Anadromous Rainbow Smelt and Tomcod in Connecticut: Assessment of populations, conservation status, and need for restoration plan

(beginning of rainbow smelt executive summary) Evidence indicates that anadromous rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax) populations in Connecticut and elsewhere in the northeast United States have severely declined. Several sampling programs have documented declines in Connecticut’s smelt populations over the last three decades (Marcy 1976a, Marcy 1976b, Millstone Environmental Laboratory 2005). Similar declines have also been documented in the Hudson River (ASA Analysis & Communication 2005) and in Massachusetts (personal communication, Brad Chase, MA Division of Marine Fisheries 2004). Recreational and commercial fisheries in the region for this species have virtually ceased (Blake and Smith 1984). The Connecticut Fish Advisory Committee of the Endangered Species Program has recommended that rainbow smelt be listed as threatened in Connecticut, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (2004) has recently listed rainbow smelt as a Federal Species of Concern. The purpose of this project is to develop an environmental history of rainbow smelt in Connecticut and surrounding regions, and document the current status of populations in Connecticut waters. An environmental history that assesses trends in abundance, environmental threats and historical efforts to ameliorate the threats will contribute to regional efforts to conserve these fish. Comprehensive review of the regional literature and trends associated with rainbow smelt has not been undertaken since Kendall (1926). Assessment of current abundance, distribution, areas of critical habitat, and whether the species is presently reproducing in state waters is critical for clarifying conservation status, designing a monitoring program and developing a recovery or enhancement plan, if this appears to be necessary. (beginning of tomcod executive summary) Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod) are believed to have declined significantly in Connecticut and other estuaries of the Northeast and Middle Atlantic states. Several monitoring programs indicate that the species is scarce and/or declining in the region’s estuaries (Gottschall and Pacileo 2004, Molnar 2004, Millstone Environmental Laboratory 2005, ASA Analysis and Communication 2005). Once-active recreational (NMFS MRFSS 2005, http://www.st.nmfs.gov) and commercial fisheries for this species in Connecticut are now dormant. For the past 10 years, the Connecticut Fish Advisory Committee of the Endangered Species Program has recommended that studies be undertaken to quantify the status of tomcod populations and to determine if conservation actions should be initiated. The purpose of this project is to develop an environmental history of Atlantic tomcod in Connecticut and surrounding regions, and document the current status of populations in Connecticut waters. An environmental history that assesses trends in abundance, environmental threats and historical efforts to ameliorate the threats will contribute to regional efforts to conserve these fish. Assessment of current abundance, distribution, areas of critical habitat, and whether the species is presently reproducing in state waters is critical for determining conservation status, designing a monitoring program and developing a recovery or enhancement plan, if this appears to be necessary.

Cognitive Comparative Advantage and the Organization of Work: Lessons from Herbert Simon's Vision of the Future

In a marvelous but somewhat neglected paper, 'The Corporation: Will It Be Managed by Machines?' Herbert Simon articulated from the perspective of 1960 his vision of what we now call the New Economy the machine-aided system of production and management of the late twentieth century. Simon's analysis sprang from what I term the principle of cognitive comparative advantage: one has to understand the quite different cognitive structures of humans and machines (including computers) in order to explain and predict the tasks to which each will be most suited. Perhaps unlike Simon's better-known predictions about progress in artificial intelligence research, the predictions of this 1960 article hold up remarkably well and continue to offer important insights. In what follows I attempt to tell a coherent story about the evolution of machines and the division of labor between humans and machines. Although inspired by Simon's 1960 paper, I weave many other strands into the tapestry, from classical discussions of the division of labor to present-day evolutionary psychology. The basic conclusion is that, with growth in the extent of the market, we should see humans 'crowded into' tasks that call for the kinds of cognition for which humans have been equipped by biological evolution. These human cognitive abilities range from the exercise of judgment in situations of ambiguity and surprise to more mundane abilities in spatio-temporal perception and locomotion. Conversely, we should see machines 'crowded into' tasks with a well-defined structure. This conclusion is not based (merely) on a claim that machines, including computers, are specialized idiots-savants today because of the limits (whether temporary or permanent) of artificial intelligence; rather, it rests on a claim that, for what are broadly 'economic' reasons, it will continue to make economic sense to create machines that are idiots-savants.

The Secret Life of Mundane Transaction Costs

Transaction costs, one often hears, are the economic equivalent of friction in physical systems. Like physicists, economists can sometimes neglect friction in formulating theories; but like engineers, they can never neglect friction in studying how the system actually does let alone should work. Interestingly, however, the present-day economics of organization also ignores friction. That is, almost single-mindedly, the literature analyzes transactions from the point of view of misaligned incentives and (especially) transaction-specific assets. The costs involved are certainly costs of running the economic system in some sense, but they are not obviously frictions. Stories about frictions in trade are not nearly as intriguing as stories about guileful trading partners and expensive assets placed at risk. But I will argue that these seemingly dull categories of cost what Baldwin and Clark (2003) call mundane transaction costs actually have a secret life. They are at least as important as, and quite probably far more important than, the more glamorous costs of asset specificity in explaining the partition between firm and market. These costs also have a secret life in another sense: they have a secret life cycle. I will argue that these mundane transaction costs provide much better material for helping us understanding how the boundaries among firms, markets, and hybrid forms change over time.