tsunami","authors":"Phil Brown, Jessica H. Minty","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.968760","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.968760","url":null,"abstract":"Media coverage of humanitarian crises is widely believed to influence charitable giving, yet this assertion has received little empirical scrutiny. Using Internet donations after the 2004 tsunami as a case study, we show that media coverage of disasters has a dramatic impact on donations to relief agencies, with an additional minute of nightly news coverage increasing donations by 0.036 standard deviations from the mean, or 13.2% of the average daily donation for the typical relief agency. Similarly, an additional 700-word story in the New York Times or Wall Street Journal raises donations by 18.2% of the daily average. These results are robust to controls for the timing of news coverage and tax considerations. We repeat the analysis using instrumental variables to account for endogeneity bias, and the estimates are unchanged. However, we also find that the effect of news coverage varies considerably by relief agency.","PeriodicalId":106035,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127582926","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This comment reports on a case pending before the European Court of Human rights which raises the question whether torture can ever be supported to save human life.
{"title":"Rettungsfolter (Salvation Torture): Report on the Gaefgen v. Germany Case Pending Before the European Court on Human Rights","authors":"James R. Maxeiner","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1230460","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1230460","url":null,"abstract":"This comment reports on a case pending before the European Court of Human rights which raises the question whether torture can ever be supported to save human life.","PeriodicalId":106035,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130563650","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We discuss the role that transnational corporations (TNCs) should play in developing global governance, creating a framework of rules and regulations for the global economy. The central issue is whether TNCs should provide global rules and guarantee individual citizenship rights, or instead focus on maximizing profits. First, we describe the problems arising from the globalization process that affect the relationship between public rules and private firms. Next we consider the position of economic and management theories in relation to the social responsibility of the firm. We argue that instrumental stakeholder theory and business and society research can only partially solve the global governance issue, and that more recent concepts of corporate citizenship and republican business ethics deliver theoretically and practically helpful, fresh insights. However, even these need further development, especially with regard to the legitimacy of corporate political activity.
{"title":"Global Rules and Private Actors - Towards a New Role of the Transnational Corporation in Global Governance","authors":"A. Scherer, G. Palazzo, Dorothée Baumann-Pauly","doi":"10.5840/BEQ200616446","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/BEQ200616446","url":null,"abstract":"We discuss the role that transnational corporations (TNCs) should play in developing global governance, creating a framework of rules and regulations for the global economy. The central issue is whether TNCs should provide global rules and guarantee individual citizenship rights, or instead focus on maximizing profits. First, we describe the problems arising from the globalization process that affect the relationship between public rules and private firms. Next we consider the position of economic and management theories in relation to the social responsibility of the firm. We argue that instrumental stakeholder theory and business and society research can only partially solve the global governance issue, and that more recent concepts of corporate citizenship and republican business ethics deliver theoretically and practically helpful, fresh insights. However, even these need further development, especially with regard to the legitimacy of corporate political activity.","PeriodicalId":106035,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130879875","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Commitment to Development Index of the Center for Global Development rates 21 rich countries on the “development-friendliness” of their policies. It is revised and updated annually. In the 2005 edition, the component on foreign assistance combines quantitative and qualitative measures of official aid, and of fiscal policies that support private charitable giving. The quantitative measure uses a net transfers concept, as distinct from the net flows concept in the net Official Development Assistance measure of the Development Assistance Committee. The qualitative factors are: a penalty for tying aid; a discounting system that favors aid to poorer, better-governed recipients; and a penalty for “project proliferation.” The charitable giving measure is based on an estimate of the share of observed private giving to developing countries that is attributable to a) lower overall taxes or b) specific tax incentives for giving. Despite the adjustments, overall results are dominated by differences in quantity of official aid given. This is because while there is a seven-fold range in net concessional transfers/GDP among the scored countries, variation in overall aid quality across donors appears far lower, and private giving is generally small. Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden score highest while the largest donors in absolute terms, the United States and Japan, rank at or near the bottom. Standings by the 2005 methodology have been relatively stable since 1995.
