The Republican takeover of Capitol Hill suggests that the payer-driven forces of managed care and the regional networks will serve as the centerpieces to improve the organization, financing, and delivery of our nation's health services. The "voluntary" alliances that are now being forged may stumble when attempting to restrain the inflationary spiral of Medicare and Medicaid expenditures and when seeking to finance the care of an increasing number of uninsured working poor and their dependents. The American health industry can anticipate experiencing increasingly monopolistically competitive environments. The public will eventually demand the formation of state health services commissions to foster a semblance of control. Within this framework, the German decentralized, multipayer, multitier approach, which is self-governing and allows for negotiating reimbursement rates between insurers and providers, offers a preferred model to the traditional American public utility model.
An important function of the financial system is to serve as a key source of information that helps coordinate decentralized decision-making in various sectors of the economy. Households and investors use interest rates, futures prices and security prices in making their consumption-saving decisions and portfolio allocation decisions. Interest rates and prices provide important signals to managers of firms in their selection of investment projects and financings. This paper illustrates the role played by financial markets in providing information about the future volatility-that is, the degree of uncertainty-of economic variables such as interest rates, exchange rates, commodity prices, and stock, bond and other security prices. It has two basic goals: (1) to show the importance of volatility for all sorts of policy decisions in the private and public sectors of the economy; and (2) to show how ex ante estimates of future volatility can be extracted from the prices of securities.
Abraham Lincoln, as most antebellum lawyers, believed that lawyers should serve as peacemakers. His slander cases show that he often took advantage of opportunities for mediation and compromise. Lincoln was able to resolve many cases by repairing the damage to the plaintiffs' reputation. In several cases, the defendant attested to the good reputation of the slandered plaintiff, which settled the case. In some cases, the defendant consented to a large judgment, which the plaintiff then agreed to reduce to a much smaller sum. In others, the plaintiff, after a jury had awarded damages, agreed to remit most or all of the award. Lincoln acted as a peacemaker and showed sensitivity to what was actually at stake in those cases.Antebellum lawyers celebrated the 'sober judgements of Courts' as a means to maintain social order.1 At the same time, however, they also believed that they should serve as peacemakers who prevented disputes from going to court. Thus, they reflected a larger ambiguity in American culture about the use of courts to settle disputes. Americans acknowledge law as 'a vital part of culture and of the social order,' but the invocation of formal law often is viewed as an antisocial act and as a 'contravention of established cultural norms.'2 As Noah Webster explained in his American Spelling Book (1823), 'Somebody is always the worse for lawsuits, and of course society is less happy.'3Antebellum lawyers in general, and Lincoln in particular, did not want to resolve all disputes with a formal adjudication. Lawyers were not simply courtroom advocates for their clients; they also served a mediating role. As Robert W. Gordon notes, antebellum lawyers 'who took seriously their status as republican mediators were encouraged to run their office as little chancery courts.'4 That mediating role was particularly important in small communities where lawyers were keenly aware of the social context of purely local disputes.5 One of Lincoln's former law clerks recalled that 'the very character of this simple litigation drew the lawyer into the street and neighborhood, and into close and active intercourse with all classes of his fellow men.'6Lincoln himself described the lawyer's role as peacemaker. In his notes for a law lecture, he wrote: 'Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser—in fees, expenses, and waste of time. As a peacemaker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man.'7 That was a common conception of the lawyer's role in the nineteenth century.8 After the 1880 death of Stephen Trigg Logan, Lincoln's second law partner, John T. Stuart (Lincoln's first law partner), observed, 'Logan, in his office, was the just, ripe and safe counsellor, grasping with readiness the facts of the cases submitted to him, separating the truth from the coloring given it by the passion of the client, and readily seeing the point in the case, he was able to give sound advice, which his sense of justice directed to the right. He was not a promoter of litigations. He settled more controversies than he brought suits. He was a peace-maker.'9In 1834 Simon Greenleaf, a professor at the Harvard Law School, proclaimed that a lawyer 'concerns himself with the beginnings of controversies, not to inflame them but to extinguish them.... He is a peacemaker;—a composer of dissensions;—a blessing to his neighborhood.'10 In 1845 the New-York Legal Observer stated that 'the respectable attorney... is almost always a peace-maker and a settler of disputes, without litigation, where it is practicable.'11 Kentucky lawyer George W. Robertson similarly described the lawyer's role in his Scrap Book on Law and Politics, Men and Times (1855), a book Lincoln owned: 'He should never advise a suit unless it is the interest of his client to 'go to law' If the case be frivolous, or the right doubtful, he should advise forbearance or compromise. He should never encourage litigation.'12When faced with local disputes, Lincoln often tried to serve as a mediator or peacemaker. In 1850 he wrote client Abram Bale: 'I sincerely hope you will settle it. I think you can if you will, for I have always found Mr. Hickox a fair man in his dealings. If you settle I will charge nothing for what I have done, and thank you to boot. By settling, you will most likely get your money sooner; and with much less trouble & expense.'13In a case representing the Alton and Sangamon Railroad, he advised