DOCSLIB.ORG

COLLECTIVE ACTION FEDERALISM: a GENERAL THEORY of ARTICLE I, SECTION 8 Robert D

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
COLLECTIVE ACTION FEDERALISM: a GENERAL THEORY of ARTICLE I, SECTION 8 Robert D COLLECTIVE ACTION FEDERALISM: A GENERAL THEORY OF ARTICLE I, SECTION 8 Robert D. Cooter* & Neil S. Siegel** The Framers of the United States Constitution wrote Article I, Section 8 in order to address some daunting collective action problemsfacing the young na- tion. They especially wanted to protect the states from military warfare by fo- reigners andfrom commercial warfare against one another. The states acted in- dividually when they needed to act collectively, and Congress lacked power under the Articles of Confederation to address these problems. Section 8 thus au- thorized Congress to promote the "general Welfare" of the United States by tack- ling many collective actionproblems that the states could not solve on their own. Subsequent interpretationsof Section 8, both outside and inside the courts, often have focused on the presence or absence of collective action problems in- volving multiple states-but not always. For example, the Supreme Court of the United States, in trying to distinguish the "truly national" from the "truly local" in the context of the Commerce Clause, United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, * Herman Selvin Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley. ** Professor of Law and Political Science, Duke University School of Law. I dedicate this Article to the loving memory of my mother, Sharon Ruth Siegel, for giving me life-and a whole lot more. For illuminating comments, we thank Jack Balkin, Sara Beale, Stuart Benjamin, Joseph Blocher, Curtis Bradley, Geoffrey Brennan, Samuel Buell, Erwin Chemerinsky, Jesse Cho- per, Eric Freedman, Philip Frickey, Barry Friedman, Jamal Greene, Daniel Greenwood, Grant Hayden, Laurence Helfer, Don Herzog, Roderick Hills, Donald Horowitz, John Inazu, Margaret Lemos, Anne Joseph O'Connell, Sanford Kadish, Richard Lazarus, Margaret Le- mos, Paul Mishkin, Julian Mortenson, Michael Munger, Richard Pildes, Eric Posner, Robert Post, H. Jefferson Powell, Richard Primus, Jedediah Purdy, Donald Regan, Barak Richman, Daniel Rodriguez, Christopher Schroeder, Steven Siegel, Norman Silber, Maxwell Stearns, Matthew Stephenson, Eric Talley, Adrian Vermeule, Mark Weiner, Barry Weingast, Jona- than Wiener, John Yoo, and Ernest Young. We also thank participants at Boalt Hall's Confe- rence on Constitutional Law and Economics in August 2005, Boalt Hall's Law and Econom- ics Workshop in October 2006, Duke Law School's Faculty Workshop in March 2006, the Annual Meeting of the American Law and Economics Association in May 2009, the Univer- sity of Chicago Law School's Conference on Comparative Constitutional Design in October 2009, Duke University's Law and Social Science Workshop in January 2010, Cardozo Law School's Faculty Workshop in March 2010, Hofstra Law School's Faculty Workshop in April 2010, and the University of Michigan Law School's Constitutional Theory Workshop in November 2010. We are grateful to Natalie Bedoya, Kory Wilmot, and, especially, M. Rhead Enion for able research assistance. 115 HeinOnline -- 63 Stan. L. Rev. 115 2010-2011 116 STANFORD LAW REVIEW [Vol. 63:115 617-18 (2000), has diferentiated "economic" activity, which Congress may re- gulate,from "noneconomic" activity, which Congress may not regulate. A federal constitution ideally gives the central and state governments the power to do what each does best. But economic activity does not generally cause collective action problems among the states, and noneconomic activity is not generally free from collective action problems. Consequently, Congress is not generally better at regulating economic activity, and the states are not generally better at regulating noneconomic activity. The distinction between economic and noneconomic activity seems mostly irrelevantto the problems offederalism. We propose a betterfoundation for American federalism in Section 8. Our theory distinguishesactivities that pose collective action problemsfrom those that do not. This approachflows directly from the relative advantages of the federal government and the states. We show that Section 8 mostly concerns collective ac- tion problems created by interstate externalities and national markets. We con- clude that Section 8 authorizes Congress to tax, spend, and regulate to solve these collective action problems. Collective action federalism finds that the limits and expanse of congres- sionalpower in Section 8 turn on the diference between individual and collective action by the states. The theory uses this distinction to differentiate interstate commerce from intrastate commerce, not the economic/noneconomic distinc- tion. Our distinction best explains why Congress may not ordinarilyuse its com- merce power to regulate such crimes as assault or gun possession in schools. Collective action federalism also identifies a constitutional "hook" for Congress to regulate multi-state problems of collective action that may not in- volve commerce: Clause I of Section 8 authorizes some forms of regulation of noneconomic harms that spill over state boundaries,such as contagious diseases and certain kinds of environmentalpollution. INTRODUCTION...........................................................117 I. PAST INTERPRETATIONS OF ARTICLE I, SECTION 8 ........... ........ 