Competition in political and economic markets

Prepared as a response to Frey and Eichenberger's Anomalies in Political Economy. We thank Gordon Tullock for helpful discussions. This work was partially supported by the Taylor Experimental Laboratory at Washington University.     

Elections and government spending

It is widely believed that electoral pressures cause legislators to favor government spending programs. This electoral theory of spending is shown to encompass two core hypotheses: (1) the electoral consequences hypothesis, which states that support for spending programs improves the representative's electoral showing; and (2) the legislator insecurity hypothesis, which states that greater electoral insecurity leads representatives to be more in favor of spending programs. A test of these ideas using spending scores for U.S. representatives in 1986 finds that neither hypothesis is supported by the data.     

Attitudes of Canadians toward affirmative action: Opposition,value pluralism,and nonattitudes

Set against a backdrop of current public policy and case law, this study investigates Canadian attitudes toward affirmative action among both citizens and decision makers. We find low levels of support for such programs across a variety of contexts and intended beneficiaries, but we also discover that opinion on both sides of the issue is rather soft, for large portions of those taking positions on the matter are willing to reconsider their views when prompted. We interpret this finding as an indication of what Philip Converse has called nonattitudes. Thus, a substantial portion of Canadians appear to hold no genuine attitudes on the question of affirmative action and are relatively open to persuasion. In contrast, the preferences of those with stable attitudes are rooted in the tradeoff between values of equality and merit. Implications for policy activists in this issue area are discussed.The research reported here is part of a large project supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (Grant No. 411-85-001). The Centre of Criminology at the University of Toronto has provided a home, and indispensable support, for the Charter Project. This research was also facilitated by a contribution from the Solicitor General of Canada to the Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto. Our thanks also go to Robert Vipond for his help in clarifying our concepts.     

Technology transfer in the navy: The historical background

This report reviews technology transfer in light of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980. Following a brief introduction, a section on “Definitions” explains the several meanings that the phrase “technology transfer” now carries in policy discussions. The next section, on “Passive Technology Transfer”, reviews traditional Department of Defense scientific and technical information programs that relate to technology transfer. A section on “Military Industrial Transfer” examines technology transfer from the Defense Department to private industry, expecially to defense contractors. A section on “The Stevenson-Wydler Act and Active Technology Transfer” describes the principal provisions of the new act and why Congress passed it. The next two sections, on “NASA’s Technology Transfer Program” and “The Federal Laboratory Consortium” outline the two existing Government programs Congress relied upon in developing ideas for the new law. A section on “Implementation of the Stevenson-Wydler Act”, discusses several important issues that must be considered by Navy laboratory management as the new law is put into effect in the Navy. Finally, a brief conclusion emphasizes the major point of the report: That Congress, in passing the Stevenson-Wydler Act, did not fully consider what relationship the new technology transfer programs it was requiring in the Executive Branch should bear to existing programs with similar purposes. If the public interest is to be served, the report argues, the Navy must consciously and carefully determine the proper nature of this relationship.     

A decision support system model for technology transfer

Technology transfer is the process by which technology originating at one institutional setting is adapted for use in another. A major impediment to the implementation of new technologies to assist with mangerial decision-making problems is a lack of communication between the technology and management communities. Development of a tool designed to bridge the technology transfer gap was the goal of this research. The result is a prototype software package which may be used on an interactive computer terminal by a manager for assistance in designing a decision support system (DSS). The four primary research tasks were:

1. Develop a conceptual model of the DSS design process.
2. Select and adapt, or create, appropriate software to mechanize the model.
3. Develop a knowledge base to describe the interactiveness of various organization variables and managerial decision-making needs.
4. Collect and analyze interview data and implement resultant production rules on the model.

Tasks 1 and 2 were accomplished first to establish the feasibility of this effort. An interview instrument was developed for Task 3. And, corporate managers from several firms were interviewed to accomplish Task 4. Using this data, a prototype production rule model (called DECAIDS for DECISION AIDS) was constructed which supports managerial decision-making from the EMYCIN production rule system used at Stanford University. The purpose of this article is to introduce the need for a Decision Support System Model. A complete copy of this research can be obtained through University Microfilms International, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106, from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California 93940, or the Defense Technical Information Center, Cameron Station, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. The title is “An Interactive Decision Support System for Technology Transfer Pertaining to Organization and Management”, 1980.