University of Macau / Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities / Department of Communication

published_or_final_version / Linguistics / Master / Master of Arts

published_or_final_version / Urban Planning / Master / Master of Science in Urban Planning

published_or_final_version / Real Estate and Construction / Doctoral / Doctor of Philosophy

Air transport is a key instrument of the increasingly global flows of goods, services, and people. Despite the fact that commercial aviation can be seen as a vanguard of globalisation, it remains one of the most tightly regulated and nationally controlled industries in the world. While progressive deregulation has taken place in certain regions, most importantly in North America and Europe, much of the world continues to be dominated by restrictive, state-centric bilateral air service agreements. Since the particular institutional and geographical settings of East Asia impede making direct inferences from air transport deregulation in the West, there is a need to develop a better understanding of the air transport environment in the region. his study aims at analysing the endogenous factors that influence the development of aeropolitics on the global scale, in general, and in East Asia, in specific. A mixed methods approach, combining both qualitative and quantitative tools, is used to uncover the relationships between factors related to institutional organisation and polity size, on the one hand, and aeropolitics, on the other. The first part of the study consists of a predominantly quantitative analysis of the relationships on the global scale. Since the quantitative section can at most point to potential causal linkages, it is followed by an in-depth qualitative case study section, focusing on aeropolitical development in three East Asian polities of China, Hong Kong, and South Korea. This study argues that aeropolitics cannot be analysed without due attention to the context in which aeropolitical development takes place. While the direct effects of geographical, demographic, and economic factors remain limited, the importance of the polity-level institutional framework to aeropolitics cannot be overstated. More precisely, economic institutions have a direct impact on the development of aeropolitics, while political institutions set the boundaries within which economic institutions operate. / published_or_final_version / Geography / Master / Master of Philosophy

Rawls emphasizes in his later writings that his theory of justice as fairness is not a defense of welfare-state capitalism. He argues that welfare-state capitalism cannot be an acceptable regime for justice as fairness because its ideal institutional description fails to satisfy the two principles of justice in various ways. Against Rawls, I argue in this thesis that his rejection of welfare-state capitalism is not justified. I begin by clarifying an ambiguity regarding what arrangements and policies according to Rawls are essential to satisfy the two principles of justice through closely studying the institutional arrangements of property-owning democracy and liberal socialism—the two regimes thought by Rawls as capable of fully satisfying the two principles of justice. After that, I show that the fundamental reason behind Rawls’s rejection of welfare-state capitalism is his assumption that welfare-state capitalism does not aim to realize justice as fairness. I argue that this assumption held by Rawls is not justified because the essential institutional features of welfare-state capitalism can be compatible with the arrangements and policies necessary to satisfy the principles of justice. I also argue that if Rawls’s assumption regarding the aim of welfare-state capitalism cannot stand, he should not rule out welfare-state capitalism as an acceptable regime for justice as fairness. Finally, I examine different arguments that provide alternative reasons to justify Rawls’s rejection of welfare-state capitalism. I argue that all of them are unsuccessful because they either are based on problematic interpretations of the two principles of justice or fail to conclusively rule out welfare-state capitalism. By showing that welfare-state capitalism can be an acceptable regime for justice as fairness, this thesis proves that a just society does not need to be the one that entitles every citizen to a substantive right to own real capital. Also, in the process of arguing for welfare-state capitalism, this thesis also indirectly contributes to the recent debates between Rawlsians on the left and right over the proper interpretations of the first principle of justice and the Difference Principle. / published_or_final_version / Politics and Public Administration / Master / Master of Philosophy

Not available / text

Not available / text

published_or_final_version / Public Administration / Master / Master of Public Administration

published_or_final_version / Housing Management / Master / Master of Housing Management