{"title":"An Index of Donor Performance-Revised August 2005","authors":"G. David Roodman","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.984250","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.984250","url":null,"abstract":"The Commitment to Development Index of the Center for Global Development rates 21 rich countries on the “development-friendliness” of their policies. It is revised and updated annually. In the 2005 edition, the component on foreign assistance combines quantitative and qualitative measures of official aid, and of fiscal policies that support private charitable giving. The quantitative measure uses a net transfers concept, as distinct from the net flows concept in the net Official Development Assistance measure of the Development Assistance Committee. The qualitative factors are: a penalty for tying aid; a discounting system that favors aid to poorer, better-governed recipients; and a penalty for “project proliferation.” The charitable giving measure is based on an estimate of the share of observed private giving to developing countries that is attributable to a) lower overall taxes or b) specific tax incentives for giving. Despite the adjustments, overall results are dominated by differences in quantity of official aid given. This is because while there is a seven-fold range in net concessional transfers/GDP among the scored countries, variation in overall aid quality across donors appears far lower, and private giving is generally small. Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden score highest while the largest donors in absolute terms, the United States and Japan, rank at or near the bottom. Standings by the 2005 methodology have been relatively stable since 1995.","PeriodicalId":106035,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122747407","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper aims at providing an ethical framework for rebuilding, reconstructing, restructuring and revitalizing human capabilities as a means to achieve social empowerment. It strives toward conceptualizing a certain set of guidelines built upon a notion of globally common human values. Using the intellectual tasks of law, science and policy theory, its values and its interdisciplinary methods and tools that require a rigorous and contextual analysis of conflicting claims, and past and future authoritative and controlling responses to them, the paper aims at inventing, evaluating, proposing and selecting alternative solutions and recommendations whose outcome and the process has to generate development. The paper argues that complying with policies, aiming at maximizing access of all to all the most critical and desired values support the establishment of an optimum order of human dignity, which is characterized by maximum access of all to the universe of human aspirations.
{"title":"A Values-Based Approach to Development: Principles of Content of Development, the Right to Development, and Sustainable (Human) Development","authors":"Qerim Qerimi","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1097287","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1097287","url":null,"abstract":"This paper aims at providing an ethical framework for rebuilding, reconstructing, restructuring and revitalizing human capabilities as a means to achieve social empowerment. It strives toward conceptualizing a certain set of guidelines built upon a notion of globally common human values. Using the intellectual tasks of law, science and policy theory, its values and its interdisciplinary methods and tools that require a rigorous and contextual analysis of conflicting claims, and past and future authoritative and controlling responses to them, the paper aims at inventing, evaluating, proposing and selecting alternative solutions and recommendations whose outcome and the process has to generate development. The paper argues that complying with policies, aiming at maximizing access of all to all the most critical and desired values support the establishment of an optimum order of human dignity, which is characterized by maximum access of all to the universe of human aspirations.","PeriodicalId":106035,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125113553","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
What do parent companies owe to individuals that are directly affected by the business conduct of a foreign subsidiary? In corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies and sustainability reports parent companies of multinational enterprises respond to that question. They emphasize their commitment to address environmental and human rights risks across their global supply chain. The CSR communication of parent companies constitutes multinational enterprises as responsible business organisations. CSR communication targets investors, creditors and consumers of the parent company. In this paper, I direct my attention to actors that had not been intended addressees of parent companies’ CSR communication: to the courts in their home state jurisdictions. Even though the CSR communication was not meant to be understood as legal communication, courts in home states of parent companies have been confronted with CSR communication in domestic transnational human rights litigation against multinational enterprises. I will discuss how employees, consumers and the general public took the CSR communication of parent company seriously and thereupon formulated claims under tort, contract or consumer protection laws. I argue that a legal approach to CSR communication should dissolve the conflicting simultaneity of assessing responsibility for human rights and the environment on an abstract level while avoiding liability in concrete cases.
{"title":"CSR Communication in Transnational Human Rights Litigations Against Parent Companies","authors":"L. Knöpfel","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3311545","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3311545","url":null,"abstract":"What do parent companies owe to individuals that are directly affected by the business conduct of a foreign subsidiary? In corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies and sustainability reports parent companies of multinational enterprises respond to that question. They emphasize their commitment to address environmental and human rights risks across their global supply chain. The CSR communication of parent companies constitutes multinational enterprises as responsible business organisations. CSR communication targets investors, creditors and consumers of the parent company. In this paper, I direct my attention to actors that had not been intended addressees of parent companies’ CSR communication: to the courts in their home state jurisdictions. Even though the CSR communication was not meant to be understood as legal communication, courts in home states of parent companies have been confronted with CSR communication in domestic transnational human rights litigation against multinational enterprises. I will discuss how employees, consumers and the general public took the CSR communication of parent company seriously and thereupon formulated claims under tort, contract or consumer protection laws. I argue that a legal approach to CSR communication should dissolve the conflicting simultaneity of assessing responsibility for human rights and the environment on an abstract level while avoiding liability in concrete cases.","PeriodicalId":106035,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115532093","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In today’s charitable world, many of the causes that have captured the attention of global philanthropists and organizations alike are international in nature. Gone are the days when US charities and the individuals and corporations who give to them are focused only on what is happening within the borders of the US in spite of economic hardship at home. In 2008, international funding represented almost 25% of overall giving in the US. As new international funders enter the global giving scene, it is clear that a focus on alleviating suffering abroad and world plights is on the conscience of American philanthropists. Should not a philanthropic CEO of a major US corporation who has donated to the American Red Cross be able to make the same tax-efficient donations to its UK equivalent if he has had to relocate to London to continue to progress in the global game of world markets? Should we require instead that the UK charity set up a US charity or seek administratively burdensome registration in the US? Both of these options come at a price that could be used to provide disaster relief rather than to circumvent a perhaps well-meaning but misplaced set of rules. The barrier to the CEO’s giving is the result of a notion present not only in the US’s set of charitable giving rules but also in those of the UK and most European Union (“EU”) countries. I will refer to that notion as the “notion of territoriality.” The notion of territoriality is the restriction of income tax deductibility to those donations made to charities formed within a given country’s borders. It is the opposite of allowing deductibility for donations made to charities formed in other countries (“foreign charities”). The notion of territoriality is endemic in the charitable laws of the US, the UK, and the EU, particularly the Netherlands. This article will address aspects of the notion of territoriality in all three sets of charitable laws. Part I of this article will define the notion of territoriality and examine the historical reasons for it; Part II of this article will discuss why the notion of territoriality is problematic; and Part III will explore the solution proposed by the European Union (“EU”) in a landmark case and how the US may adapt its laws in light of the change and historic notions discussed.
