Search results

A key feature of performance in many professions is that of vigilance, carefully monitoring one’s environment for potential threats. However, some of the characteristics that may make someone successful in such work may also be more likely to make them fail in the long-term as a result of burnout, fatigue, and other symptoms commonly associated with chronic stress. Among these characteristics, neuroticism is particularly relevant. To exert the effort that vigilance work requires, sensitivity to threats, a core aspect of neuroticism, may be necessary. This is evidenced by higher rates of neuroticism in vigilance-related professions such as information technology (IT). However, other aspects of neuroticism could attenuate performance by making individuals more distractible and prone to burnout, withdrawal, and emotional outbursts. Four perspectives provide insight to this neuroticism–vigilance paradox: facet-level analysis, trait activation, necessary conditions, and job characteristics. Across these perspectives, it is expected that too little neuroticism will render employees unable to perform vigilance tasks effectively due to lack of care while too much neuroticism will cause employees to become overwhelmed by work pressures. Contextual and personological moderators of the neuroticism–vigilance relationship are discussed, as well as two behavioral styles expected to manifest from neuroticism that could explain how neuroticism may be associated with either good or bad performance-relevant outcomes.

This paper focuses on the Obama administration’s American Graduation Initiative (AGI) and the associated completion agenda.

In this paper, we provide an in-depth overview of the AGI with a focus on: (a) articulating the rationale that prompted the AGI; (b) describing the four primary components of the reform effort; (c) examining the political forces that led to its demise; (d) investigating the derivatives of the AGI in the form of private foundation and state-level efforts to bolster success rates; and (e) illuminating criticisms of the AGI that could have served to complicate the initiative’s success.

In the latter section of the paper, we also offer recommendations for future national and state policy.

Recent research in mainstream economics, before as well as since the 2008 crisis, has stressed the importance of growing current account imbalances among countries, particularly the imbalances between the United States and some Asian countries. While some have seen in these imbalances proof of the efficient work done by liberalized financial markets, as well as a sign of the great dynamism of the US economy, others have warned about the possible threats to the global economic stability arising from potential speculation against the dollar. These latter writers see the international imbalances as a contemporary version of the Triffin Dilemma. In this paper, we argue that both views are mistaken because they both focus on net capital flows. Recent research suggests, on the contrary, the importance of international gross capital flows related to financial liberalization. However, our argument goes further in order to demonstrate that the analysis of the consequences of international gross capital flows were already at the core of the Triffin dilemma, as well as in wider debates about the inherent instability of the international monetary power of individual countries, before and after World War II.

This chapter conducts a systematic comparison of behavioral economics’s challenges to the standard accounts of economic behaviors within three dimensions: under risk, over time, and regarding other people. A new perspective on two underlying methodological issues, i.e., inter-disciplinarity and the positive/normative distinction, is proposed by following the entanglement thesis of Hilary Putnam, Vivian Walsh, and Amartya Sen. This thesis holds that facts, values, and conventions have inter-dependent meanings in science which can be understood by scrutinizing formal and ordinary language uses. The goal is to provide a broad and self-contained picture of how behavioral economics is changing the mainstream of economics.