Suchergebnisse

The 13 responses to my article are of high quality and suggest many fascinating directions for further research in the economics of organizations. I will not try to reply to all of them, in view of their number, but omissions should not be taken as criticism or that I think the response is not a contribution. I shall strive for brevity.

Abstract:This paper applies the principles of organization economics (an offshoot of organization theory and a cousin of the New Institutional Economics) to a variety of organizations, mainly public ones. Organization economics seeks to understand and improve the ways in which organizations overcome agency costs, information costs, and other obstacles to efficiency. The private organization discussed in the paper is the modern publicly held (that is, dispersed ownership) business corporation, and the particular problem on which I focus is excessive executive compensation as a symptom of weaknesses in corporate governance. I then discuss two public organizations involved in national security – the US intelligence 'community' (a kind of mega-organization) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in its role as the nation's principal domestic intelligence service. Both exhibit significant dysfunction that organization economics can help us to understand and overcome. I then discuss two types of public organization that have been more successful in overcoming obstacles to organizational efficiency: the judiciary of common law nations, such as the United States, and the very differently structured judiciary of civil law nations, such as France, Germany, and Japan.

While pragmatism cannot resolve deep normative disagreements, it can, as a technique of judicial reasoning, at once resolve satisfactorily the majority of cases that do not involve such disagreements, while protecting democracy from overweening judicial assertiveness. 8 References. Adapted from the source document.

Argues that claims that Al Gore would have won the presidency if the US Supreme Court had not terminated the FL recount are based on misunderstandings of statistics & FL law. Not only were the recounts a violation of FL law, but an analysis of the vote using both Palm Beach & Broward County rules indicates that responsible recounts of undervotes would not have produced enough new votes for Gore to overcome George W. Bush's lead. In Miami-Dade County, Gore would have gotten roughly 26 additional votes from the 10,750 disputed ballots, far fewer than the 168 vote gain the FL Supreme Court gave Gore. Even if Gore had prevailed, it would have been due to legal error on the part of the FL courts that should not have extended the deadline for hand recounting, interpreted errors by voters as vote tabulation errors, or reversed Judge Sauls's decision to halt the proceedings. Therefore, it is concluded that the actions of the US Supreme Court represent "rough justice," although "legal justice" is another issue. J. Lindroth