Do South-South Trade Agreements Increase Trade? Commodity-Level Evidence from COMESA

South-South trade agreements are proliferating: developing countries signed 70 new agreements between 1990 and 2003. Yet the impact of these agreements is largely unknown. In this paper, we focus on the static effects of South-South preferential trade agreements that take place through changes in trade patterns. We estimate the impact of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) on Uganda's imports between 1994 and 2003. We use detailed import and tariff data at the 6-digit Harmonized System level for over 1,000 commodities. Based on a difference-indifference estimation strategy, we find evidence—in contrast to aggregate statistics—that COMESA’s preferential tariff liberalization has not considerably increased Uganda’s trade with member countries, on average across sectors. The effect, however, is heterogeneous across sectors. Finally, we find no evidence of trade-diversion effects.South-South Trade Agreements, Trade Creation, Trade Diversion

Do South-South Trade Agreements Increase Trade? Commodity-Level Evidence from COMESA

South-South trade agreements are proliferating: Developing countries signed 70 new agreements between 1990 and 2003. Yet the impact of these agreements is largely unknown, as existing North- North and North-South micro-level studies are likely to yield misleading predictions for South-South trade agreements. This paper focuses on the static effects of South-South preferential trade agreements stemming from changes in trade patterns. Specifically, it estimates the impact of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) on Uganda’s imports between 1994 and 2003. Detailed import and tariff data at the 6-digit harmonized system level are used for more than 1,000 commodities. Based on a difference-in-difference estimation strategy, the paper finds that—in contrast to evidence from aggregate statistics—COMESA’s preferential tariff liberalization has not considerably increased Uganda’s trade with member countries, on average across sectors. The effect, however, is heterogeneous across sectors. Finally, the paper finds no evidence of trade diversion effects.South-South trade agreements, trade creation, trade diversion

The Economic Effect of Gaining a New Qualification Later in Life

Pursuing educational qualifications later in life is an increasingly common phenomenon within OECD countries since technological change and automation continues to drive the evolution of skills needed in many professions. We focus on the causal impacts to economic returns of degrees completed later in life, where motivations and capabilities to acquire additional education may be distinct from education in early years. We find that completing an additional degree leads to more than \$3000 (AUD, 2019) extra income per year compared to those who do not complete additional study. For outcomes, treatment and controls we use the extremely rich and nationally representative longitudinal data from the Household Income and Labour Dynamics Australia survey (HILDA). To take full advantage of the complexity and richness of this data we use a Machine Learning (ML) based methodology for causal effect estimation. We are also able to use ML to discover sources of heterogeneity in the effects of gaining additional qualifications. For example, those younger than 45 years of age when obtaining additional qualifications tend to reap more benefits (as much as \$50 per week more) than others.Comment: 63 pages, 16 figure

