Online Public Response to Dutch News About Money Laundering

In this paper we analyze how Dutch Public Prosecution’s press releases about money laundering and underground banking are received by producers and consumers of online news reports. First we take a closer look at how journalists (re)framed six official press releases in 75 news reports. It turns out that journalists do not regularly adopt the success frame that the Public Prosecution uses in its press releases. Furthermore, the role of the Public Prosecution Service or the police is downplayed. The moral message that “crime should not pay” receives no coverage in news reports. Second, we analyze how the news reports generated 276 online comments. We distinguish three ways in which online commenters respond to news reports; they (1) appreciate, (2) downplay or (3) condemn the authorities’ success. Commenters are particularly likely to downplay or condemn the police’s success. When a news report focuses on ‘underground bankers’, commenters often express a negative opinion about the effort to curb money laundering. It also appears that readers did not always understand the use of a term like underground banking.     

MARKET ANALYSIS IN THE PRESENCE OF INDIRECT CONSTRAINTS AND CAPTIVE SALES

In antitrust cases as well as for regulated industries, thequestion of how to treat indirect constraint and captive salescorrectly has become of major importance in Europe. The (im-)propertreatment of indirect constraints has lead the CFI to overturnthe Commission's decision in the proposed merger of Schneiderand Legrand. Moreover, with regards to the definition of wholesalebroadband access markets, there is an ongoing controversy betweenthe Commission and some National Regulatory Authorities, centeringon the question of whether to incorporate indirect constraintsalready at the stage of market definition. To inform this debate,we present in this article some of the insights from a detailedformal analysis into markets with indirect constraints and captivesales. We show how indirect constraints are appropriately takeninto account through the elasticity of derived demand and commentalso on the informativeness of concentration measures on boththe wholesale and retail market. We further derive insightsinto when indirect constraints may be more or less importantcompared with direct constraints. Finally, we also discuss themore practical difficulties that are encountered when analyzing(or estimating) market structures where forward integrated firmsalso sell to other, competing retail firms.     

Chinese organized crime and situational context: comparing human smuggling and synthetic drugs trafficking

This article criticizes the ‘ethnic’ conception of organized crime and puts forward an alternative view that does not put ethnicity first, but rather social networks and situational context. It focuses upon Chinese organized crime, a phenomenon where the preoccupation with ethnicity is paramount, and compares findings from extensive research into two different transnational criminal activities that are carried out by Chinese offenders in the Netherlands. The first topic, human smuggling, is well researched, whereas research into the second topic, trafficking in precursors (the basic ingredients for the production of synthetic drugs), is largely lacking. The article highlights the major theoretical and empirical similarities and differences between these two criminal activities and discusses the relevance of the main findings for theory and research.     

Voting as an act of contribution

This paper presents a theory which rationalizes voting in terms of the marginal utility a citizen derives from contributing a small amount of effort in the political process when the cost of voting is small. Citizens abstain when the marginal cost of voting exceeds the marginal perceived benefit. A simple choice rule for voting in a two candidate race is derived from the theory. This rule depends on the voter's subjective belief about the election outcome as well as his preferences for the candidates. The key assumption is that the voter's utility increases if he votes for a winner, or decreases if he votes for a loser. This assumption is no less plausible than the assumption that voters believe they can be pivotal.