Formalized Program Review: An Evolution

From the beginning, the same or similar opportunities and concerns have arisen at each step in International Leadership Association (ILA)–sponsored conversations and actions related to guidelines, standards, and accreditation of leadership education programs in higher education. Opportunities include increased legitimacy, program development, and more robust responses to external accreditation requirements. Concerns include dampening autonomy and creativity, skepticism that such a diverse field could be evaluated by a common program review model, increased bureaucratization, and, with regard to external review, ethical concerns. Because these conversations and actions have occurred over the past 8 years and have culminated most recently with preliminary recommendations of the ILA's Task Force on Formalized Program Review, we can learn from the history of the debates around these issues and the solutions that were derived to address them. The most salient of these solutions is found in the logic of the process order of Guiding Questions: Guidelines for Leadership Education Programs. The first step in Guiding Questions is for program faculty to produce a written conceptual framework that is grounded not only in theory but also in the context of the institution, college, and department. This should preserve local autonomy and creativity. Further, emphasis for evaluation purposes on program content, teaching and learning methods, and assessment and outcomes measures that are coherent and consistent with these locally derived conceptual frameworks should allow broad application across the diversity of the field. Local control should also minimize bureaucratization and help mitigate ethical concerns. The trend is toward increasing support for formalized program review. Concerns as well as opportunities remain. However, others, including external accrediting organizations and institutional effectiveness offices, should not be determining the terms of our legitimacy and accountability. We must do that for ourselves. Building on what we have learned over the past 8 years shows the way forward.     

Market power in input purchase and trade

Market power in the input purchase is becoming increasingly common because of growing consolidation and mergers and also due to multinational firms establishing a stronghold in buying inputs in the developing countries. In this study, we formulate a general equilibrium model consisting of a competitive sector and an oligopsony sector which exercises market power over inputs. Our results indicate that if the oligopsony sector incurs a higher marginal factor cost for the intensive factor, basic results of the standard two-sector model continue to hold. But if the marginal factor cost is higher for the non-intensive factor, then factor intensities in the physical and value sense differ and traditional trade propositions such as the Stolper–Samuelson theorem do not hold.     

Municipal aggregation and retail competition in the Ohio energy sector

Ohio allows communities to vote to aggregate the loads of individual consumers (unless they opt out) in order to seek a competitive energy supplier. Over 200 communities have voted to do this for electricity. By 2004 residential switching reached 69% in Cleveland territory (95% from municipal aggregation) but by 2006 had fallen to 8%. Savings are now small, but customer acquisition costs are low and the cost to consumers is negligible. Aggregation and retail competition have been thwarted by Rate Stabilization Plans holding incumbent utility prices below cost since 2006. In the Ohio gas sector, rate regulation has not discouraged aggregation and competition, but market prices falling below municipally negotiated rates can be politically embarrassing. Municipal aggregation thus works when conditions allow it, and enhances competition. How it would fare against individual choice in a market conducive to retail competition remains an open question.