Performance Indicators for Natural Resource and Environmental Policy: Contributions from American Institutional Law and Economics

Article published in the Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum

Helping with the “How”: A Role for Honors in Civic Education

The current political moment in the United States puts an exclamation point on years of growing concern for our civic culture. We have a president who neither understands nor cares for the processes and norms of the American system of government, a Congress that seems almost indifferent to the real issues of governing for the public good, a news cycle driven by flippant tweets, and a toxic social media environment. There is little current recognition that, in our system, how we debate the alternatives and arrive at policies is as important for our long-term civic enterprise as the resulting policies themselves. As far apart as we are about the desired ends, we are at risk of coming together in ignoring the importance of the proper means. For many of our students, this is the first presidential election, administration, and Congress in their awareness and will set their expectations about process and norms for public life. Our students have precious few examples of a healthy public environment and few models for how to partake in one, not simply in what they should accomplish but in how they should go about trying. In this context, honors programs and colleges have distinct opportunities to help our students navigate and enhance our public space, thereby providing a vital service for them and for our communities. One challenge for students is a lack of familiarity with the institutions and conventions of public life. We hear in the news about student failures to appreciate the processes and the virtues on which our system of self-government is built, such as students purportedly favoring repeal of the First Amendment. But media attention favors the flamboyant at the expense of the mundane, and careful studies of college-age attitudes about such matters are mixed. Subtler observations closer to home are what have me thinking about how students view and respond to current issues and public engagement. One fairly typical example occurs when I assign competing op-eds on an issue of current controversy. Under certain circumstances, students consistently interpret the opinion of an author exactly wrong. That is, they believe she opposes the very position that the op-ed is written to support. What are the circumstances? Within the op-ed, the author critiques an argument or person associated with her own position on the issue. Students reason that if the author supported this position, surely she would not criticize arguments in favor of it. To cite just one recent example, my students were convinced that Ross Douthat, a traditionalist Catholic columnist for the New York Times, favored same-sex marriage because he opened a column by dismissing three weak but often-used arguments defending traditional marriage. That the rest of his column argued the opposite eluded them. Whether a conservative author admitting some arguments for traditional views of marriage are weak, a liberal criticizing abuses of the social safety net, or one of countless other examples, students struggle to comprehend political self-critique

We Need Inquire Further: Normative Sterotypes, Hasidic Jews, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866

According to modern Supreme Court opinions, The Civil Rights Act of 1866 prohibits only discrimination [against members of protected groups] solely because of their ancestry or ethnic characteristics. The Court refers to this type of discrimination as \u27racial animus.\u27 In the 1987 case Shaare Tefila Congregation v. CobbJews were recognized as a protected ethnic group under these statutes, but the Supreme Court also reaffirmed that The Civil Rights Act only prohibits \u27ethnic\u27 or \u27ancestral\u27 discrimination. The Act does not encompass religious discrimination. Yet, despite the Supreme Court\u27s rulings, the district courts held that both Rabbi LeBlanc-Sternberg\u27s and Mr. Singers\u27 allegations of discrimination based on specific Jewish religious practice were actionable under The Act. This Note will document and explain this paradox

A SPLIT-SAMPLE TEST OF EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS FOR STATED CHOICE MODELS OF ENVIRONMENTAL VALUATION

A stated choice model is used to estimate wetland mitigation preferences. In a split sample mail survey, a main effects design is compared to a randomized design. Although randomized designs estimate main effects less efficiently, several policy relevant interactions were found to be significant, suggesting some merits of randomized designs.Environmental Economics and Policy,

Stated Choice Experiments with Complex Ecosystem Changes: The Effect of Information Formats on Estimated Variances and Choice Parameters

Stated choice experiments about ecosystem changes involve complex information. This study examines whether the format in which ecosystem information is presented to respondents affects stated choice outcomes. Our analysis develops a utility-maximizing model to describe respondent behavior. The model shows how alternative questionnaire formats alter respondents’ use of filtering heuristics and result in differences in preference estimates. Empirical results from a large-scale stated choice experiment confirm that different format presentations of the same information lead to different preference parameter estimates and error variances. A tabular format results in choice parameter estimates with statistically smaller variances than parameters estimated from data obtained with a text-based format. A text-based format also appears to induce greater use of decision heuristics than does a tabular format.choice experiments, heuristics, stated preference, valuation, web surveys, wetland mitigation, Crop Production/Industries, Demand and Price Analysis,