the railroad to settle with the defendant because 'it is better to get along peaceably if possible.'14 In 1859 he advised client Hay-den Keeling to drop his lawsuit: 'I do not think there is the least use of doing any more with the law suit. I not only do not think you are sure to gain it, but I do think your are sure to lose it. Therefore the sooner it ends the better.'15Lincoln helped to restore peace to the 'neighborhood' through his efforts to mediate and settle slander lawsuits. He handled at least sixty-eight slander lawsuits during the course of his career, representing plaintiffs thirty-four times and defendants thirty-four times.16 A self-educated lawyer, he became well versed in the law of slander.17 Those cases, however, involved much more than the sterile application of the formal law of slander to the facts of each lawsuit. Slander cases, by their very nature, were community-oriented, reg- ulating acceptable forms of behavior in small communities.18 Litigants in slander suits were involved in the 'small politics' of everyday life: reputation, gossip, and insult.19 In small communities, as anthropologist F. G. Bailey notes, there is a 'fund of common knowledge about all the members of the community' and that fund is made up of reputations.20 As one historian has observed, 'A person's standing in a small community depends on his or her reputation, and reputations are sustained or lost primarily through gossip.'21 Lincoln recognized the importance of reputation; he confessed in 1832 that his 'peculiar ambition' was 'being truly esteemed of my fellow men.'22The Illinois law of slander had both statutory and common-law elements. The Illinois General Assembly defined slander as criminal behavior that could be punished with a fine not exceeding $1,000.23 The next year, the legislature made 'certain words actionable' in civil proceedings. The legislature declared that falsely stating that any person had been guilty of adultery or fornication or had sworn falsely were actionable.24 That legislation thus rejected the English common-law rule that required 'an express imputation of some crime liable to punishment, some capital offence, or other infamous crime or misdemeanor.'25 Several other state courts did follow the English rule, which held that an imputation of adultery or fornication was not actionable.26 In Illinois, it was.Many of Lincoln's slander cases involved accusations of adultery or fornication; Lincoln thus was involved heavily in maintaining community reputations and relationships. In fact, he represented plaintiffs or defendants in at least eleven such cases, all of which concerned a woman accused of adultery or fornication.27 Lincoln and Herndon filed a slander lawsuit for Charles Cantrall and Emily Cantrall in 1849. They sued one John Primm for saying that 'William King screwed Charles Cantrall's wife twice while he was gone; and before that he crawled in bed with her and her husband and screwed her.' Lincoln and Herndon requested $1,000 in damages for their clients.28 In an 1845 slander case, Lincoln and Herndon represented the defendants, Jonathan Miller and Susan Miller. The plaintiffs, William Beaty and Martha Ann Beaty, claimed that Susan Miller had said that 'Mrs. Beaty and Dr. Sulivan were seen together in Beaty's stable one morning very early in the very act' and that 'Mrs. Beaty and Dr. Sulivan were seen in the very act.' The jury found Lincoln's client liable and assessed damages at $45.29 In an 1858 Vermilion County case, Lincoln was among lawyers representing Nancy M. Martin in a suit against Achilles M. Underwood. Martin charged that Underwood had boasted of having sex with her and had said that she 'has been fucked more times than I've got fingers and toes.'30 The jury found Underwood guilty and ordered him to pay $237 in damages.31Lincoln represented the plaintiff in a slander case that was first tried in Menard County in 1843 and then retried in Morgan County in 1844. Eliza Cabot sued Francis Regnier for saying that Elijah Taylor was 'after skin and he has got it' with Cabot, that Taylor had 'rogered' Cabot, and that 'the captain has got some skin there as much as he wanted.'32 When the case went to trial in Menard County, Lincoln delivered a 'denunciation' of Regnier that was 'as bitter a Phillippic as ever uttered'; nevertheless, Cabot received a verdict for only $12.33 Lincoln moved for a new trial based on jury misconduct, and the judge set aside the verdict.34 When the case was tried in Morgan County, Cabot received a $1,600 verdict, which was later sustained by the Illinois Supreme Court.35Lincoln also represented Ambrose P. Edwards and his wife in the appeal of their slander suit against William Patterson and his wife. The Edwardses had sued the Pattersons for Mrs. Patterson's remark that 'Mrs. Edwards has raised a family of children by a negro, and I can prove it.' The Edwardses claimed that those words, by innuendo, charged Mrs. Edwards with the crimes of adultery and The jury agreed and awarded in Lincoln represented the Edwardses after the Pattersons The the and the case to the trial that 'the words do not in their and or in common to a charge of fornication and In an 1850 County lawsuit brought by Lincoln represented the John claimed had her a The jury agreed and assessed damages at and Herndon similarly represented local reputations were vital for their community relationships. slander lawsuits with plaintiffs had been most concerned about accusations about plaintiffs were concerned about their and Lincoln's slander cases for plaintiffs involved accusations of or Lincoln filed his first slander case in on of George W. of Sangamon County, who sued Stephen because had said that he was guilty of also represented plaintiffs who sued because of accusations of In an County Lincoln and Herndon represented William who claimed that had slandered him by an crime against with a had said that my and he fucked her as as he He accused of the who was and will have some Lincoln and Herndon requested $1,000 in The case was with also represented in County lawsuits filed in The defendants in both cases saying that in fact, have intercourse or knowledge with a suit against George W. was tried with the jury both times to a After the second each agreed that the case could be The after the case was William W. the defendant in the second case, his and of an with the In an