Suchergebnisse

Financial constraints or economic needs, career development, psychological satisfaction as well as demographic and situational factors cause workers to seek more than one job while enjoying leisure time. In this paper we examine how a worker with prospect theory type of preferences allocates her time between leisure, a safe job and a risky job. Optimal time allocation for a sufficient loss averse worker depends on the reference level which in turn determines whether the worker is willing to experience relative losses or not. When the reference level is relatively low then the sufficiently loss averse worker will allocate some of her time to leisure and will hold both jobs in order to diversify risk and reduce income loss arising from the risky job. However, if the probability of a good state of nature is very high and the reference level is very low, the worker spends time only on leisure and the risky job while avoids the safe job. Loss aversion does not affect the optimal time allocation to the three activities as the time allocation results in avoiding relative losses for any state of nature. When the reference level is relative high, but not too high, the worker will allocate her time between both safe and risky jobs as well as to the leisure. Worker with very high reference level will avoid the safe job and will divide her time between the risky job and the leisure. In both cases the worker is willing to accept relative losses in the bad state of nature provided it is compensated with relative gains in the good state of nature. Here the allocation of time to the three activities depends on the degree of loss aversion. When the reference level is relatively low, but not too low, an increase in the reference level will reduce leisure time, reduce time in the risky job and increase time in the safe job. At very low reference levels, an increase in the reference level will result in the worker re-allocating her time from leisure to the risky job assuming the probability of a good state of nature is higher than a threshold. When the reference level is high the opposite effects are observed. We also examine other comparative statics including the effect of changes in the wage rate.

