Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Privatization is often discussed as a matter of costs. However, most costs are never included in that discussion. This paper uses the privatization of the IRS mailroom as a way to identify and track costs. It finds that most of the most expensive costs are never included in decisions to privatize and in the analysis of the wisdom of privatization.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper evaluates how the social capital embodied within social networks influences the performance of small businesses. Specifically, it assesses whether the use of social networks is beneficial or detrimental to the development of low technology, low credit businesses. It is based on the analysis of a sample of Portuguese small business partnerships in the furniture and graphic arts industries. To assess the social determinants of failure and success a case controlled study, sampling on the dependent variable (business performance), is employed. The total sample consists of 42 businesses, of which approximately half were successful and half failed. The method of data collection, the narrative interview, focuses on the development of businesses from their start-up in 1993 until 2000, when the data was collected. The paper finds that the use of social ties is essential for the start-up and survival of businesses. However, there are two negative impacts of the use of social networks. Once businesses reach a second stage of development, ventures that desire to grow must become independent from their social network as they rationalize production. A further negative effect arises from malfeasance within the partnership, which often condemns the business to failure. The paper concludes that social networks have a mixed impact in the development of businesses.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Democracy is far from ideal in many countries these days: turnout is declining and/or is low, and voters
are often poorly informed. However, I argue in this paper that low turnout and low levels of information
matter only if two conditions are fulfilled: (1) participation and information has to be socially
discriminatory for some social groups and (2) the outcome of a vote is biased due to low turnout and
low information of citizens in a way that outcomes would have been different if more citizens had
participated and were better informed. The findings here confirm the generally known social factors
that explain differences in turnout and differences in the level of information of voters to a great extent
in the popular votes in Switzerland: better educated and more well to do people participate more and
are better informed than poorer, less educated ones. In many of the analysed votes the outcome would
have been different if non voters had participated and the badly informed would have become better
informed however the lack of information seems to matter more than the level of participation. The
government and the left wing parties would often have done better if citizens were better informed but
the right wing parties would have done better if more citizens had voted. Several institutional variables
can explain the bias: the issues in which people are relatively uninterested and find them difficult to
understand, when turnout and information levels are low the risk of a turnout or information bias increases
as well.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Over the last decade, the Congress has made significant changes in numerous federal programs that support low-income families, including changes that have shifted program emphases from providing cash assistance to providing services that promote employment and economic independence. As a result of some of the federal policy changes, the support system is more decentralized than before. This heightens the importance of understanding policy choices and practices at the state and local levels as well as those at the federal level. To provide the Congress with information on this system, GAO agreed to address the following questions: (1) To what extent do states provide supports for lowincome families? (2) How have states structured programs to support low-income families? (3) What changes have states made to supports for low-income families in recent years? Our review focused primarily on supports for which states make many of the key decisions about eligibility, benefit amounts, and service provision. To obtain this information, GAO conducted a mail survey of the social service directors in the 50 states and the District of Columbia; conducted site visits in New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Washington, and Wisconsin; and reviewed federal reports and other relevant literature.

States use an array of federal and state funds to provide a wide range of benefits and services that can support the work efforts of low-income families, although the types of supports and coverage of the eligible population vary among the states and sometimes within states. For instance, most states subsidize several types of child care, subsidize use of public transportation, and offer employment services in at least one location in the state, but somewhat fewer states subsidize child care for sick children, assist with the purchase of used cars, or offer employment retention bonuses to parents who find and maintain jobs. The five states we visited structured the eligibility criteria and benefits of many supports in ways that allow them to serve a broad range of low-income families, including families on and off welfare and families who are working and those who are not currently working. The specific support structures vary, however, by state and type of support. These differences create a complex national picture of supports that provide an assortment of benefits and services to a range of populations. Over the last several years, many states have expanded the availability of supports that promote employment and economic independence for lowincome families. State officials reported that both the number of support services available and the number of recipients have increased. However, state officials express uncertainty about their continued ability to provide this level of support. As states plan for the future of supports in the current state fiscal environment, officials reported that they are considering changes that could limit the availability and provision of supports for low-income families. Overall, it its probable that the support system will continue to change as the federal and state governments further amend policies and respond to changes in the demand for services and cyclical fiscal conditions.

Publication Type: Proceeding