County Lincoln where their client sued accusations that he had a against with a to a and Lincoln a against the slander law to One explained in 1850 that 'the law is that words not in the case of a common of in to the office he or the or which he Lincoln represented fellow lawyer in a slander suit against Abraham Lincoln's claimed that had charged his of of of of and of that the accused The case went to and Lincoln the to the Those said that if the jury believed that said the words, then had to prove that all the were of will not the charge of of of and both the charge of with The jury also was that 'a of is to prove that the defendant the but that more then a that is a is to prove that the words were The jury awarded in a slander case, a defendant one of the defendant had not the words, or prove that the words were not If a defendant saying the words, then that defendant the of If a defendant claimed that the words were then the defendant had to the of In at least slander cases, Lincoln truth as a to the In cases, Lincoln that the plaintiffs in fact, In other cases, Lincoln to prove that the plaintiff had sworn In cases, Lincoln that the plaintiffs were guilty of In one case, Lincoln that he prove that the plaintiff was guilty of and in he that the plaintiff was guilty of was a the defendant had to the words by the the defendant a in that the charged words were before a jury in Illinois could be that a of the slander if the defendant to the In the Illinois Supreme held that the jury could the a of the slander and only the jury believed that the defendant had without any of The jury each case, the damages be because a is the of the cases that Lincoln the was he jury The other Lincoln's received jury in the cases that Lincoln with the of In cases, the was $1,000 in and in In both cases, however, plaintiffs agreed to remit part of the In other cases that Lincoln the jury awarded and In the cases, the of have helped In County cases that Lincoln his were ordered to pay only and Lincoln had the defendant was sued for the plaintiff a In those cases, Lincoln and filed lawsuits in County, that Robert and had him a and a infamous Lincoln represented both defendants and in both lawsuits that the plaintiff did and and His had the plaintiff a The suit against was tried in with the jury with they found his client not guilty of the second lawsuit in the of after to pay were The of for on a if the plaintiff to one of the Lincoln times but was never in that A defendant also could or damages by that the words were in and was the of a slander case, and if the words were in and then there was In at least cases, Lincoln submitted jury that said if the jury believed the words were but also believed were through of they are to for the In one of those cases, Lincoln submitted an that charged the jury that if they found that the words were much in the of passion as to be from all this is to in of A defendant could also by that he or she had what had said about the plaintiff and had not been by Lincoln that in Beaty Miller. Lincoln's any of the truth of the but claimed that the defendant was what her husband had from one she the said words as she litigation involved not only against slander but also that the damages awarded were In to that the defendant had not the words or that the words were not a lawyer could a of Illinois a defendant in a slander case could damages by the character of the and by any which to but do not to prove the truth of the In a County slander Lincoln's client was sued for saying that the plaintiff had sworn the jury found for the plaintiff, the was only In an Vermilion County case, Lincoln's client, who also was sued for saying the plaintiff had sworn was found guilty but was ordered to pay only in In case, a County jury assessed only in damages against Lincoln's In an 1850 suit in County, Lincoln represented the who had been charged with saying the plaintiff and The jury found for the plaintiff, but awarded That was more against Lincoln and Herndon in an Sangamon County case. Lincoln and Herndon represented the plaintiff, while Lincoln's former partner, Stephen Logan, represented the the jury found client guilty of they awarded one for In a case, Lincoln represented William against for that had said that was of and Lincoln requested in damages, but the jury awarded only in slander cases, Lincoln mediation and compromise. He did not slander he often was able to settle In several the settled the defendant agreed to a large judgment, which the plaintiff then agreed to remit in part or in one County for Stuart and Lincoln represented a plaintiff who sued because of an of The case was settled the defendant confessed to a and Lincoln's client agreed to remit the In an 1845 County case, the defendant agreed to a and the plaintiff then and agreed not to on the for That same year, Lincoln and Herndon represented the plaintiff in a Sangamon County slander suit. The case was settled the agreed to a judgment, which the plaintiff agreed to remit for Lincoln settled an Vermilion County case by having the defendant her and to a and having the plaintiff remit all but Lincoln an he represented Dr. in an 1859 County lawsuit. sued for The case was settled agreed in to a against him and agreed to remit all but and to for an lawyer who was often with Lincoln on the recalled one slander case in which Lincoln, one of the lawyers, most and efforts to compromise the case, which was by of his The case in County and involved a the community of and a from the community of In a accused of and to after the suit was were made for a to the not only the but the as for all became involved as or When the case was to County, their lawyers and and an of to The were and a large The case was tried twice and in a At the next of to and and the that their have to be Lincoln then that Lincoln that of litigation, in which was and he his with all and a After the to Lincoln the of which the and the defendant that he has ever or believed the plaintiff to be guilty of that he has said from which such a charge could be he said on the of others, his in the and that he any in the truth of such charge against said The agreed to and to the of cases that Lincoln settled before or after trial that slander suits were more to restore or reputation than to Lincoln settled at least slander cases by having his client the good reputation of the plaintiff, thus