Optimal redistribution when educational background matters

Higher education plays an important role in determining individuals lifetime
earnings. In turn, the decision to become educated depends to a large extent on innate ability and on family characteristics, including both family
wealth and educational background. In this paper, we abstract from family
income differences to concentrate on the effects of fiscal policies on the
decision to undertake higher education when the educational background
matters. In a dynamic framework, where successive generations are linked by educational background, we consider a government that uses both linear income taxation and a lump-sum subsidy to education. Conditions for
optimality of each policy are derived. The factors that determine the sign
and magnitude of the tax rate and the subsidy are identified and include
concerns for redistribution, efficiency and the educational externality on
future generations

Joint velocity redistribution for fault tolerant manipulators

If the end-effector of a robotic manipulator moves on a specified trajectory, then for the fault tolerant operation, it is required that the end-effector continues the trajectory with a minimum velocity jump when a fault occurs within a joint. This problem is addressed in the paper. A way to tolerate the fault is to find new joint velocities for the faulty manipulator in which results into the same end-effector velocity provided by the healthy manipulator. The aim of this study is to find a strategy which optimally redistributes the joint velocities for the remained healthy joints of the manipulators. The optimality is defined by the minimum end-effector velocity jump. A solution of the problem is presented and it is applied to a robotics manipulator. Then through a case study and a simulation study it is validated. The paper shows that if would be possible the joint velocity redistribution results into a zero velocity jump.

Parental nurturing and adverse effects of redistribution

This paper suggests that if parental nurturing is a dominating force in human capital formation then income redistribution may not promote economic growth. In particular, if, consistently with empirical evidence, parental human capital complements investment in a child’s education and yields increasing returns in the intergenerational production of human capital, income redistribution may have an adverse impact on the growth rate of average human capital. Redistribution shifts resources towards the less educationally-productive families and thus in the presence of credit markets imperfections and increasing returns, it reduces the aggregate level of investment in human capital. Moreover, if the degree of increasing returns is sufficiently large to produce sustained growth, this adverse effect on human capital formation may outweigh the conventional beneficial effects of redistribution that arises from the interaction between a production technology exhibiting diminishing returns and credit market imperfections.

The paradox of virtue : (re)thinking deviance, anorexia and schooling

In this paper we posit a radical retheorization of anorexia as a form of deviance. We examine how the disciplinary practices and moral technologies typical of contemporary secondary schooling signify and enter into the articulation of three ‘virtue discourses’ (discipline, achievement and healthism), and tease out how these ‘virtue discourses’ play into the formation of the ‘anorexic’ subject. Informed by Foucauldian theory, our analysis draws on our life history interview study with teenage girls diagnosed with anorexia nervosa and their parents. We argue that anorexia can be understood not as a form of deviance but as a ‘paradox of virtue’ involving zealous compliance with and taking up of socially and culturally sanctioned ‘virtue discourses’ that are immanent in schooling and wider society.

Comparison theory in economic psychology regarding the easterlin paradox and decreasing marginal utility : a critique

This paper challenges the assumption within Economics that the relationship between money and subjective wellbeing is determined by processes of cognitive comparison. An alternative explanation for such well known phenomena as the Easterlin Paradox and Decreasing Marginal Utility are provided through a consideration of affect. The theoretical basis for such explanations relies on theory from Psychology usually overlooked by Economists, such as affect heuristics and Subjective Wellbeing Homeostasis. The presented evidence for this alternative source of explanation melds psychological theory with empirical data. It is concluded that affective processes offer a coherent alternative explanation for the phenomena under discussion.

The apparent paradox of colour variation in aposematic poison frogs

Toxic prey warn their predators about their unprofitability with conspicuous colour patterns that are easily learned and remembered by predators if they are uniform within a population. I studied a variable, warningly-coloured poison frog in the wild and found that such variation in colours may be related to mating advantages, parental duties, microhabitat selection and different behavioural strategies.

Therapeutic equivalence and the generic competition paradox

Following the passage of the Waxman-Hatch Act (1984), FDA approval for a generic drug requires the establishment of bio-equivalence between the generic drug and an FDA approved branded drug. However, a large body of evidence in the medical community suggests that bio-equivalence does not guarantee therapeutic equivalence; in some instances the lack of therapeutic equivalence can lead to fatal consequences for patients switching to generic products. In this paper, we construct a simple model to analyze the implications of therapeutic non-equivalence between branded and generic drugs. We show, theoretically and empirically, that this distinction can provide a plausible explanation of the generic competition paradox.

The paradox of parity in sentencing in Australia: the pursuit of equal justice that highlights the futility of consistency in sentencing

Parity in sentencing is the principle that offenders who are parties to a crime should, all things being equal, receive the same penalty. While it is a well-established principle, the reality is that its scope is greatly limited by the largely unfettered nature of the sentencing calculus. Things are rarely equal between offenders due to the large number of variables that current orthodoxy maintains are relevant to sentencing. This makes application of the parity principle unpredictable, resulting in the paradox that parity highlights the unfairness that it is meant to mitigate: inconsistency in sentencing. This article contends that parity will remain an aspiration, as opposed to a concrete principle, until the instinctive synthesis approach to sentencing yields to a more transparent and precise decision-making process. The article focuses on Australian jurisprudence, but the analysis applies to all jurisdictions where sentencing has a considerable discretionary component (including the UK and the USA--apart from the limited circumstances where mandatory sentences apply).