Do you want to learn more about the federal budget and how to bring the national debt to more sustainable levels? Join the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget in an interactive exercise with The Debt Fixer.
Returning Ford School Master's students completing summer internship experiences will have the opportunity to reflect on their internship experience and celebrate the start of the upcoming school year.
Conversations Across Differences,
Weiser Diplomacy Center Series
Former NSA Stephen Hadley, former assistant secretary of state Daniel Fried, and CEO of the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition Liz Schrayer will explore evolving Transatantic relationships in an event launching the Weiser Diplomacy Center.
Sixty years ago, Congress established a federal pre-approval regime for bank mergers to protect consumers from then-unprecedented consolidation in the banking sector. This process worked well for several decades, but it has since atrophied, producing numerous “too big to fail” banks.
Professor Kress's research contends that regulators’ current approach to evaluating bank merger proposals is poorly suited for modern financial markets. Policymakers and scholars have traditionally focused on a single issue: whether a bank merger would reduce competition. Over the past two decades, however, changes in bank regulation and market structure—including the repeal of interstate banking restrictions and the emergence of nonbank financial service providers—have rendered bank antitrust analysis largely obsolete. As a result, regulators have rubber stamped recent bank mergers, despite evidence that such deals could harm consumers and destabilize financial markets.
Professor Kress's research asserts that contemporary bank merger analysis should instead emphasize statutory factors that regulators have long neglected: whether a proposed merger would increase systemic risks, enhance the public welfare, and strengthen the relevant institutions. Professor Kress's research urges regulators to modernize their approach, and it proposes a novel framework to ensure that bank merger oversight safeguards the financial system. The proposals contained herein have far-reaching implications not only for bank regulation but also for the ongoing debate over merger policy in technology, agriculture, and other industries.
Special Representative for North Korea Stephen Biegun (LSA '86) discusses U.S. policy and strategy for achieving the denuclearization of North Korea and the transformation of U.S.-North Korean relations.
Students, faculty, and staff: Join the whole Ford School community in celebrating the beginning of the year and welcoming both old and new faces to our community.
ComCap19, presented by the National Coalition for Community Capital (NC3), is a multi-day gathering that offers a unique educational and networking opportunity for all those working toward equitable, resilient, and engaged communities.
The University of Michigan Law School Senior Day will take place at 4:00 pm on Friday, May 10 at Hill Auditorium. The Center on Finance, Law, and Policy would like to congratulate our graduating research assistants from Michigan Law: Abigail DeHart, Graves Lee, and William Brady Randall. For more information on the ceremony, including how to watch via livestream, click here: Michigan Law Senior Day
um3detroit is an interdisciplinary gathering that brings together U-M's three campuses along with Detroit community partners to share and strengthen our connections to Detroit and each other.
Join the students of PUBPOL 750: Renewable Energy Policy at the State & Local Level for a Student Symposium on State & Local Renewable Energy Policy. Students will share their research on the web of state and local policies facilitating and hindering renewable energy deployment in California, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Oregon, Texas, and Wyoming.
Join Ford School students on Wednesday, April 24, 2019 from 3:45-5:30 pm for their final Applied Policy Seminar student flash presentations in the Betty Ford Classroom (1110 Weill Hall).
The Practical Community Learning Project (PCLP) independent study pilot is a semester-long policy-based community project in Detroit that provided students with opportunities for dialogue, research, and service.
Over the past five years, a growing number of Xinjiang Uighurs have been sent to re-education camps by the Chinese government, most without trials or release dates. Estimates have reached as high as one million detainees. The Chinese government has framed these camps as schools that attack terrorist beliefs and give Uighurs the work and life skills necessary to thrive in a modern economy. It has received very little pressure or public condemnation from its Central Asian neighbors, from Muslim countries, or from its trading partners in the developed world. This human rights crisis raises questions central to the role and practice of diplomacy. What justification is there for bringing foreign diplomatic pressure to bear on issues that a country defines as central to its identity and existence? What do we know about the success of different types of advocacy, whether through diplomatic channels, pressure from international organizations, or NGO-led protest? To what extent does the crisis in Xinjiang affect the stability of Central Asia, or the fate of separatist movements in Tibet, Hong Kong, and Taiwan?
*Stream* Gene Sperling provides unique perspective and insights on the intersection between the U.S. and global economy and the most pressing economic policy issues of the day.
Join the Program for Practical Policy Engagement, Communications & Outreach, Public Engagement & Impact, and Michigan News for a Getting Stuff Done: Communications Skills Series.
Join the Weiser Diplomacy Center and American Academy of Diplomacy for a live recording of the latest episode of the podcast American Diplomat: The Stories behind the news.
This session will train participants in the steps essential for any effective advocacy strategy at the local, state, or federal level, with an emphasis on developing strategic written and oral communication skills.
Many statutes now permit bounties for whistleblowers who provide enforcement relevant information to the authorities. The growth in such bounties has been quite rapid in recent years generating substantial scholarly, policy and practical interest. However, much of the scholarship does not address a critical feature of corporate liability in the US – there is considerable uncertainty about both the scope and definition of wrongdoing. This talk examines the effects of this uncertainty on the desirable structure and incidence of bounty regimes. Some key findings are that the greater this uncertainty the harder it will be to gather information about wrongdoing both within a firm and more generally because individuals will likely be reluctant to share information that might be relevant to enforcement. This has numerous effects. First, as gathering and sharing of information becomes more difficult it will become harder to deter and prevent wrongdoing, which in part depends on gathering and sharing information. Second, weaker gathering and sharing of information within the firm will hamper the ability of employees to work together cohesively. This not only worsens firm performance (which has its own costs), but also is likely to increase wrongdoing because poor firm performance is a key predicator of corporate wrongdoing. The analysis thus counsels caution in extending whistleblower bounties to areas where the underlying law is uncertain, provides insights on how one might design a bounty system in light of this uncertainty (e.g., differentiating between internal and external whistleblowers, varying bounties by firm size), and lays out certain steps that might be taken to ameliorate some of the identified effects of uncertainty.
