In what ways do reggio emilia philosophies and practices of pedagogy Essay

In what ways do reggio emilia philosophies and practices of pedagogy support and enhance children's creativity and their understandings of the world - Essay Example It was deeply felt that children should be given firsthand experience of their surroundings, and that they should explore and establish relationships with the world around them using their own natural curiosity, instincts and gifted abilities; instead of being taught about the world with a preset curriculum. â€Å"One of the focal points of the Reggio Emilia philosophy... develops a complex system of abilities, learning strategies and ways of organizing relationships.† (Rinaldi, 2006, p. 83). My experience in Reggio Emilia convinced me that all children have the right to work and play with a wide range of the highest-quality materials in the highest quality settings in their daily life in school. It is in this way that children are able to build rich and complex relationships with the world, which will grow and evolve over time. (Cadwell, 1997, p. 72). The Reggio philosophy was based upon giving the children the freedom and the right to set their own curriculum, according to their individual needs and interests; it incorporated parents as partners, and teachers as learners. The teacher in Reggio Emilia is not viewed as the expert or sole dispenser of information; rather, the role of the teacher becomes one that is shared among members of the group... The teacher’s role is to create a partnership with the learners ... and begin the process of the co-construction of knowledge. (Fraser & Gestwicky, 2002, p. 46-47). She always directs their attention back to the essence of their own lives [and invites them] to turn their own language upon this world...At the same time she knows that she is initiator at the outset... if the children are to take over, it is because she has opened up the possibilities and established the tone. (Connie & Harold Rosen, 1973, p. 64) A very important aspect of the Reggio philosophy is the use of documentation of the child’s progress and development through various critical

Risk assessment for non-profit hospital Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Risk assessment for non-profit hospital - Essay Example Generally, non-profit organizations do not perform risk assessments mainly due to insufficiency of funds. Since non-profit organizations have only limited sources to raise funds, they would find difficulties in their day to day operations if they allot money for risk assessment program. This paper will particularly perform a risk assessment for non-profit hospitals and discuss various aspects related to the issue. Importance of Hospital Data Hospital data may include a pool of documents including inpatient data, outpatient data, pricing data, hospital room rates, hospital financial data, patient case sheets, medicine stock data, medicine details, length of patient stay and discharge data, staff data, and other administrative and strategic documents. Evidently, hospital data have considerable significance on a healthcare environment because they play an inevitable role in promoting quality care and patient safety. According to the Hospital Data Project, â€Å"hospital data are now re quired to serve a variety of purposes including supporting activity monitoring, performance measurement, casemix-based funding, service planning, and epidemiological analysis† (HDP, 2003). ... In the view of Sorgente, Fernandez, and Petrie (n.d.), past patient treatment records are necessary for hospitals to give immediate and quality care to patients in future visits. In addition, staff data are very crucial to facilitate better distribution of duties and responsibilities among the hospital staff, particularly nurses. Therefore, it is extremely important to keep the hospital data secure and unreachable to unauthorized parties. If the data are improper or unsecure, they would be accessible to external people and this situation would adversely affect the confidentiality, availability, and integrity of data. To illustrate, when the hospital data are lost due to network attacks or any other reason, the hospital management cannot obtain access to past patient case records and medicine stock details whenever needed. Undoubtedly, this situation would reduce the quality of the care and hence challenge the patient safety. Likewise, some important data like diagnosis reports and ot her patient/disease detail would lose their confidentiality once the hospital data become unsecured. Under such circumstances, the victims (patients) may file lawsuits against the hospital. Finally, the authorities concerned cannot the ensure integrity of hospital data if those data are prone to unauthorized access. According to a report by UC Davis Health System, cancelled operations, false or delayed test results, and poor quality patient can be the direct implications of unsecure hospital databases. Kinds of Attacks Malware attack is likely to threaten a hospital database. Experts suggest that hospital databases are under the threat of malware attacks. Hackers try to access hospital data and thus manipulate hospital records. Such attacks can cause dreadful harms to

Policy Issue and the Three Branches of Government Essay Example for Free

