Whistleblowing and corruption control: The GE case

This paper focuses on the use of the amended False Claims Act to counter defense contract fraud against the U.S. government. The case deals with the scheme of a former Israeli Air Force General and a GE marketing specialist to divert funds, provided by the U.S. to Israel, for unauthorized and private usage, and with the actions of the GE whistleblower, Chester L. Walsh, in bringing suit against GE under FCA. The paper analyzes poses the ethical problem of providing an economic bounty for the whistleblower even while acknowledging the effectiveness of this practice in countering fraud.     

The Challenge of Funding Consensus-Building Processes

Negotiation Journal -     

The garrison state revisited: civil–military implications of terrorism and security

Lasswell’s original vision of the garrison state was spurred by the increasing militarization of states in the industrial age. The advent of the Cold War seemed to confirm Lasswell’s predictions. In the post-industrial age, conventional warfare and the attendant mobilization of societies seem less probable, but the changing threat of terrorism may lead to a variation of Lasswell’s construct. While states no longer appear likely to evolve into a system of armed camps directed at one another, this article argues that the threat of terrorism may necessitate the garrisoning of society and enhance the role of military and police organizations, as Lasswell warned.     

The "Essential Domino" of Military Operations: American Public Opinion and the Use of Force

It is a commonly held belief that the foreign policy issue to which the American public is most sensitive is the use of military force. Because American public opinion regarding the use of force is highly palpable, salient, and organized, and because decisions regarding the use of force are some of the most important decisions the nation ever has to consider, the analysis of public opinion regarding military involvement is academically significant and policy relevant. The indication from policymakers is that American military operations require public support. As a result, scholars and analysts have come to realize that public opinion is the "essential domino" of military operations. The relationship between mass American public opinion and the use of military force has become, therefore, the focus of numerous studies and surveys. There are currently several competing explanations—schools of thought—in the literature on why the mass public supports the use of force. This article is an attempt to identify the most prominent schools of thought on public opinion and the use of force, and the central factors associated with each school. Such a review is important to generating policy–relevant guidance pertaining to public opinion and the use of force—an objective made more pressing by the current war against terrorism.     

A tragedy of the anticommons: local option taxation and cell phone tax bills

When multiple taxing jurisdictions overlap and fail to account for one another’s actions, they over-tax the common base. This is a prediction of the anticommons model, in which numerous parties have authority to exclude others from using a resource. This model further predicts that when governments over-tax the base, private parties will underutilize the resource, and underutilization will be greater as the number of parties with exclusion rights rises. We test these predictions by studying cell phone taxation and local option tax authority, which allows some cities, counties, and special-purpose districts to levy taxes on cell phone use. Consistent with theory, we find that the tax rate on cell phone service is higher when local governments have the option to tax. Further, the percentage of households owning cell phones is lower when there is the local option to tax, and ownership rates fall with the number of taxes levied.     

Collective Reputations Affect Donations to Nonprofits

Maintaining their organization's reputation is an important challenge for nonprofit managers. Organizations are often linked via a common reputation within their industry or sector such that publicity about one organization can spill over to affect how stakeholders view its peers. The linkages of common reputations may be particularly pronounced among nonprofits because important dimensions of their quality are difficult to observe directly. In this paper, we show that when the third‐party evaluator Charity Navigator rates nonprofits and displays ratings of their peers, it creates a collective reputation among groups of nonprofits performing similar functions in the same region. Through an analysis of 3,413 charities from 1993 through 2008, we find that donations to nonprofits rated by Charity Navigator rise and fall with the published Charity Navigator ratings of their peers. The effect appears to be due to the charity updating fundraising choices in response to the ratings rather than donor reactions. The presence of collective reputations has important implications for nonprofit management, such as collective self‐regulation programs.