120 A. Section 8 Outside the Courts................... ............. 121 1. Preratification.......................................121 2. Postratification.......................................125 B. Section 8 Inside the Courts.................. ............... 126 1. The General Welfare Clause............................126 2. The Commerce Clause ........... ........... 128 II. THEORY OF THE GENERAL WELFARE .................................... 135 A. Externalities...........................................135 B. InternalizationPrinciple..................................137 C. FederalCoase Theorem...................................139 D. PoliticalLogic of U.S. Federalism............................144 1. ANALYTICAL CATEGORIES OF ARTICLE I, SECTION 8.................... 144 A. Analysis ofSection 8...................................... 145 B. Collective Action Federalism and Other Parts of the Constitution............151 C. Collective Action Federalism and ConstitutionalDisagreement.............152 D. Collective Action Federalism and Theories of Interpretation.............. 155 IV. EXPLAINING (OR IMPROVING) CONTEMPORARY UNDERSTANDINGS................ 159 A. The Commerce Clause.................................... 159 B. Dormant Commerce Clause ...................................... 166 HeinOnline -- 63 Stan. L. Rev. 116 2010-2011 December 2010] COLLECTIVE ACTION FEDERALISM 117 C. The General Welfare Clause .........................................168 1. The purposesfor which Congress may tax and spend.........................168 2. Regulation under Clause 1?............. ...................... 170 3. When to avoid avoidance ......................... ...... 175 V. EVALUATING CONGRESSIONAL JUDGMENTS ABOUT COLLECTIVE ACTION PROBLEMS....................................... .......... 180 CONCLUSION ................................................ 183 INTRODUCTION The Federal system was created with the intention of combining the different advantages which result from the magnitude and the littleness of nations .... Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress lacked the power to protect the states from military warfare waged by foreigners and from commercial war- fare waged by one another. The states proved unable to solve these diffidulties on their own. They acted individually when they needed to act collectively, and the Framers of the United States Constitution concluded that the states cannot reliably achieve an end when doing so requires two or more of them to coope- rate. The solution lay with the establishment of a more comprehensive unit of government-a national government with the authority to tax, raise and support a military, regulate interstate and international commerce, and act directly on individuals. The Constitutional Convention thus instructed the midsummer Committee of Detail that Congress would possess the power "to legislate in all Cases for the general Interests of the Union, and also in those Cases to which the States are separately incompetent, or in which the Harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the Exercise of individual Legislation." 2 The Committee subsequently produced Article I, Section 8. The Framers lacked the tools and language of modem social science, but they knew a collective action problem when they saw it. When activities spilled over from one state to another, the Framers recognized that the actions of indi- vidually rational states produced irrational results for the nation as a whole- the definition of a collective action problem. The federal government is the smallest unit that internalizes these spillovers. By internalizing the effects, the federal government is more likely than the states to solve the problem of inter- state spillovers. So Article I, Section 8 of the new Constitution gave Congress additional powers to address collective action problems. Interpretations of Article I, Section 8 since the Founding have not always focused on collective action problems involving multiple states. Regardless of collective action problems, many presidents and members of Congress I. I ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE, DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA 206 (Francis Bowen ed., Henry Reeve trans., Cambridge, Sever & Francis 1862). 2. 2 THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787, at 131-32 (Max Farrand ed., rev. ed. 1966). HeinOnline -- 63 Stan. L.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Congress's Power Over Appropriations: Constitutional And
