The ideal fiscal stimulus measure not only creates jobs and drives economic activity in the short run but also boosts quality of life and economic growth in the medium and long run. Support for scientific research in the stimulus package accomplishes both goals. In this report, ITIF finds that spurring an additional $20 billion investment in our national research infrastructure will create or retain approximately 402,000 American jobs for one year.
{"title":"'Stim-Novation': Investing in Research to Spur Innovation and Boost Jobs","authors":"D. Castro, R. Atkinson","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1334686","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1334686","url":null,"abstract":"The ideal fiscal stimulus measure not only creates jobs and drives economic activity in the short run but also boosts quality of life and economic growth in the medium and long run. Support for scientific research in the stimulus package accomplishes both goals. In this report, ITIF finds that spurring an additional $20 billion investment in our national research infrastructure will create or retain approximately 402,000 American jobs for one year.","PeriodicalId":201085,"journal":{"name":"BHNP: Public Policy (Topic)","volume":"102 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117270885","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We analyze the board of directors' equilibrium strategies for setting CEO incentive pay and overseeing financial reporting and their effects on the level of earnings management. We show that an increase in CEO equity incentives does not necessarily increase earnings management because directors adjust their oversight effort in response to a change in CEO incentives. If the board's responsibilities for setting CEO pay and monitoring are separated through the formation of committees, the compensation committee will increase the use of stock-based CEO pay, as the increased cost of oversight is borne by the audit committee. Our model generates predictions relating the board committee structure to the pay-performance sensitivity of CEO compensation, the quality of board oversight, and the level of earnings management.
{"title":"Board Committees, CEO Compensation, and Earnings Management","authors":"C. Laux, V. Laux","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.887492","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.887492","url":null,"abstract":"We analyze the board of directors' equilibrium strategies for setting CEO incentive pay and overseeing financial reporting and their effects on the level of earnings management. We show that an increase in CEO equity incentives does not necessarily increase earnings management because directors adjust their oversight effort in response to a change in CEO incentives. If the board's responsibilities for setting CEO pay and monitoring are separated through the formation of committees, the compensation committee will increase the use of stock-based CEO pay, as the increased cost of oversight is borne by the audit committee. Our model generates predictions relating the board committee structure to the pay-performance sensitivity of CEO compensation, the quality of board oversight, and the level of earnings management.","PeriodicalId":201085,"journal":{"name":"BHNP: Public Policy (Topic)","volume":"58 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125104934","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper develops a model where firms across countries differ in their capacity to innovate. Our main goal is to study firm level innovation under various trade policy shocks. We consider two countries where firms across countries are heterogeneous in their innovation efficiencies. We find that the benefits of trade liberalization and trade protection differ across firms. One of the main results we obtain is that trade protection hurts the productivity of highly efficient firms while it increases the productivity of lowly efficient firms. The predictions of our model are in line with recent empirical evidence that while trade protection fosters the productivity of lowly efficient firms, it reduces productivity of highly efficient firms.
{"title":"Trade Policy and Innovation","authors":"Huasheng Song, H. Vandenbussche","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1107140","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1107140","url":null,"abstract":"This paper develops a model where firms across countries differ in their capacity to innovate. Our main goal is to study firm level innovation under various trade policy shocks. We consider two countries where firms across countries are heterogeneous in their innovation efficiencies. We find that the benefits of trade liberalization and trade protection differ across firms. One of the main results we obtain is that trade protection hurts the productivity of highly efficient firms while it increases the productivity of lowly efficient firms. The predictions of our model are in line with recent empirical evidence that while trade protection fosters the productivity of lowly efficient firms, it reduces productivity of highly efficient firms.","PeriodicalId":201085,"journal":{"name":"BHNP: Public Policy (Topic)","volume":"58 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130316218","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Based on a close reading of the debate between Rawls and Sen on primary goods versus capabilities, I argue that liberal theory cannot adequately respond to Sen’s critique within a conventionally neutralist framework. In support of the capability approach, I explain why and how it defends a more robust conception of opportunity and freedom, along with public debate on substantive questions about well-being and the good life. My aims are: (i) to show that Sen’s capability approach is at odds with Rawls’s political liberal version of neutrality; (ii) to carve out a third space in the neutrality debate; and (iii) to begin to develop, from Sen’s approach, the idea of public value liberalism as a position that falls within that third space.