Policy Issue and the Three Branches of Government Essay In a news article written by Deborah Hastings entitled â€Å"Carded at polls: No photo ID, no vote,† it was shown how the three branches of the government works, which are the executive, legislative, and judiciary, on aspects of law for the country.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The issue elaborated on the news article was about the voter’s ID card. It pressed problems for people living in certain states, one of which is Indiana, who prohibits people wit no voter’s ID card to vote (Hastings, 2007). The requirements for the document to be presented are a) voter’s photograph; b) the voter’s name which should be similar to the name indicated on the voter’s registration record; and c) a current expiration date (Hastings, 2007). However, a considerable number of people in Indiana do not have these requirements and are, thus, ineligible to vote (Hastings, 2007).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   In the news, it has been shown that it is the legislative branch of the government who takes the task of formulating the laws. The legislative branch is responsible for creating and proposing laws with the aim of making a better society for all. The second branch, the executive, has the responsibility of implementing the laws and policies. It has the veto power which gives the executive branch the chance to make advice and changes on the law proposed by the congress. In addition to this, the executive branch has quasi-legislative power, such that, as needed and with certain conditions, it can formulate policies without having to go through the normal process of the legislative branch. Included here are administrative and executive orders. The third branch, the judicial branch, serves as a check and balance for the legislative and the executive branch. The judiciary ensures that the acts of the other two branches are within the framework of the Constitution.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   It is hard to conclude that they have equal roles, nor is it fair to say that they do not posses equal roles. This is for the reason that their responsibilities are practically different from one another. One can not simply conclude that three persons do equal tasks when the natre of their tasks and duties are different. However, it can be said that they are equal in terms of the level and that no branch of the government is a subordinate of the other. This is clearly stated in the Constitution (Baker, 2007). It is very important to note, after having discussed the roles of the three branches of the government, that they contribute to the functioning of the society and the country. References Baker, J. H. (2007). United States Government.   In Microsoft ® Student 2008 [DVD]. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation. Hastings, D. (2008). Carded at polls: No photo ID, no vote. Retrieved January 23, 2008, from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_el_ge/voter_id;_ylt=AkLkJaWl5i_WdCIhdDjIpxhvzwcF.

Explication Of Jacques Derridas Signature Event Context English Language Essay

Explication Of Jacques Derridas Signature Event Context English Language Essay Derridas essay Signature Event Context was first delivered in the form of a spoken conference paper in Montreal in 1971 on the theme of Communication, and published initially as an essay as part of the conference Proceedings. The context of Derridas essay is relevant in relation to the theme of the paper itself. In its initial form, a spoken essay preformed or produced in the French language, the essay (now in its written English form), discusses the importance and differences of context in both the written language and in speech.  [1]   The essay was then published in 1988 in Graffs collection Limited Inc., which highlighted the differences between Anglo-American and European-Continental towards the theoretical debate on literary analysis.  [2]  The historical context of the essay is relevant to the themes of original meaning and context which are discussed within the essay. Derrida discusses the distinction between the nature of truth and language, and he presents arguments on the privileging of spoken words, which is deemed as being closer to the speaker and thereby the intended meaning; whereas written words are given a secondary status and the meaning is derived by the understanding of the listener. Derrida examines the meaning of context, and then the significance of context in relation to other factors surrounding a text, such as events, discourses and signature. He argues that these issues all factor into the meaning of the text as it is produced by the writer or speaker, and then understood by the listener or reader. Derrida begins the essay in a discussion on the nature and definition of Communication, when Derrida states: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦one must first of all ask oneself whether or not the word or signifier communication communicates a determinate content, an identifiable meaning, or a describable value. (Derrida 1). The word or signifier communication occurs twice, in the marked form communication, and again as the verb form communicates. For the reader the use of the word in this way signifies a question which must be explored in the text of the essay. For Derrida this is a rhetorical question. As readers and as a writer approaching the text, if the word communication had a definite or indisputable meaning, there would be no need for a discussion or essay on the subject. This is typical of Derridas stylistic approach in the rhetorical questioning which occurs throughout the text of the essay. The essay is then structured into three sections discussing the factors mentioned in the title Signature Event Context, and Derrida uses examples from other theorists in order to present his arguments for each element. In the first section on Writing and Communication Derrida looks at the arguments of Condillacs essay  [3]  because it : à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦contains