Search results

This study aims to extend the literature by exploring the degrees of integration of both fixed and adjustable mortgage rates and diverse riskless (Treasury) and risky (corporate) interest rates in the capital markets from January 1, 2010, until November 7, 2018. This period is uniquely characterized by a sharp conversion on January 20, 2017, from enhanced financial regulation during the Obama administration to major deregulatory ambitions during the first 22 months of the Trump administration.

The authors use the augmented Dickey and Fuller and the Phillips and Perron unit root tests to examine time series stationarity and the Johansen cointegration rank and the Stock-Watson common trends tests to inspect various cointegrations and regressions of time series pairs to explore different effects. The authors deploy these techniques over the entire time frame, as well as for distinct sub-periods of similar length.

The authors conclude that a deregulatory setting favors cointegration between mortgage and non-corporate capital markets. However, an enriched regulatory environment supports cointegration between mortgage and corporate capital markets. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer protection Act from July 21, 2010, created a unique though short-term effect on the relationships between Treasury and corporate bonds and fixed-rate mortgages.

The journey contributes to the overall understanding of the interactions among US financial markets. They are considered efficient, competitive and fully developed if their prices quickly adjust to economic changes and regulatory transformations.

The authors study the degrees of integration of various conventional and adjustable mortgage rates and different fixed and floating interest rates in the US capital markets from January 1, 2010, until November 7, 2018. This recent time frame has yet to be examined in the economic literature. This period is also characterized by a sharp transformation on January 20, 2017, from enhanced financial regulation during the Obama administration to major deregulatory drives during the first 22 months of the Trump administration.

This paper aims to scrutinize and analyze the continuity and change in US foreign policy toward the Gulf region, with a comparison between the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations. Also, it explores the nature of the changes in US foreign policy toward the Gulf region to explain the factors that lead to change and when this change occurs. Policymakers were one of the most important factors that led to the occurrence of change in US policy. Therefore, the study also focuses on decision-makers as an engine of change in foreign policy. In this vein, the study seeks to answer the following question: what is the extent of continuity and change in US foreign policy toward the Gulf region under both Bush and Obama administrations?

The study seeks to answer its research question by using the rational choice approach. This approach explains that foreign policy does not change because of change of leadership. Therefore, this approach is suitable to study the research question.

The study reached several points of results, the most important of which are as follows: there is continuity within US foreign policy toward the Gulf countries under the two Bush and Obama administrations. Despite the difference of mechanisms of implementing this foreign policy under both administrations, the objectives of the US foreign policy are still constant and continuous. For example, although the events of September led to the occurrence of tensions between the USA and the Gulf region, the repercussions of the events of September were ostensible where the effects were confined to a change in tactical objectives. Also, successive American administrations have recognized the USA’s enduring and salient interests in the Gulf region.

The region is important as a source of US energy supplies as a strategic military base of operations and also as a site of US foreign policy influence through relationship with individual nations such as Saudi Arabia and the smaller states of the Gulf Cooperation Council.

This paper adds to the existing literature which charts the effects of US foreign policy on the Gulf region.

This paper aims to explore to what extent can the Saudi–US alliance endure, given the several challenges it has faced over the past decade. Using a conceptual framework from the alliance theory, the paper will trace the historical evolution of the alliance between the two countries, then will identify some of the challenges that have faced the alliance on both the regional and bilateral levels, and finally will assess the impact of these challenges on the resilience of the Saudi–US alliance.

This paper will use the alliance theory literature to analyze the challenges and the resilience of the Saudi–US relations.

The Saudi–US alliance has encountered several challenges in the past decade such as the Arab spring, the Iranian nuclear deal and the Civil War in Syria and Yemen. However, this alliance proved to be resilient, and the strategic partnership between the two countries managed to overcome these challenges.

The importance of this paper stems from the fact that the USA and the Saudi Arabia are two pivotal countries, and their relationship affects regional and international dynamics. The paper contributes to the literature on the Saudi–US bilateral relations as well as their views on recent regional issues such as the Arab Spring, the civil war in Yemen and Syria. Assessing the limits and potentials of the alliance between the two countries could also help us understand the future of regional developments in the Middle East.

