Why do employers give discretion? Family versus performance concerns.

Using a large data set of Western European employees, I examine two sets of reasons behind employers' decisions to give discretion: performance concerns (firms give discretion in order to improve performance) and family concerns (firms wish to improve the employees' work–family balance). I find more support for the former than for the latter. Discretion is positively related to the use of "high-performance" work practices and to employee position and ability, and is smaller in larger establishments, which suggests that loss of control matters to employers. Evidence about family concerns is less compelling. Female participation in the labor force has a positive effect on discretion over work schedules, but women have less discretion than men, and employees with small children do not have more discretion than other employees. Large and governmental organizations, which are expected to care more about work–family balance, do not offer more discretion over work schedules than other types of organizations.

Making the Crime Fit the Penalty: The Role of Prosecutorial Discretion Under Mandatory Minimum Sentencing

This paper empirically documents one way in which prosecutorial discretion can be used to dampen the effects of mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Specifically, I show prosecutors use their discretion over prosecution charges to circumvent a mandatory minimum sentencing law for some defendants, by prosecuting these de- fendants who were initially arrested for the crime targeted by the sentencing law for lesser crimes not covered by the law. I document the use of such discretion with respect to several state "three-strikes" type repeat offender laws imposed through- out the 1990s, where I find that prosecutors become significantly more likely to lower a defendant's prosecution charge to a misdemeanor when conviction for the initial felony arrest charge would likely lead to sentencing under a three-strikes law. Moreover, accounting for such behavior is important, as I show that failure to do so can lead to overstating the effects of these laws on average sentencing by almost thirty percent.

Countercyclical capital regulation: should bank regulators use rules or discretion?

One of the key features of the U.S. economy’s slow recovery from the 2007-09 recession has been abnormally low bank lending to households and corporate businesses. While demand for loans may be sluggish, much of the slowdown may stem from banks’ reluctance to lend. Before resuming normal lending activity, banks must first replenish capital levels that were depleted during the financial crisis. ; Many analysts have pointed out that existing bank capital regulation can contribute to banks’ reluctance to lend during recessions and into recoveries. That is, the capital requirements have a procyclical effect on lending. They make it more difficult for banks to finance loans in recessions when they would help stimulate the economy. ; In response to this problem, the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank) and the recent revision of the international Basel Accord, Basel III, mandated changes to make capital requirements countercyclical. The changes should counteract the procyclical effect of capital regulation by requiring banks to hold higher capital ratios during booms. Thus, during downturns banks would be in a better position to absorb rising losses and sustain lending to support economic growth. ; Whether countercyclical capital requirements will provide more lending in recessions depends on how they are implemented. Yet, little discussion among policymakers has focused on implementation. ; Kowalik examines the primary options for implementing countercyclical capital requirements: using a fixed rule or giving the regulatory authorities discretion in deciding when and how to act. He finds that the rule-based approach has more advantages than the approach based on discretion.

The prosecution of environmental offences in New Zealand

This paper will examine the background law regarding environmental offences under the Resource Management Act 1991 (NZ), prosecution trends, sentencing for RMA offences (including principles of sentencing, sentencing discretion, legislative guidance, appellate guidance, guideline judgments, and tariffs), the use of costs in conjunction with sentencing, recent appeal judgments, and finally draw conclusions regarding consistency and sentencing in relation to environmental offences. Where relevant comparisons will be made with the Australian jurisdictions

Reputation, Competition, and Entry in Procurement

Based on my recent work with several co-authors this paper explores the relationship between discretion, reputation, competition and entry in procurement markets. I focus especially on public procurement, which is highly regulated for accountability and trade reasons. In Europe regulation constrains the use of past performance information to select contractors while in the US its use is encouraged. I present some novel evidence on the benefits of allowing buyers to use reputational indicators based on past performance and discuss the complementary roles of discretion and restricted competition in reinforcing relational/reputational forces, both in theory and in a new empirical study on the effects restricted rather than open auctions. I conclude reporting preliminary results form a laboratory experiment showing that reputational mechanisms can be designed to stimulate rather than hindering new entry.Accountability; Discretion; Entry; Incomplete contracts; Limited enforcement; Past performance; Procurement; Quality; Relational contracts; Reputation; Restricted auctions.

