The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established a separate Office of Economics and Analytics (OEA) in December 2018 to promote more consistent quality and use of economic analysis in its decisions. The agency’s reorganization concentrated economists who previously were dispersed across different offices and bureaus. This paper describes key organizational choices that were made in the period preceding and soon after the establishment of OEA. We show how these decisions – which relate to decision rights, formal control systems, and informal practices and procedures – are consistent with organizational theory and practice. We also draw lessons from the FCC’s experience that may apply to those tasked with managing economists and other specialized or technical staff in large and/or complex organizations.

After Circular A-4 “Regulatory Analysis” had served various Presidential administrations for 20 years, in 2023 revisions were proposed and made to update and modernize regulatory guidance. At the behest of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget, peer reviewers were nominated, and a peer review of proposed revisions was organized. Joseph Aldy, Cary Coglianese, Joseph Cordes, R. Scott Farrow, Kenneth Gillingham, William Pizer, Christina Romer, W. Kip Viscusi, and I were selected. The consequent peer reviews are the focus of this synopsis. After reading the comments from my fellow peer reviewers, I was impressed with the careful, thoughtful advice given. When asking nine peer reviewers with various backgrounds to comment on proposed revisions to guidance on regulation, we might expect to get at least 10 different views. Yet, I sense basic agreement on several key aspects of the topics of the notable proposed updates. The degree of consensus is reassuring. Less reassuring, and counter to the actual revisions adopted, is that the peer reviewers mostly agree that fundamental aspects of the updates on the discount rate, distributional analysis, and scope are ill-advised.

Chinese bureaucracy – the organizational apparatus of Chinese governments – has played a significant role in China’s economic development and political control in the post-Mao era. In this paper, we draw on research on Chinese bureaucracy in both English and Chinese to highlight major findings in three areas: agency problems and incentive provision, the use of guanxi in policy implementation, and variable coupling among different parts of the bureaucracy. These three aspects are interrelated: agency problems induce the prevalence of informal institutions as an organizational response, which leads to variable coupling in Chinese bureaucracy. We discuss the issues and implications this literature presents for the further development of organization theory and the emerging research agenda.

In proposing industrial policies to promote development-enhancing upgrading, both the Middle-Income Trap (MIT) and Global Value Chain (GVC) literatures imply a “technocratic” approach that matches a given technical challenge to the right policy instrument. This paper suggests that, apart from the technical demands of the problem at-hand, it is also necessary to observe how governments at the subnational level practice path-dependent “sticky” styles of industrial policy that consistently favor some policy tools and approaches over others. Drawing upon four industry cases in the Mexican states of Jalisco (electronics, and information and communication technologies) and Querétaro (automotive and aerospace), we identify two distinct local industrial policy styles, as the former state deployed a Business-guided style while the latter relied upon a State-guided alternative. These styles, in turn, were each biased towards some forms of upgrading over others, leading to two main conclusions: first, that local policy styles must be taken into account to understand how deviations from technocratic policy selection appear. And second, that these styles can generate long-term impacts on the kinds of industrial upgrading observed.

We find that common ownership among acquirers enhances rather than hinders competition in the firm sale process. One common owner raises the likelihood that target firms are sold through auction (vs. negotiation with one buyer) by 21.5%. The effect is causal according to identifications based on mergers between financial institutions. Exploring economic channels, we observe selling firms respond to common ownership among acquirers by avoiding cross-owned acquirers, bargaining hard, and inviting more buyers when cross-owned acquirers initiate the deal but not by terminating the deal. Consistent with enhanced competition, common ownership among acquirers is positively associated with deal quality.

This article seeks to challenge existing understandings of good work. It does so through a critical exploration of recognitive and craft conceptions of work, which are among the richest and most philosophically nuanced of extant accounts. The recognitive view emphasises work’s recognitive value through the social esteem derived from making a valuable social contribution. But by making recognition foundational, it is unable to appreciate the irreducible ethical significance of the objective quality of one’s work activity. The ‘craft ideal,’ by contrast, promises to provide a powerful basis for understanding the importance of rich, rewarding, and morally educative activities, but is undermined by a laudable but misdirected egalitarian impulse which prevents it from being able to properly distinguish good from bad work. One underlying aim of our discussion is to provoke deeper reflection from business ethicists regarding what we might want from an account of good work.

