Search results

The Bureau of Economics in the Federal Trade Commission has a three-part role in the Agency and the strength of its functions changed over time depending on the preferences and ideology of the FTC’s leaders, developments in the field of economics, and the tenor of the times. The over-riding current role is to provide well considered, unbiased economic advice regarding antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement cases to the legal staff and the Commission. The second role, which long ago was primary, is to provide reports on investigations of various industries to the public and public officials. This role was more recently called research or “policy R&D”. A third role is to advocate for competition and markets both domestically and internationally. As a practical matter, the provision of economic advice to the FTC and to the legal staff has required that the economists wear “two hats,” helping the legal staff investigate cases and provide evidence to support law enforcement cases while also providing advice to the legal bureaus and to the Commission on which cases to pursue (thus providing “a second set of eyes” to evaluate cases). There is sometimes a tension in those functions because building a case is not the same as evaluating a case. Economists and the Bureau of Economics have provided such services to the FTC for over 100 years proving that a sub-organization can survive while playing roles that sometimes conflict. Such a life is not, however, always easy or fun.

This study investigates the complex interaction between properties of some emergent crises and the expertise of particular public sector leaders, who themselves are embedded in particular institutional processes that further constrain identification of these emergent crises. It is suggested that discrepancy in the ability of leaders to detect crises is due not only to their own proficiency in some cognitive skills, but also to their interaction with, and differences in, particular properties of some emergent crises, which render some emergent crises more detectable than others in some institutional environments.

Depressive symptoms are higher among racial and ethnic minorities in the United States. Many studies have evidenced associations between school disconnectedness and depressive symptoms by race and ethnicity in adolescence (Joyce & Early, 2014; Walsemann, Bell, & Maitra, 2011). Given that adolescents spend most of their time at home when they are not at school (Larson & Richards, 2001), it is important to understand how mother-child relationships may moderate school disconnectedness, and how mother–child relationships may serve as a protective buffer for depressive symptoms in the transition to adulthood. I use data from Waves II and III of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health) from 1995 to 2002 (n = 9,766) and OLS regression analysis to examine how school disconnectedness in adolescence is associated with depressive symptoms in the transition to adulthood, and how mother–child relationships in adolescence moderate these associations in the United States. I examine differences in these relationships across racial and ethnic groups. I find that school disconnectedness in adolescence is associated with increased depressive symptoms in the transition to adulthood, and that maternal warmth and communication moderates the association between school disconnectedness and depressive symptoms. Maternal relationship quality in adolescence serves as an important protective factor for mental health in the transition to adulthood.

Leadership training has led to a large amount of research due to the belief that such training can lead to (or more precisely cause) positive changes in followers’ behavior and work performance. This chapter describes some of the conditions necessary for research to show a causal relationship between leadership training and outcomes. It then describes different research designs, employed in leadership training research, and considers the types of problems that can affect inferences about causality. The chapter focuses on the role of randomization of leaders (e.g., into training vs. non-training conditions) as a key methodological procedure and alludes to problems of achieving this in field settings.

Behavior problems are common in toddlers and preschoolers. Richman, Stevenson, and Graham (1975) identified difficulties with eating, sleeping, toileting, temper, fears, peer relations, and activity as typical in this young population. While all young children should be expected to experience behavior problems as part of their normal development, an ongoing challenge in the field has been to determine when these “normal” developmental problems rise to the level of being considered “clinical” behavior problems (Keenan & Wakschlag, 2000). For example, when does a two-year-old child's tantrum behavior, a three-year-old's urinary accidents, and a four-year-old's defiance become clinically significant? To answer these questions, clinicians must examine the frequency, intensity, and durability of these difficulties, their potential to cause injury to the child or others, the extent to which they interfere with the child development, and the degree to which they disrupt the lives of their siblings, caregivers, peers, teachers, and others.