Why is geographical distribution of power important in the united states?
|
While cross-border banking is an important part of the financial system in developed countries, there is no comparable cross-border prudential supervisory body. The powers to regulate these entities are firmly lodged at the national level, and, in many cases, distributed across more than one agency at the national level. This raises the important question of why prudential supervision powers are so widely distributed. Show
The key to understanding the distribution of powers is that the structure of the financial regulatory system plays a crucial role in the resolution of conflicting goals.12 If all supervisors and resolution authorities everywhere in the world had as their single goal to minimize the expected global costs of financial crises, then regulatory structure would not be so important. However, the opposite is true; supervisors and resolution authorities everywhere are assigned a variety of goals and these goals sometimes have conflicting policy implications. Whether or not it is explicitly stated as a public policy goal, the financial sector exists to efficiently allocate scarce resources and the resulting risks. Financial stability issues cannot be the sole concern of a prudential supervisor; otherwise, the logical solution would be to abolish the financial sector. Thus, all prudential authorities face a potential goal conflict between allowing the financial sector to engage in efficient allocations and minimizing the expected cost of failures in the financial sector. Moreover, most prudential authorities are assigned a number of other goals such as promoting competition, regulating business conduct, and allocating credit to favored sectors (e.g., residential real estate in the United States). Additionally, as one moves from the national to the international level, a variety of other conflicts arise between nations. There are two methods of dealing with conflicting goals: internal and external resolution. Internal resolution exists when the conflicting goals are assigned to a single supervisory agency. In this case, the conflict typically will be resolved in favor of whatever the agency believes to be its primary mission. For example, if an agency believes that its primary mission is to promote the domestic industry, that goal is likely to take precedence over prudential goals. External resolution arises when the conflicting goals are assigned to different regulatory agencies. If a conflict arises, the agencies may either (1) quietly reach an agreement on the relative priorities of the two goals or (2) they may publicly disagree with each agency seeking support from the political authorities. In a domestic setting, the goals are established by the national political authorities and these authorities have the ability to establish the relative priorities at the time of assignment or on a case-by-case basis. The national political authorities also have the ability to monitor the compliance of the supervisory agencies with the goals that they have been given. Of course, the ability to establish priorities and monitor performance does not imply that all conflicts are efficiently resolved in accordance with overall national goals. However, there is a structure for resolving domestic conflicts and that structure is ultimately accountable to that country's voters. The establishment of an international banking prudential supervisor would require that countries agree on the goals of the supervisor. The countries would then have to agree on the relative priority of these goals, including a mechanism for resolving unanticipated conflicts. Finally, the countries would have to establish a mechanism to monitor the international supervisor's implementation of these goals. Such an agreement would not be easily reached for a variety of reasons, including the differential cost of regulation across nations. For example, the cost of some types of regulations would be influenced by cross-country differences in financial architecture (such as the bank-based systems of continental Europe vs. the more financial market-based systems of the United Kingdom and the United States). But while an agreement on prudential supervision is a necessary condition for an international agency, it is not a sufficient condition. The decisions of the prudential supervisor and regulator have a major impact on the risk exposure of the agencies responsible for crisis resolution: the LOLR, the deposit insurer and, if necessary, the entity responsible for recapitalization of failing firms. One possibility would be to complement an international supervisor with one or more crisis resolution agencies, which may or may not be in the same agency as the supervisor. The problem with an international crisis resolution agency is that they would have to exercise powers that are currently retained at the national level: monetary and fiscal policy. An LOLR would, in at least some circumstances, require the power to create money, which is to say, the power to conduct monetary policy. A deposit insurer and agency for recapitalizing banks could obtain funds by charging fees (or insurance premiums) to the banks they would cover. However, the fees collected may prove inadequate, in which case, an additional source of funding may be required. With some positive probability, the source of this funding would have to be the participating countries, which is to say that these crisis resolution bodies would be exercising fiscal power. The closest any group of countries comes to granting the sort of powers needed for crisis resolution to an international body is the member states of the European Union (EU). Monetary policy for 16 EU countries in the euro area is controlled by the European System of Central Banks (ESCB). However, responsibility for the traditional role of LOLR has implicitly been decentralized to the National Central Banks, while the ESCB has the responsibility of providing liquidity to secure the good functioning of payment systems in Euros. LOLR facilities for the EU countries that are not in the euro area are provided by their national central banks. Moreover, failure resolution remains at the national level, with no EU body having the resources to honor deposit insurance commitments or recapitalize a failing bank.13 Thus, the creation of an international agency (or agencies) to engage in prudential supervision and regulation and to provide crisis management for the developed economies appears highly unlikely. The focus instead has been on establishing minimal prudential standards and information sharing among the national supervisory and crisis resolution agencies. Standards are typically set in international forums such as the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS).14 In the European Union, the Directives set a lower bound on safety and soundness regulation and seek to minimally harmonize national laws and regulations in order to establish a