Aspects of inflammation and nitric oxide in cluster headache

Cluster Headache (CH) is an uncommon headache disorder, with severe implications for the individual patient. The headache is excruciating, unilateral and appearing in attacks. It is common that CH patients show ipsilateral associated symptoms, like for example conjunctival injection, lacrimation and nasal congestion. The pathophysiology of CH is still not completely understood. The overall objective of this thesis was to explore if inflammation and nitric oxide participate in the pathophysiology of CH. Study I The aim of study I was to identify differentially expressed genes during clinical phases of CH, assuming that changes of pathophysiological importance would also be observed in peripheral venous blood. Blood samples were drawn at 3 consecutive occasions from 3 episodic CH patients: during attacks, between attacks and in remission, and at 1 occasion from 3 matched controls. Global gene expression was analyzed with microarray tehnology using the Affymetrix Human Genome U133 2.0 Plus GeneChip® Set. In addition, quantitative RT-PCR on S100P gene expression was analyzed in 6 patients and 14 controls. Small differences were seen intraindividually and large differences interindividually. Intraindividual comparisons showed upregulation of severaS100 calcium binding proteins; S100A8 (calgranulin A), S100A12 (calgranulin C), and S100P during active phase of the disease compared to remission. The S100A8 and S100A12 proteins are considered markers of noninfectious inflammatory disease, while increased levels of S100P have been associated to different forms of cancer. RT-PCR analysis of S100P confirmed the Affymetrix´ results. Study II We investigated the cytokine interleukin-2 (IL-2) as a possible marker of immune system involvement in the pathophysiology of CH. Eight episodic CH patients and 16 healthy headache-free control subjects matched for age and gender were studied. Venous blood samples were drawn from the CH patients at three occasions; during active period between headache attacks, during attack and in remission. Venous blood samples were drawn once from each control subject. We analyzed IL-2 gene expression, using quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Patients with CH had significantly increased relative IL-2 gene expression levels during active period between headache attacks compared to during attacks, remission and controls. Study III In this study we have investigated white blood cell accumulation into potential inflammatory areas intracranially in 14 CH patients, both in active period and in remission, and 5 control subjects, with single photon emission computer tomography (WBC-SPECT). To enable precise definition of regions of interest (ROI:s) in the brain, all CH patients and control subjects also underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain. We found no statistically significant difference in 99m Tc-labeled WBC uptake between CH patients in active period and controls. Furthermore CH patients in active period were not significantly different in uptake compared to CH patients in remission. Study IV We investigated the role of nitric oxide (NO) in CH, by measuring its oxidation products, nitrite and nitrate, in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). We collected CSF from 14 episodic CH patients. Lumbar puncture was performed at two occasions: in active period between headache attacks, and in remission, not earlier than three weeks after their last headache attack. Eleven healthy volunteers served as controls. To estimate NO production, we determined the levels of NO-oxidation end products (NOx), that is, the sum of nitrite and nitrate, by using capillary electrophoresis (CE). CH patients in active period had significantly increased NOx levels compared with those in remission and control subjects. CH patients had also significantly enhanced NOx levels in remission compared to control subject

The Democratic (Il)legitimacy of Assembly-Line Litigation

In response to Daniel Wilf-Townsend’s Assembly-Line Plaintiffs we take a panoramic picture of state civil courts, and debt cases in particular, and name specific features of the courts that must be taken into account in crafting reform prescriptions. In doing so, we question both the democratic legitimacy of debt collection courts and the adequacy of incremental reform that targets the structure of litigation. Part I contributes two critical components to Wilf-Townsend’s rich description of consumer debt cases: pervasive intersectional inequality among pro se defendants and a record of fraud among top filers. We add a sharper focus on the racial, gender, and class dynamics of civil courts, which play an outsized role in state civil justice dysfunction and have normative implications for institutional design solutions. In addition, we enhance Wilf-Townsend’s depiction of assembly-line plaintiffs by documenting pervasive fraud on the part of assembly-line plaintiffs as germane to the operation of civil courts. The clustering of corporate entities in state civil courts tells part of the story; the fraudulent conduct of plaintiffs in debt cases also plays a significant role in exacerbating poverty and inequity for marginalized groups in civil courts. Part II positions Wilf-Townsend’s proposal to restructure debt proceedings into agency-style adjudication as a form of problem-solving courts, which have an established history in the U.S. justice system. We place his proposal within the larger literature on active and suggest that Wilf-Townsend sets forth a first step toward reimagining state civil courts. Part III draws on an invest/divest framework to set forth a broader and more aspirational vision of reform. We propose that bold reform would focus on reestablishing the democratic legitimacy of state civil courts by increasing social provision to defendants economically ravished by assembly-line litigation and also by keeping courts squarely in the business of resolving two-party adversarial disputes

