The study of terrorism is complex and multifaceted.  Debate surrounding the rationality behind terrorism has made Rational Choice Theory a popular research methodology within Terrorism Studies.  However over the last forty years, the increased frequency and tenacity of terrorist acts has opened the door for new research and new methodological approaches such as Grounded Theory.  While both epistemological frameworks have applicable utility and contextual validity, they rely on various assumptions and face extreme challenges in implementation.  Two common themes emerge when assessing terrorism within the two frameworks: Rational Choice Theory is most appropriate in short run scenarios, while Grounded Theory (particularly the Glaserian school) is more insightful with a long-run focus and time span.  With respect to counterterrorism policymaking, if terrorists are presented alternatives to terrorism, or are somehow forced out of the terrorism market, they may indeed alter their actions.

It is common for developing countries to look to the experiences of developed countries as a basis for creating their own policies.   One such instance was applied to changing regulatory policy in Nigeria, where policy makers aimed to transform the Nigerian banking system from one dominated by many small and relatively unstable banks to a system with a few bigger and more reliable banks. Pervading theory of banking systems cites the experiences of Germany and America, as both countries successfully illustrate the wisdom of a consolidated banking system, allowing as little diffusion as possible. Using the analysis of several economic indicators, this paper attempts to evaluate whether or not the positive impacts that were felt within the Nigerian economy occurred similarly to the successes of the German and American banking systems after consolidation. The findings of this paper indicate that a mandatory consolidation policy does not yield the same economy-stabilizing benefits that would result from a more organic process of bank consolidation.

Executive Summary

This paper evaluates potential responses to the implementation of long-term flood insurance contracts via the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) by looking at the interaction between a long-term contract and various federal income assistance programs over time (targeting primarily low-income households).  While long-term contracts represent a promising strategy capable of restoring the financial condition of the NFIP and adequately spreading and maintaining coverage (which would ideally incentivize the re-entry of private insurers into the market), the outcomes of such a policy remain uncertain due to the fact that nothing of this sort has ever been enacted.  This paper utilizes a model that simulates the costs of a 2-year NFIP contract across income in conjunction with two main events or “cost shocks”: 1) the loss of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits during the second year of the contract, and 2) a 10% increase in gross income during the second year of the contract.  Each of these two events will be evaluated with and without the presence of a mitigation mechanism during the second year of the contract.  Results of this simulation show that lower income families will experience exponentially worse outcomes associated with both the loss of TANF and a 10% increase in income.  Incorporating mitigation mechanisms into the contracts will have mixed effects where households receiving less than the full TANF benefit amount will experience smaller returns to mitigation and households experiencing a 10% income increase will see uniform benefits.  While these results avoid concrete policy responses, this paper provides a number of recommendations meant to act as a starting point from which policy alternatives can begin to be evaluated.

]]> http://journal.heinz.cmu.edu/2012/05/assessing-the-interaction-between-national-flood-insurance-contracts-and-federal-income-assistance-programs/feed/ 0 http://journal.heinz.cmu.edu/2012/05/making-the-market-how-interoperability-and-tipping-points-can-influence-network-size-by-scott-andes/ http://journal.heinz.cmu.edu/2012/05/making-the-market-how-interoperability-and-tipping-points-can-influence-network-size-by-scott-andes/#comments Fri, 04 May 2012 19:56:54 +0000 aweckenm http://journal.heinz.cmu.edu/?p=1268 Download the Full Text

Executive Summary

New technology systems are increasingly being characterized by what are called “network externalities” where the value of certain technologies increases with additional users.  Such externalities often imply the actual size of a network is below the socially optimal size.  Networks are also characterized by market “tipping points.”  Tipping points are points where the market shifts radically.  Here, tipping points are the points when a given product has just enough customers to become a standard and dominate the market. The presence of tipping points has strong implications for the size and scope of innovation within a network.  In this paper I argue interoperable networks—networks that allow open access to patented material—provide multiple tipping points within a network and therefore increase the size of the network and propensity for radical innovation.  As such, intellectual property granted to products with network qualities should mandate licensing.  In order to express the interplay between networks, tipping points and licensing within new technology systems, I draw from the example of mobile payment systems in Japan.

Cosponsored by the Health Care Policy Club

Does America spend too much on healthcare? The United States spends approximately $2.5 trillion on health care annually, and this number is expected to rise as life expectancy continues to increases and baby boomers enter retirement.  While it makes sense that we would devote a large share of our resources to paying for medical care, how do we balance rising cost with the marginal benefit society receives from health care spending.