repairing the reputation in the As Lincoln later is the against In an case in County, Ann sued and for claimed that had said Ann is a and Ann her fine by Lincoln, who represented the defendants, settled the case by having his in that or of them ever made any charge against the of the and that of them has ever had any or or any want of on the part of the The then the case by slander case, the plaintiff agreed to the lawsuit Lincoln filed into the the by his this case, the defendant that he has never the words in the that he always has and the plaintiff to be an that he never has and not that the plaintiff ever or in any to his any of and that he this to be the as the most and that he can of the reputation, against such a a case, Lincoln wrote a in which the defendant said that he had not any accused the plaintiff of and not him guilty of such Lincoln's client had of a by the plaintiff 'as being but that he has not said a as from a Lincoln's client agreed to pay and the plaintiff agreed to the Lincoln thus showed sensitivity to what was actually at stake in those he settled each cases by repairing the damage to the was the of other In an case brought in County, John M. and claimed that had slandered by saying she a that she been of fornication with a and had a of an intercourse with a Lincoln represented the The case was later by of the with the plaintiffs not to for same of In an 1845 case, Robert G. sued Lincoln's client John in on the case in Sangamon moved for a of and the case was to Menard then a of that had said that he was a and a The case later was by the with each a of Lincoln acted as a peacemaker in slander he a role of Illinois and at least slander lawsuits were filed in Sangamon County, only went to a was involved in of the cases and of the the settled of the cases without a cases were by the or from the while were settled by agreed the cases, the want of and for to for sustained a to a to and a in the to before Lincoln was involved in at least cases where plaintiffs settled after the had against the were not an by the Illinois Supreme the jury on the of plaintiffs most or all of the that the of slander suits was to restore or reputations in the In cases, plaintiffs all of the for In an slander case in County, for Lincoln was able to settle the case after the jury a verdict against his Emily had sued Lincoln's client, for that had said that had sworn had run with a and had in a The jury agreed that had slandered and assessed $1,000 in The judgment, however, that the of said In an 1843 County case, Lincoln's client was accused of saying that the plaintiff had into a with his his and a from a while he was The jury awarded the plaintiff but the into and the for other cases the plaintiff most of the In a County slander case Elijah and wife sued that had a and had said 'the have her in the of the many a The plaintiffs in Lincoln and represented the defendant Lincoln the which stated that his client was not only not guilty but prove at trial that guilty of fornication with said Elijah before they were When the case was tried in the jury awarded in damages, of which the plaintiffs Lincoln represented the who received an of John claimed that Abram had said that he had before a Lincoln in his claimed that had had and before the jury he that and had together without being The jury found for but Lincoln an of the and the of and of said Thus, Lincoln was able to mediate and settle some cases after had in of Lincoln the of an appeal to reduce an jury In the County the plaintiff claimed that Lincoln's client had slandered him by an of and The jury agreed and awarded Lincoln then filed a for new that the jury had a in verdict and that his client had not received a fair When the plaintiff of the judgment, the for new trial was also a after the verdict in an slander case in In that case, Lincoln represented the plaintiff William who that his had said that he was 'a that 'it was the of the that was and in The however, found that had slandered and awarded in one of later recalled that Lincoln said that his client did not want to money out of the the he could do be to get to remit some of the damage and be Lincoln and his client agreed to of the verdict in for the defendant which in the many slander cases, Lincoln was able to his neighbors to In some cases he settled cases by repairing the damage to the plaintiffs' reputation in for to the good reputation of the In other cases, the defendant consented to a large judgment, which the plaintiff agreed to reduce to a much smaller sum. That also the damage to reputation and settled the case. In others, the plaintiff agreed to remit most or all of the award. Lincoln advised that 'as a peacemaker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good His slander cases show that he often took advantage of such the Lincoln Legal in Illinois, I acknowledge the of William and I also to F. Illinois state Illinois Robert and of the of of the of of and of of on and
New evidence on the quality of health care from public services in Niger is discussed in terms of the relationships between quality, costs, cost-effectiveness and financing. Although structural attributes of quality appeared to improve with the pilot project in Niger, significant gaps in the implementation of diagnostic and treatment protocols were observed, particularly in monitoring vital signs, diagnostic examination and provider-patient communications. Quality improvements required significant investments in both fixed and variable costs; however, many of these costs were basic input requirements for operation. It is likely that optimal cost-effectiveness of services was not achieved because of the noted deficiencies in quality. In the test district of Boboye, the revenues from the copayments alone covered about 34% of the costs of medicines or about 20% of costs of drugs and administration. In Say, user fees covered about 50-55% of the costs of medicines or 35-40% of the amount spent on medicines and cost-recovery administration. In Boboye, taxes plus the additional copayments covered 120-180% of the cost of medicines, or 75-105% of the cost of medicines plus administration of cost recovery. Decentralized management and legal conditions in the pilot districts appeared to provide the necessary structure to ensure that the revenues and taxes collected would be channelled to pay for quality improvements.
