An experimental comparison of adversarial versus inquisitorial procedural regimes

This article reports the results of a multiyear series of economicexperiments comparing the two dominant types of legal proceduresused in adjudication: (1) the 'adversarial' model of party-controlledprocedure versus (2) the 'inquisitorial' model of judge-controlledprocedure. The principal finding is that the relative fact-findingefficiency of the two systems, in terms of both the 'revelation'of hidden facts and the 'accuracy' of decision, depends significantlyupon the information structure. Under a 'private' informationstructure, inquisitorial procedure is relatively more efficient,whereas under a 'correlated' information structure, adversarialprocedure is relatively more efficient.     

Policy feedback and public opinion: the role of employer responsibility in social policy

This study extends the literature on policy feedback and explores the extent to which public attitudes reflect learning from past government initiatives. We analyze the ways in which feedback mechanisms affecting public attitudes may differ from those earlier identified in the literature. We apply this general analytic framework to help explain variation in public attitudes toward private employer involvement in health care, explore possible causal pathways, and offer some preliminary empirical tests of these hypotheses. There are different levels of public support for the notion of employer obligation involving medical care, long-term care, and the treatment of substance abuse. Our evidence suggests that lessons about the performance of institutions in each of these policy domains represent the most important effect of existing policy on public attitudes. Furthermore, these differences correspond to what one would expect based on our model of policy feedback and cannot be explained by other plausible sources of policy legitimacy.     

The Future Israeli-Palestinian Relationship

In this concept paper, the Joint Working Group on Israeli‐Palestinian Relations‐a group of influential Palestinians and Israelis that has been meeting periodically since 1994 to discuss final‐status issues in the Israeli‐Palestinian negotiations‐explores the future relationship between the two societies after the signing of a peace agreement. The paper considers a relationship based on total separation between the two societies and states as neither realistic nor desirable. Instead, it envisages a future relationship based on mutually beneficial cooperation in many spheres, conducive to stable peace, sustainable development, and ultimate reconciliation. The basis for such a relationship must be laid in the process and outcome of the final‐status negotiations and in the patterns of cooperation established on the ground. Efforts at cooperation and reconciliation cannot be pursued apart from their political context. The paper argues that the only feasible political arrangement on which a cooperative relationship can be built is a two‐state solution, establishing a genuinely independent Palestinian state alongside of Israel. The resolution of final‐status issues must be consistent with the sovereignty, viability, and security of both states. The paper then proceeds to describe several models for the relationship between the two states and societies. It advocates a model of close cooperation, but proposes that this relationship be built in stages. The scope and speed of expanding and institutionalizing cooperative activities must be determined by experience‐by the extent to which such activities meet the needs of both parties, enhance mutual trust, and reduce inequalities between the parties. Finally, the paper discusses three avenues for promoting a cooperative relationship based on equality, reciprocal benefit, and mutual trust and respect: the development of functional ties and civil‐society institutions across national borders; programs directed toward attitude change and stereotype reduction; and efforts to close the economic and political gap between the two societies.     

Health care for older persons in England and the United States: a contrast of systems and values

This article extends previous comparisons of access to health care for older persons in England and the United States by comparing rates of avoidable hospital conditions as a proxy for primary care access and by examining the distribution of care within these older populations. Drawing on hospital data from the two countries, we find that older persons in the United States, particularly those over the age of seventy-five, receive far more revascularizations than do older persons in England. Differences in the use of lower-joint replacement are not as great, but we are unable to assess differences in the need for these procedures. Although older persons have greater access to specialty care in the United States, there appears to be much better access to primary care in England. We are unable to draw comparisons on the extent of inequalities in access to health care, although in the United States there is evidence of inequalities in access by race, and in England we confirm earlier studies that find inequalities by level of deprivation. These findings are discussed in the context of the political debates over access to care and rationing in the two countries.     

The social roles of Medicare: assessing Medicare's collateral benefits

The Medicare program incorporates a number of functions that go beyond providing health insurance to its beneficiaries. These activities, which we refer to as "collateral" functions, may have important health consequences but are also an increasing source of controversy. In this essay we develop a conceptual framework for categorizing these involvements, introduce some additional options that might complement Medicare's current collateral functions, assess the reaction of policy elites and Medicare's current beneficiaries to these alternatives, and evaluate the role that collateral activities play for Medicare's core mission. A case can be made for expanding some collateral involvements, but only if the Health Care Financing Administration has the strategic direction and administrative capacity to effectively implement these activities.