Evaluation of the South Yorkshire Restorative Justice programme (SYRJP)

The SYRJP was developed in partnership between South Yorkshire Police and the Local Criminal Justice Board (LCJB) with the aim of implementing a county wide model of Restorative Justice (RJ) for use in neighbourhood policing and other community applications. It is aimed at tackling low level crime and anti-social behaviour in neighbourhoods and gives police officers the discretion to use Youth and Adult Restorative disposals as an alternative to prosecution for low level offending behaviour where offenders have no previous convictions, make an admission of guilt and where both offender and victim consent to the RJ process

Due Process Land Use Claims After Lingle

The Supreme Court held in Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. that challenges to the validity of land use regulations for failing to advance governmental interests must be brought under the Due Process Clause, rather than the Takings Clause, and must be evaluated under a deferential standard. This Article analyzes and evaluates the probable course of such judicial review, and concludes that federal courts will resist due process review of land use decisions for good reasons but not always with an adequate doctrinal explanation. However, state courts can use due process review to provide state level supervision of local land use decisions in the absence of other legislative or administrative checks on local discretion. Such judicial review should focus on decisions reflecting distortions in the local political process

Imperfection Information, Optimal Monetary Policy and Informational Consistency

This paper examines the implications of imperfect information (II) for optimal monetary policy with a consistent set of informational assumptions for the modeller and the private sector an assumption we term the informational consistency. We use an estimated simple NK model from Levine et al. (2012), where the assumption of symmetric II significantly improves the fit of the model to US data to assess the welfare costs of II under commitment, discretion and simple Taylor-type rules. Our main results are: first, common to all information sets we find significant welfare gains from commitment only with a zero-lower bound constraint on the interest rate. Second, optimized rules take the form of a price level rule, or something very close across all information cases. Third, the combination of limited information and a lack of commitment can be particularly serious for welfare. At the same time we find that II with lags introduces a ‘tying ones hands’ effect on the policymaker that may improve welfare under discretion. Finally, the impulse response functions under our most extreme imperfect information assumption (output and inflation observed with a two-quarter delay) exhibit hump-shaped behaviour and the fiscal multiplier is significantly enhanced in this case

The Proper Standard of Review for Required Party Determinations Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19

Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, concerning the required joinder of parties, ensures that all parties with an interest in an action are joined in the litigation. At any time during the suit, a court may determine that an absent party has a specific interest that requires its presence in the dispute. When the court cannot join the absent party, however, the court must use Rule 19(b) to determine whether to continue the litigation without the absentee or dismiss the suit entirely. Despite the potentially drastic consequence of dismissal, federal courts of appeals cannot agree on the proper standard of review for Rule 19(b) decisions. Should the court review the decision de novo as if it were examining the issue for the first time? Or should it review for abuse of discretion with deference to the district court’s analysis? This Note explores the history and application of Rule 19 before examining the two standards of review and the factors set out by the Supreme Court in Pierce v. Underwood to help appellate courts determine which of the two standards should apply. This Note argues that an analysis of those factors demonstrates that both Rule 19(a) and 19(b) decisions should be reviewed for abuse of discretion. It proposes that reviewing courts should use the single standard, but that the amount of deference given to the district court opinion depends on the specific determination within the larger Rule 19 inquiry

Why do employers give discretion? Family versus performance concerns

Using a large data set of Western European employees, I examine two sets of reasons behind employers' decisions to give discretion: performance concerns (firms give discretion in order to improve performance) and family concerns (firms wish to improve the employees' work–family balance). I find more support for the former than for the latter. Discretion is positively related to the use of "high-performance" work practices and to employee position and ability, and is smaller in larger establishments, which suggests that loss of control matters to employers. Evidence about family concerns is less compelling. Female participation in the labor force has a positive effect on discretion over work schedules, but women have less discretion than men, and employees with small children do not have more discretion than other employees. Large and governmental organizations, which are expected to care more about work–family balance, do not offer more discretion over work schedules than other types of organizations.Publicad