Critical analysis of the practice of insolvency in Ethiopia in protecting creditors' interests: A good law buried in institutional dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Insolvency law is one of the mechanisms uniformly used by nations to protect creditors from the ex post risk of non‐payment of their debts emanating from the debtors' insolvency. With the substantial increase in the risk of creditors during insolvency, stronger protection should be accorded to creditors' interests. The complete protection of creditors' interests during insolvency requires not only the safeguarding of creditors' rights in insolvency law but also the correct interpretation and application of the law by insolvency courts, as well as the efficient execution of court decisions resolving the debtor's affairs and guaranteeing creditors' rights to recover their debts. This study, for the first time, evaluates whether the practice of insolvency in Ethiopia effectively protects creditors' interests by critically analysing qualitative interview data and a 25‐year dataset of insolvency court decisions. The study highlights that the practice of insolvency in Ethiopia is inadequate in protecting creditors' interests due to the entrenched deficiencies in the country's institutional and procedural mechanisms, which hinder the correct interpretation and implementation of the law and the execution of court decisions on the ground to protect creditors' interests. There is also a considerable misalignment with international best practices in insolvency applications. Accordingly, the study proposes solutions and reforms (both legal and institutional) to eradicate or mitigate the deficiencies in insolvency practice in Ethiopia, thereby enhancing the protection of creditors' interests.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".