Imprisonment v. the death penalty as a deterrent to murder

In this investigation we examine the simultaneous deterrent effect of imprisonment and executions on homicide. Examination of the census years 1920 to 1960 shows the certainty of execution and homicide rates to be generally unrelated. Also contrary to the deterrence hypothesis, the significant negative bivariate relationship between the severity of prison sentence and homicide rates found here and in earlier investigations is shown to be a statistical artifact resulting from a failure to control for the effects of alternative legal sanctions and sociodemographic factors. While neither imprisonment nor executions are found to have a significant deterrent effect on homicide, attention is called to some limitations of this investigation and the need for additional research.     

Strength and growth in a plantation economy

Conclusion Fogel and Engerman's self-conscious application of economic theory to historical data is extremely useful in clarifying the market relationships operative in the antebellum Southern economy. What is missing in their study is an appreciation of the explanatory limits of the theory they have employed. They have paid a high price in attempting to stretch the capabilities of neoclassical theory into domains beyond its scope. In particular this takes the form of an implicit assumption that if market efficiency is attained, modernization is within reach. There is, on the contrary, no necessary correlation between efficiency defined in this market sense, and long-term strength, growth, or prosperity. Precisely because of the means employed within the plantation economy to achieve viability, there are serious questions which can be raised with respect to both the longevity of the slave system and the consistency of that system with development, and hence an increasing standard of living for its population. In analyzing the internal mechanism by which the slave system worked, Fogel and Engerman interjected issues for which they offered neither testable hypotheses nor employed the relevant methodological framework.     

Changing approaches to corrections

A new training program was developed for correctional officers and other new employees. The training was designed to focus on a positive philosophy toward rehabilitation rather than emphasizing techniques for managing inmates. Attitude questionnaires were developed to test attitudes on treatment and security. The questionnaire was administered before and after the training to determine changes in attitude. The trainees' attitudes were compared to those of college students who had completed an internship. There was a significant difference in the attitudes of employees before training and after training. There was also a significant difference in attitudes of interns and employees before training but not after the employees had been trained.     

The debate on World Dynamics: A response to Nordhaus

In a recent paper published in the Economic Journal, Professor William D. Nordhaus of Yale University reviewed World Dynamics by Jay W. Forrester. In his criticism, Nordhaus signals three serious problems and several additional questionable assumptions of sufficient importance to undermine the usefulness of Forrester's book. However, a careful examination of his analysis shows that each point made by Nordhaus rests on a misunderstanding of World Dynamics, a misuse of empirical data, or an inability to analyze properly the dynamic behavior of the model by static equilibrium methods.The three serious problems raised by Nordhaus concern the assumptions that connect industrialization to net birth rates in World Dynamics, the representation of technology and production within the world model, and the impact of prices on global resource use. The analysis presented here refutes the Nordhaus arguments and shows that World Dynamics is consistent with his references to real-world data on population, production, and capital accumulation.This paper is a response to William D. Nordhaus, World Dynamics: Measurement Without Data, published in the Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, December 1973. An earlier, unpublished, version of the Nordhaus paper, bearing the same title, was widely circulated hand-tohand within the United States, Canada, and Europe. A response to the original Nordhaus paper (System Dynamics Group Memorandum D-1736-4) was written in February 1973 and is available from Jay W. Forrester, Alfred P. Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass. 02139. The present paper, a revised version of the earlier response, deals with several new or modified arguments contained in the Economic Journal article by Nordhaus.