    Congress’s Power Over Appropriations: Constitutional and Statutory Provisions June 16, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46417 SUMMARY R46417 Congress’s Power Over Appropriations: June 16, 2020 Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Sean M. Stiff A body of constitutional and statutory provisions provides Congress with perhaps its most Legislative Attorney important legislative tool: the power to direct and control federal spending. Congress’s “power of the purse” derives from two features of the Constitution: Congress’s enumerated legislative powers, including the power to raise revenue and “pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States,” and the Appropriations Clause. This latter provision states that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” Strictly speaking, the Appropriations Clause does not provide Congress a substantive legislative power but rather constrains government action. But because Article I vests the legislative power of the United States in Congress, and Congress is therefore the moving force in deciding when and on what terms to make public money available through an appropriation, the Appropriations Clause is perhaps the most important piece in the framework establishing Congress’s supremacy over public funds. The Supreme Court has interpreted and applied the Appropriations Clause in relatively few cases. Still, these cases provide important fence posts marking the extent of Congress’s
    [Show full text]
  • Individual and Collective Information Acquisition: an Experimental Study
    Individual and Collective Information Acquisition: An Experimental Study∗ P¨ellumb Reshidi† Alessandro Lizzeri‡ Leeat Yariv§ Jimmy Chan¶ Wing Suen‖ September 2020 Abstract Many committees|juries, political task forces, etc.|spend time gathering costly information before reaching a decision. We report results from lab experiments focused on such information- collection processes. We consider decisions governed by individuals and groups and compare how voting rules affect outcomes. We also contrast static information collection, as in classical hypothesis testing, with dynamic collection, as in sequential hypothesis testing. Generally, out- comes approximate the theoretical benchmark and sequential information collection is welfare enhancing relative to static collection. Nonetheless, several important departures emerge. Static information collection is excessive, and sequential information collection is non-stationary, pro- ducing declining decision accuracies over time. Furthermore, groups using majority rule yield especially hasty and inaccurate decisions. ∗We thank Roland Benabou, Stephen Morris, Salvo Nunnari, and Wolfgang Pesendorfer for very helpful discussions and feedback. We gratefully acknowledge the support of NSF grants SES-1629613 and SES-1949381. †Department of Economics, Princeton University [email protected] ‡Department of Economics, Princeton University [email protected] §Department of Economics, Princeton University [email protected] ¶Department of Economics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong [email protected] ‖Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Hong Kong [email protected] 1 1 Introduction 1.1 Overview Juries, boards of directors, congressional and university committees, government agencies such as the FDA or the EPA, and many other committees spend time deliberating issues before reaching a decision or issuing a recommendation. An important component of such collective decisions is the acquisition of information.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Worries About the Coherence of Left-Libertarianism Mathias Risse
    John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Faculty Research Working Papers Series Can There be “Libertarianism without Inequality”? Some Worries About the Coherence of Left-Libertarianism Mathias Risse Nov 2003 RWP03-044 The views expressed in the KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the John F. Kennedy School of Government or Harvard University. All works posted here are owned and copyrighted by the author(s). Papers may be downloaded for personal use only. Can There be “Libertarianism without Inequality”? Some Worries About the Coherence of Left-Libertarianism1 Mathias Risse John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University October 25, 2003 1. Left-libertarianism is not a new star on the sky of political philosophy, but it was through the recent publication of Peter Vallentyne and Hillel Steiner’s anthologies that it became clearly visible as a contemporary movement with distinct historical roots. “Left- libertarian theories of justice,” says Vallentyne, “hold that agents are full self-owners and that natural resources are owned in some egalitarian manner. Unlike most versions of egalitarianism, left-libertarianism endorses full self-ownership, and thus places specific limits on what others may do to one’s person without one’s permission. Unlike right- libertarianism, it holds that natural resources may be privately appropriated only with the permission of, or with a significant payment to, the members of society. Like right- libertarianism, left-libertarianism holds that the basic rights of individuals are ownership rights. Left-libertarianism is promising because it coherently underwrites both some demands of material equality and some limits on the permissible means of promoting this equality” (Vallentyne and Steiner (2000a), p 1; emphasis added).