{"title":"Beyond Equality of What: Sen and Neutrality","authors":"Christopher Lowry","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1077839","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1077839","url":null,"abstract":"Based on a close reading of the debate between Rawls and Sen on primary goods versus capabilities, I argue that liberal theory cannot adequately respond to Sen’s critique within a conventionally neutralist framework. In support of the capability approach, I explain why and how it defends a more robust conception of opportunity and freedom, along with public debate on substantive questions about well-being and the good life. My aims are: (i) to show that Sen’s capability approach is at odds with Rawls’s political liberal version of neutrality; (ii) to carve out a third space in the neutrality debate; and (iii) to begin to develop, from Sen’s approach, the idea of public value liberalism as a position that falls within that third space.","PeriodicalId":201085,"journal":{"name":"BHNP: Public Policy (Topic)","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131517381","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Connecting the Dots has become one of those phrases we often hear. The phrase harkens back to those old kids puzzles where there would be a bunch of numbered dots on a page. The child would draw a line from one number to the next in number sequence and a picture would emerge from the previous chaos. In this article we will examine whether just two dots can be connected in such a manner that a clear picture would emerge - dots that are well known and in plain view. · The first dot is: ERISA Fiduciary Responsibilities · The second dot is: Retiring in Dignity Does connectivity exist between these two known and clearly visible dots? Stated in perhaps a more purposeful Way, if most of the employees working for XYZ Corporation will retire in dignity, is it reasonable to conclude that XYZ's ERISA fiduciaries have probably met their fiduciary responsibility? Alternatively, if most employees working for XYZ Corporation will retire in despair, could one reasonably argue that XYZ's ERISA fiduciaries have probably failed to meet their fiduciary responsibility?
{"title":"Connecting Dots","authors":"Brooks Hamilton","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1079830","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1079830","url":null,"abstract":"Connecting the Dots has become one of those phrases we often hear. The phrase harkens back to those old kids puzzles where there would be a bunch of numbered dots on a page. The child would draw a line from one number to the next in number sequence and a picture would emerge from the previous chaos. In this article we will examine whether just two dots can be connected in such a manner that a clear picture would emerge - dots that are well known and in plain view. · The first dot is: ERISA Fiduciary Responsibilities · The second dot is: Retiring in Dignity Does connectivity exist between these two known and clearly visible dots? Stated in perhaps a more purposeful Way, if most of the employees working for XYZ Corporation will retire in dignity, is it reasonable to conclude that XYZ's ERISA fiduciaries have probably met their fiduciary responsibility? Alternatively, if most employees working for XYZ Corporation will retire in despair, could one reasonably argue that XYZ's ERISA fiduciaries have probably failed to meet their fiduciary responsibility?","PeriodicalId":201085,"journal":{"name":"BHNP: Public Policy (Topic)","volume":"229 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130847876","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper argues that the University system is under great pressure from industry (society) to deliver such finished products (graduates) from its system so as to be directly absorbed into industry and that too at a mass scale and in a short period of time. For this the University system has to undergo a process re-engineering so as to be able to deliver to industry needs. There needs to be a new Knowledge Management System in place, in the University, that is based on the new Pedagogic System that is skill augmenting. For achieving this, three strands of process re-engineering of the University System are needed. 1. e-learning 2. distance / open learning 3. an outcomes approach to pedagogy
{"title":"Re-Engineering Higher Education - The Knowledge Management System","authors":"K. B. Murthy","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1073742","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1073742","url":null,"abstract":"This paper argues that the University system is under great pressure from industry (society) to deliver such finished products (graduates) from its system so as to be directly absorbed into industry and that too at a mass scale and in a short period of time. For this the University system has to undergo a process re-engineering so as to be able to deliver to industry needs. There needs to be a new Knowledge Management System in place, in the University, that is based on the new Pedagogic System that is skill augmenting. For achieving this, three strands of process re-engineering of the University System are needed. 