Arts Funding Snapshot: GIA's Annual Research on Support for Arts and Culture, 2012

Includes: Foundation Grants to Arts and Culture, 2010: A One-year Snapshot, and Public Funding for the Arts: 2012 Updat

Arts Funding Snapshot: GIA's Annual Research on Support for Arts and Culture, 2014

Foundation Center offers these key findings from GIA's thirteenth snapshot of foundation giving to arts and culture. The definition of arts and culture used for this snapshot is based on the National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities and encompasses funding for the performing arts, museums, visual arts, multidisciplinary arts, media and communications, humanities, and historical preservation. Most importantly, the findings tell us about the changes in foundation giving for the arts between 2011 and 2012 by a matched set of 714 funders and the distribution of 2012 arts and culture giving by the 1,000 largest US foundations by total giving.1 They are based on all arts grants of $10,000 or more reported to Foundation Center by these sets of the largest US foundations, hereafter referred to as "the sample".2 The Center has conducted annual examinations of the giving patterns of the nation's largest foundations for close to four decades

Two Essays on Attracting Foreign Direct Investment: From Both a National and Firm Level Perspective

Countless studies with a wide variety of financial and economic indicators have been conducted over the years within the context of international business research, all searching for hints or signals as to what makes the never ending process of globalization progress. Our research follows these efforts while focusing specifically on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). Our first study sets out to empirically test if nations adopting the inflation targeting (IT) monetary policy are more successful in attracting inbound and outbound FDI cash flows than those nations utilizing alternative monetary policies. IT is a relatively new policy which was first put into action by New Zealand in 1990. We expand the original regression to inquire if the up and coming monetary policy is more successful for developing or developed nations, as well as using alternative dependent variables of imports and exports. Investigating FDI from the firm level, we next study the impact of cross-listed target firms on cross-border merger and acquisition (M&A) activity. Specifically, we investigate whether there is a direct link between a target firm being cross-listed in the acquirer\u27s home nation with the short- and long-run stock market returns of the acquiring firms. The sample includes cross-border acquisitions (United States acquirer with a non- US target) from 1990-2010. Motivated by the Bonding Hypothesis, which suggests that by way of a US exchange listing, managers and controlling shareholders from countries with weaker investor protection commit themselves to protect minority shareholders\u27 interests (Coffee 1999; Stulz 1999), we test the influence of a foreign cross-listed target firm versus that of a non-cross-listed target firms

Addressing constraints to restoration of highly disturbed ecosystems affected by cheatgrass invasion and slash pile burning

2021 Spring.Includes bibliographical references.To view the abstract, please see the full text of the document

The International Right to Health: What Does It Mean in Legal Practice and How Can It Affect Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage?

The international right to health is enshrined in national and international law. In a growing number of cases, individuals denied access to high-cost medicines and technologies under universal coverage systems have turned to the courts to challenge the denial of access as against their right to health. In some instances, patients seek access to medicines, services, or technologies that they would have access to under universal coverage if not for government, health system, or service delivery shortfalls. In others, patients seek access to medicines, services, or technologies that have not been included or that have been explicitly denied for coverage due to prioritization. In the former, judicialization of the right to health is critical to ensure patients access to the technologies or services to which they are entitled. In the latter, courts may grant patients access to medicines not covered as a result of explicit priority setting to allocate finite resources. By doing so, courts may give priority to those with the means and incentive to turn to the courts, at the expense of the maximization of equity- and population-based health. Evidence- based, informed decision-making processes could ensure that the most clinically and cost-effective products aligning with social value judgments are prioritized. Governments should be equipped to engage in and defend rational priority setting as a means to promote fair allocation of resources to maximize population health. Rational priority setting is an evidence-based form of explicit priority setting, where the priority setting process is deliberate and transparent, the decision makers are specified, relevant stakeholders are involved, and the best available evidence about clinical and cost-effectiveness and social values is considered. The most rational priority setting processes will also account for the benefit to patients, the cost, the ethicality and the fairness. The priority setting process and institutions involved should then be held accountable through an appeals process, allowing independent review by health systems, health care, and other relevant experts, and an opportunity for judicial review. While the implementation of a three-step (1) rational priority setting, (2) appeals, and (3) judicial review process will differ depending on a country’s resource constraints, political systems, and social values, the authors argue that the three stages together will promote the greatest accountability and fairness. As a result, the courts could place greater reliance on the government’s coverage choices, and the population’s health could be most equitably distributed

Combining Sentiment Lexica with a Multi-View Variational Autoencoder

When assigning quantitative labels to a dataset, different methodologies may rely on different scales. In particular, when assigning polarities to words in a sentiment lexicon, annotators may use binary, categorical, or continuous labels. Naturally, it is of interest to unify these labels from disparate scales to both achieve maximal coverage over words and to create a single, more robust sentiment lexicon while retaining scale coherence. We introduce a generative model of sentiment lexica to combine disparate scales into a common latent representation. We realize this model with a novel multi-view variational autoencoder (VAE), called SentiVAE. We evaluate our approach via a downstream text classification task involving nine English-Language sentiment analysis datasets; our representation outperforms six individual sentiment lexica, as well as a straightforward combination thereof.Comment: To appear in NAACL-HLT 201