Negotiation Planning Research Articles

Achieving a Negotiated Compensation Agreement in Siting: The MRS Case

Theoreticians claim that negotiated compensation plans could overcome local resistance to nuclear waste (or other less than desirable) facilities, and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 gives the Department of Energy considerable flexibility to negotiate with and compensate states in which it locates waste storage. DOE's monitored retrievable storage (MRS) proposal is the first attempt under the NWPA to site nuclear waste operations, and both DOE and one local community tried the negotiated compensation approach with some success. State and regional leaders chose to oppose the project rather than to negotiate, however. The limited experience to date suggests that local reluctance to negotiate is a generic weakness of the compensation approach to siting and must be given greater attention.

Malpractice Reform through Consumer Choice and Consumer Education: Are New Concepts Marketable?

Will consumers voluntarily accept changes in the ways cases of medical malpractice are handled? Yes, under certain circumstances, they maybecause the conditions are right. Consumers in this context include not merely individuals but also employers and unions who make volume purchasing decisions and are responsible for individuals' health insurance bills. Until very recently, nearly all these large-scale purchasers of health benefits accepted massive medical cost increases with hardly a wince. Indeed, they continued to expand coverage. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, their behavior suggested that they felt virtually no pain from soaring malpractice costs-or other cost increases. Defensive medicine was something doctors did to children, with needles, not a malpractice-law-induced cost problem.' In the last few years, however, the scene has changed dramatically. Today, hardly a CEO of a Fortune 500 company or a trustee of a union health and welfare plan is unconcerned about health benefit costs. Some companies seek solace in group commiseration at business coalition meetings.2 Others have shifted the burden to employees through larger deductibles and co-payments. Union leaders, harkening to a rising chorus of demands from the rank-and-file for MOB (maintenance of benefits), have resisted the increased deductibles and co-payments whenever possible. But they have accepted certain other limitations on health care services covered by their negotiated plans. Predetermination of coverage for inpatient stays, mandatory second surgical

Systems Analysis and the Political Process

Previous articleNext article No AccessSystems Analysis and the Political ProcessJames R. SchlesingerJames R. Schlesinger Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Law and Economics Volume 11, Number 2Oct., 1968 Sponsored by The University of Chicago Booth School of Business and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/466651 Views: 4Total views on this site Citations: 11Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1968 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Martin Gorsky, Gareth Millward Resource Allocation for Equity in the British National Health Service, 1948–89: An Advocacy Coalition Analysis of the RAWP, Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 43, no.11 (Feb 2018): 69–108.https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-4249814Ronald D. Brunner Policy and global change research, Climatic Change 32, no.22 (Feb 1996): 121–147.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143705Ronald D. Brunner Myth and American politics, Policy Sciences 27, no.11 (Jan 1994): 1–18.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00999596Ronald D. Brunner, William Ascher Science and social responsibility, Policy Sciences 25, no.33 (Aug 1992): 295–331.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138787Berton L. Lamb Software for Negotiation Planning: Experience with a New Program, Social Science Microcomputer Review 5, no.22 (Aug 2016): 137–148.https://doi.org/10.1177/089443938700500201Edward C. Banfield Policy Science as Metaphysical Madness, (Jan 1985): 127–146.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2481-2_7Ronald D. Brunner The policy sciences as science, Policy Sciences 15, no.22 (Dec 1982): 115–135.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143074David Meister Problems and Challenges, (Jan 1981): 305–365.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-024659-8.50015-1Robert T. Nakamura, Dianne M. Pinderhughes CHANGING ANACOSTIA: DEFINITION AND IMPLEMENTATION, Policy Studies Journal 8, no.77 (Jun 1980): 1089–1101.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1980.tb00897.xDennis A. Rondinelli International assistance policy and development project administration: the impact of imperious rationality, International Organization 30, no.44 (May 2009): 573–605.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300018452John B. Simeone Catalogue of Documents, (Jan 1968): 1–233.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-5280-6_1