Given the substantial resources of the United States, the failure of the American federal response to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been both tragic and avoidable. The authors frame this response as an artifact of power-addiction among administration officials and examine the US federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic through the lens of maladaptive denial by government officials, including President Trump.

The authors use qualitative research methods for this study by analyzing key events, public statements by administration officials from multiple credible media reports and US federal government websites. The authors analyzed these data using Weidner and Purohit's (2009) model describing maladaptive denial in organizations and power-addiction among leaders.

The authors' analysis identifies maladaptive denial – and the concomitant power-addiction – as significantly contributing to the Trump administration's failed response to COVID-19. Maladaptive denial and power-addiction characterized Trump as a candidate and for the three years of his presidency preceding the COVID-19 crisis. Whatever normative “guardrails” or checks and balances existed in the American system to restrict the administration's behavior before the crisis were ill-equipped to significantly prevent or alter the failed federal response to the pandemic.

The article applies the model of maladaptive denial in organizations (Weidner and Purohit, 2009) to the public sector, and explores the lengths to which power-addicted leaders and regimes can violate the public's trust in institutions in a crisis, even in the US, a liberal democracy characterized by freedom of political expression. While organizations and change initiatives may fail for a variety of reasons, this case revealed the extent to which maladaptive denial can permeate a government – or any organization – and its response to a crisis.

Crises are moments when citizens are beckoning on the political leaders for necessary action. As a president, one is expected to change the narratives during the pandemic that split the world. This analysis aimed at investigating the American government’s response to the critical crisis of COVID-19 and its policy implementation.

The study explored a case point method using a narrative and qualitative analysis to diagnose the USA’s response to the COVID-19 crisis. An exploratory approach was further adopted to finetune the case study report.

The analysis demonstrates that Trump’s power dynamics were weak in the USA and lacked crisis control even as the President that the entire nations of the world were looking up to. The case study report also showed that Trump did not possess the audacity of resilience to manage the crisis. The analysis provides us with how presidential leadership under Trump placed the USA in a state of colossal failure enmeshed with high rates of COVID-19 cases, deaths and unending incapacity to create a fundamental consensus in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic today. This report shows Trump aged prolonged inability to drive governance mechanisms in the US and illustrated pockets of failures in decision analysis and information dissemination as a leader.

The study revealed how incompetent Trump was in responding to the crisis. This study has provided academia with an understanding of leadership dynamics and behaviour through a Nigerian scholar lens and a sociological perspective.

The purpose of this paper is to review the prosecution by US authorities of Zhongxing Telecommunication Equipment (ZTE) Corporation for its violation of sanctions against the sale of systems to Iran and North Korea; the violation of the plea agreement; and, following presidential intervention, the imposition of a further fine and restructuring of its management.

An analysis of the materials used in court proceedings and speeches by officials in the case against ZTE

The US president intervened in a quasi-judicial matter in which a foreign firm had violated US sanctions that he had supported to lessen the penalties it faced. The firm had also violated its plea agreement. This personal intervention weakened enforcement of US sanctions on human rights and weapons of mass destruction (WMD). However, it revealed the excessive reliance of Chinese manufacturers on US-domiciled suppliers of semiconductors and software.

Neither was access to Chinese documents possible nor would it have been practicable to interview managers at ZTE.

Enforcement of US sanctions on the sale of telecommunications equipment have now been moved from strict enforcement on matters of human rights and WMD into political, trade and even personal negotiations with the US president.

A first analysis of a telecommunications sanctions case.

This paper provides a general review of the current energy dependency of the European Union (EU) and the possible threat that it poses to economic growth and diplomatic freedom.

Systematic literature review with a narrative approach to analyze historical data, statistics and energy policies and determine if the EU oil dependency represents a threat to economic growth and diplomatic freedom. In addition, a review of the US policy “America first” is also included to analyze its impact on the EU.

The energy dependency rate of the EU increased 12 percentage points from 1990 to 2018. Russia has become the largest oil supplier for the EU tripling Norway, the largest supplier in the 1990s. The oil dependency of the EU on Russia is a difficult situation where guaranteed energy supply and diplomatic freedom becomes a national political controversy. Even though the USA is currently a top world exporter of oil, the EU does not rely on the USA. The findings suggest that the EU needs to secure a reliable energy supplier to guarantee economic growth, reduce energy scarcity and enhance diplomatic freedom.