Gordon Db, Sam Marafioti, Michael Carter, Hans Kunov · 5 authors
Sunnybrook Health Science Center (Sunnybrook) is a multifacility academic teaching center. In May 1994, Sunnybrook struck an electronic patient record taskforce to develop a strategic plan for the implementation of a comprehensive, facility wide electronic patient record (EPR). The taskforce sought to create a conceptual framework which provides context and integrates decision-making related to the comprehensive electronic patient record. The EPR is very much broader in scope than the traditional paper-based record. It is not restricted to simply reporting individual patient data. By the Institute of Medicine's definition, the electronic patient record resides in a system specifically designed to support users through availability of complete and accurate data, practitioner reminders and alerts, clinical decision support systems, links to bodies of medical knowledge, and other aids [1]. It is a comprehensive resource for patient care. The taskforce proposed a three domain model for determining how the EPR affects Sunnybrook. The EPR enables Sunnybrook to have a high performance team structure (domain 1), to function as an integrated organization (domain 2), and to reach out and develop new relationships with external organizations to become an extended enterprise (domain 3) [2]. Domain 1: Sunnybrook's high performance teams or patient service units' (PSUs) are decentralized, autonomous operating units that provide care to patients grouped by 'like' diagnosis and resource needs. The EPR must provide functions and applications which promote patient focused care, such as cross functional charting and care maps, group scheduling, clinical email, and a range of enabling technologies for multiskilled workers. Domain 2: In the integrated organization domain, the EPR should facilitate closer linkages between the arrangement of PSUs into clinical teams and with other facilities within the center in order to provide a longitudinal record that covers a continuum of care. Domain 3: In the inter-enterprise domain, the EPR must allow for patient information to be exchanged with external providers including referring doctors, laboratories, and other hospitals via community health information networks (CHINs). Sunnybrook will prioritize the development of first domain functionality within the corporate constraints imposed by the integrated organization domain. Inter-enterprise computing will be less of a priority until Sunnybrook has developed a critical mass of the electronic patient record internally. The three domain description is a useful model for describing the relationship between the electronic patient record enabling technologies and the Sunnybrook organizational structures. The taskforce has used this model to determine EPR development guidelines and implementation priorities.
This paper shows study on mechanism for selforganization. A global order is organized by simple and locally coordiztnted actions of autonomous a~ents uldns only very local information, and not by their complex and globally coordinated actions which would use global me~sse pas-~ng and high level strategies. The fundamental factors for establizhing the global order by self-orSuizztion are dimdpztive structure ~ nnd zutocztMytic ~ If an environment where agents exist hun structure and those a4enta hnve some sort of autocatalytic mechanisms within themselves, it is possible to form a global order of nsent8 by their simple and locally coordinated actions. Blind Hunger (Num~okL 1994) is used an example tO dmul&te the self-orsmsisation and coordinated actions of agents and to show the validity of our approach. Behavior-Based AI is a new approach to the study of intelligence and is distinguished from the traditional Knowledge-Based AI approach in many ways. Knowledge-Based AI has traditionaUy emphasized the modeling and building of systems that know~ about some problem domain, and it has produced several successful systems when the domain is limited (e.g. chess). But, this approach seerr~s to be inadequate for systems dealing with autonomous robots, human-machine interaction, etc. Behavior-Based AI, on the other hand, has emphasized the rnodeling and building ofsysterns where there is some sort of in the problem domain. Simple interaction dynamics between agents lead to emergent structure or functionality. An agent interacts directly with the environment, and there is less of a need for modeling the problem dome3n itself. In traditional Multi-Agent Systems, the coordinated actions of agents are modeled by their adjusting with each other. But, there are no adjustment mechanisms in our approach, where agents are non-linear and coordinate by entrainment The system is decentralized, and each agent is autonomous. For example, a robot made by this approach can robustly and flexibly interact with the real-world, where unpredictable changes occur. Th/s research takes as an example for demonstrating the Behavior-Based pproach, since colonies of ants exhibit very interesting behaviors. Even if a single ant only has very few simple capabilities, the behavior fan ant colony as a whole is highly structured. This is the result of coordinated interaction. The fundamental factors for establishing the (black agent: hungry-mode agent, gray agent: normal-mode agent) An order is organized among agents. Hungry-mode agents surround the supply base except for a section to the right. This section becomes an escape route for normai-mode agents. Figure I: Simulation fthe Ant Agent Model emergent structure or functionality are dissipative structure (Nicolis ~kPrigogine 1977) and antocstaiytic mechanisms. Dissipative structure isthe order and structure which are generated ina non-linear non-equilibrium state where there is a flow of energy. The order and structure are maintained by dissipating energy outside of the environment. Theorder can occur more fficiently if each agent has an antocatalytic mechanism. This mechanism isnecessary for ~eneral chemical reactions including reactions in cells. Blind Hunger Dilemma is used for the simulation of the self-organization nd coordinated actions of agents. In this simulation, there are many agents (which model ants) which must get supplies ofenergy. However, there is only one small energy supply base. As a result of the simple habit ’ToUow an ant, an order is organized among agents and they can get energy efficiently (Figure I).