"As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?" James Madison, Federalist No. 51At the end of its annual term, the Supreme Court has proven itself once again as a "temperate and respectable body" of justices by delivering, among others, two landmark decisions. The first one demolishes the infamous Bush legacy of sacrificing the Constitution's article I section 9 Suspension clauses in its bogus "war against terror". The second one represents a literal interpretation of the Second Amendment as the unambiguous individual right to bear arms. The first decision has already inflamed political discussions and will no doubt be at the center of the presidential debates leading to the national election in November. Surprisingly, the second one has proved much less controversial, a sign of changing times in the American discourse.On June 12, 2008, in its ruling in Boumediene v. Bush, the court recognizedhabeas corpus rights for the Guantánamo prisoners. Less than a week later, in another landmark ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller, it overturned the Washington DC ban on handguns by rejecting the view that the Second Amendment's "right to bear arms" applied only to the collective service in a "well regulated militia". Instead, it recognized it as an individual right.Since most likely it will fall to the next president to replace some of the Supreme Court judges, Americans should put aside for a moment the media- induced frenzy about the candidates' increasingly fierce competition to get the last sound bite in, the minute-to-minute coverage of exchange of insults and name-calling, and reflect upon the far-reaching ideological consequences that electing one or the other candidate will have on the composition of the Supreme Court.Both Supreme Court rulings were passed by a 5 to 4 vote, showing a deeply divided court over matters that affect the essence of American constitutional system of government and will have long-term consequences for life in America. As it stands now, the court is evenly divided between a conservative and a liberal bloc of four justices each, with Anthony Kennedy delivering the decisive swing vote. Since the future of the court will be decided by the next election, this consideration should be given at least as much weigh as any other in the voters' choice for president.In Boumediene v. Bush, the court delivered a critical decision in the protection of the basic right of any prisoner, including the ones in Guantánamo, to challenge their confinement before a federal judge. This constituted the court's third rejection of the Bush administration's policy on those it detains in its fight against terrorism. The Guantánamo base in Cuba, which has been controlled by the Unites States since the Spanish-American War (1898) under a long-term lease, was considered by this administration to hold a unique legal status that had allowed the Pentagon to avoid review of its activities by federal courts. By declaring unconstitutional a provision of the Military Commission Act of 2006 which denied jurisdiction to the federal courts on habeas corpus petitions by those detainees to challenge their designation as enemy combatants, the Court repudiated the fundamentals of the practice of using Guantánamo as a jail where federal jurisdiction could not reach.The majority decision was written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, who often plays the deciding role of "balancer", sometimes siding with the conservative bloc, sometimes with the progressive one. He was joined by the more liberal judges, John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The dissenting opinion was authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, also a Reagan appointee and the most reactionary of the group, who stated, in apocalyptic terms, that the "nation will live to regret" this decision and that more Americans were going to be killed as a result of it. He was joined by George W. Bush's appointees, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John G. Roberts.In the second decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, after seven decades of holding that the Second Amendment's right to bear arms is a collective right (only as part of a "well-regulated militia"), the court now ruled that to keep arms at home for self protection is an individual right. This decision was criticized by authorities of the major U.S cities as a setback in their fight against crime and gun violence. However, both presidential candidates Obama and McCain praised the decision as an endorsement of individual rights. Obama emphasized the court's description of the right as "not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe." Although most liberals do not share this view, the Democratic Party's platform in 2004 had already endorsed the Second Amendment as an individual right, as part of the strategy of appealing to the center of the political spectrum in general, and to independent voters in particular, on matters of security. In Senator Obama's case, even if it does not directly contradict any earlier statements, the endorsement surprised some groups, since it does not fit his ideological profile. The media pundits interpreted it as his present strategy to capture the center of the political spectrum, which is probably correct. But it may also be a sign of how accurately Barack takes the pulse of the country. After episodes such as the Virginia Tech massacre that shook the country last year, many law-abiding citizens both young and old, both Republican and Democrat, have increasingly been vocal about the need to own a gun for self-protection.It was now the turn of Antonin Scalia to write the majority decision. A Reagan appointee and, together with Clarence Thomas, the most ideologically conservative of the nine justices, Scalia argued that this is a fundamental constitutional right that takes certain policy choices off the table. While recognizing the problem of handgun violence in the country, Scalia maintained that the "intactness of the Constitution" takes precedence over any other concerns. Ironically, his dissenting opinion on Boumediene v. Bush shows no concern for the wholeness of the Constitution's Suspension clause on habeas corpus, a sign of how human contradiction is not the preserve of presidential candidates only.The dissenting opinion to District of Columbia v. Heller by Justice John Paul Stevens, who was appointed by President Ford but most of the time votes with the liberal bloc, stated that the majority's decision was based on a "strained and unpersuasive reading of the Constitution", which omits any mention of other purpose (other than a "militia") related to the right to bear arms, such as hunting or personal self-defense. Justices Breyer, Souter and Baden-Ginsburg joined him in the dissenting opinion. Justice Kennedy sided with the conservative majority in this case.The majority's decision has enormous symbolic significance. It overturned a 70-year old decision that had rejected the individual-right interpretation, but one that, in the popular debate was extremely controversial and divided people along ideological and regional lines. But in reality, the narrow way in which the Scalia decision was written gives enough reassurance that other gun-control laws and regulations will not be affected. For example, the prohibition of carrying concealed weapons is upheld, as are the federal ban on possession of machine guns and longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill. It has defused rather than inflamed the political debate, and both candidates have endorsed it. It is thus fair to say this was not a major setback for liberal-minded Americans.On the other hand, the Boumediene v. Bush decision is a blow to all those who have made the "war on terror" a centerpiece of their new value system after 9-11. Senator Lindsay Graham (Republican from South Carolina) called it "irresponsible and outrageous" and said he would do anything in his power to have it overturned, even if that may take a Constitutional amendment.The decision ignited a serious debate between the two presidential candidates.While Obama praised the Boumediene decision, McCain was outraged by the court's decision to give rights to "unlawful combatants." He sent former Republican candidate and New York mayor Rudy Giuliani to represent him on CNN's American morning. Giuliani accused Obama of having a "pre-September 11th mentality". Obama later defended his position saying he clearly understands the threats America faces but emphasized the fact that it is the failed policies of George Bush that cause the US so many problems around the world. He added that McCain clearly would represent a continuation of those policies based on fear and his unwillingness to look toward the future.This year the Supreme Court has delivered an equal amount of victories to each bloc. This balance may shift if some of the judges were to die or retire on the next eight years. Given that the conservatives are the youngest members of the Court (Roberts and Alito, the George W. appointees, are in their 50s, Thomas Clarence is 60 and Scalia is 72), a McCain presidency may have to replace some of the most reliable liberal judges (John Paul Stevens is 88, Ginsburg is 75) and thus shift the balance in the conservatives' direction. Of course, appointing Supreme Court judges is not an accurate science since, as seen by the decisions above, it is hard to predict, when nominating them, what thinking processes will determine their opinions. The greatest examples of this are Justice Kennedy, who was a Reagan appointee, but often leads the more liberal bloc, as well now retired Sandra Day O'Connor, another Reagan appointee that brought non-ideological balance to the Rehnquist court. At any given time, two opposing forces shape the judges' opinions: the pull of precedent that gives a binding continuity to court decisions, and the push of social change that propels some of the thinking forward, in accordance to the prevailing cultural mood. The final decision is then further shaped by the judges' erudition, idiosyncrasy and ideology. Given the fragile balance present in the Roberts court, and with so many important cases decided by such a narrow margin, the power of the next President to set the future direction of the high court is a vital element that should enter into the voters' considerations next November 4th.Briefly put, the future of the Supreme Court and its ability to make the best decisions so that "reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind", is in the hands of American voters. Senior Lecturer, Department of Political Science and Geography Director, ODU Model United Nations Program Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia

La Teoría Política del Discurso de Ernesto Laclau aportó valiosas contribuciones para el análisis discursivo de las identidades políticas, la construcción de hegemonías y las formas ideológicas. Sin embargo, a diferencia de otras perspectivas de análisis del discurso, carece de una metodología propia para la investigación social. Este trabajo aporta algunos recursos que procuran contribuir a la construcción de una metodología rigurosa y útil para el análisis sociopolítico del discurso y la investigación crítica en Ciencias Sociales. De manera particular, examina algunos problemas iniciales que debe afrontar el analista del discurso y algunas opciones, decisiones y estrategias metodológicas para elaborar una investigación social empírica. Se analizan cuatro problemas metodológicos, que se vinculan a las decisiones y estrategias para la construcción del "objeto" de la investigación (lo que incluye la elección y justificación del tema, los objetivos, preguntas e hipótesis), el recorte del corpus, la elección y justificación de las fuentes y de los agentes-participantes, enfocando en el análisis discursivo-textual. ; Laclau´s Political Discourse Theory contributed to the discursive analysis of political identities, the construction of hegemonies and ideological forms. However, unlike other perspectives of discourse analysis, it lacks an own methodology to social investigation. This work provides some resources to contribute to the construction of a rigorous and useful methodology for sociopolitical analysis of discourse and critical research in Social Sciences. In particular, it examines some initial problems and some options, decisions and methodological strategies that the discourse analyst must face in order to develop his empirical research. It analyses four methodological problems related to the decisions and strategies for the construction of the "object" of the investigation (that includes the choice and justification of the research topic, objectives, questions and hypothesis), the cut of the corpus, the choice and justification of the sources and the participating-agents, focusing on the discursive-textual analysis. ; Fil: Fair, Hernán. Universidad Nacional de Quilmes. Departamento de Ciencias Sociales; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina

This paper addresses the problem of false balance in the press, in the context of technical decision making —those in which science intersects with the public domain because the issues at stake are relevant for the population as a whole. It sets out to frame the problem in a broad context, the sociology of sciences, that enables meeting the need for recognising the democratic commitments of journalism and the importance of communicating technological progress efficiently to confront the challenges posed by misinformation. The methodology consists in a conceptual analysis, grounded in recent cases of false balance: climate changeand vaccines. It concludes that the conceptual categories proposed by the theory help journalism regain a place of credibility where both the role of expertise and citizen participation find legitimacy in technical decision making, without blurring the distinction between the expert and the lay person. ; Este artículo aborda el problema del falso balance en la prensa, en el contexto de la toma de decisiones técnicas —aquellas en que la ciencia se interseca con el dominio político porque los temas en cuestión son relevantes para toda la población—. El objetivo es enmarcar el problema en un contexto amplio, la sociología de las ciencias, que satisfaga la necesidad de reconocer los compromisos democráticos del periodismo y la importancia de comunicar los avances tecnológicos eficazmente y enfrentar la desinformación. La metodología consiste en un análisis conceptual, anclado en casos recientes de falso balance: cambio climático y vacunas. Seconcluye que las categorías conceptuales propuestas por la teoría ayudan al periodismo a reconquistar un espacio de credibilidad en que se legitimen tanto la experticia como la participación ciudadana en la toma de decisiones técnicas, sin por ello difuminar la distinción entre la persona lega y la experta.

La toma de decisiones en la Cooperativa debe contextualizarse en t?rminos del ejercicio de la democracia y de su gobierno, asumido como la m?xima demostraci?n de libertad, y que se expresa de manera evidente en el derecho a participar en las determinaciones.

This article presents the theme of policies. It defines its concept, elements, cicle, participants and especially it presents the judge as an actor who has entered to this topic with impetus. Additionally, this article refers to the usage of policies' resources in a sustainable way, laws and their relation to policies, and judicial decisions' impact on them. Therefore a tension is generated in the political system between the judicial referee and the political referee, and how judges acquire a high level of responsability on the justification of their providences on most cases on which they end up ordering, direct or indirectly, the assumption of policies. ; Este artículo presenta la temática de las políticas públicas. Se definen, y se alude a sus elementos, el ciclo, los actores, especialmente el juez como actor que ha ingresado con ímpetu en el tópico de las políticas públicas. Igualmente se refiere a la utilización de los recursos de las políticas públicas de manera sostenible, las normas y su relación con las políticas públicas y la incidencia de las decisiones judiciales en ellas, lo que ha generado tensión en el sistema político entre el arbitrio judicial y el arbitrio político y cómo los jueces adquieren un grado alto de responsabilidad en la motivación de sus providencias dado que en la mayoría de los casos terminan ordenando, directa o indirectamente, la fijación de políticas públicas.

Objetivo: Corroborar la presencia de disociaciones entre Teoría de la Mente (TdM) cognitiva y emocional en la variante conductual de la Demencia Frontotemporal (DFTvc). Muestra: 20 pacientes, media de edad 67 años, y 6 de escolaridad. Para diagnóstico de DFTvc se administró: Lectura de la Mente en los Ojos (LMO) como prueba de TdM emocional, Falsa creencia de primer orden (FC1O) como prueba de TdM cognitiva, y Faux Pas como prueba mixta. Resultados: El 80% de los pacientes mostró alteraciones en LMO y el 45% en FC1O. Se encontraron diferencias significativas entre LMO y FC1O, y entre Faux Pas y FC1O, y dobles disociaciones. Conclusión: La TdM emocional sería la más afectada en DFTvc. El hallazgo de disociaciones entre tareas podría deberse a que la TdM afectiva es procesada a través de la "teoría de la simulación", mientras que la TdM cognitiva lo es a través de la "teoría teoría". ; Objective: To verify the presence of dissociations between cognitive and emotional Theory of Mind (ToM) in behavioral variant Frontotemporal Dementia (bvFTD). Population: 20 patients, mean age 67 years, 6 years for school. For bvFTD diagnostic there were administered: Reading the Mind in the Eyes (RME) as an emotional ToM test, First-order false belief task (FOFBT) as a cognitive ToM test, and Faux Pas as a mixed test. Results: 80% of the patients showed a pathological performance on RME and 45% in FOFBT. Significant differences were found between RME and FOFBT, and Faux Pas tests and FOFBT, and double dissociations. Conclusion: Emotional ToM seems to be the most affected in bvFTD. The finding of dissociations between tasks could be due to affective ToM being processed through the "simulation theory", while cognitive ToM through the "theory theory ". ; Fil: Tabernero, María Eugenia. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Psicología; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina ; Fil: Politis, Daniel Gustavo. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Psicología; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina

