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.

As a high school senior, there was no doubt I wanted to attend college, it was just a matter of where. I applied to only two universities – Oakland University (OU) and MSU. I was not too familiar with MSU, but it had a good reputation; I was much more familiar with Oakland. Although I had obtained an application for the University of Michigan (UM), I decided that the UM application was just too long to complete. And what the heck is a wolverine anyway? I lived in Michigan for most of my life, and I had never spotted this mythical rodent. As a tendency, I always found Michigan students and alumni to be either too arrogant or eccentric for my taste. Also, at that time of my life, I found the atmosphere in Ann Arbor not right in some way, so I applied to only two universities.¹

Not all pressured, greedy, and opportunistic individuals actually commit white-collar crime. So what exactly is the common denominator for individuals to commit white-collar crime? This study investigates the propensity of an individual to commit white-collar crime and advances personality as an explanatory factor. Questionnaire survey data is collected from 357 undergraduate accounting students in a later year accounting course at a large university in Australia. Personality is measured using the Big Five Inventory. Support is provided for the view that individuals scoring lower in agreeableness and lower in conscientiousness have a higher propensity to commit white-collar crime. While no significant main effect associations emerged for extraversion, neuroticism, or openness to experience, inspection of individual parameter estimates revealed a significant negative association between neuroticism and propensity to commit white-collar crime but only in certain circumstances.