This paper analyzes the contribution of the German banking system to the modernization of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in industry. The simultaneous greater relative importance of and relatively high wages in German SMEs appear to be paradoxical in terms of dual labor market theory, which claims that lower wages and greater flexibility in the use of labor are important for helping small firms compensate for their constrained access to capital, R&Dk and skills resources relative to large firms. This paper suggests that the successful modernization of the German small firm sector despite pressure from below from industry-level wage bargaining and strong job protection can be attributed to support from above in terms of an institutional infrastructure helping small firms overcome the organizational deficiencies they face relative to large firm. The decentralized provision of long-term finance and sophisticated financial services for the modernization of SMEs is enabled by a three-tiered federalist form of corporatist organization in the cooperative and savings banks sectors, in which smaller banks at the bottom tier of the organization receive access to refinancing on capital markets and specialized services -- normally only available to large banks -- through the upper tiers of the banking organization.
Acknowledgments. 1. Introduction. Roadmap to the Book. What Type of Book Is This? Terminology. Notation. Primer on Networking. Active vs. Passive Attackc. Layers and Cryptography. Authorization. Tempest. Key Escrow for Law Enforcement. Key Escrow for Careless Users. Viruses, Worms, Trojan Horses. The Multi-level Model of Security. Legal Issues. I. CRYPTOGRAPHY. 2. Introduction to Cryptography. What Is Cryptography? Breaking an Encryption Scheme. Types of Cryptographic Functions. Secret Key Cryptography. Public Key Cryptography. Hash Algorithms. Homework. 3. Secret Key Cryptography. Introduction. Generic Block Encryption. Data Encryption Standard (DES). International Data Encryption Algorithm (IDEA). Advanced Encryption Standard (AES). RC4. Homework. 4. Modes of Operation. Introduction. Encrypting a Large Message. Generating MACs. Multiple Encryption DES. CBC Outside vs. Inside. Homework. 5. Hashes and Message Digests. Introduction. Nifty Things to Do with a Hash. MD2. MD4. MD5. SHA-1. HMAC. Homework. 6. Public Key Algorithms. Introduction. Modular Arithmetic. RSA. Diffie-Hellman. Digital Signature Standard (DSS). How Secure Are RSA and Diffie-Hellman? Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC). Zero Knowledge Proof Systems. Homework Problems. 7. Number Theory. Introduction. Modular Arithmetic. Primes. Euclid's Algorithm. Chinese Remainder Theorem. Zn. Euler's Totient Function. Euler's Theorem. Homework Problems. 8. Math with AES and Elliptic Curves. Introduction. Notation. Groups. Fields. Mathematics of Rijndael. Elliptic Curve Cryptography. Homework. II. AUTHENTICATION. 9. Overview of Authentication Systems. Password-Based Authentication. Address-Based Authentication. Cryptographic Authentication Protocols. Who Is Being Authenticated? Passwords as Cryptographic Keys. Eavesdropping and Server Database Reading. Trusted Intermediaries. Session Key Establishment. Delegation. Homework. 10. Authentication of People. Passwords. On-Line Password Guessing. Off-Line Password Guessing. How Big Should a Secret Be? Eavesdropping. Passwords and Careless Users. Initial Password Distribution. Authentication Tokens. Physical Access. Biometrics. Homework. 11. Security Handshake Pitfalls. Login Only. Mutual Authentication. Integrity/Encryption for Data. Mediated Authentication (with KDC). Nonce Types. Picking Random Numbers. Performance Considerations. Authentication Protocol Checklist. Homework. 12. Strong Password Protocols. Introduction. Lamport's Hash. Strong Password Protocols. Strong Password Credentials. Strong Password Credentials Download Protocols. Homework. III. STANDARDS. 13. Kerberos V4. Introduction. Tickets and Ticket-Granting Tickets. Configuration. Logging Into the Network. Replicated KDC's. Realms. Interrealm Authentication. Key Version Numbers. Encryption for Privacy and Integrity. Encryption for Integrity Only. Network Layer Addresses in Tickets. Message Formats. Homework. 