Variation in practice procedures of professionals in different disciplines (e.g. social sciences and humanities) amazes those interested in objectivity. This is especially true concerning questions regarding human interest (conflict of interest, difference in the determination of interest, among other variants of interest) concerning the public realm and policy making/implementation. This has always been a matter of vigorous debate in the social sciences and other disciplines. Rather than engage in broad examination of their forms, we focus on clarifying the way various interests are perceived and treated with reference to objectivity in social science research and public policy. The objective of this paper is to assess the extent to which pluralism theory contributes towards understanding of differences between practices of social sciences and law. The specific objectives are: to explain the rather diametric opposition in the way social researchers are expected to exhibit objectivity in their approach to public policy/welfare and the way lawyers persist in applying bias towards persuading Judges to either acquit their clients or apply leniency to give their clients lighter sentences than could have been the case, should the full weight of possible penalty/punishment were to be applied. To provide reference material for stimulating multi-/cross-disciplinary discourse on the issues in the nexus of the title, we draw from multi-/interdisciplinary literature review to clarify the concept of objectivity from human geography, human society and the sovereign from political sciences and philosophies of Thomas Hobbes. The methods of aetiology and desk research were employed for implementing this study. The important empirical value of the study includes the analysis of the sub-field where social statistics (data) has been gathered against the backdrop of the perception of both the nature as well as the “how” the data is gathered to representing “facts”. Finally, we summarise the major ideas of the discourse, recommend future directions in exploring studies of this nature.
Autonomy of national apex banks has been one of the major strategies of sustaining the hegemony of neoliberalism on global and national economies.
The recent and ongoing crises within neoliberal-capitalism (2007-present) has been raised to visibility issues in the nexus of national apex banking (autonomy, interests, structure, operation, form, among others) as means of improving macro-economic stability and sustaining national socio-economic growth and development. Irrespective of prolonged mismanagement of the national economy and the presentation of conspicuous macro-economic instability, among other socio-economic challenges, there is a gap in information and knowledge regarding the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN)‟s role in responding to these challenges. Here, we review critical literature on adverse consequences of global apex banking autonomy on sustainable development generally –including impacts on vulnerable populations excluded by the elite from sustainable development processes and platforms. Then we examine recent public discourses concerning Nigeria‟s apex bank‟s autonomy by various stakeholders including: recent attempts by Nigeria‟s federal legislators to strip the CBN of its autonomy; responses by the ruling and major political parties and the CBN‟s leadership, among others. Afterwards we examine the track-records of the CBN macro-economic management and of Nigeria‟s federal legislature in contributing towards Nigeria‟s socio-economic development in Nigeria‟s Fourth Republic (1999-2012/present). We find that Nigeria‟s federal legislation aimed at stripping the CBN of its autonomy is a reprisal against the CBN‟s recent criticism of the rather disproportionately large budgetary allocation to and expenditure on recurrent expenditure on the salaries and allowances of the National Assembly thereby neglecting and downplaying capital expenditure on development programmes/projects. The implications of this findings for policy is that while the CBN‟s leadership is not without blemish, the autonomy of Nigeria‟s apex bank must be sustained considering the trend of pervasive corruption and mismanagement in the executive, legislative and judicial arms of Nigeria‟s Fourth Republic dominated by the ruling Peoples‟ Democratic Party.