    [Show full text]
  • Conventional Wisdom – Benefits and Consequences of Annealing Understanding of Engineering Principles
    EE 508 Lecture 40 Conventional Wisdom – Benefits and Consequences of Annealing Understanding of Engineering Principles by Randy Geiger Iowa State University Conventional Wisdom: Conventional wisdom is the collective understanding of fundamental engineering concepts and principles that evolves over time through interactions of practicing engineers around the world Conventional Wisdom: • Guides engineers in daily practice of the Profession • Widely use to enhance productivity • Heavily emphasized in universities around the world when educating next-generation engineers • Often viewed as a fundamental concept or principle • Validity of conventional wisdom seldom questioned Are Conventional Wisdom and Fundamental Concepts and Principles Always Aligned? Much of Society till Pythagoras 520BC 1200AD to 1600AD and later Aristotle 300BC http://greenfunkdan.blogspot.com/2008/11/csiro-warns-of-climate-change-doomsday.html http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html Sometimes the differences can be rather significant ! Conventional wisdom, when not correctly representing fundamental principles, can provide conflicting perceptions or irresolvable paradoxes Are Conventional Wisdom and Fundamental Concepts always aligned in the Microelectronics Field ? Are Conventional Wisdom and Fundamental Concepts always aligned in the Microelectronics Field ? Records of • Conventional Wisdom • Fundamental Concepts Conventional Wisdom • Occasional Oversight of Error • Key information embedded in 13 tremendous volume of materials (noise) Do Conventional Wisdom
    [Show full text]
  • Society Persuasion In
    PERSUASION IN SOCIETY HERBERT W. SIMONS with JOANNE MORREALE and BRUCE GRONBECK Table of Contents List of Artwork in Persuasion in Society xiv About the Author xvii Acknowledgments xix Preface xx Part 1: Understanding Persuasion 1. The Study of Persuasion 3 Defining Persuasion 5 Why Is Persuasion Important? 10 Studying Persuasion 14 The Behavioral Approach: Social-Scientific Research on the Communication-Persuasion Matrix 15 The Critical Studies Approach: Case Studies and “Genre-alizations” 17 Summary 20 Questions and Projects for Further Study 21 2. The Psychology of Persuasion: Basic Principles 25 Beliefs and Values as Building Blocks of Attitudes 27 Persuasion by Degrees: Adapting to Different Audiences 29 Schemas: Attitudes as Knowledge Structures 32 From Attitudes to Actions: The Role of Subjective Norms 34 Elaboration Likelihood Model: Two Routes to Persuasion 34 Persuasion as a Learning Process 36 Persuasion as Information Processing 37 Persuasion and Incentives 38 Persuasion by Association 39 Persuasion as Psychological Unbalancing and Rebalancing 40 Summary 41 Questions and Projects for Further Study 42 3. Persuasion Broadly Considered 47 Two Levels of Communication: Content and Relational 49 Impression Management 51 Deception About Persuasive Intent 51 Deceptive Deception 52 Expression Games 54 Persuasion in the Guise of Objectivity 55 Accounting Statements and Cost-Benefit Analyses 55 News Reporting 56 Scientific Reporting 57 History Textbooks 58 Reported Discoveries of Social Problems 59 How Multiple Messages Shape Ideologies 59 The Making of McWorld 63 Summary 66 Questions and Projects for Further Study 68 Part 2: The Coactive Approach 4. Coactive Persuasion 73 Using Receiver-Oriented Approaches 74 Being Situation Sensitive 76 Combining Similarity and Credibility 79 Building on Acceptable Premises 82 Appearing Reasonable and Providing Psychological Income 85 Using Communication Resources 86 Summary 88 Questions and Projects for Further Study 89 5.
    [Show full text]
  • To the General Welfare Clause
    \\Server03\productn\C\CHP\4-1\CHP104.txt unknown Seq: 1 23-APR-01 10:05 Restoring the “General” to the General Welfare Clause By John C. Eastman1 Over the past decade, the Supreme Court of the United States has, in a series of important cases, reinvigorated the twin doc- trines of enumerated powers and federalism, restoring to our con- stitutional order some semblance of the founders’ original vision of a national government that was strong within the sphere of power assigned to it but limited by the extent of that sphere. Whether invalidating acts of Congress that “commandeered” state officials to do Congress’s bidding,2 trimming the sails of Congress’s powers under the Interstate Commerce Clause,3 or setting up sovereign immunity barriers to private enforcement of statutory schemes enacted by Congress,4 the Court has reasserted its role to hold 1 Associate Professor, Chapman University School of Law and Director, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. Ph.D., M.A., The Claremont Graduate School; J.D., The University of Chicago Law School. I wish to thank Chapman law students Chris Bonkoski, Laurie Messerly, Julie Ann Muller, and Tim Sandefur for their superb research assistance on this project, and Jeffrey Renz, who provided helpful comments. I also wish to thank the several panelists at the Chapman Law Review spending clause symposium for their helpful comments about this paper and their participation in the symposium. Finally, I wish to acknowledge the editorial staff of the Chapman Law Review, whose hard work made for an immensely successful symposium.
