The board of directors, executives and risk knowledge management

Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) and Knowledge Management (KM) both encompass top-down and bottom-up approaches developing and embedding risk knowledge concepts and processes in strategy, policies, risk appetite definition, the decision-making process and business processes. The capacity to transfer risk knowledge affects all stakeholders and understanding of the risk knowledge about the enterprise's value is a key requirement in order to identify protection strategies for business sustainability. There are various factors that affect this capacity for transferring and understanding. Previous work has established that there is a difference between the influence of KM variables on Risk Control and on the perceived value of ERM. Communication among groups appears as a significant variable in improving Risk Control but only as a weak factor in improving the perceived value of ERM. However, the ERM mandate requires for its implementation a clear understanding, of risk management (RM) policies, actions and results, and the use of the integral view of RM as a governance and compliance program to support the value driven management of the organization. Furthermore, ERM implementation demands better capabilities for unification of the criteria of risk analysis, alignment of policies and protection guidelines across the organization. These capabilities can be affected by risk knowledge sharing between the RM group and the Board of Directors and other executives in the organization. This research presents an exploratory analysis of risk knowledge transfer variables used in risk management practice. A survey to risk management executives from 65 firms in various industries was undertaken and 108 answers were analyzed. Potential relationships among the variables are investigated using descriptive statistics and multivariate statistical models. The level of understanding of risk management policies and reports by the board is related to the quality of the flow of communication in the firm and perceived level of integration of the risk policy in the business processes.

Ethnic groups and institutions: A study of institutional engineering in four Central and Eastern European countries

The issue of institutional engineering has gained a renewed interest with the democratic transitions of the Central and Eastern European countries, as for some states it has become a matter of state survival. The four countries examined in the study – Macedonia, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria – exemplify the difficulty in establishing a stable democratic society in the context of the resurgence of national identity. The success of ethnonational minorities in achieving the desired policies affirming or expanding their rights as a group was conditioned upon the cohesion of the minority as well as the permissiveness of state institutions in terms of participation and representation of minority members. The Hungarian minorities in Slovakia and Romania, the Turkish minority in Bulgaria, and the Albanian minority in Macedonia, formed their political organizations to represent their interests. However, in some cases the divergence of strategies or goals between factions of the minority group seriously impeded its ability to obtain the desired concessions from the majority. The difficulty in the pursuit of policies favoring the expansion of minority rights was further exacerbated in some of the cases by the impermissiveness of political institutions. The political parties representing the interest of ethnonational minorities were allowed to participate in elections, although not without suspicions about their intent and even strong opposition from majority groups, but participation in elections and subsequent representation in legislative bodies did not translate into adoption of the desired policies. The ethnonational minorities' inability to effectively influence the decision-making process was the result of the inadequacy of democratic institutions to process these demands and channel them through the normal political process in the absence of majority desire to accommodate them. Despite the promise of democratic institutions to bring about a major overhaul of the policies of forceful assimilation and disregard for minority rights, the four cases analyzed in the study demonstrate that in effect ethnonational minorities continued to be at the mercy of the majority, especially if the minority was unable to position itself as a balancing actor.

Estimating the effect of state-level gun purchasing policy on county-level firearm suicide mortality

Thesis (Master's)--University of Washington, 2016-08

Report on the Iowa Board of Parole for the year ended June 30, 2015

Report on the Iowa Board of Parole for the year ended June 30, 2015

Who Governs Educational Change? The Paradoxes of State Power and the Pursuit of Educational Reform in Post-Neoliberal Ecuador (2007-2015)

This study identifies and compares competing policy stories of key actors involved in the Ecuadorian education reform under President Rafael Correa from 2007-2015. By revealing these competing policy stories the study generates insights into the political and technical aspects of education reform in a context where state capacity has been eroded by decades of neoliberal policies. Since the elections in 2007, President Correa has focused much of his political effort and capital on reconstituting the state’s authority and capacity to not only formulate but also implement public policies. The concentration of power combined with a capacity building agenda allowed the Correa government to advance an ambitious comprehensive education reform with substantive results in equity and quality. At the same time the concentration of power has undermined a more inclusive and participatory approach which are essential for deepening and sustaining the reform. This study underscores both the limits and importance of state control over education; the inevitable conflicts and complexities associated with education reforms that focus on quality; and the limits and importance of participation in reform. Finally, it examines the analytical benefits of understanding governance, participation and quality as socially constructed concepts that are tied to normative and ideological interests.

1978 Annual Report of the Iowa Board of Medical Examiners, January 29, 1979

This report is submitted in compliance with Senate File 312, section 4, paragraph 2. The Board of Medical Examiners filed their rules relating to the duties of the board on November 19, 1978. These rules were modified as a result of suggestions offered by the Administrative Rules Review Committee and will become effective March 29, 1979

1979 Annual Report of the Iowa Board of Medical Examiners, January 16, 1980

This report is submitted in compliance with 258A.4(2)of the Code of Iowa.

1980 Annual Report of the Iowa Board of Medical Examiners, January 1, 1981

This report is submitted in compliance with 258A.4(2)of the Code of Iowa.

1981 Annual Report of the Iowa Board of Medical Examiners, January 29, 1982

This report is submitted in compliance with 258A.4(2)of the Code of Iowa.

1982 Annual Report of the Iowa Board of Medical Examiners, January 10, 1983

This report is submitted in compliance with 258A.4(2)of the Code of Iowa.

1983 Annual Report of the Iowa Board of Medical Examiners, January 6, 1984

This report is submitted in compliance with 258A.4(2)of the Code of Iowa.

1984 Annual Report of the Iowa Board of Medical Examiners, January 30, 1985

This report is submitted in compliance with 258A.4(2)of the Code of Iowa.

1985 Annual Report of the Iowa Board of Medical Examiners, January 30, 1986

This report is submitted in compliance with 258A.4(2)of the Code of Iowa.

1986 Annual Report of the Iowa Board of Medical Examiners, January 30, 1987

This report is submitted in compliance with 258A.4(2)of the Code of Iowa.

1987 Annual Report of the Iowa Board of Medical Examiners, January 28, 1988

The Iowa State Board of Medical Examiners submits the following annual report pursuant to the provisions of section 258A.4(2)of the Code of Iowa. the report relates to Board activities during the calendar year.