Where do we draw the line? At what point does the overall welfare of society supersede the needs of individuals for potentially life-saving or life-extending treatment? When do we say “no,’ who do we say it to, and how do we make that decision? Will “rationing” decisions be based on ability to pay as they are now to some extent or does everybody have the right to full care? What countries are doing it right (or at least better)?

How do we measure the value of human life, and how much are we willing to pay to sustain it?

Here are a few articles to get you started:

U.S. Health Care Costs Kaiser Family Foundation

http://www.kaiseredu.org/Issue-Modules/US-Health-Care-Costs/Background-Brief.aspx

Health Care Spending Atlas of Global Inequality

http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php

What health-care systems look like around the world Wall Street Journal

http://www.marketwatch.com/health-care/reform/snapshot

Why We Must Ration Health Care NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

What are your thoughts, opinions, and questions about what is going on in the world today?

Come discuss with us THIS THURSDAY!

Classy beverages and snacks will be provided. YUMMY!*

DATE: Thursday, April 26th, 2012

TIME: 8:30pm – 9:30pm (AFTER evening classes)

WHERE: Hamburg Hall 1502

WHO: Students from ALL programs are encouraged to attend!!

* Please bring your government ID, and don’t forget your opinion…

Sponsored by The Heinz Journal

***********************************

…The HEINZ FORUM is a student-led discussion of current policy topics.  This is a chance to share your opinion and/or hear what your fellow classmates have to say about issues affecting us all.  You DO NOT have to be an expert to attend.

In some form or another, Women’s History Month recently celebrated 51 years of recognizing the efforts of American women fighting for progress and equity. Despite the efforts of women across decades and generations, we are often reminded of how the struggle continues. For example, the U.S. Census Bureau recently released records from 1940, revealing that in over 70 years women have closed the gender wage gap by only 14 cents. In contrast, since the passage of the historic civil rights legislation of the 1960s, men of color have been able to close the wage gap by 18 cents in 40 years.

And the wage gap may be the least of women’s worries.  State legislators in Virginia kicked off March with an invasive ultra-sound bill that some controversially referred to as state sanctioned rape. States across the country quickly followed suit. In short time, both Oklahoma and Idaho proposed bills which would require ultrasounds to receive abortions (though an Oklahoma judge struck that measure down.   Some formidable female state legislators, incensed by the developments, responded with more than appropriate counter legislation. One state legislator, Nina Turner,  countered an ultrasound bill making its way through the Ohio State House with a seemingly appropriate amendment requiring all men seeking Viagra to undergo a lengthy and comprehensive assessment (including signed letters from former lovers attesting to the patient’s “lacking vigor”) before receiving a prescription. In an attempt to avoid the social argument behind abortion, Representative Turner instead framed the amendment as an issue of gender equity.

Many perceive the Republican rhetoric, from Governor’s Walkers decision to repeal the Wisconsin Equal Pay Enforcement Act to a congressional panel on birth control comprised only of men, as a war on women. And it is showing heavily in the polls. In the wake of what can only be described as an aggressive affront to women from the right, President Obama leads likely GOP contender Mitt Romney by 25 points among women. This does not come as much of a surprise considering the month Romney had. When pressured to respond to Rush Limbaugh’s controversial, now infamous, character assassination of would-be congressional witness (and Georgetown law student) Sandra Fluke wherein he called her both a “slut” and a “prostitute” for defending insurance coverage for birth control, Romney stumbled, “it’s not the language I would have used.” This denial fails to answer the real question:  does he feel the same way about insurance coverage for contraception?

Last week, the President teamed up with renowned feminist Gloria Steinem to further court the women vote.  Steinem argued that while we have accomplished great strides in the fight to establish women as equal players on a national scale, the position of women is still as tenuous as ever. Women continue to remain marginalized as they represent only a mere 17% of our nationally elected officials. Even within the world of private industry, women constitute a paltry 25% of those at the top. Even during a time when a woman is historically positioned as a female chief executive in a company as large as IBM, she is unable to join her male colleagues in one of the cornerstones of business culture at Augusta National Golf Course because she is a woman.

Girls today are raised to believe they have as many opportunities available to them as their boy peers, that they would never limited by their gender. And yet, women continue to struggle to be recognized as equal players. I never imagined the scope of women’s rights would be posited as a political battleground. Every woman has the right to earn as much as a man, to not be discriminated against based on her gender or to make private decisions with her doctor should transcend party affiliation. As women at one of the top public policy schools in the nation, we need to be a leading force in pushing the national conversation towards one that recognizes the necessity to remove women’s rights from partisan politics and publicly sensors policies which limit the full of potential of all women.