    [Show full text]
  • Memetic Media and Collective Identity Through Streamer Performance on Twitch
    Selected Papers of #AoIR2020: The 21st Annual Conference of the Association of Internet Researchers Virtual Event / 27-31 October 2020 “I’VE GOTTA DO IT FOR THE BIT”: MEMETIC MEDIA AND COLLECTIVE IDENTITY THROUGH STREAMER PERFORMANCE ON TWITCH Nathan J Jackson School of the Arts and Media, UNSW Sydney Videogame livestreamers on the platform Twitch present a carefully curated version of themselves negotiated in part via interactions with their viewers. This persona is encoded not just through their live performance, but also through other platform features including streamer-specific emoticons (emotes) and audio-visual overlays triggered by stream events such as donations and subscriptions (alerts). From these customisable features emerges a complicated feedback loop between the streamer and non-streamer participants that ultimately results in a set of collective values performed and refined by both parties over time. In this paper I interrogate how the incorporation of Internet memes into streaming personas creates accessible avenues for communication with and between members of this collective that contribute significantly to this value system. Memes operate based on a core duality between commitment to a fixed set of properties and creative variation – this duality has been referred to using several different terminologies (see Wiggins & Bowers, 2015; Milner, 2016; Phillips & Milner, 2018). As such, there is a necessary plurality to memes considering their diverse manifestations, as emphasised by Limor Shifman’s (2014) definition of the term. This complicates the meaning-making process of memes as they carry not just the intended value of each manifestation’s creator, but also the latent values of the meme template and the referent texts.
    [Show full text]
  • The General Welfare Clause and the Theory of Public Goods
    UC Berkeley Law and Economics Workshop Title The General Welfare Clause and the Theory of Public Goods Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0wv3n63r Author Siegel, Neil Publication Date 2006-10-09 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California PRELIMINARY DRAFT The General Welfare Clause and the Theory of Public Goods Robert D. Cooter & Neil S. Siegel* INTRODUCTION The federal government, according to many Americans, should defend the nation, preserve the environment, build highways, promote science, improve health, alleviate poverty, protect civil rights, and fight crime. Because the Constitution establishes a national government of limited powers, Congress requires constitutional authorization to undertake these activities. Proponents of federal power trace much of it to Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, which reads: “The Congress shall have power . [t]o regulate commerce . among the several states . .”1 The Commerce Clause authorizes federal regulation of the channels and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, such as dredging navigable rivers, transporting beef across state lines, and scheduling commercial airplane flights. In addition, Clause 18 gives Congress the power “. [t]o make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.”2 The Necessary and Proper Clause, and possibly the Commerce Clause as well, justify federal regulation of activities with significant effects on interstate commerce, such as racial discrimination in hotels.3 * Herman Selvin Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley, and Assistant Professor of Law and Political Science, Duke University. For useful advice, we thank Stuart Benjamin, Erwin Chemerinsky, Donald Horowitz, Anne Joseph, Richard Lazarus, Richard Pildes, Eric Posner, H.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Bioterrorism May Be Defined As an Overt Release of a Biological Agent
    Sutton, “Bioterrorism Preparation and Response Legislation — The Struggle to Protect States’ Sovereignty While Preserving National Security, “ 6 The Georgetown Public Policy Review 93 (Spring 2001). Bioterrorism Preparation and Response Legislation--- The Struggle to Protect States’ Sovereignty While Preserving National Security Victoria Sutton “The means of security can only be regulated by the means and danger of attack. They will, in fact, be determined by these rules and by no others.” ----James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 41 I. Introduction The security of the United States has been a source of national pride and controversy since the founding of the nation. As a nation, we have enjoyed the protection and peace of mind which comes with having the most powerful military in the world. Today, not one living citizen of the United States, can personally remember a war being fought on American soil. However, the threat of biological attack1 —as distinct from chemical and nuclear attacks --- has raised new concerns about our national security. The coordination of traditional emergency response mechanisms within the Constitutional framework are those which are clearly defined and practiced. However, the coordination of peacetime preparations for bioterrorist action is not so clearly defined and remains a vulnerable position for the United States. Where emergency response to natural disasters dictates clear intergovernmental relationships and practiced response operations, a bioterrorism event would be an ongoing disaster with casualties increasing geometrically during the response. In contrast, the casualties in a natural disaster are most likely to have peaked before the response and be in a sharp decline or at zero when the response begins.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying Information Cascades