level playing field and reduce regulatory arbitrage. Supervisors are also increasing coordination at the level of individual cross-border banking groups. This coordination takes the form of ‘colleges’ which will help coordinate supervisory activities across the countries in which a group is operating. Such colleges have been established for large global financial firms through the Financial Stability Board (FSB) and have also been established for cross-border groups in the European Union. While prudential supervision remains at the national level, the optimal architecture of domestic prudential supervisory and crisis resolution agencies remain a topic of debate. The United Kingdom has one of the most centralized systems, with the Financial Services Authority (FSA) being the sole prudential supervisor. However, the FSA has shared responsibility for financial stability with the Bank of England and Her Majesty's Treasury. At the other extreme, the United States has a very fragmented system, with responsibility dispersed among multiple federal and state agencies. View chapterPurchase book Read full chapter URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123978745000282 Antenna technology for GNSSAdam Narbudowicz, in GPS and GNSS Technology in Geosciences, 2021 2.1 Radiation pattern and antenna gainThe basic antenna characterization requires determining the spatial power distribution of the radiated (for transmission) or accepted (for reception) radio signals, i.e., from which directions the energy is accepted (for the case for GNSS receivers). For practical reasons, most antennas can be classified as reciprocal devices, meaning they exhibit the same parameters regardless whether the antenna is used for transmission or reception. Therefore, without the loss of generality, some explanations may refer to antenna as a transmitting device just for the easiness of explanation—even though structures concerned here are used in GNSS receivers. The basic parameters characterizing in which directions the antenna radiates (or—due to reciprocity—from which directions it accepts signal) are gain, directivity, and radiation pattern [4]. The radiation pattern describes the radiation intensity into a given direction as a function of elevation and azimuth angles. The radiation pattern is typically normalized to its maximum value, meaning its maximum value cannot be greater than 1 (or 0 dB in logarithmic scale). This is historically the easiest parameter to measure, since it is a relative measure and does not require calibration with any known antenna. It provides basic data on antenna's directional properties; however, there is no information about actual radiated power. This may be problematic if the antenna is lossy or operates in proximity of lossy medium, such as human body (e.g., in a smart watch). For such a case, the radiated (or received) power may be very small, but due to the normalization, this may not be visible using solely radiation pattern. Antenna gain can be defined as a ratio of radiation intensity into a certain direction (denoted as a pair of angles (θ,ϕ)) to the radiation intensity of an isotropic antenna, where both antennas are being fed with the same power (realized gain) or have accepted the same power (gain) [4]. The difference between fed power and accepted power comes from the reflection coefficient at antenna input—in the remainder of this chapter, we will ignore this effect and for simplicity refer only to antenna gain. The isotropic antenna is a theoretical antenna that radiates exactly same amount of energy into all directions. Its surface power density is given by (5.1)P(θ,ϕ,r)=Pacc4πr2 where Pacc is the accepted power and 4πr2 denotes the area of a sphere of a radius r—indicating the fact that the wave propagates radially from the antenna. It was proven that the isotropic antenna cannot be realized; however, it is convenient reference for real antenna measurements. It can be used to define antenna gain as follows: (5.2)G(θ,ϕ)=4πPmeas(θ,ϕ)Pacc where Pmeas(θ, φ) is the power measured for given antenna at the direction (θ, φ). Also note that the components related to the distance r have canceled out between the measured antenna and isotropic antenna. This is very convenient, as it allows antenna analysis only as a function of direction. It should be noted here that the term “antenna gain” referring to the antenna has different meaning than the “gain” of an amplifier. The antenna is typically a passive device, and the “antenna gain” is achieved solely by focusing energy into given direction—without actual active amplification of the signal. This has a significant consequence for GNSS antennas, as higher gain necessitates narrower beam. By using antenna with higher gain, the receiver can increase the received signal strength (i.e., improve its signal-to-noise ratio); however, it will cover smaller fraction of the sky and possibly “see” less satellites. On the other hand, widening the beamwidth to receive signals from more satellites—which typically leads to better accuracy—will result in lower gain and therefore also lower signal strength. This problem can be solved by using switched directional beams, which provide high gain and—due to switching—can “scan” large portions of sky [40]. This solution, however, requires the use of antenna arrays and significantly complicates both antenna structure and relevant signal processing [66]. View chapterPurchase book Read full chapter URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128186176000032 Structural DimensionsDerek F. Lynch, in Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, & Conflict (Third Edition), 2022 The Audit of PowerThe expression can be used to refer to any distribution of power among a number of actors, as in the phrase “balance of forces,” even if the capabilities of the actors involved are not evenly “balanced.” Thus we could say that China did not act in this or that way because “the balance of power was unfavorable” or because “the balance of power favored the United States.” It might even be possible to quantify such a balance by counting the number of actors and by calculating the relative concentration of power measured in terms of military and/or economic resources. Of course, what we are describing here could just as easily be called the distribution of power. Used in this way, the concept merely refers to an audit of capabilities as understood, for example, in the title The Military Balance, an annual compilation of military data produced by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Critics have at least some merit on their side in protesting that this is not a “balance” at all; and yet, its common appearance in international relations discourse means that this misuse cannot easily be excluded from the lexicon of international relations. View chapterPurchase book Read full chapter URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128201954001345 AdoptionD.H. Siegel, in Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics (Second Edition), 2012 Social and Economic JusticeSocial and economic justice have to do with equitable distribution of power and resources. Market forces, politics, and culture shape adoption policies and practices throughout the world. Government has a role in regulating adoption practices in ways that are ethical. This requires adequate public funding of well-informed laws and policies. For instance, many children available for intercountry adoption from Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe come from families who are unable to parent largely due to extreme poverty in their developing nations. In such economic and political environments it can be very difficult to locate people with the resources to add children by adoption to their families. As a result, children in need of parents may reside in orphanages or, at worst, on the streets. Proponents of intercountry adoption maintain that it is better to have a family in another country than to grow up in congregate care or with no care at all. Opponents note that in essence impoverished nations send children to families in affluent nations, denying these children access to their biological roots, language, and culture. This places undue burden on the child to adjust to unfamiliar circumstances and is a form of psychological trauma and cultural genocide. The ethical course of action, they argue, is to keep children in their country of origin and devote more resources to developing adoptive homes there. In highlighting international adoptions by celebrities (e.g., Madonna, Mia Farrow, Angelina Jolie) who have adopted multiple children, the media may ignore ethical questions embedded in those situations. Interestingly, the United States, the nation that receives the most children from other countries for adoption, also sends children to other nations to be adopted. For the most part, the children from the United States who are available for intercountry adoption are of color, are older, or have other special needs. It appears that the majority of adopting parents in the United States prefer a child who does not have identified special needs; in this instance, racism and ‘able-ism’ deny a child the opportunity to remain in the homeland. From an ethical standpoint it appears that addressing societal discrimination might end the practice of sending U.S. children to other countries for adoption. The Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, an internationally accepted set of standards, specifies that a child must remain in the country of birth while the adoption agency makes reasonable efforts to find a biological parent, other biological relative within the country if a biological parent cannot be found, or a nonrelative within the country who can adopt the child. Intercountry adoption becomes an option only when these first three options are unavailable. While this enhances the chances that a child’s genetic and ethnic links are honored, it can also slow placement into a permanent family, possibly exacerbating the child’s losses and trauma. Hence, under Hague two rights or values may conflict. Controversy in transracial/transcultural adoption also reflects social justice concerns. Affluent prospective adopters whose demographic characteristics are similar to adoption workers’ typically have more access to the full range of adoption options than do low-income prospective adopters. This raises distributive justice issues. Some are concerned that by allowing transracial and intercountry adoption, governments may not devote sufficient resources to developing same-race, same-country adoption options for children. View chapterPurchase book Read full chapter URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978012373932200301X Commemorative ObjectsB. Schwartz, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001 4.2 Commemoration as a Cultural SystemThe theory of the politics of memory conceives commemoration as a reflection of power distributions, assuming that different elements of the past become more or less usable as resources of various groups fluctuate. Commemoration thus appears to be made and remade in the service of changing interests and needs. The theory of memory as a culture system, in contrast, conceives commemoration as a pattern of symbolic forms that articulate present experience and perpetuate present understandings of the world. Commemoration, in this theory, is less a construction of a manipulative interest group than a symbolic frame in terms of which people confer meaning on their experience and find direction for their conduct. Reputational entrepreneurs (Fine (1996)), thus, perform more like priests than like manipulators, seeking to reaffirm beliefs they share with their audience. Accordingly, commemoration is not only a model of society—a reflection of its needs, interests, fears, mentality, and aspirations—but also a model for society—a program defining its values and goals and a frame organizing and assessing the moral significance of its experience. Commemoration affects social reality by reflecting, shaping, and framing it. The distinction between commemoration's mirroring and modeling functions is analytic, not empirical: both aspects are realized in every act of remembrance. Commemorative objects must reflect current problems before they can program ways to deal with them, for people cannot be oriented by a past in which they fail to see themselves. It is commemoration's relevance as a model, however, that renders it a useful mirror, for people have no reason to look for themselves in a past that does not already orient their lives. What is geographical distribution of power?Geographic Distribution of Power. In every system of government the power to govern is located in one or more places geographically. From this standpoint, three basic structures exist: unitary, federal, and confederate. Unitary Government. A unitary government is often described as a centralized government.
How is power distributed in the U.S. government?At the national level, the Framers divided power between the three branches of government—the legislative branch, the executive branch and the judicial branch. This process of dividing power between different branches of government is called the separation of powers.
Why is the relationship between the executive and legislative branches a useful way to classify governments?Why is the relationship between the executive and legislative branches a useful way to classify governments? you have to have a balance between the two because it depends on the number of persons who can take part in the governing process.
What can you say about on the distribution of powers in the government?Each branch of government has the power to check, or limit, the power of another branch of government. This is just one more way to balance the responsibilities and prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful or dominating the government.
|
