Despite agreement on many points, including our shared insistence that ‘corporation’ and ‘firm’ are different concepts, Jean-Philippe Robé still maintains that they are mutually exclusive: no corporation is a firm, and no firm is a corporation. In contrast, we follow standard nomenclature when we point out that all (business) corporations are firms, but some firms are not corporations. We show here that this is a standard practice among lawyers writing in leading law journals and note that Robé seems to have abandoned the task of defining the firm.

We analyse VLBI and optical images of AGNs and their host galaxies and look for statistical correlations between the shape and orientation of the galaxy and the direction of the jet. We utilise the Astrogeo catalogue, which has over 9000 VLBI sources, many of those with a clear core-jet like structure that allows for the jet position angle to be reliably determined. We then use the VLBI source positions to search for optical counterparts within various optical surveys. In order to parameterise the orientation and shape of the host galaxy, we fitted a Gaussian elliptical model to the optical image, taking the PSF into account. We check our own shape parameters from this fit against the ones provided by the optical surveys. As of yet, no clear correlation between the galaxy morphology and the jet direction is seen.

In his recent book on Property, Power and Politics, Jean-Philippe Robé makes a strong case for the need to understand the legal foundations of modern capitalism. He also insists that it is important to distinguish between firms and corporations. We agree. But Robé criticizes our definition of firms in terms of legally recognized capacities on the grounds that it does not take the distinction seriously enough. He argues that firms are not legally recognized as such, as the law only knows corporations. This argument, which is capable of different interpretations, leads to the bizarre result that corporations are not firms. Using etymological and other evidence, we show that firms are treated as legally constituted business entities in both common parlance and legal discourse. The way the law defines firms and corporations, while the product of a discourse which is in many ways distinct from everyday language, has such profound implications for the way firms operate in practice that no institutional theory of the firm worthy of the name can afford to ignore it.

PURPOSE: To investigate health-related quality of life (HRQOL ) in survivors of intracranial germ cell tumors (IGCT). METHODS: Survivors of IGCT were invited to complete the 36-Item Short Form Survey Instrument (SF-36). The SF-36 is scored from 0-100, with a higher number representing a more favorable HRQOL. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 12 survivors of IGCT, 6 males and 6 females. Median age was 13 years at diagnosis, and 26 years at time of study. Median follow-up was 11 years. Five patients had germinomas, and 7 had non-germinomatous germ cell tumors. All 12 patients received radiation therapy (RT), 10 to the craniospinal axis, 1 to the whole ventricles and 1 to the tumor bed alone. Nine patients received chemotherapy. Mean SF-36 scores were 67.9 (standard deviation [SD] 33.2) for physical functioning, 58.3 (SD 37.4) for role limitations due to physical health, 77.8 (SD 32.8) for role limitations due to emotional problems, 43.1 (SD 18.4) for vitality, 74.3 (SD 15.3) for mental health; 62.5 (SD 32.0) for social functioning, 74.2 (SD 33.4) for pain, and 57.1 (SD 24.0) for general health; mean scores were >1 SD lower than that of Canadian normative data for vitality, social functioning and general health. Physical component score was 43.6 (SD 13.9) and mental component score was 47.6 (SD 11.2), normalized to a US population with mean of 50 and SD of 10. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term HRQOL for survivors of IGCT is lower than that of the overall population, particularly in vitality, social functioning and general health.

Robert Neild (born 1924) has made a major contribution to economics and to peace studies. This paper provides a brief sketch of Neild's life and work. While noting his research in economic policy and peace studies, this essay devotes more attention to his largely unnoticed contributions to institutional and evolutionary economics since 1984. These are important in their own right, but they are especially notable because Cambridge heterodox economists have been devoted mainly to other approaches, including Marxism and post-Keynesianism. Neild's distinctive contribution is partly explained by his closeness to both Nicholas Kaldor and Gunnar Myrdal. Myrdal made explicit his adherence to the original American institutionalism: Neild extended that link to Cambridge.