    1 Wise or mad crowds? The cognitive mechanisms underlying 2 information cascades 1 1;2 3 Alan N. Tump ([email protected]), Tim Pleskac , Ralf H. J. M. Kurvers1 1Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Center for Adaptive Rationality, Lentzeallee 94, 14195 Berlin, Germany 2University of Kansas, Department of Psychology, Jayhawk Blvd, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA 4 November 26, 2019 5 Abstract 6 Whether getting vaccinated, buying stocks, or crossing streets, people rarely 7 make decisions alone. Rather, multiple people decide sequentially, setting the stage 8 for information cascades whereby early-deciding individuals can influence others' 9 choices. To understand how information cascades through social systems, it is es- 10 sential to capture the dynamics of the decision-making process. We introduce the 11 social drift-diffusion model to capture these dynamics. We tested our model using 12 a sequential choice task. The model was able to recover the dynamics of the social 13 decision-making process, accurately capturing how individuals integrate personal 14 and social information dynamically over time and when they timed their decisions. 15 Our results show the importance of the interrelationships between accuracy, con- 16 fidence, and response time in shaping the quality of information cascades. The 17 model reveals the importance of capturing the dynamics of decision processes to 18 understand how information cascades in social systems, paving the way for appli- 19 cations in other social systems. 20 21 Keywords: collective intelligence, information cascades, sequential decision-making, social 22 information, confidence, herding, conformity, social impact, collective behaviour 23 Main 24 In many situations|be they financial investments, consumer choices, or simply crossing the street| 25 one is generally not making a decision alone.
    [Show full text]
  • Collective Bargaining Agreement Between City of Bend and the Bend Police Association 2019-2022
    COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF BEND AND THE BEND POLICE ASSOCIATION 2019-2022 City of Bend and Bend Police Association Collective Bargaining Agreement 2019-2022 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section One. Recognition ...............................................................................................................4 Section Two. Check-Off/Payroll Deductions ................................... .............................................. 5 Section Three. Employee Rights ..................................................................................................... 5 Section Four. Management Rights ........ .......................................................................................... 6 Section Five. City Security ............................................................................................................. 6 Section Six. Association Business .................................................................................................. 6 Section Seven. Association Bargaining Team ................................................................................ 7 Section Eight. Special Conferences ................................................................................................ 7 Section Nine. Personnel Manual/Agreement .................................. ........... ................ ..................... 7 Section Ten. Bulletin Board .............................................................. .......................................... .. .. 7 Section Eleven. Outside
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 16 Information Cascades
    From the book Networks, Crowds, and Markets: Reasoning about a Highly Connected World. By David Easley and Jon Kleinberg. Cambridge University Press, 2010. Complete preprint on-line at http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/networks-book/ Chapter 16 Information Cascades 16.1 Following the Crowd When people are connected by a network, it becomes possible for them to influence each other’s behavior and decisions. In the next several chapters, we will explore how this ba- sic principle gives rise to a range of social processes in which networks serve to aggregate individual behavior and thus produce population-wide, collective outcomes. There is a nearly limitless set of situations in which people are influenced by others: in the opinions they hold, the products they buy, the political positions they support, the activities they pursue, the technologies they use, and many other things. What we’d like to do here is to go beyond this observation and consider some of the reasons why such influence occurs. We’ll see that there are many settings in which it may in fact be rational for an individual to imitate the choices of others even if the individual’s own information suggests an alternative choice. As a first example, suppose that you are choosing a restaurant in an unfamiliar town, and based on your own research about restaurants you intend to go to restaurant A. However, when you arrive you see that no one is eating in restaurant A while restaurant B next door is nearly full. If you believe that other diners have tastes similar to yours, and that they too have some information about where to eat, it may be rational to join the crowd at B rather than to follow your own information.
    [Show full text]