Search results

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

The Bureau of Economics in the Federal Trade Commission has a three-part role in the Agency and the strength of its functions changed over time depending on the preferences and ideology of the FTC’s leaders, developments in the field of economics, and the tenor of the times. The over-riding current role is to provide well considered, unbiased economic advice regarding antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement cases to the legal staff and the Commission. The second role, which long ago was primary, is to provide reports on investigations of various industries to the public and public officials. This role was more recently called research or “policy R&D”. A third role is to advocate for competition and markets both domestically and internationally. As a practical matter, the provision of economic advice to the FTC and to the legal staff has required that the economists wear “two hats,” helping the legal staff investigate cases and provide evidence to support law enforcement cases while also providing advice to the legal bureaus and to the Commission on which cases to pursue (thus providing “a second set of eyes” to evaluate cases). There is sometimes a tension in those functions because building a case is not the same as evaluating a case. Economists and the Bureau of Economics have provided such services to the FTC for over 100 years proving that a sub-organization can survive while playing roles that sometimes conflict. Such a life is not, however, always easy or fun.

The introduction presents the challenges of teaching history and social studies within a society that questions why we should learn about the past. It summarizes federal legislation and funding that have both expanded and limited history education at various times. It suggests that historical interpretation and performance are ways to engage students in their ability to make meaning of the past and engage in inquiry, at a time when student access to historical information and media is often overwhelming. The introduction concludes with a summary of all chapters as they advance a process for historical inquiry through storytelling and interpretation.

This chapter sets forth a plan designed to encourage and enable teachers to engage in first-person characterization in their classrooms. The author draws on his extensive background in social studies teaching, administration, and consulting to argue for the value of historical interpretation within the context of today's curricular emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). This chapter then explores and explains historical interpretation from a classroom perspective, focusing on pedagogical best practices. In a first-person presentation, the presenter assumes the identity of a historical figure. The first question to be asked then is, Who is the individual I wish to represent, and why? This person should be selected from subject matter being studied in your class. Be aware that it is necessary to anticipate some element of controversy when you undertake this activity. With rare exceptions, any historical figure selected for portrayal will have something questionable in their background, and you will have to contend with this. So, the next question to ask is, Why engage in first-person interpretation in the first place? In this chapter, experienced teachers provide reasons for doing so, and consider necessary preparations for effectively implementing such a characterization. That discussion leads to examining ways to ensure successful presentations that achieve established lesson goals, followed by suggestions for debriefing and effectively bringing closure to the exercise. As the accompanying lesson extension demonstrates, a characterization can ground further study of an issue associated with the individual being depicted.

To examine the mobilization of environmental sustainability policies in the Winter Olympic Games in Asia guided by approaches that highlight policy mobilities. The construction of sledding tracks in two cases, the Winter Games in Japan and South Korea, was analyzed to demonstrate how sustainability was framed and which policy programs were implemented.

The first part of the chapter introduces Olympic mega-events as agents of sustainability policy circulation. It discusses the study's key concepts and describes approaches to policy circulation studies. The second part of the chapter outlines the construction of the Nagano and PyeongChang sledding tracks and the sustainability policies that were in use during that time. The third part discusses the two cases from a policy mobility perspective.

The two sledding track cases are described, along with national and Olympic policies of environmental sustainability. Discursive policy framings of environmental sustainability in Nagano and PyeongChang similarly modeled previous Games' best practices that were supported by scientific and technological knowledge. It was clear, however, that best practices were taken up differently in each construction effort, and that the lack of cooperation between Games organizers across these venues and countries meant that environmental expertise was not always transferred from one Games to another. Policy circulation was also affected by entangled transnational power relations, and by the fact that each nation state and the corporate actors who built the sledding tracks arguably had uneven power relations with international expert agencies. Thus, policy priorities and policy mobility from one Olympics to the next were determined by a combination of the interaction with these expert networks, time pressure in the Olympic structure, and rivalry between the countries.

Implications for enhancing policy mobility and deliberation of policy commitments are discussed.