A Prospect Theory Analysis of California's Initiatives in Implementation of its Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV) Mandate1

In 1990, the state of California passed the pioneering mandate on zero emission vehicles (ZEV). This technology‐forcing regulation is aimed at improvement of air quality and protection of public health from the adverse effects of air pollutants from automobiles. Facing severe opposition from the auto industry, the mandate has been revised a number of times, most recently in 2003, whereby the requirement for ZEVs have been made to align with the pace of technology development. Review of strategies used in implementation of the mandate has revealed greater emphasis on the economic incentives for rather than on environmental merits of ZEVs. Using prospect theory as the framework for analysis, the reasons have been explored. The findings of the study help us to understand how decisions are made with respect with to deviations from a mental anchor point and through the process of evaluation of losses and gains.     

胸外按摩致肋骨骨折法医病理学分析

目的　探讨胸外按摩致肋骨骨折特点。　方法　对 1990～ 2 0 0 0年间华西医科大学法医学院所做 30例胸外按摩致肋骨骨折的尸检进行法医病理统计分析。　结果　肋骨骨折男性 2 8,女性 2例 ,年龄为 18～ 6 8岁 ,胸外按摩骨折主要发生在疾病、电击伤、溺死及中毒病例 ,以第 6～ 9肋骨的腋前、中线骨折常见 ,多为左侧。　结论　胸外按摩与外伤所致肋骨骨折具有明显的区别。     

Bounding the number of contributors to mixed DNA stains

We derive a simple inequality for the probability of observing a given DNA profile when assuming a fixed number of unknown persons have contributed to the mixed stain. We then show how this inequality can be used to obtain an upper bound for the number of unknown contributors needed to be considered.     

Restoring accountability in pretrial release: the Philadelphia pretrial release supervision experiments

As drug arrests and jail overcrowding added pressure to increase pretrial release in localities during the 1980s and 1990s, the need to manage a larger and higher-risk pretrial population of defendants awaiting adjudication in the community became a high priority for justice agencies. In the late 1990s Philadelphia officials sought to discover the ingredients of a successful supervision strategy through four interlinked field experiments to provide an empirical basis for a major reform of the pretrial release system. The results of the linked randomized experiments question common assumptions about “supervision,” its impact and effectiveness, about the underlying nature of the noncompliant defendant, and deterrence implications. The study emphasizes the importance of interpreting the findings in the context of implementation of the policy reform. Findings suggest that facilitative notification strategies wield little influence on defendant behavior and that deterrent aims are undermined by the system's failure to deliver consequences for defendant noncompliance during pretrial release. The most significant contribution of the article is its illustration of a major evidence-based policy reform undertaken by a major court system.     

THE FUTURE OF PORTUGUESE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND A NEW AGENDA FOR PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION SCIENCES IN THE 21st CENTURY

This paper addresses the changing role of the Portuguese state, the present priority assigned to the process of reform and the new challenges to be overcome by public administration. Such processes are demanding a new agenda for education and research in public administration sciences, shifting from the public law paradigm to an interdisciplinary problem‐solving approach and giving special attention to 10 key areas of study, which we describe in the final section of the paper. It should be noted here that the opinions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the position of their institutions.     

Market Failure and Non-Standard Contracting: How the Ghost of Perfect Competition Still Haunts Antitrust

Modern antitrust policy has a ‘love hate’ relationshipwith non-standard contracts that can overcome market failure.On the one hand, courts have abandoned various per se rulesthat once condemned such agreements outright, concluding thatmany non-standard contracts may produce benefits that are cognizableunder the antitrust laws.¹ The prospect of such benefits, itis said, compels courts to analyze these agreements under theRule of Reason, under which the tribunal determines whethera given restraint enhances or destroys competition.² At thesame time, courts, scholars, and the enforcement agencies haveembraced methods of rule of reason analysis that are undulyhostile to such agreements.³ In particular, courts and othersare too quick to view such agreements and the market outcomesthey produce as manifestations of market power. This articleseeks to explain why these agreements are still the object ofundue hostility.