The constitution of the political subject has been one of the main issues in Ernesto Laclau's thinking. In this paper, we will focus on a specific period of his theoretical reflection regarding this issue: the one developed between the publication of Hegemony and socialist strategy (1985) and the appearance of On populist Reason (2004). We intend to show how this period may be interpreted as an attempt to elaborate a deconstructivist theory of political subject, based on the notions of decision (made on an undecidable terrain) and dislocation. ; La cuestión de la constitución del sujeto político ha sido uno de los ejes centrales del pensamiento de Ernesto Laclau. En el presente trabajo nos centramos en un período específico de su reflexión teórica en torno a esta problemática: entre los años posteriores a la publicación de Hegemonía y estrategia socialista (1985) y la aparición de La razón populista (2005). Consideramos que esta etapa de su pensamiento puede ser interpretada como el intento por elaborar una teoría deconstructiva del sujeto político, la cual se sostiene sobre dos nociones que cobran vital importancia en este período: la decisión (tomada siempre en un terreno indecidible) y la dislocación.

We study the Covid-19 pandemic from the point of view of behavioral economics, which combines economics and psychology. We analyze the biases (for example, optimism bias) that may have had a greater impact on decision-making regarding the pandemic, as well as potential public health policies from a behavioral economics perspective. We contrast the use of «nudges» (non-coercive measures that do not use economic incentives) with legislative measures, and we advocate for a comprehensive approach that jointly uses the best interventions available, to generate healthy habits (that reduce the transmission of the virus). Finally, we apply this approach to the promotion of vaccination. ; Estudiamos la pandemia de Covid-19 desde el punto de vista de la economía del comportamiento, que aúna economía y psicología. Analizamos los sesgos (por ejemplo, exceso de optimismo) que pueden haber tenido un mayor impacto en la toma de decisiones referentes a la pandemia, así como posibles políticas de salud pública desde el enfoque de la economía del comportamiento. Contrastamos el uso de «nudges» (medidas no coercitivas y que no usan incentivos económicos) con medidas legislativas, y abogamos por un enfoque integral que utilice las mejores intervenciones disponibles en conjunto, para generar hábitos de conducta saludables (que reduzcan la transmisión del virus). Por último, aplicamos este enfoque a la promoción de la vacunación.

The decision-making process on the behalf of a person and institutions has been considered, under the economic conventional assumption, as a rational process developed in a complete information context. However, reality has proved the excessive simplicity and the lack of realism of such assumption. This paper analyzes the decision-making process from a theoretical perspective and it asks if behavioral economics can help us to understand some recent events that suppose uncertainty in the European architecture and question some traditional instruments of economic policy. ; La toma de decisiones por parte de los individuos y de las instituciones ha sido considerada, bajo los supuestos de la teoría económica convencional, como un proceso racional que se desarrolla en un contexto con información completa. Sin embargo, la realidad ha puesto de manifiesto la excesiva simplicidad y falta de realismo de tales supuestos. Este trabajo analiza el proceso de toma de decisiones, desde una perspectiva teórica, y se plantea hasta qué punto la economía conductual puede ayudarnos a comprender algunos hechos que se han producido recientemente, que tiñen de incertidumbre la construcción europea y que ponen en tela de juicio algunos instrumentos tradicionales de la política económica.

Un debate aún no cerrado en la Argentina es el que se plantea en torno a la última dictadura militar, entre las voces que reclaman la necesidad de mantener una memoria activa, y aquellas que ven como más constructivo no reavivar viejas heridas para poder llegar a la reconciliación nacional. Frente a esta discusión, postulamos la potencialidad de hacer una mirada hacia el pasado, proyectándolo como clave interpretativa del presente y como posibilidad de liberación en tanto habilitaría a la construcción de un porvenir. ; Jornadas realizadas junto con el I Encuentro Latinoamericano de Metodología de las Ciencias Sociales. ; Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias de la Educación