This paper considers some developments within Russian privatized industrial ®rms 1992±94 through the lens of Stakeholder-Agency Theory (SAT). Although it has its own shortcomings and weaknesses, SAT, unlike the traditional ®nancial version of Agency Theory, at least contemplates the possibility of a transitional period during which enterprise governance structures can evolve.It is by now widely recognised that in the middle of deep economic crisis, the Russian economy is too volatile for longitudinal studies of formally structured samples of ®rms over a period of time. In any case, SAT is at a stage of development that has not yet yielded detailed predictions for scienti®c testing. Yet surveys of recently privatized ®rms in Russia do provide empirical data away from the origins of SAT, and it is argued that this fresh data suggests new research propositions that can hopefully lead to more theoretical re®nement and ultimately testing. At the very least, SAT can be used as a heuristic device, capable of providing a way of looking at complex Russian developments in a structured way.A process of Russian privatization through management±employee buy-outs involving giveaway distributions of shares has secured the compliance of the two main groups of enterprise stakeholders who could have prevented the withdrawal of the State from the governance of industrial enterprises, but has not yet produced a form of corporate governance structure that is likely to survive in the long term without State protection.In the longer term, international competitiveness can only be secured in Russia through investment in new products and processes, and the inadequacies of managers and other employees as sources of investable funds mean that incumbents must generate a more welcoming climate for outside investors. Even after such a short period since privatization and in the middle of a deep economic crisis, some enterprises are already favouring more ecient governance structures in a way consistent with SAT.

We summarise and comment on the topics discussed by the contributors to this Special Issue. As an introduction, Ann Jequier's [1] generally positive assessment of the new-look manual was tempered with her reservations about reference values, on which other chapters dwelt at length. Aspects of laboratory technique were discussed by Charlene Brazil [2], whose offering gives a rare insight into the actual workings of andrology laboratories and highlights the need for greater involvement of laboratory directors (often clinicians) in assessing the quality of data provided. Experience with the German external quality control programme for semen analysis confirms that some laboratories treat the quality control (QC) samples differently (using a Neubauer chamber, for instance) from routine samples (a Makler chamber) so that the exercise may be undermined and fail to provide proper control of the lab's quality of work. It is one thing to have QC accepted in principle but the essential job of "policing" semen analysis QC falls in no-one's court. Allan Pacey's [3] contribution supports wholeheartedly quality assurance (QA) in andrology but also zeros in on a potential quantitative problem in the precision of normal sperm morphology assessment, when such values are low.Rune Eliasson's [4] characteristically blunt contribution lambasts the whole process of scientific consensus, the mainstay of world health organization (WHO) committees' recommendations. He considers that the perspective of the handbook are too narrow; its recommendations on assessing sperm morphology are inadequate; there to be insufficient emphasis on interpretation of results (cumulative importance of laboratory findings, interpretation of reference limits) or on manipulation of data (e.g. dividing total sperm numbers by days of abstinence and the testicular volume) and finds no mention of how to measure testicular volume. He laces this with invective against the lack of scientific method of those working in ART and reserves particular venom for the morphology method espoused in WHO3 [5] and WHO4 [6] that is given even more prominence in WHO5 [7].Once our hackles are down again, though, his view contain some prickly wisdom. First, if only normal forms are examined, the analysis could provide little indication of testicular dysfunction (other than the reduced output of normal forms) that may be indicated by production of particular abnormal forms. Second, as the normative reference values are so low, it can provide little scope for diagnosis, making it a meaningless end-point.Eliasson's [4] suggestion is that different criteria for categorising spermatozoa as morphologically normal (borderline forms considered normal, as in earlier editions of the WHO manual) should be implemented. These should provide higher percentages of normal forms and thus increase the possibility of distinguishing men with lower perentages of such forms. Thus far more workable and informative reference limits around 40%-60% would be provided by using less restrictive assessment. Howe...

No abstract

No abstract