An overview: A new era of tax enforcement – from “big stick” to responsive regulation

Recent developments in regulation and tax administration in Australia inspired this article on tax compliance and responsive regulation. This article analyzes the economics of crime and compliance as the dominant approach to tax enforcement of the past three and a half decades. It evaluates the key advantages and disadvantages of the economic approach as well as its application to tax. The article then explores responsive regulation as an alternative method that draws on the economic paradigm but also supplements this approach with other theories, particularly those involving identity, conflict escalation, and procedural justice. Building on this analysis and a case study of Australian investors in mass marketed tax schemes, the article suggests that the broader, more balanced, and closely tailored method of regulating responsively may enable regulators to draw on the advantages of the economic model while alleviating some of its drawbacks. Responsive regulation may therefore constitute a superior method for regulating compliance.     

Faculty and administration of Rutgers University School of Law at Camden, 1994–1995

Faculty and administration of Rutgers University School of Law at Camden, 1994–1995     

The Condorcet jury theorem and extension of?the?franchise with rationally ignorant voters

The Condorcet Jury Theorem (CJT), which provides a justification for democracy, is based on voters who are imperfectly informed insofar as they know the correct policy with a probability of less than one but greater than one-half. We reassess the consequences of the CJT for democracy when extension of the franchise adds equal numbers of non-distinguishable informed and uninformed voters to the collective decision making group. Uninformed voters vote correctly with probability one-half. We show that adding equal numbers of informed and uninformed voters maintains the CJT conclusion that enlarging the group of decision makers increases the likelihood of a correct collective decision.     

Racial disparities in access to long-term care: the illusive pursuit of equity

While nursing homes were insulated from civil-rights enforcement at the time of the implementation of the Medicare program and lagged behind other parts of the health sector in providing comparable access to minorities, they are the only providers for which current reporting requirements make it possible to fully assess racial disparities in use and quality of care. We find that African Americans' use of nursing homes in 2000 in the United States was 14 percent higher than Caucasians' use. The largest relative African American use of nursing homes in 2000 took place in the South and West. Average nursing-home case-mix acuity for African Americans and Caucasians were essentially identical, suggesting that shifts in payment incentives have eliminated the selective admission of easy-care private-pay (predominantly Caucasian) patients and helped fuel the growth of private pay home care and assisted living for this segment of the population. While these shifts in incentives helped increase the use of nursing homes by African Americans, a high degree of segregation and disparity in the quality of the nursing homes used by African Americans persists. Parity in use is an illusive benchmark for measuring progress in assuring equity in treatment.     

The faculty and administration of the Rutgers University School of Law at Camden, 1989–90

The faculty and administration of the Rutgers University School of Law at Camden, 1989–90     

Prosocial Behavior and Aggression in the Daily School Lives of Early Adolescents

Journal of Youth and Adolescence - Research has not adequately addressed a possible mutual co-regulatory influence of prosocial and aggressive behaviors in adolescents’ daily lives. This...     

Power and Rhetorical Bargaining: The UN Security Council Debate on the Iraq War

The UN Security Council (UNSC) was an important arena of confrontation between the major powers during the recent pre-war crisis on Iraq, yet the realist-materialist focus of IR theory does not provide a useful perspective for analysing the debate and the ensuing defeat of American interests. This paper seeks to establish the meaning of “power” within a rhetorical context, applying insights from Searle's theory of institutional facts, constructivism, and self-presentation theory. Rhetorical strategies are then examined empirically by means of thematic and structural analyses of key texts from the UNSC debate on Iraq.