The Institutional Mismatch of State Civil Courts

State civil courts are central institutions in American democracy. Though designed for dispute resolution, these courts function as emergency rooms for social needs in the face of the failure of the legislative and executive branches to disrupt or mitigate inequality. We reconsider national case data to analyze the presence of social needs in state civil cases. We then use original data from courtroom observation and interviews to theorize how state civil courts grapple with the mismatch between the social needs people bring to these courts and their institutional design. This institutional mismatch leads to two roles of state civil courts that are in tension. First, state civil courts can function as violent actors. Second, they have become unseen, collective policymakers in our democracy. This mismatch and the roles that result should spur us to reimagine state civil courts as institutions. Such institutional change requires broad mobilization toward meeting people’s social needs across the branches of government and thus rightsizing state civil courts’ democratic role

Die Ballonkyphoplastie zur Versorgung von thorakolumbalen Frakturen: eine prospektiv, randomisierte Untersuchung zum Vergleich verschiedener Zugangsinstrumente

Die Ballonkyphoplastie hat sich in den letzten Jahren als Standardverfahren zur Be-handlung osteoporotischer Wirbelkörperfrakturen, vorwiegend beim älteren Patienten, etabliert. Vorteile dieser Therapieform sind die bereits in Studien nachgewiesene Schmerzreduktion sowie das minimalinvasive Vorgehen. Darüber hinaus gelingt z. T. eine Wiederaufrichtung der betroffenen Wirbelkörper. Es ist bisher nicht geklärt, ob die initiale Wiederaufrichtung der sagittalen Wirbelsäule über einen längeren Zeitraum Bestand hat und ob die Ballonkyphoplastie das Risiko für Anschlussfrakturen evtl. sogar erhöht. Das primäre Ziel ist es, zu untersuchen, ob durch die von der Joline GmbH & Co. KG entwickelten Zugangsinstrumente Rapid Intro Osteointroducer® und Speed Track Osteointroducer® eine Verkürzung der Operationszeit und/oder der Bestrahlungszeit sowie eine Reduktion des Flächendosisproduktes gegenüber dem bisher etablierten Zugangsinstrument Standard Vertebra Access Device® erreicht werden kann. In diesem Kontext werden verschiedene Einflussfaktoren auf die primären Endpunkte untersucht. Darüber hinaus werden das Auftreten von intraoperativen Komplikationen und Anschlussfrakturen sowie mögliche darauf Einfluss nehmende Faktoren betrachtet

COVID, Crisis and Courts

Our country is in crisis. The inequality and oppression that lies deep in the roots and is woven in the branches of our lives has been laid bare by a virus. Relentless state violence against Black people has pushed protestors to the streets. We hope that the legislative and executive branches will respond with policy change for those who struggle the most among us: rental assistance, affordable housing, quality public education, comprehensive health and mental health care. We fear that the crisis will fade, and we will return to more of the same. Whatever lies on the other side of this crisis, one thing is certain: one part of our government grapples with the individual consequences of inequality and oppression every day and will continue to do so with even more urgency in the future: state civil courts. Even before the pandemic, as other branches of government failed to address inequality, state civil courts became the government actor of last resort for the tens of millions of Americans each year who suffer the consequences of these failures. Now, these same courts—for the first time in history—have quickly and nimbly changed the way they provide justice. Courts’ improvisation in the face of a global public health crisis present an opportunity for social change. In contrast to burgeoning attention to state criminal courts, this role for state civil courts was hidden from those not directly involved and largely ignored by scholars. Now it is unavoidable. This essay lays out a framework for change that state civil courts should embrace as they reopen to the tidal wave of litigants