1. e-learning 2. distance / open learning 3. an outcomes approach to pedagogy","PeriodicalId":201085,"journal":{"name":"BHNP: Public Policy (Topic)","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126817151","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Financial accounting standards in the U.S. are developed by private standard setting organizations (SSOs) that operate under the oversight of a government agency. The primary accounting SSO (FASB) has been criticized for writing too many standards (standards overload), the complexity of its standards, the processes by which its standards are set, and the absence of a competitive mechanism to help set standards. The present study seeks to assess the validity of these concerns by looking at standard setting processes in the broader economy.The study consists of three parts. In Section 1, we present some historical data on standard setting activity and document standards set by 604 private and 80 government SSOs in the U.S. We find that there is a time trend in favour of greater reliance on private rather than government SSOs. Accounting standard setters are late entrants in the field of setting standards and appear to be relatively slow in developing new standards. However, accounting standards are relatively long and complex, thus possibly justifying complaints of standards overload. In Section 2, we propose a framework for analysis of the types of standards (quality versus co-ordination) and the processes by which standards are set (monopoly versus competition). We present some data on how standards are set by Government SSOs and provide a detailed comparison of the standard setting processes of four competing technology oriented SSOs relative to the FASB. The comparison highlights a number of features where the FASB differs from other SSOs. These include: the use of sanctions, the threshold of agreement required for standards adoption, and standards competition. In Section 3, we provide data on standards competition in the economy. This includes a case study of internet telephony where competing SSOs have fundamentally transformed the telecommunications industry. Implications for accounting standard setting are discussed.
{"title":"Monopoly or Competition: Standard Setting in the Private and Public Sector","authors":"K. Jamal, S. Sunder","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1075705","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1075705","url":null,"abstract":"Financial accounting standards in the U.S. are developed by private standard setting organizations (SSOs) that operate under the oversight of a government agency. The primary accounting SSO (FASB) has been criticized for writing too many standards (standards overload), the complexity of its standards, the processes by which its standards are set, and the absence of a competitive mechanism to help set standards. The present study seeks to assess the validity of these concerns by looking at standard setting processes in the broader economy.The study consists of three parts. In Section 1, we present some historical data on standard setting activity and document standards set by 604 private and 80 government SSOs in the U.S. We find that there is a time trend in favour of greater reliance on private rather than government SSOs. Accounting standard setters are late entrants in the field of setting standards and appear to be relatively slow in developing new standards. However, accounting standards are relatively long and complex, thus possibly justifying complaints of standards overload. In Section 2, we propose a framework for analysis of the types of standards (quality versus co-ordination) and the processes by which standards are set (monopoly versus competition). We present some data on how standards are set by Government SSOs and provide a detailed comparison of the standard setting processes of four competing technology oriented SSOs relative to the FASB. The comparison highlights a number of features where the FASB differs from other SSOs. These include: the use of sanctions, the threshold of agreement required for standards adoption, and standards competition. In Section 3, we provide data on standards competition in the economy. This includes a case study of internet telephony where competing SSOs have fundamentally transformed the telecommunications industry. Implications for accounting standard setting are discussed.","PeriodicalId":201085,"journal":{"name":"BHNP: Public Policy (Topic)","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115517051","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The objective of this paper is to estimate the expected annual costs to taxpayers of federal disaster-related expenditures to provide guidance to federal policymakers in budgeting and formulating disaster relief policy. Our estimates take into account recent trends in the generosity of federal disaster policy as well as statistical data on the frequency and severity of losses from natural catastrophes. Our estimates of the costs of disasters are based on two sources: (1) simulation analysis by Applied Insurance Research, a leading catastrophe modeling firm, and (2) historical data on insured catastrophe losses from Property Claims Services, an insurance industry statistical firm. We estimate the average expected federal expenditures for disaster assistance related to hurricanes, earthquakes, thunderstorms, and winter storms to be about $20 billion a year. In a bad year, corresponding to a catastrophic event of severity expected only once every century, the bill could exceed $100 billion. Given the current approach to disaster relief funding, we project an unfunded liability for disaster assistance over the next 75 years comparable to that of Social Security. The magnitude of the projected liability strongly suggests that government should adopt a proactive, ex ante approach to disaster relief policy rather than the current ad hoc reactive approach.
