Suchergebnisse

How much will our budget be cut be this year? This question has loomed ominously over regulatory agencies for over three decades. After the 2016 presidential election, it now stands front and center in federal policy, with the Trump administration pledging over $50 billion in cuts. Yet very little is known about the fundamental relationship between regulatory agencies' budgets and the social welfare outcomes they are charged to produce. Indeed, the question is scarcely studied in scholarship from law, economics, or political science. This article lays the groundwork for a new field of theoretical and empirical research, using what we call the "regulatory production function,†to understand the marginal effects of changes in regulatory agency budgets (both reductions and increases) on the levels of benefits they produce. Our proposed theoretical framework and empirical findings have important implications across the regulatory state on the relationship between agency funding and outcomes for public health, safety, and welfare agencies. This model of the regulatory state informs agency-scale decisions regarding institutional design and instrument choice as well as the broader set of decisions regarding the balance of federalism and reliance on private governance as a supplement to public authority. Part I describes relevant scholarship on the broad topic of regulatory agency resources and outcomes, showing a paucity of theoretical and empirical analysis of the question. Using the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and environmental quality as a case study, Part II develops a conceptual model of a regulatory production function for thinking more clearly about linkages between agency funding and regulatory outcomes. Using this model, Part III turns to generating hypotheses that could explain why EPA funding levels may or may not have a strong effect on environmental quality. Part IV uses regression analyses to test whether there is a statistically significant relationship between agency funding and air ...

"Approved by the American Association of State Libraries for the American Library Association, July 18, 1963." ; Bibliographical footnotes. ; Mode of access: Internet.

ABSTRACT The purpose of this article is to analyze the functions of the Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution to fend off radicalism that has developed in Indonesia. This study concludes that the Indonesian government is following its function of fending off radical group movements in two ways, namely taking legal action and preventing them. The establishment of the Khilafah state is contrary to the concept of the Nation-State as built-in Indonesia. Indonesia was proclaimed on August 17, 1945; it was a Nation-State and not a religious State. The agreement of the founding fathers was stated in the 1945 constitution.

In the present article an analysis of borders diverse kinds and functions applied in psychological concepts and paradigms has been carried out. It has been made clear that a comprehension of borders as a self-valuable source for development ousts metaphorical and topological interpretations of the term. It has been alleged that within the context of social psychology it is righteous to discuss intersubject and intersubjective borders of interaction between I and the Other.