Public versus private ownership: The federal lands case

“Privatization” of public lands has been urged on the grounds that it will provide a more efficient allocation of the nation's resources. However, there are some public policy objectives which private ownership and free markets are not equipped to achieve. Historically, these objectives have motivated legislation authorizing retention of some land in public ownership. Indeed, land in both forms of ownership is required to achieve a full range of both public and private goods and services. However, since inefficiencies in the allocation of resources will occur under either form of ownership, careful monitoring of economic activities in both sectors is more likely to achieve improvements than arguing for exclusive reliance on only one system of property rights.     

Building a U.S.-Soviet working relationship

Conclusion The crucial determinant of U.S. and Soviet security, and the security of the world, will not depend on technological development, breakthroughs in deterrence theory, or even on agreements the two countries might sign at the summit talks. The future depends on whether the two governments are able to work together.Both the United States and the Soviet Union have developed procedures for solving conflicts with other governments, even former enemies, without hostilities or threats of force. The essential difference between these relationships and the U.S.-Soviet relationship lies not in the degree of difference in cultural heritage or security interests, but in the way the two governments approach their problems—through consultations and dispute resolution procedures, or through conflict and recrimination.The process of interaction is the essence of a working relationship. It means the difference between hostile confrontation and constructive collaboration, between fear and security, between war and peace. The summit meeting provides an opportunity to change the nature of the relationship, to change the focus of U.S.-Soviet interaction from antagonistic bargaining over divisive issues to constructive collaboration on possible solutions and working procedures. Roger Fisher is Williston Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and Director of the Harvard Negotiation Project, 523 Pound Hall, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass. 02138.Scott Brown is Associate Director of the Harvard Negotiation Project.     

Examining the developmental process of risk for exposure to community violence among urban youth

Considerable research has documented the effects of community violence exposure on adolescents' behavior and mental health functioning, yet there has been less research on the process by which early risks increase the likelihood that youth will be exposed to community violence. The current study used data from a community epidemiologically defined sample of 623 urban youth followed from 1st grade through adolescence to examine the process by which early-onset aggressive behavior and poor academic readiness influenced risk for community violence exposure. Consistent with transactional developmental theories, early-onset aggressive and disruptive behavior was associated with poor academic readiness; these early risks contributed to later peer rejection, and subsequent conduct problems and greater affiliation with deviant peers, which in turn increased youths' exposure to community violence. Having an enhanced understanding of the risk process directs attention to potential targets for preventive interventions for youth at risk for subsequent exposure to violence.     

Inducing corporate compliance: A compound corporate liability regime

Corporate liability regimes have two major social goals: (i) inducing corporations to internalize all social ramifications of their activity; and (ii) inducing corporations to prevent, deter, and report their employee misconduct. The scholarly polemic has shown that none of the liability regimes recognized thus far in the literature efficiently satisfies both social goals. Following a Law and Economics approach, this paper develops an innovative regime that may comprise an optimal corporate liability framework in most settings. The Compound Corporate Liability Regime developed in this paper is a two-layer strict liability regime. Under this regime, corporations that self-report their employee misconduct incur a sanction that is reduced by the variable enforcement costs saved due to their self-reporting. Such a liability framework aligns social and corporations’ interests, and thereby satisfies both social goals of corporate liability regimes.     

Something Old,Something New: Revisiting Competing Hypotheses of the Victimization-Offending Relationship Among Adolescents

This study revisits a familiar question regarding the relationship between victimization and offending. Using longitudinal data on middle- and high-school students, the study examines competing arguments regarding the relationship between victimization and offending embedded within the “dynamic causal” and “population heterogeneity” perspectives. The analysis begins with models that estimate the longitudinal relationship between victimization and offending without accounting for the influence of time-stable individual heterogeneity. Next, the victimization-offending relationship is reconsidered after the effects of time-stable sources of heterogeneity, and time-varying covariates are controlled. While the initial results without controls for population heterogeneity are in line with much prior research and indicate a positive link between victimization and offending, results from models that control for time-stable individual differences suggest something new: a negative, reciprocal relationship between victimization and offending. These latter results are most consistent with the notion that the oft-reported victimization-offending link is driven by a combination of dynamic causal and population heterogeneity factors. Implications of these findings for theory and future research focusing on the victimization-offending nexus are discussed.