Unintended? The Effects of Adoption of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act by Nonprofit Organizations
This study investigates the benefits and costs to nonprofit organizations emanating from the adoption of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002). The Act was intended to stem financial malfeasance in the for-profit sector, nevertheless the study finds that about half the surveyed nonprofits adopted provisions of the Act and experienced effects in proportion to the level of adoption. About one in four of the nonprofits attributed benefits of better financial controls (27.3%) and reduced risk of accounting fraud (24.3%) to the adoption of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. With regard to the costs of adoption, more than one-third of the nonprofit organizations reported increased fees for external audit (36.5%), and about 15 percent cited “reallocation of resources from program to administrative expenses” (14.8%). This research discusses the unintended positive and negative effects of public policy on nonprofit organizations.
The paper covers the issues of accountability of higher education institutions (HEIs) in five countries: Brazil, Canada, Italy, Portugal, and Russia1 . National frameworks and their implementation are examined. The special focus of the review is performance-based evaluation and funding. The reflection on outcomes is followed by the recommendations to policy-makers, researchers and practitioners. This paper was commissioned by the Global Education Monitoring Report as background information to assist in drafting the 2017/8 GEM Report, Accountability in education: Meeting our commitments. It has not been edited by the team. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and should not be attributed to the Global Education Monitoring Report or to UNESCO. The papers can be cited with the following reference: “Paper commissioned for the 2017/8 Global Education Monitoring Report, Accountability in education: Meeting our commitments”.
Hungary, Romania and Turkey, which previously had much in common (including huge external imbalances), now seem to be following different paths. Hungary was able to orchestrate a fast but painful transition to a positive current account (and thus stabilized its external debt/GDP ratio), Romania's current account deficit has decreased, although the balance remains negative, and Turkey is still struggling to finance its external deficit of over 7% of GDP.
The cumulative effects of a significantly changing climate are projected to have disastrous implications on the world’s natural habitats, and along with that, are projected to drastically increase the rate and likelihood of violent conflict globally, particularly in high-density, urban, poverty hotspots. Limiting the effects of a changing climate is thus critical in influencing multiple societal goals including equitable sustainable development, human health, biodiversity, food security and access to reliable energy sources.
This paper argues that the G7/8 has led global climate governance in ways other international environmental institutions have largely failed to do. It has done so largely by placing climate protection at the forefront of its policy objectives, alongside economic, health, energy and security goals, and reaching consensus repeatedly amongst its leaders on the importance of stabilizing emissions through energy efficiency, conservation, investment and technological innovation. Moreover, this chapter argues that the summit’s predominant capability, its constricted participation, democratic convergence and political cohesion – as well as the combined effects of global shocks – have all had positive impacts on the G7/8’s success in mitigating climate change.
Following a detailed process-tracing exercise over the summit’s 40-year history in which clear surges and retreats on global climate governance are outlined, this paper concludes by assessing the G7/8’s accountability record on climate mitigation and outlines a set of prescriptive recommendations, allowing for the delivery of a more tangible, coherent, results-driven accountability process for global climate governance.
Since November 2008, G20 leaders have been meeting to discuss and act on matters of global urgency, with economic and financial matters taking centre stage. At their four summits, hundreds of commitments have been made, including refraining from raising new trade barriers, cracking down on tax havens, reforming voice and vote at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, implementing higher and better quality capital requirements for banks, phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, cancelling debt in Haiti and stepping up efforts to reach the Millennium Development Goals. On the eve of the fifth summit in Seoul, it is important to ask what the G20 has done to take stock of the delivery of its growing number of promises.
For the past 37 years, the annual G8 summits have generated a wide breadth of declarations and communiqués binding the leaders to hard commitments across a diverse range of global policy issues. The extent to which the G8 members comply with their annual commitments has, in recent years, become a hotly contested topic, pitting academics, politicians, policy wonks and newsmakers against each other in an effort to understand whether commitments by the G8 do, in fact, matter. Given this era of ongoing domestic political constraints and conflicting global demands, does the G8 have the ability and, indeed, the capacity not only to make, but also to keep the commitments its members collectively generate at their annual summits?
According to recent empirical studies, the new regulatory proposals concerning capital and liquidity standards as well as monitoring of global systemically important financial institutions may lead in a decline of the annual growth rates of GDP due to increase in lending rates and reduction of lending activities of commercial banks. At the same time, some studies show that the new measures may stimulate stability of financial system and help to reduce the probability of banking crises. This paper reviews the results of empirical studies on potential influence of new Basel III standards on functioning of the banking system, economic growth and financial stability.
This paper covers the issues of student accountability with special regard to post-Soviet countries, especially Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Latvia, and Russia. Primary, secondary, and tertiary levels of education are examined. These countries share a common past but have also taken different paths regarding policy choices on student performance evaluation, assessments, and the introduction of national policies on student accountability (e.g. nation-wide examinations). This paper was commissioned by the Global Education Monitoring Report as background information to assist in drafting the 2017/8 GEM Report, Accountability in education: Meeting our commitments. It has not been edited by the team. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and should not be attributed to the Global Education Monitoring Report or to UNESCO. The papers can be cited with the following reference: “Paper commissioned for the 2017/8 Global Education Monitoring Report, Accountability in education: Meeting our commitments”.
Accountability and transparency are important elements in ensuring that the G20 is delivering on its commitments, but few formal mechanisms exist for holding member countries answerable for their decisions and the subsequent effects.
We address the external effects on public sector efficiency measures acquired using Data Envelopment Analysis. We use the health care system in Russian regions in 2011 to evaluate modern approaches to accounting for external effects. We propose a promising method of correcting DEA efficiency measures. Despite the multiple advantages DEA offers, the usage of this approach carries with it a number of methodological difficulties. Accounting for multiple factors of efficiency calls for more complex methods, among which the most promising are DMU clustering and calculating local production possibility frontiers. Using regression models for estimate correction requires further study due to possible systematic errors during estimation. A mixture of data correction and DMU clustering together with multi-stage DEA seems most promising at the moment. Analyzing several stages of transforming society’s resources into social welfare will allow for picking out the weak points in a state agency’s work.