Davita Silfen Glasberg

Whiteness as Property: Predatory Lending and the Reproduction of Racialized Inequality

With the recent economic crisis in the USA, stories of homes lost to foreclosure are increasingly common. In this paper, we attempt to connect this present day problem to its historical roots in racial oppression. We examine 2004 data from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act database for racial disparities in lending. We find that African Americans are less likely than European Americans to receive loans from regulated lenders. We also find that regardless of lender type and income level, African Americans are more likely than European Americans to receive high priced loans. We argue that these racial differences in access to quality loans that allow for the acquisition of assets through home ownership are part of a historical trend of whiteness as property and undeserved enrichment and unjust impoverishment.

Financial institutions and social transformations : international studies of a sector

Acknowledgements - Notes on the Contributors - An Industry in Transition: Regulation, Restructuring and Renewal D.Knights - The Dialectic of the Value Form: The Social Evolution of Capital Markets in the US T.Tinker - Suburban Subjects: Financial Services and the New Rights C.Grey - The Acrobat of Desire: Consumer Credit and its Linkages to Modern Consumerism M.Shaoul - Bringing the Consumer in: Sales Networks in Retail Banking in New Zealand T.Austrin - Financial Services in Transition: An Examination of Market and Regulatory Forces in Denmark and the UK J.Sundbo - Stability or Transformation of Employment Relations in German Banking M.Muller - Marketing the Soul: From the Ideology of Consumption to Consumer Subjectivity D.Knights and A.Sturdy - The Japanese Main Bank Relationship: Governance or Competitive Strategy? M.J.Scher - Index

Sociology : a critical approach

Part 1 Introduction: the sociological imagination. Part 2 Core sociological concepts: social structure - macro-level social structure - mid- and macro-level culture socialization systems of inequality intersection of race, class and gender deviance and social control social change and social movements. Part 3 Institutional spheres: the state and capitol the labour process education health family religion. Part 4 Thinking about the future: emerging issues.

THE LIBRARY SCAVENGER HUNT: TEACHING LIBRARY SKILLS IN INTRODUCTORY SOCIOLOGY COURSES*

Most educators agree that successful undergraduate education requires students to develop a working understanding of how to use the academic library. Yet many express shock and disappointment on discovering that juniors and seniors may not have this skill. Despite our agreement about the importance of library skills, few of us take the responsibility to teach them as part of our substantive course work. In this paper we challenge the assumption that library skills are not a legitimate aspect of sociology courses. Rather we argue that these skills can be incorporated appropriately into an introductory sociology course. Students enrolled in such courses tend to be in their first or second year. The earlier in the undergraduate education we teach library skills, the more likely it is that students will succeed in college. Furthermore, teaching library skills need not be maligned as remedial work that is irrelevant to our substantive material. We can teach these skills as an

Bank Hegemony Research and its Implications for Power Structure Theory

This paper reviews case studies of bank hegemony research, illustrating the challenges it poses for power structure theory to develop a more dynamic model of power and to take into account modern organized capital flow relationships, both locally and globally.This paper reviews case studies of bank hegemony research, illustrating the challenges it poses for power structure theory to develop a more dynamic model of power and to take into account modern organized capital flow relationships, both locally and globally.

The Role of Finance Capital of Corporate Crisis and the Social Construction

The need to understand the nature and meaning of corporate crises is becoming increasingly compelling, given the increasing occurrence of corporate bankruptcies, near-bankruptcies, takeovers, and bailouts of the past decade. Moreover, the high profile of participation of the banking community in situations of corporate difficulties (and, indeed, in healthy corporate experiences) underlines the need to decipher the role of finance capital in crisis formation and resolution. However, this phenomenon of crisis is very poorly understood sociologically. Indeed, its study has largely been relegated to the discipline of economics, with the consequence of a purely economic definition of the concept. The growing interest in the sociology of business and industry now obliges us to come to grips with corporate crises as important elements in the business community and its experiences. Furthermore, once we understand the dynamics of crisis formation and resolution, we may be able to better comprehend intercorporate behavior patterns, and, on a broader level, patterns and processes of power in corporations.

Victims of Terrorism and the Right to Redress Challenges and Contradictions in the 2012 Emmerson Report

The U.N. Global Counterterrorism Strategy (A/RES/60/288) recognizes that the war on terror can only be won by protecting the rights of its victims. However, almost a decade since its adoption, the application of a human rights framework to the protection of the rights of victims of terrorism has been largely neglected. A 2012 report by U.N. Special Rapporteur Ben Emmerson sought to address this inattention, recommending that member states provide reparations to victims of terrorism regardless of the question of State responsibility. While this application of a human rights framework to the discourse on terrorism victims’ rights has been a breakthrough, the recommendations of the Emmerson report imply several thorny issues and fail to confront several key concepts embedded in its assumptions. Analyzing the international norms surrounding victims’ rights vis-à-vis reparations and state responsibility, we posit that all member states indeed have the obligation to protect the rights of victims as human rights and provide avenues for redress. However, we argue that the narrow definition of terrorism in the Emmerson report that fails to include institutional or state terrorism leads to legal and normative questions about who its rightful victims are, who should be held responsible, and what the role of the state and international community is with regard to restitution. Such unresolved questions in international law could ultimately be detrimental to the recognition and protection of the rights of victims of terrorism within a human rights framework.