We study the resilience of banks to macroeconomic slowdowns in a context of lax microprudential regulations: Colombia during the Latin American debt crisis of the 1980s. We find that numerous banks underperformed during the crisis, as their shareholders and board members tunnelled resources through related lending, loan concentration and accounting fraud. These practices were enabled by power concentration within banks, lax regulation and the expectation of bailouts. We provide evidence for this tunnelling mechanism by comparing the local banks and business groups that failed during the crisis, the local banks and business groups that survived the crisis and the former foreign banks – all of which survived the crisis. The regulatory changes enacted during the crisis also lend support to our proposed mechanism.

I write in tribute to my friend Larry Gostin, who has long emphasized that accountability and governance are central to global health policy.

In their article, Zhang et al. analyze advisory committee decisions on sNDA and sBLA submissions and highlight that committee members can draw on their own or otherwise reported clinical experience with the products, which are already available for other indications when making recommendations. They find that this experience influences members’ judgments of acceptable safety profiles of the products. At advisory committee meetings, patients and their family members may speak during open public hearing sessions. The inclusion of patients, many of whom share their experience with the product, speaks to a tension between asking advisory committee members to make a recommendation based on clinical evidence and the role of experiential testimonies in those recommendations.

This article uses computational text analysis to examine Fedor Dostoevskii’s The Double, responding to the long-standing critical debates surrounding the text and particularly its form, which Dostoevskii saw as having failed his idea. It asserts that the problem of the ontological status of Goliadkin’s double can be productively considered through an analysis of the text’s use of liminality, a hallmark of romantic fantastic literature. TEI-XML encoding of liminality identified in the text enables a series of visualizations that show that liminality is primarily concentrated in interior spaces. Analyzing the visualizations, the authors argue that liminality is associated with Goliadkin’s social shame, suggesting that the double is an extension of Goliadkin’s psychology rather than a fantastic apparition. Using The Double as a case study, the authors argue that computational text analysis can extend and enrich traditional philological methods by enabling deep structural analysis of the text.

Many claim that if a state is responsible for structural injustice, then that state lacks the standing to hold marginalized offenders to account. Call this the compromised standing claim. I argue that this claim sits in tension with a further assumption: that states hold offenders to account in their people’s name. Specifically, I argue that when A holds B accountable in the name of C, A’s own hypocrisy and complicity are not sufficient to undermine her standing to hold B accountable. This means that there exists a gap between a state’s responsibility for structural injustice and its compromised standing. After motivating this challenge, I consider one response according to which the people have lost their standing with respect to marginalized offenders and that the state, qua representative, inherits the standing of its people. I propose two strategies for making this response precise and argue that neither can vindicate the compromised standing claim in its standard form.

From the perspective of intellectual property (IP) and antitrust law, the overriding question in the pharmaceutical industry is how to navigate the tradeoff between innovation and access. It is into this debate that William Feldman steps with his important article adapted from recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Dr. Feldman discusses an array of anticompetitive behavior. In this response piece, I focus on “patent thickets” and “product hopping” to emphasize how they often harm consumers without any innovation justification and how they can be addressed.