Under President Clinton’s Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” U.S. federal agencies have been required to assess the costs, benefits, and other impacts of their major regulations since 1993. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in the Executive Office of the President, is responsible for overseeing this process and issuing related guidance. Under the Biden Administration, in April 2023 OMB issued a draft update of its 2003 Circular A-4 best-practice guidance and requested public comment. That update was finalized in November 2023, then rescinded by the Trump Administration in January 2025. This special issue of the Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis provides reflections on the revisions of that guidance from past Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis presidents and Journal editors. Although I address several substantive issues in my comments and other work, barriers to implementation of best practices remain a major concern. Most of those who commented on the proposed revisions focused largely on the words on the page rather than on the work needed to implement them. Yet one of the most important sentences in both original and revised Circulars reads: “You will find that you cannot conduct a good regulatory analysis according to a formula. Conducting high-quality analysis requires competent professional judgment…” The challenge is supporting the development of this judgment, and ensuring that analysts have the data and resources necessary to conduct high-quality analyses that are useful for decision-making.

Despite a rich literature on the determinants of democracy, the influence of one theoretically important factor has been neglected thus far. Unlike factors such as development, growth, and inequality, the concentration of economic power and its correlate, business unity, have not received systematic empirical treatment. We argue that this factor may act as a deterrent to democracy. Using a dataset covering 120 countries over 23 years, from 1988 through 2010, we find evidence for a negative effect of economic concentration on a nation’s level of democracy. We also show evidence suggesting that corporate political activity may provide a mechanism through which this negative effect is exercised. Our results point to the need to further understand the processes through which business elites undermine democracy.

While from an instrumental perspective stakeholder relations can promote sustained competitive advantage, normative arguments underscore the importance of morally informed principles, especially when relational strategies have uncertain future outcomes and are prone to imitation. This study investigates how such instrumental and normative views can be complementary based on the case study of Natura, a cosmetics company procuring natural inputs from the Amazon rainforest via supplier relations that are open to multiple parties, including competitors. The research shows that Natura developed and reinforced a morally informed normative core specifying how the company and its managers should act. This resulted in a long-term commitment to the open relational strategy, especially when future outcomes were largely uncertain, which in turn promoted emergent instrumental gains via deepened relational attachments and substantive stakeholder engagement. Importantly, the company’s controlling shareholders strongly influenced the normative core, thus underscoring the importance of identifying key shareholders and their values.

We show that productivity at both the firm and employee (i.e., analyst and inventor) level temporarily declines upon announcements of takeover rumors that do not materialize. Such speculative news may hurt productivity because uncertainty and the threat of job loss cause anxiety, distraction, and reduced commitment among employees and managers. Consistently, we observe a more pronounced productivity dip for rumored targets and when the likelihood of job loss is higher. Firm performance mirrors these results. We find no indication of reverse causality. The evidence fosters our understanding of potential real effects of speculative financial news and the costs of takeover threats.

This article examines India’s energy transition agenda, which the central government drives to reduce the impact of climate change through the development of renewable energy. It presents a case study of the ‘Oran Land’ in the Thar desert in India, which is affected by the country’s energy transition agenda. It further highlights issues relating to human rights infringement linked to corporations undertaking the transition and operating in the ‘Orans’—a community-protected land. The article concludes with discussions on legislative developments in India and global best practices that seek to mainstream human rights into business practice and further strengthen compliance with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

The Paris Agreement’s commitment to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 has resulted in an uptick in environmental laws and regulations. However, such state conduct could implicate other legal obligations and norms, including international investment law and international human rights law. The conversation about human rights, net-zero and investment treaties, including arbitration cases and arbitral awards under the treaties, is in its relative infancy. This article examines how investment treaties are equipped to reconcile relevant norms with a particular focus on corporate codes and policies that pronounce broad commitments to protecting human rights and the environment. It establishes certain principles to guide parties and arbitral tribunals as to the codes while recognizing the inevitable challenges they will face.