The Democratic (Il)legitimacy of Assembly-Line Litigation

In response to Daniel Wilf-Townsend’s Assembly-Line Plaintiffs we take a panoramic picture of state civil courts, and debt cases in particular, and name specific features of the courts that must be taken into account in crafting reform prescriptions. In doing so, we question both the democratic legitimacy of debt collection courts and the adequacy of incremental reform that targets the structure of litigation. Part I contributes two critical components to Wilf-Townsend’s rich description of consumer debt cases: pervasive intersectional inequality among pro se defendants and a record of fraud among top filers. We add a sharper focus on the racial, gender, and class dynamics of civil courts, which play an outsized role in state civil justice dysfunction and have normative implications for institutional design solutions. In addition, we enhance Wilf-Townsend’s depiction of assembly-line plaintiffs by documenting pervasive fraud on the part of assembly-line plaintiffs as germane to the operation of civil courts. The clustering of corporate entities in state civil courts tells part of the story; the fraudulent conduct of plaintiffs in debt cases also plays a significant role in exacerbating poverty and inequity for marginalized groups in civil courts. Part II positions Wilf-Townsend’s proposal to restructure debt proceedings into agency-style adjudication as a form of problem-solving courts, which have an established history in the U.S. justice system. We place his proposal within the larger literature on active and suggest that Wilf-Townsend sets forth a first step toward reimagining state civil courts. Part III draws on an invest/divest framework to set forth a broader and more aspirational vision of reform. We propose that bold reform would focus on reestablishing the democratic legitimacy of state civil courts by increasing social provision to defendants economically ravished by assembly-line litigation and also by keeping courts squarely in the business of resolving two-party adversarial disputes

Judges and the Deregulation of the Lawyer\u27s Monopoly

In a revolutionary moment for the legal profession, the deregulation of legal services is taking hold in many parts of the country. Utah and Arizona, for instance, are experimenting with new regulations that permit nonlawyer advocates to play an active role in assisting citizens who may not otherwise have access to legal services. In addition, amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct in both states, as well as those being contemplated in California, now allow nonlawyers to have a partnership stake in law firms, which may dramatically change the way capital for the delivery of legal services is raised as well as how technology and artificial intelligence may be leveraged in adjudicating disputes.While overt regulatory changes remain enormously controversial, scholars and policymakers have missed a critical part of the landscape: the role state court judges are playing in the de facto deregulation of the legal profession at the civil trial level. Across the nation, the rise of pro se parties has forced judges to rethink their roles. In the new reality of pro se courts, judges in debt collection, eviction, and family matters—which, together, occupy roughly ninety percent of all civil court dockets—must make critical decisions about how to balance the duty of impartiality with the need to achieve a measure of justice and ensure fair adjudication of disputes.Drawing on original data, including interviews and hundreds of hours of court observations, from a multi-site investigation of the civil justice landscape, this Article shows how some judges—mired in the pro se crisis—are relying on a shadow network of nonlawyer professionals to substitute for the role counsel has traditionally played. Focusing on domestic violence courts as the primary illustration, we find that even in jurisdictions not currently contemplating regulatory reform, judges are relying on organized nonlawyer actors to prepare pleadings, offer substantive and procedural information to litigants, and provide counseling services. These nonlawyer advocates play a significant role in shaping the facts and arguments presented to the judge which we believe, in turn, influences processes and outcomes.In addition to demonstrating this novel phenomenon, the Article raises three important implications of trial judges’ role in diluting the lawyer’s monopoly. First, the collaboration between judges and nonlawyer advocates is hidden behind the scenes. The quiet partnership assists judges in maintaining the perception of impartiality in the courtroom, which is critical to public trust in the courts, while enabling pro se parties to properly raise claims and seek remedies from the justice system. Second, an opportunity to develop norms around the role of nonlawyers is being squandered. Trial court judges, who are typically excluded from formal regulatory processes, could be leaders in deregulating the lawyer’s monopoly in ways that ensure the integrity of the legal profession, fill a justice gap for pro se litigants, and help to open up pathways for public and formal recognition of a new class of legal professionals. And finally, due process demands that the role of nonlawyers be made public. Our research reveals that only one party to the dispute—the petitioner for a protective order—receives nonlawyer assistance, while the respondent typically receives little to no assistance at all. Domestic violence advocates have been effective in organizing wrap-around services for survivors, including help with preparing court papers, but those accused of domestic violence and subject to protective order proceedings benefit from no such organizing effort. Bringing nonlawyer assistance out of the shadows would make plain that more needs to be done to level the playing field for both parties