14. Kerberos V5. ASN.1. Names. Delegation of Rights. Ticket Lifetimes. Key Versions. Making Master Keys in Different Realms Different. Optimizations. Cryptographic Algorithms. Hierarchy of Realms. Evading Password-Guessing Attacks. Key Inside Authenticator. Double TGT Authentication. PKINIT-Public Keys for Users. KDC Database. Kerberos V5 Messages. Homework. 15. PKI (Public Key Infrastructure). Introduction. Some Terminology. PKI Trust Models. Revocation. Directories and PKI. PKIX and X.509. X.509 and PKIX Certificates. Authorization Futures. Homework. 16. Real-time Communication Security. What Layer? Session Key Establishment. Perfect Forward Secrecy. PFS-Foilage. Denial-of-Service/Clogging Protection. Endpoint Identifier Hiding. Live Partner Reassurance. Arranging for Parallel Computation. Session Resumption. Plausible Deniability. Data Stream Protection. Negotiating Crypto Parameters. Easy Homework. Homework. 17. IPsec: AH and ESP. Overview of Ipsec. IP and Ipv6. AH (Authentication Header). ESP (Encapsulating Security Payload). So, Do We Need AH? Comparison of Encodings. Easy Homework. Homework. 18. IPsec: IKE. Photuris. SKIP. History of IKE. IKE Phases. Phase 1 IKE. Phase - 2 IKE: Setting up Ipsec Sas. ISAKMP/IKE Encoding. Homework. 19. SSL/TLS. Introduction. Using TCP. Quick TCP. Quick History. SSL/TLS Basic Protocol. Session Resumption. Computing the Keys. Client Authentication. PKI as Deployed by SSL. Version Numbers. Negotiating Cipher Suites. Negotiating Compression Method. Attacks Fixed in v3. Exportability. Encoding. Further Reading. Easy Homework. Homework. IV. ELECTRONIC MAIL. 20. Electronic Mail Security. Distribution Lists. Store and Forward. Security Services for Electronic Mail. Establishing Keys. Privacy. Authentication of the Source. Message Integrity. Non-Repudiation. Proof of Submission. Proof of Delivery. Message Flow Confidentiality. Anonymity. Containment. Annoying Text Format Issues. Names and Addresses. Verifying When a Message Was Really Sent. Homework. 21. PEM & S/MIME. Introduction. Structure of a PEM Message. Establishing Keys. Some PEM History. PEM Certificate Hierarchy. Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs). Reformatting Data to Get Through Mailers. General Structure of a PEM Message. Encryption. Source Authentication and Integrity Protection. Multiple Recipients. Bracketing PEM Messages. Forwarding and Enclosures. Unprotected Information. Message Formats. DES-CBC as MIC Doesn't Work. Differences in S/MIME. S/MIME Certificate Hierarchy. Homework. 22. PGP (Pretty Good Privacy). Introduction. Overview. Key Distribution. Efficient Encoding. Certificate and Key Revocation. Signature Types. Your Private Key. Key Rings. Anomalies. Object Formats. V. LEFTOVERS. 23. Firewalls. Packet Filters. Application Level Gateway. Encrypted Tunnels. Comparisons. Why Firewalls Don't Work. Denial-of-Service Attacks. Should Firewalls Go Away? 24. More Security Systems. NetWare V3. NetWare V4. KryptoKnight. DASS/SPX. Lotus Notes Security. DCE Security. Microsoft Windows Security. Network Denial of Service. Clipper. Homework. 25. Web Issues. Introduction. URLs/URIs. HTTP. HTTP Digest Authentication. Cookies. Other Web Security Problems. Homework. 26. Folklore. Perfect Forward Secrecy. Change Keys Periodically. Multiplexing Flows over a Single SA. Use Different Keys in the Two Directions. Use Different Secret Keys for Encryption vs. Integrity Protection. Use Different Keys for Different Purposes. Use Different Keys for Signing vs. Encryption. Have Both Sides Contribute to the Master Key. Don't Let One Side Determine the Key. Hash in a Constant When Hashing a Password. HMAC Rather than Simple MD. Key Expansion. Randomly Chosen Ivs. Use of Nonces in Protocols. Don't Let Encrypted Data Begin with a Constant. Don't Let Encrypted Data Begin with a Predictable Value. Compress Data Before Encrypting It. Don't Do Encryption Only. Avoiding Weak Keys. Minimal vs. Redundant Designs. Overestimate the Size of Key. Hardware Random Number Generators. Timing Attacks. Put Checksums at the End of Data. Forward Compatibility. Negotiating Parameters. Homework. Bibliography. Glossary. Index.