Using Aggregate Voting Data to Measure Presidential Coat-Tails Effects

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/50839/1/57.pd

Helping with the “How”: A Role for Honors in Civic Education

The current political moment in the United States puts an exclamation point on years of growing concern for our civic culture. We have a president who neither understands nor cares for the processes and norms of the American system of government, a Congress that seems almost indifferent to the real issues of governing for the public good, a news cycle driven by flippant tweets, and a toxic social media environment. There is little current recognition that, in our system, how we debate the alternatives and arrive at policies is as important for our long-term civic enterprise as the resulting policies themselves. As far apart as we are about the desired ends, we are at risk of coming together in ignoring the importance of the proper means. For many of our students, this is the first presidential election, administration, and Congress in their awareness and will set their expectations about process and norms for public life. Our students have precious few examples of a healthy public environment and few models for how to partake in one, not simply in what they should accomplish but in how they should go about trying. In this context, honors programs and colleges have distinct opportunities to help our students navigate and enhance our public space, thereby providing a vital service for them and for our communities. One challenge for students is a lack of familiarity with the institutions and conventions of public life. We hear in the news about student failures to appreciate the processes and the virtues on which our system of self-government is built, such as students purportedly favoring repeal of the First Amendment. But media attention favors the flamboyant at the expense of the mundane, and careful studies of college-age attitudes about such matters are mixed. Subtler observations closer to home are what have me thinking about how students view and respond to current issues and public engagement. One fairly typical example occurs when I assign competing op-eds on an issue of current controversy. Under certain circumstances, students consistently interpret the opinion of an author exactly wrong. That is, they believe she opposes the very position that the op-ed is written to support. What are the circumstances? Within the op-ed, the author critiques an argument or person associated with her own position on the issue. Students reason that if the author supported this position, surely she would not criticize arguments in favor of it. To cite just one recent example, my students were convinced that Ross Douthat, a traditionalist Catholic columnist for the New York Times, favored same-sex marriage because he opened a column by dismissing three weak but often-used arguments defending traditional marriage. That the rest of his column argued the opposite eluded them. Whether a conservative author admitting some arguments for traditional views of marriage are weak, a liberal criticizing abuses of the social safety net, or one of countless other examples, students struggle to comprehend political self-critique

UNTYING A LANCASTRIAN BUNDLE: ECOSYSTEM VALUATION IN WETLAND MITIGATION

A utility-theoretic model indicates that mitigation prices for wetland ecosystems depend on preferences and technical knowledge. Empirical analysis found gaps in respondents' knowledge about such ecosystmes. Valuing wetland types requires dealing with respondents' possible misinformation, by developing tools for informing respondents or by combining service-based valuations with valid technical data.Resource /Energy Economics and Policy,

Outcomes of ab interno trabeculectomy with the trabectome by degree of angle opening.

AimTo analyse ab interno trabeculectomy (AIT) with the trabectome and combined phacoemulsification with AIT (phaco-AIT) by Shaffer angle grade (SG).MethodsProspective study of AIT and phaco-AIT with narrow angles of SG≤2 versus open angles ≥3. Outcomes included intraocular pressure (IOP), medications, complications, secondary surgery and success (IOP <21 mm Hg and >20% reduction without further surgery). Exclusion criteria were missing preoperative data and <1 year follow-up.ResultsOf 671 included cases, at 1 year AIT SG≤2 (n=43) had an IOP reduction of 42% from 27.3±7.4 to 15.7±3.0 mm Hg (p<0.01) versus AIT SG≥3 (n=271) with an IOP reduction of 37% from 26.1±7.8 to 16.4±3.9 mm Hg (p<0.01). In phaco-AIT with SG≤2 (n=48), IOP was reduced 24% from 20.7±7.0 to 15.7±3.6 mm Hg (p<0.01) versus phaco-AIT with SG≥3 (n=309) with an IOP reduction of 25% from 22.6±6.4 to 17.0±3.4 mm Hg (p<0.01). There was no difference between SG≤2 and SG≥3 in reduction of IOP or medications, complications, secondary surgery and success rates (p>0.05).ConclusionsSG≤2 is not associated with worse outcomes in AIT or phaco-AIT