Unitary regulatory supervision or multi-entity supervision? A computational approach to a numbers problem in financial regulation

Policymakers globally have debated (and often implemented) the idea of consolidating numerous financial regulatory supervisory entities into one unitary entity. This article uses a computational model to explore the effect such a decision would have on supervisory performance. Using insights from organizational scholarship on consensus-making among individuals within organizations, the simulation suggests that under most conditions a unitary supervisory entity yields lower performance than smaller, numerous entities with unique mandates, keeping the number of regulatory inspectors constant. This result arises from the heterogeneity of perspectives being shared within the entity and the influence of precedent actions. The results also show a decreasing utility to disaggregation: performance decreases when too few inspectors share among themselves in building consensus. When insufficient heterogeneity within supervisors exists, unitary frameworks outperform multi-entity frameworks. These findings have implications on the design of supervisory frameworks and contribute to research on consensus-building, heterogeneous group membership, and computational modeling.     

Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations.

No consensus yet exists on how to handle incidental findings (IFs) in human subjects research. Yet empirical studies document IFs in a wide range of research studies, where IFs are findings beyond the aims of the study that are of potential health or reproductive importance to the individual research participant. This paper reports recommendations of a two-year project group funded by NIH to study how to manage IFs in genetic and genomic research, as well as imaging research. We conclude that researchers have an obligation to address the possibility of discovering IFs in their protocol and communications with the IRB, and in their consent forms and communications with research participants. Researchers should establish a pathway for handling IFs and communicate that to the IRB and research participants. We recommend a pathway and categorize IFs into those that must be disclosed to research participants, those that may be disclosed, and those that should not be disclosed.     

Professional Divestiture: The Cession of Responsibility for Lawyer Discipline

Lawyer-discipline systems underwent substantial reorganization in a majority of states during the 1970s, with responsibility for their operation moving from the bar associations in which they had been located for almost a century to agencies of the state supreme courts. While this transfer of the locus of lawyer discipline resulted in a diminution of the power of the organized bar, it encouraged the professionalization of the process. In this paper the reasons for the willingness of the bar associations in Illinois to cede control over such a central component of professional regulation are examined and their implications for the sociology of the legal profession discussed. Unable to maintain the status quo in the face of extensive criticism, the Illinois bar associations chose not to meet the high costs of upgrading the discipline process but rather to divest themselves of a function that, although at one time central to their identity and authority, had become inconvenient and damaging to their image. It is suggested that the bar associations were willing to countenance such a divestiture because their positions as collective representatives of the profession in Illinois were secure and the major parameters of lawyer discipline well established. Whereas immediate control over self-regulation processes may be necessary during the developmental phase of professionalism, it is not so important once the profession has achieved a dominant market position.