Coercive Leadership

We develop a model of leadership in which an informed leader has some degree of coercive influence over her followers (agents). Agents benefit from coordination but face two distinct challenges: dispersed information and heterogeneous preferences. The leader's coercive power facilitates coordination by weakening the effect presented by both of these challenges through “binding” agents to a strategically chosen policy. The leader's policy choice becomes more informative to the agents about the leader's privately held information as her coercive capacity increases. By adjusting her policy choice in response to available private and public information, the coercive leader achieves her preferred average of agents' actions, and in so doing, neutralizes the possibly deleterious coordinating influence of public information. We develop implications of our analysis for understanding autocratic leadership in different political and organizational contexts.     

Polarized preferences versus polarizing policies

Much of contemporary political debate in the United States focuses on the issue of polarization: specifically, its causal antecedents and its consequences for policymaking and political conflict. In this article, we argue that partisan preference polarization—conventionally defined as the difference in the favored policy positions of legislators from the two major parties—is not a sufficient statistic for potential political conflict in national politics . Rather, a well-defined measure of potential conflict must take into account (1) the locations of status quo policies and proposed alternatives; and (2) the shape of underlying utility functions. We propose measures of the likely contentiousness of a given status quo policy and of a proposal to move that policy. We then demonstrate the usefulness of these measures using estimates of utility function and final passage vote parameters on enacted legislation from the 111th US Senate (2009–2011).     

The Reporter''s Dilemma: News Gathering as Negotiation

Bush and Folger (1994) in The Promise of Mediation articulated distinctions between Individualist and Relational ideology, and linked them to specific theoretical orientations to mediation practice, problem-solving and transformative, respectively. Yet, a question persists as to whether these distinctions produce any material differences in practice. This question is approached here through an examination of a single construct in the mediation literature, empathy. The author proposes that the Individualist and Relational ideological frameworks have material implications for the concept and the practice of fostering empathy between the parties to a mediation: The problem-solving framework fosters a social interaction which can be understood as transactional empathy while the transformative framework fosters an interaction described as relational empathy.     

Carbon monoxide concentrations in the 2009 Victorian Bushfire disaster victims

Blood was available for the estimation of carboxyhemoglobin saturation (COHb) in 30 of the 173 persons who died in the Victorian bushfires in February 2009. The ages of these 30 deaths ranged from 3 to 80 years and there were 8 females. 13 cases (43%) were considered negative (less than 5% COHb), 12 (40%) were between 5 and 40% COHb, 2 (6.7%) between 40 and 50% and 3 (10%) were greater than 50% COHb. There were 6 persons either found within a building or a car and the COHb in these cases ranged up to 69% (mean 50%). There were 5 cases where the location was unable to be determined as either indoor or outdoor due to the extensive nature of the fire. The remaining 19 deceased persons were all located outside in the open and the concentration of COHb in these cases ranged up to 30% (mean 19%). Hydrogen cyanide was only detected in two deceased persons at concentrations of 0.5 and 2.7 mg/L, respectively. 13 deceased were found to have soot in the airways following necropsy but this did not correlate with the COHb levels.     

The incidence of drugs of impairment in oral fluid from random roadside testing

Oral fluid (OF) has become a popular specimen to test for presence of drugs, particularly in regards to road safety. In Victoria, OF specimens from drivers have been used to test for the presence of methylamphetamine (MA) and Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) since 2003 and 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine (MDMA) since 2006. LC-MS/MS has been used to test the most recent 853 submitted OF specimens from Victoria Police for 31 drugs of abuse including those listed in the Australian Standard AS4760-2006. At least one proscribed drug was detected in 96% of drivers, of which MA was the most common (77%), followed by THC (42%), MDMA (17%) and the combination of all three (3.9%). Opioids were detected in 14% of drivers of which 4.8% were positive for 6-acetylmorphine and 3.3% for methadone. The incidence of the opioids tramadol (1.2%) and oxycodone (1.1%) were relatively low. Cocaine (8.0%) was as commonly detected as benzodiazepines (8.0%), and was almost always found in combination with MA (7.9%). Samples positive to benzodiazepines were largely due to diazepam (3.5%) and alprazolam (3.4%), with only 0.2% of drivers combining the two. Ketamine was also detected in 1.5% of cases. While the incidences of the proscribed drugs itself are concerning, it is clear that many drivers are also using other drugs capable of causing impairment.     

The prevalence of drugs in injured drivers

In mid 2009 Victoria introduced compulsory drug testing of blood taken from all injured drivers taken to hospital. Δ(9)-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), methylamphetamine (MA) and 3,4-methylenedioxy-methylamphetamine (MDMA) are prohibited and if drivers are positive to any amount an automatic penalty is enforced. Laboratory screens were conducted on preserved blood using ELISA testing for cannabis metabolite and methylamphetamines and a fully validated LC-MS/MS method for 105 drugs including THC, amphetamines, opioids, benzodiazepines, antidepressants and antipsychotics and a number of other psychoactive substances using a minimum of two transitions per drug. Conventional GC-testing for ethanol was used to screen and quantify the presence of alcohol. 1714 drivers were tested and showed alcohol in 29% (≥ 0.01 g/100mL) and drugs in 35%. The positive rate for the three drugs prohibited by legislation was 12.5%. The prevalence of THC, MA and MDMA was 9.8%, 3.1%, and 0.8%, respectively. The range of THC concentrations in blood was 2-42 ng/mL (median 7) of which 70% had a concentration of 10 ng/mL or higher. The range of concentrations for MA and MDMA was 0.02-0.4 and 0.03-0.3mg/L (median for both drugs was 0.05 mg/L). Drugs of any type were detected in 35% of cases. The other drugs were largely prescribed drugs such as the antidepressants (9.3%) and benzodiazepines (8.9%). Neither 6-acetylmorphine nor cocaine (or benzoylecgonine) was detected in these cases.