Levelling Up the UK: If not the Conservatives,will Labour Learn the Lessons from Past Policy Failings?

This article considers the levelling-up agenda in the UK, examining the Johnson government's original proposals to tackle regional and local inequality and its continuation under new Prime Minister Rishi Sunak following the short-lived premiership of Liz Truss. The 2022 Levelling Up in the United Kingdom White Paper is notable for the frank and wholesale critique it provides of previous governments’—both Tory and Labour—efforts to address the pressing issue of geographic inequality. The assessment was that a pattern of ad hoc and incoherent reforms needed to be replaced by a stable, long term and system-wide approach to change. Yet, under Johnson, Truss and now Sunak, policy churn is continuing, with an approach that falls short in following the lessons set out in the White Paper. We provide a detailed analysis of the government's critique of past reforms, the lessons it has set out and why its reform programme is likely to repeat past failings. Crucially, the approach leaves the structure of central government almost untouched, with substantive reforms instead focussed at the local governance level. We argue the government's programme perpetuates the ‘power-hoarding’ tendencies of the Westminster model, a key bulwark against meaningfully addressing the UK's spatial inequality problem. We conclude that the levelling-up agenda, missions and targets are unlikely to be met under Rishi Sunak, reflecting the endemic nature of short-termism and centralisation of power in the UK's public policy approach. We then consider the approach of Starmer's Labour Party to levelling up and the issues it needs to confront if it forms the next government.     

Industry size and regulation: Evidence from US states

Public Choice - What explains variation in the extent of regulation across US states and industries? We examine cross-sectional variation in state government regulations facing 81 three-digit North...     

Network of Networks: Preliminary Lessons from the Antwerp Port Authority on Crisis Management and Network Governance to Deal with the COVID-19 Pandemic

In this article, the authors describe and illustrate what they call a “network of networks” perspective and map the development of a lead network for the Antwerp Port Authority that governed organizations and networks in the port community before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. They find that setting a collective focus and selective integration are crucial in the creation and reproduction of an effective system to adequately deal with a wicked problem like the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings on crisis management and network governance are used to engage practitioners and public policy planners to revisit the current design and governance of organizational networks within organizational fields that have been hit by the COVID-19 pandemic.     

Has Structural Economic Vulnerability Decreased in Least Developed Countries? Lessons Drawn from Retrospective Indices

The Economic Vulnerability Index (EVI) is a well-recognised measure of the structural vulnerability of developing countries and is regularly used and published by the United Nations for cross-country comparison purposes, primarily to review the list of Least Developed Countries (LDCs). However, due to the revisions in methodology occurring over time, the official EVI cannot be used to assess the changes in vulnerability. In this paper, we use two retrospective series of the EVI, based on constant definitions. The real change in vulnerability is thus isolated from the impact of revisions in the design of the index, allowing comparison of the evolution of LDCs and non-LDCs. The implications of the revisions in the EVI design are then discussed.     

Cannabinoid concentrations in hair from documented cannabis users

Fifty-three head hair specimens were collected from 38 males with a history of cannabis use documented by questionnaire, urinalysis and controlled, double blind administration of delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in an institutional review board approved protocol. The subjects completed a questionnaire indicating daily cannabis use (N=18) or non-daily use, i.e. one to five cannabis cigarettes per week (N=20). Drug use was also documented by a positive cannabinoid urinalysis, a hair specimen was collected from each subject and they were admitted to a closed research unit. Additional hair specimens were collected following smoking of two 2.7% THC cigarettes (N=13) or multiple oral doses totaling 116 mg THC (N=2). Cannabinoid concentrations in all hair specimens were determined by ELISA and GCMSMS. Pre- and post-dose detection rates did not differ statistically, therefore, all 53 specimens were considered as one group for further comparisons. Nineteen specimens (36%) had no detectable THC or 11-nor-9-carboxy-THC (THCCOOH) at the GCMSMS limits of quantification (LOQ) of 1.0 and 0.1 pg/mg hair, respectively. Two specimens (3.8%) had measurable THC only, 14 (26%) THCCOOH only, and 18 (34%) both cannabinoids. Detection rates were significantly different (p<0.05, Fishers' exact test) between daily cannabis users (85%) and non-daily users (52%). There was no difference in detection rates between African-American and Caucasian subjects (p>0.3, Fisher's exact test). For specimens with detectable cannabinoids, concentrations ranged from 3.4 to >100 pg THC/mg and 0.10 to 7.3 pg THCCOOH/mg hair. THC and THCCOOH concentrations were positively correlated (r=0.38, p<0.01, Pearson's product moment correlation). Using an immunoassay cutoff concentration of 5 pg THC equiv./mg hair, 83% of specimens that screened positive were confirmed by GCMSMS at a cutoff concentration of 0.1 pg THCCOOH/mg hair.     

Squeezing linkLine: Rethinking Recoupment in Price Squeeze Cases

The Supreme Court's decision in Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc. removed an important tool from competition regulators’ arsenals. Not only did the Court express skepticism about the existence of a price squeeze cause of action, but it also applied the economically mismatched predatory pricing test to price squeeze cases. Unfortunately, the lack of clarity on linkLine's reach also caused significant confusion in the lower courts. Examining these issues, this article clarifies the distinction between price squeeze and predatory pricing claims, and argues that the second step of the predatory pricing test, probability of recoupment, is inappropriate for price squeeze cases and should either be dropped from the test or replaced with a presumption of recoupment.