This paper deals with the self-organization of a group of multiple robotic systems consisting of several or a number of autonomous robots, such as the Cellular Robotic System (CEBOT). In paticular, in this paper, we will present the self-organization of the hierarchical structure of the CEBOT as one of the decentralized autonomous robotic systems. The structural organization is simulated based on the idea of interdependence between autonomous robots, which is derived from the model of group organization of human beings. That is, groups are organized and leaders emerge from the interdependence of the individuals. Additionaley, an evaluation method for the hierarchical architecture is also discussed to evaluate the structure of the whole system. This paper will represent simulation results of self-organization of hierarchical structure on the basis of a given task model. The sensitivity of the organization of the decentralized autonomous robotic systems is also discussed in the simulation.
In this research, we address the organization of group behavior on decentralized autonomous robotic systems. Collective group behavior is exhibied in the natural world, such as by ants and fish, in teamwork in sports and by the human society. Therefore, research on group behavior of decentralized autonomous robotic systems can be regarded as one of the research fields of Artificial Life. Decentralized autonomous robotic systems refer to multiple robotic systems including many autonomous robots, such as the Cellular Robotic System (CEBOT). The CEBOT, which has been studied by the authors, consists of a number of robotic units called "cells". In the research on the CEBOT, it is necessary to evolve a cooperative group behavior effectively in the system, since a well-organized group behavior is required to carry out given tasks efficiently and influences its perfor-mance ability. In order to organize the behavior in a dynamic environment, we proposed a concept of "self-recognition" for decision making of the behavior in a robotic group. In this paper, in addition to the proposed concept, we will show the organization and adaptation of group behavior with the coordination of intention, and represent some simulation results with the coordination of intention.
Using the state agencies that regulate wastewater discharges to surface waters, this quantitative study examined the validity of three theories about the effects of decentralization on organizational outcomes. It also used qualitative analysis to probe the internal adjustments to optimize outcomes. Theoretical advantages to decentralized organizations can be summarized as greater effectiveness or greater efficiency. Effectiveness here is the rate of compliance with legal and permit requirements for dischargers adjusted for enforcement actions. The model used consists of decentralization independent variables, exogenous independent variables (e.g., population, funding), efficiency dependent variables, and compliance (or effectiveness) dependent variables. Model calibration applied principal component analysis and multiple regression analysis to questionnaire and other data for FY93 from 39 states. Key intervening variables -- information costs, innovation, and strategic planning -- characteristic of the theoretical effects of decentralization received special attention. Case studies based on interviews and document studies in five states illustrate key points. The large survey sample (78%) of the 50 states reduced threats to external validity. A significant relationship to decentralization was found for major permit processing time and percentage of expired permits. When controlled for exogenous variables, no compliance common factor related to decentralization, but medium-term compliance unit-cost did. Time is essential to all compliance common factors. Innovation, information cost, and strategic planning were not found to be intervening variables. Highly decentralized states were found to be trending towards increased centralization, and vice versa. All states make internal adjustments to optimize their programs, and some adjustments are powerful enough to make highly dissimilar organizations converge; strong basin planning is one such adjustment. Neither decentralization nor centralization is automatically the best way to organize a complex system. Devolution, where transfer of functions goes with significant delegation of authority to autonomous local units, would probably give superior environmental, economic, and administrative outcomes over a uniform approach.
Abstract Renewed interest by the Indonesian government in decentralization and cost‐recovery practices has led to both real and illusory reforms, though the distinction between the two is often not clear. This is particularly true with respect to infrastructure planning and finance. Recently, the allocation criteria for capital grants to local governments have been substantially revised, nearly every year, to reflect long lasting concerns regarding differences in interregional development needs and resources. In addition, the level of funding for local government investment has risen dramatically to support increased local responsibility in planning. Most development spending does not pass through local budgets, however. In either case, the project planning process has remained firmly under the direction of the central government's technical ministries. Infrastructure investment thus tends to be segmented, not only by sector, but also by funding source. The rate at which these two factors balance off in current practice does not indicate a strong commitment to effective decentralization. The article suggests that greater regional government participation in the national planning process would be beneficial. To deal with the fragmented nature of sectoral planning is more problematic, as a more integrated approach would in the long term require either a new layer of bureaucracy or a substantial reorganization of the technical ministries. In the shorter term, a gradual shift toward general purpose grants would also generate regional development plans more consistent with the goals of decentralization while maintaining substantial central control and oversight.