在当今的慈善界，许多吸引全球慈善家和组织关注的事业本质上都是国际性的。过去，美国的慈善机构以及向他们捐款的个人和企业，不顾国内的经济困难，只关注美国境内发生的事情，这种日子已经一去不复返了。2008年，国际资助占美国总捐赠的近25%。随着新的国际资助者进入全球捐赠舞台，很明显，关注减轻海外苦难和世界困境是美国慈善家的良心问题。如果一家向美国红十字会(American Red Cross)捐款的美国大公司的慈善首席执行官不得不搬到伦敦，以继续在全球市场的全球游戏中取得进展，那么他难道不能向英国的同类公司进行同样的节税捐赠吗?我们是应该要求英国慈善机构在美国设立一个慈善机构，还是寻求在美国进行行政上繁重的注册?这两种选择的代价都可以用来提供救灾，而不是规避一套可能是善意的、但错位的规则。阻碍首席执行官捐款的原因是一种观念，这种观念不仅存在于美国的慈善捐赠规定中，也存在于英国和大多数欧盟(EU)国家。我将把这个概念称为"领土概念"地域性的概念是对在某一国家境内成立的慈善机构的捐款的所得税减免的限制。这与允许对在其他国家成立的慈善机构(“外国慈善机构”)的捐款进行扣除正好相反。在美国、英国和欧盟(尤其是荷兰)的慈善法中，地域性的概念是地方性的。本文将讨论所有三套慈善法中属地性概念的各个方面。本文第一部分将界定领土概念，并考察其历史原因;本文的第二部分将讨论为什么领土概念是有问题的;第三部分将探讨欧盟(“欧盟”)在一个具有里程碑意义的案例中提出的解决方案，以及美国如何根据所讨论的变化和历史概念调整其法律。
{"title":"The Charitable Deduction Games: Are the Laws in Your Favor?","authors":"K. Johnson","doi":"10.7916/D8M61JPN","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D8M61JPN","url":null,"abstract":"In today’s charitable world, many of the causes that have captured the attention of global philanthropists and organizations alike are international in nature. Gone are the days when US charities and the individuals and corporations who give to them are focused only on what is happening within the borders of the US in spite of economic hardship at home. In 2008, international funding represented almost 25% of overall giving in the US. As new international funders enter the global giving scene, it is clear that a focus on alleviating suffering abroad and world plights is on the conscience of American philanthropists. Should not a philanthropic CEO of a major US corporation who has donated to the American Red Cross be able to make the same tax-efficient donations to its UK equivalent if he has had to relocate to London to continue to progress in the global game of world markets? Should we require instead that the UK charity set up a US charity or seek administratively burdensome registration in the US? Both of these options come at a price that could be used to provide disaster relief rather than to circumvent a perhaps well-meaning but misplaced set of rules. The barrier to the CEO’s giving is the result of a notion present not only in the US’s set of charitable giving rules but also in those of the UK and most European Union (“EU”) countries. I will refer to that notion as the “notion of territoriality.” The notion of territoriality is the restriction of income tax deductibility to those donations made to charities formed within a given country’s borders. It is the opposite of allowing deductibility for donations made to charities formed in other countries (“foreign charities”). The notion of territoriality is endemic in the charitable laws of the US, the UK, and the EU, particularly the Netherlands. This article will address aspects of the notion of territoriality in all three sets of charitable laws. Part I of this article will define the notion of territoriality and examine the historical reasons for it; Part II of this article will discuss why the notion of territoriality is problematic; and Part III will explore the solution proposed by the European Union (“EU”) in a landmark case and how the US may adapt its laws in light of the change and historic notions discussed.","PeriodicalId":106035,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129834438","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：