This thesis is an attempt to interpret the conception of authority that was predominant among the Central and Northern Arabs at the time immediately preceding the rise of Islam. Since that conception was not explicitly formulated, we have analyzed the role and influence of the different political and religious functionaries as well as the reactions of their "subjects" to their commands in order to discover the basis of legitimacy for that authority. As there exists an essential relationship between authority and society, we have presented the social and economic organization and the ideal values of the pre-Islamic Arabs which might have influenced their conception of authority. That is why we discuss the Bedouin and the urban settlements separately. As a possible origin and justification of authority, we discuss its connection with religion, in particular, whether in pre-Islamic times there ever existed a theocratic rulership. [...]

Thesis (M.A.)--Indiana University, 2008. / Title from screen (viewed on June 24, 2009). Department of English, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI). Advisor(s): Karen M. Kovacik, Susanmarie Harrington, Robert Rebein. Includes vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 77-78).

No description available.

Thesis (M.S.)--Miami University, Dept. of Family Studies and Social Work, 2008. / Title from first page of PDF document. Includes bibliographical references (p. 46-54).

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / Beyond the boundaries of the classroom, the idea of emancipatory authority is a worldview which encourages the empowerment of the public to embrace different roles of authority, and take action as members of the local, regional, and global community. Within the classroom, emancipatory authority provides students and teachers with opportunities to create an atmosphere where both parties take responsibility for the development of education in one community, as well as creating a diverse environment where voices and ideas blend, and without the traditional classroom hierarchy.

ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The importance of strategy execution in an organisation cannot be downplayed because without it the sustainability of the organisation is at stake. Merely having great strategies is not sufficient as the implementation is the key to direct the activities of the organisation. Middle management plays a central role in strategy execution and any disconnect between them and the top management is bound to lead to organisational failure of effective strategy execution. This research study was based on the role that middle management play in the execution of strategy at the Roads Authority (RA). Semi-structured interviews were used to interview ten middle managers of the organisation, who were randomly selected through purposive sampling. The findings reveal that middle management is failing to play the requisite role of interpreting and translating strategy into actions. The findings further indicate that there is a leadership disconnect between them and their supervisors. They are also facing challenges of questionable strategy alignment within the operations which is causing ineffective resource allocation. In addition, the results indicate that the enabling tools such as the performance management, business systems and allocation of resources are falling short of assisting middle managers in strategy implementation. Lastly, these findings can assist the case study organisation to understand the strategic transformation process at middle management level and to review it for improving and to take corrective actions. The research study was an explorative one and used a limited sample, hence it will be necessary to do further research to get more insights about the potential roles that middle management could play in strategy formulation and the contributions they currently make towards it. The findings of this study can also not be generalised as they are for use only by the case study organisation.

No description available.

published_or_final_version / English / Master / Master of Arts

Currently, the argument that markets cannot provide public goods underlies the justification of political authority most widely accepted by political theorists. Yet, as theorists usually depict the problem, public goods could be voluntarily produced at levels of efficiency comparable to those attainable by coercion. Once we allow that the real problem is much more messy than its theoretical models led us to believe, we have to admit that coercion may be necessary after all. At the same time, we have to admit that the moral problem of justifying coercion is also more messy than we thought, and for precisely the same reason. I discuss contractual mechanisms for voluntary public goods provision, arguing that with such a mechanism, voluntary contribution levels might be much higher than conventional theories predict. My theory is borne out in laboratory experiments. Still, it remains an open question whether it would be worth the trouble to switch from the coercive methods presently employed to noncoercive (or less coercive) methods of public goods provision. A strictly efficient method is not among our options. We have to assess the efficiency of various methods in a relative sense. Should we find cases in which public goods cannot be provided by contract, or should we decide that in some cases we do not even want to risk trying voluntary methods, we are forced to face the moral issue squarely. I offer a traditional analysis of justice, although I employ it in a somewhat unorthodox way in drawing conclusions about the moral status of private property in a well-ordered society. I then use this analysis to develop a foundation for property rights, exploring its implications for questions concerning what people are morally obliged to do, and what they can legitimately be forced to do, for the sake of public goods production.

The primary aim of the dissertation is to introduce a new theory of promissory obligation, the authority theory. The authority theory holds that promises are obligatory because they are commands we give ourselves, as authorities over ourselves. I motivate the theory by arguing that traditional views of promising can't explain promises we make to ourselves.In the first chapter I introduce and detail the notion of a promissory obligation. I briefly recount some of the history of the Western philosophical views of promissory obligations, focusing on the Natural Law tradition from the Stoics, through the Roman and Medieval writers, into the 17th Century.In the second chapter, I introduce the notion of a promise to the self. I argue that vows, oaths and pledges are best explained as self promises. I then counter two important objections to self promises: That self promises can't be obligatory because the promiser can release herself from the promise; and that such instances of putative promise are best explained as expressions of acknowledgement of prior obligations.In the third chapter I offer arguments that the current crop of theories of promising are unable to account for self promises. I categorize three modern approaches to promising: prudentialism, which grounds promissory obligation in the potential harm a promise-breaker might suffer for his transgression; expectationalism, which grounds the obligation in the expectations that promises raise in promisees, and conventionalism, which grounds the obligation in the convention of promising. I argue that none of these approaches can accommodate promises to the self, and that a new approach is indicated.In the final chapter I introduce the new theory. I explain how it is that we have the authority to issue commands to ourselves, and I argue for the probity of such self commands by reference to the existence of such reflexive authority in other venues, most notably in the armed forces. I also list the advantages the authority theory has over its competition, apart from its ability to explain self promises. I conclude by outlining a future research project in examining the meta-ethical implications of reflexive authority.