Listen Live at 5:00pm, Thursdays on WRCT 88.3 Pittsburgh, or Stream from wrct.org

Listen now!

This Forum will be co-hosted by the Education Policy Club: You don’t want to miss it!!

Everyday, over 7,000 students drop out of high school resulting in a national graduation rate of 75.5%. Over half of those students are minority students, and large urban school districts fare the worst. As a result, our country loses billions of dollars in productivity and unemployment among those lacking 21^st century skills remains a major issue.

How do we combat the high school dropout crisis? What should be the role of teachers, administrators, parents, community organizations, districts, states, the federal government, and other education stakeholders in turning these numbers around?

Here are some articles to get you thinking:

Dropouts (Education Week)

The True Cost of High School Dropouts (NYT)

Why Kids Drop Out: Identifying the Early Warning Signs (American University Radio)

Caught in the Crisis: Students of Color and Native Students in U.S. High Schools (Alliance for Excellent Education)

Waiving Away High School Graduation Rate Accountability? (Alliance for Excellent Education)

AT&T’s $250 Million Plan to Reduce High School Dropouts (Bloomberg BusinessWeek)

State Report Cards for Dropout Data (Alliance for Excellent Education)

What are your thoughts, opinions, and questions about what is going on in the world today?

Come discuss with us this THURSDAY!

Classy beverages and snacks will be provided. YUMMY!*

DATE: Thursday, April 5, 2012

TIME: 8:30pm – 9:30pm (AFTER evening classes)

WHERE: Hamburg Hall 1502

WHO: Students from ALL programs are encouraged to attend!!

* Please bring your government ID, and don’t forget your opinion…

Sponsored by The Heinz Journal

***********************************

…The HEINZ FORUM is a student-led discussion of current policy topics.  This is a chance to share your opinion and/or hear what your fellow classmates have to say about issues affecting us all.  You DO NOT have to be an expert to attend.

I am writing in response to an article I recently read on Forbes.com entitled “Are Funny People More Successful in Business?” by Jenna Goudreau, a member of the Forbes Staff who primarily reports on navigating success for professional women. This topic is of special interest to me, as I consider myself to be a funny business woman trying to be successful and know many others of this credo in my graduate program at Carnegie Mellon University, the Master of Entertainment Industry Management.

Just from reading the title, I was immediately inclined to think “Yes!” based on my own preference for working with others who are light-hearted and do not take themselves or the situation too seriously. If things go wrong, I would much rather have someone on my team who is able to bring up group morale by cracking a good joke, but this article discussed both sides of the coin, stating that humor can be a great tool in any organization but only when used at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way.

The article begins by citing the positive experience of Steve Cody, 57, co-founder and managing partner of Peppercom, a mid-size communications agency based in New York, who recently became a stand-up comedian. Cody says that once he began studying stand-up comedy, he “noticed a happy crossover to his professional life, where he was employing humor more often, listening more intently to clients and becoming better at holding audiences’ attention during presentations.” He soon thereafter held a comedy workshop for his all of his company’s employees.

Psychologist Steven Sultanoff, Ph.D., former president of the Association for Applied and Therapeutic Humor, explains that workplace humor may offer some perspective on a situation, which helps people process it. In the article he goes on to say, ”Because we can only feel one emotion at a time, humor creates an emotional lift by displacing frustration with the joy of the joke and a physiological reduction of stress hormones.”

Being a student and avid fan of the entertainment industry, I can think of many examples of funny people who are successful. Of course, any popular comedian or comic writer would immediately fall under this category because being funny is their business, but there are also others whose grasp of humor came as a surprise to me. One example of this is Donald Trump. Trump is one of the most successful and famous businessmen in the world, which can only be accomplished through serious discipline and dedication. So it was a hilarious surprise for me to see him cracking jokes and delivering funny lines on his show “The Apprentice.”  I did not know that his hair was not the only thing funny about him!

Another glowing example of a successful funny person is our country’s President, Barack Obama. Facing economic hard times, ongoing wars, and heavy political opposition, one could easily understand if the President was usually in a somber mood, but on the contrary, time and time again he finds a way to put things in perspective, ease the tension, and represent the nation in a wonderfully charismatic way, often by throwing a good joke or song into his epic speeches.  I am reminded of his “spilled milk joke” during the latest State of the Union address.

However, it is important to note that the use of humor in a professional setting can and will backfire, if used inappropriately. As the article states, “anything that may be construed as racist, sexist, ageist or hits upon another cultural sensitivity—could damage your reputation and professional relationships.” Also, humor cannot be used in the place of hard work. If you are always joking around to the point that your job performance flounders, then no one will ever take you seriously and it will become your career that is the joke.