{"title":"Federal Financial Exposure to Natural Catastrophe Risk","authors":"J. Cummins, Michael Suher, George Zanjani","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1071065","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1071065","url":null,"abstract":"The objective of this paper is to estimate the expected annual costs to taxpayers of federal disaster-related expenditures to provide guidance to federal policymakers in budgeting and formulating disaster relief policy. Our estimates take into account recent trends in the generosity of federal disaster policy as well as statistical data on the frequency and severity of losses from natural catastrophes. Our estimates of the costs of disasters are based on two sources: (1) simulation analysis by Applied Insurance Research, a leading catastrophe modeling firm, and (2) historical data on insured catastrophe losses from Property Claims Services, an insurance industry statistical firm. We estimate the average expected federal expenditures for disaster assistance related to hurricanes, earthquakes, thunderstorms, and winter storms to be about $20 billion a year. In a bad year, corresponding to a catastrophic event of severity expected only once every century, the bill could exceed $100 billion. Given the current approach to disaster relief funding, we project an unfunded liability for disaster assistance over the next 75 years comparable to that of Social Security. The magnitude of the projected liability strongly suggests that government should adopt a proactive, ex ante approach to disaster relief policy rather than the current ad hoc reactive approach.","PeriodicalId":201085,"journal":{"name":"BHNP: Public Policy (Topic)","volume":"129 1-2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116706561","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2007-12-01DOI: 10.1111/J.1741-5705.2007.02622.X
Christopher Kelley
The presidential signing statement became a public spectacle in 2006 after a news account claimed President George W. Bush used the signing statement to challenge the constitutionality of over 750 provisions of various bills he signed into law. Despite the coverage generated over Bush's use of the signing statement, most Americans still remain woefully uniformed of its history or purpose. The point of this article is to discuss what the signing statement is, its history, and ways in which the Congress may curb its use.
{"title":"The Law: Contextualizing the Signing Statement","authors":"Christopher Kelley","doi":"10.1111/J.1741-5705.2007.02622.X","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1741-5705.2007.02622.X","url":null,"abstract":"The presidential signing statement became a public spectacle in 2006 after a news account claimed President George W. Bush used the signing statement to challenge the constitutionality of over 750 provisions of various bills he signed into law. Despite the coverage generated over Bush's use of the signing statement, most Americans still remain woefully uniformed of its history or purpose. The point of this article is to discuss what the signing statement is, its history, and ways in which the Congress may curb its use.","PeriodicalId":201085,"journal":{"name":"BHNP: Public Policy (Topic)","volume":"61 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132272487","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper reviews the law that relates to the cy pres doctrine which provides the ability of courts to approve settlements in antitrust class actions, whereby the defendants' funds are distributed to organizations having a nexus to the case, rather than to successful claimants within the class. The paper advocates use of the cy pres remedy as a method of enhancing competition. Wary of potential criticisms of cy pres, the paper suggests a series of best practices for regularizing a process that may be characterized as largely ad hoc.
{"title":"Enhancing Competition Through the Cy Pres Remedy: Suggested Best Practices","authors":"A. Foer","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1103632","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1103632","url":null,"abstract":"This paper reviews the law that relates to the cy pres doctrine which provides the ability of courts to approve settlements in antitrust class actions, whereby the defendants' funds are distributed to organizations having a nexus to the case, rather than to successful claimants within the class. The paper advocates use of the cy pres remedy as a method of enhancing competition. Wary of potential criticisms of cy pres, the paper suggests a series of best practices for regularizing a process that may be characterized as largely ad hoc.","PeriodicalId":201085,"journal":{"name":"BHNP: Public Policy (Topic)","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117082528","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：