Reflecting on the civil claim filed in France under the French Duty of Vigilance law (LdV) by members of the Union Hidalgo community in Mexico against the energy company Electricité de France (EDF), this article explores interactions between human rights due diligence in renewable energy projects. The lawsuit is one of the first cases brought under the LdV, and the first case claiming violations of Indigenous rights. The rights violations experienced by the community—the lack of free, prior and informed consent and violence against human rights defenders—epitomize the reality of harmful corporate tactics in the energy and extractive industries. Whereas the LdV enshrines a process through which communities affected by harmful corporate practices can access transnational legal avenues for redress, inconsistencies and ambiguities within the law call into question its ability to effectively regulate the human rights activities of French corporations involved in renewable energy projects.

The scramble to extract critical energy transition minerals creates risk of widespread negative human rights impacts. A just transition in the extraction of critical minerals must involve deep examination of the mine-community interface to gain a better understanding of the drivers of successful engagement between mining companies and communities. Drawing on fieldwork in South America’s lithium triangle, this paper finds that the nature of the corporate-community relationship is increasingly key to enabling a just transition whereby communities participate in the benefits of extraction with negative impacts mitigated. It establishes that key success factors are related to empowerment of Indigenous communities and have the potential to maximise positive outcomes for communities in the context of lithium extraction. Governments and companies must embed a more bottom-up process with an end goal of communities themselves defining the parameters of what a just transition means in the critical minerals context.

This article examines the concept of just energy transition in the context of Africa. It explores two key imperatives: (1) social inclusion and (2) an environmental rights-based approach to promote just energy transitions within African countries. The article looks at social inclusion from the perspective of local communities that host energy infrastructures, highlighting potential injustices and negative impacts that may arise from the energy transition. It further argues that social inclusion and environmental rights-based approaches can be useful tools for achieving just energy transitions in Africa. The article also analyses strategies that underpin social inclusion and environmental rights-based approaches within the governance and legal frameworks for energy transition projects in Africa, including empowering local communities to ensure the transition aligns with their socio-economic standing. The article suggests that adopting socially inclusive and environmental rights-based imperatives are significant steps towards overcoming and addressing injustices in energy transition projects in Africa.

African countries have increasingly emphasized adopting lower carbon, more efficient and environmentally responsible energy systems. Despite these efforts, little progress has been made in addressing the adverse human rights impacts of energy transition programs and projects, and the responsibilities of extractive sector corporations and operators. Existing legal and institutional frameworks supporting human rights face hindrances in adapting to local contexts to pursue clean energy transition and energy justice. Through the lens of community engagement, gender equality and other rights-based approaches, this article argues that socially excluding vulnerable groups in accessing energy markets is primarily a function of consolidating energy delivery in a way that navigates current discrimination and responds to the central roles played by different actors. The article explores how energy is produced, extracted, distributed and shared to help outline a future agenda for shaping discussions on just transitions in Africa, emphasizing the prioritization of fairness in these efforts.

The special issue brings together diverse academic and practitioner perspectives to explore the legal and governance aspects of implementing a just transition in practice. Recent studies have highlighted how efforts to advance clean energy transition programs in energy and extractive sectors have been increasingly linked to social exclusions, greenwashing, rising energy poverty levels and constraints to access to land and other resources in already vulnerable communities. While the need for a just transition is clear, an interdisciplinary and multijurisdictional examination of the practical challenges and gaps in the design and implementation of just transition programs has remained sparse. This special issue seeks to fill this gap in the existing literature. Through thematic and geographical case studies, the contributions herein critically examine the social, environmental and human rights implications of the clean energy transition, illuminating what a just transition should entail and how it can be realized in diverse contexts.