This paper provides a historical examination of the EU oil dependency considering its impact on economic growth and diplomatic freedom.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the extent to which formal logic can be applied to conflict analysis and resolution. It is motivated by the idea that conflicts can be understood as inconsistent sets of interests.

A simple propositional model, based on propositional logic, which can be used to analyze conflicts, has been introduced and four algorithms have been presented to generate possible solutions to a conflict. The model is illustrated by applying it to the conflict between the Obama administration and the Syrian Government in September 2013 over the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons programme.

The author shows how different solutions, such as compromises, minimally invasive solutions or solutions compatible with certain pre-defined norms, can be generated by the model. It is shown how the model can operate in situations where the game-theoretic model fails due to a lack of information about the parties’ utility values.

The model can be used as a theoretical framework for future experimental research and/or to trace the course of particular conflict scenarios.

The model can be used as the basis for building software applications for conflict resolution practitioners, such as negotiators or mediators.

While the idea of using logic to analyse the structure of conflicts and generate possible solutions is not new to the field of conflict studies, the model presented in this paper provides a novel way of understanding conflicts for both researchers and practitioners.

This paper aims to explore President Obama's leadership style during passage of this major and controversial piece of legislation. Specifically it addresses the historical development of healthcare reform in the USA, and provides an ethical analysis of President Obama's leadership in pursuing the health reform initiative.

Based on a review of the literature, speeches, and application of leadership and ethical theory, an analysis was done of President Obama's leadership and ethical approach to healthcare reform.

This analysis revealed that Obama's behavior was consistent with the full‐range leadership model articulated by Bass and Avolio. Moreover, his personal and strategic ethical approach to promulgating healthcare reform incorporated both deontological and teleological ethical principles.

This paper provides a current look at President Obama's leadership style and demonstrates how incorporating different ethical theories can result in the same outcome.

The strategic standoff, known as mutual assured destruction (MAD) by the USA and nuclear parity by Russia, has been overtaken by the advance of technology and the demise of the Soviet Union. Pacing technology is being exploited by an increasingly mature missile defense. If implemented comprehensively, it could have widespread and revolutionary ramifications. This paper seeks to address these issues.

The article describes the historical background of America's nuclear strategy, from Eisenhower to the Obama Administration. It then traces the history of missile defense and arms limitation and develops the context of the interaction between them. It is found that nuclear arsenals should not be reduced to zero because that would put rogue nations in a position where they could intimidate the world. Finally, the evolution of computer chip technology, as embodied by Moore's law, is traced. The recommendation is made to proceed with the reduction of nuclear stockpiles to the level of a few hundred each, and to proceed with the implementation of comprehensive missile defenses.

The most important is the practicality of reducing nuclear arsenals to a few hundred on either side. That strategy is called “moral deterrence” herein. It is moral because, as opposed to MAD, it does not hold extensive civilian populations of the world hostage. At the same time, it is a sufficiently strong deterrent to prevent rogue nations from acquiring and threatening with illicit nuclear weapons. Moral deterrence is a better strategic option than the “nuclear‐free world” advocated by the Obama administration since nuclear‐free does not preclude intimidation by rogues.

Technology enabling reliable missile defense is based on high‐speed, large‐capacity, miniaturized computer chips. It permits fast and reliable computations that can process real‐time data from radar, infrared, and optical sensors so that a hit‐to‐kill capability can be realized. It also permits the implementation of deformable mirrors for the adaptive optics used in high‐energy lasers. Much of the technology for modern missile defense flowed from the Strategic Defense Initiative; it was not predicted by the critics of three decades ago.

The principal aspects of originality involve the analytical tradeoffs between the nuclear stockpiles of the principal powers and the viability of missile defense. The analysis indicates that if the stockpiles are reduced to a few hundred each, then even imperfect missile defense is very effective in providing protection, providing it is triply redundant. Stockpiles reduced to ten or less leave the principal powers vulnerable to intimidation by rogue nations, and should be avoided. The article also finds that missile defense has been enabled technologically by Moore's law, and that it can be expected to improve further by the year 2020.