an explicit reflection on the origin and function of the written textà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦which organizes itself here within a philosophical discourse that, in this case and throughout philosophy, presupposes the simplicity of the origin, the continuity of all derivation, of all production, of all analysis, and the homogeneity of all dimensions [orders]. (Derrida 4) In using Condillac Derrida is presenting the philosophical ideas on theories of writing from a classical theoretical perspective, whereby writing is taken as presenting the original ideas of the writer and all contributing factors to the writing such as origin, production, derivation and analysis and essentially equal in nature and quality. There is thus no hierarchical system to the elements which form writing, and all contributing factors producing a text, are equal in their importance and relevance to the formation and understanding of the text. Derrida suggests that Condillacs ideas on writing mean that: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦the birth and progress of writing will follow in a line that is direct, simple, and continuousà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦writing will never have the slightest effect on either the structure or the contents of the meaning (the ideas) that it is supposed to transmit [vehicular]. (Derrida 4) Here Derrida presents Condillacs analysis, whereby if writing is taken as a higher medium of communication than spoken language, the origin and progression of the writing remains an absolute which is uncomplicated and incorruptible; this therefore means that the written form is also constant in its meaning, and for the understanding of the reader. Derrida takes issue with the notion of an absolute meaning of the written later in his essay, and instead suggests that the only absolute in writing is the idea of absence. For Condillac, all writing denotes an absence. There is firstly the: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦absence of the addressee. One writes in order to communicate something to those who are absent. The absence of the receiver [destinateur], from the mark that he abandons, and which cuts itself off from him and continues to produce effects independently of his presence and of the present actuality of his intentions [vouloir-dire]à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ (Derrida 5) The act of writing denotes an absence of the writer (absent at the time of reading), and the absence of the reader (absent at the time of the writing), which means that the writing exists independently of both reader and writer and is yet paradoxically linked to a presence. The writer is present in the writing at the time of reading because his/her intentions are made in the words that are written; the reader is present at the time of writing because the writer is intending to communicate an idea in his/her writing through the act of writing. The act of writing therefore implies the absence of both reader and writer. The writing is an independent entity which stands on its own merits after it is abandoned by the writer, yet still causes an effect on the reader; this effect is also autonomous from the actual intentions of the writer, as the understanding and interpretation depend on the reader. This brings Derrida to the second absolute in writing, which is the absence of a definitive meaning. As Derrida states: Representation regularly supplants [supplà ©e] presenceà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦as a continuous and homogenous reparation and modification of presence in the representation. (Derrida 5) The presence of the writer is therefore denoted in the manner in which the text is received by the reader, whose understanding and interpretation of the text are founded not in the ideas which the writer is trying to communicate, but rather in a more practical system of understanding signs. The systematic rules of writing are based on the understanding of the written word; this is founded in language systems, which according to Derrida are only understandable because of their familiarity. Although signs give a representation of the idea which itself represented the object perceived (Derrida 6), it is only the familiarity which makes them understandable. Derrida states: My communication must be repeatable iterable in the absolute absence of the receiverà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦writing that is not structurally readable iterable beyond the death of the addressee would not be writing. (Derrida 7) The signs (words) must therefore be repeatable and repeated in different circumstances in order to be perceived and understand as to what they are signifying; and more importantly for Derrida what they are denoting or connoting. If the purpose of writing is to convey or communicate the writers ideas, the nature of language and words are a representation of something which is repeatable, no matter who the reader (or writer). Whereby writing is initially a means of communication, the actual physical marks and the meaning must have iterability, citability or citationality. All writing can be copied, or must be copyable in order to be classified as writing; therefore it must be open to both iteration and reiteration. For Derrida signs or writing, are essentially infinite in their iterability, in any capacity whether epistemic, grammatical or semiological; thus lies the distinction between written and oral communication (Derrida 9). Derrida also states that in the classical concept of writing, writing simultaneously carries with it a force that breaks with its context (Derrida 9). Derrida goes on to present an analysis of spoken language/signs from Husserl.  [4]  Again the iterability of spoken language is essential to the understanding of what is signified, denoted and understood by the listener, because language operates within a à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦system of rules of universal grammar, not from a linguistic point of view but from a logical and epistemological one. (Derrida 12). This means one must be able to make certain other cultural, social and epistemological references which are understood, and thereby enable an understanding of words or spoken language. Derrida once again opens up his discussion of writing into a wider analysis of language, communication and cultural relevance. For Derrida the significance lies in that understanding is thereby taken à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦in a context determined by a will to know (Derrida 12). The understanding of language and words, whether spoken or written lie in the wider context in which they are read or heard, rather a specific literal context of semantic meaning. This leads to the second section of the essay where Derrida discusses the notion of truth in language, through an examination of the event. Derridas analysis centres on criticism of Austins  [5]  ideas of communication in speech: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦speech acts only as acts of communicationà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦.Communicating a force through the impetus [impulsion] of a mark à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦the performative does not have its referent à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦outside of itself or any event, before and in front of itself. (Derrida 13) Derrida suggests here that John Austins ordinary language philosophy is in fact determined and restrictive, working only within a framework of definitively absolute unordinary exclusion; as Austin suggests that the performative nature of language takes precedent in communication. Austin analyses all utterances as performative, yet excludes performative speech acts which are quoted, which Derrida finds essentially problematic. This approach is limiting and restrictive, by focussing primarily on analysing the perlocution and illocution, Austin is forced to: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦free the analysis of the performative from the authority of the truth value, from the true/false opposition (Derrida 13). If language or words take on a performative dimension, this means that the utterances of the words will be placed within a situation (or context) which is independent of either the true essential meaning, or any false interpretation, of the intended meaning. The problem for Derrida is that the meaning of the words are essentially subordinated to the actual utterance or event of the speech, and/or the context within which they are uttered; which in turn produces an event in the meaning as it is understood by the listener. Derridas criticism of Austin also raises questions as to the totalising element of context whereby there is emphasis on the: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦conscious presence of the intention of the speaking subject in the totality of his speech act (Derrida 14) In the event of the speech act the presence of the speaker places an importance and foregrounding to the intention of the speaker; if the intention of the speaker is prominent in the speech act, then it must follow that the understanding of the receiver/listener becomes secondary. This leads to the inevitability that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦performative communication becomes once more the communication of an intentional meaningà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ (Derrida 14) This poses a wider philosophical problem for Derrida in the context of literary or language discourse, as Austin also discusses the criterion of what actually constitutes a successful or failed speech act with elements of correctness and completeness (Derrida 15). This again is restrictive and finite, and goes against Derridas general philosophical openness and approach to literary theory. For Derrida there is an inherent possibility in the success of the event which lays in the possibilities of for example the infelicities in the event, and may not in fact be distinguishable from a successful event. For Derrida the failure of the event, whether deliberate or accidental, serves a greater purpose. Derrida suggests that the presence or potential of failure is what in fact constitutes the event as an ideal. The scope for error and the negative impact on the event, whilst it may destroy the idealistic approach to the event, in fact serves the paradoxical purpose of making the event ideal; by in its very nature in introducing an element of danger to the event. A perfect or ideal event would therefore have an element of danger, which is avoided. Although Austin cites theatrical events, recitations of poetry or literature as examples of felicitous speech events, as Derrida points out there is still scope for mistakes or errors in the utterances. Derrida ends the section on Event by taking an opposing view to Austin, in the similar vein to his opposition to Condillacs views and refers to the itability of the sign in general. Derrida states that speech utterances, or events have an itability. Austins view of the relative purity of performatives (Derrida 18) must be taken not: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦in opposition to citationality or iterability, but in opposition to other kinds of iteration within a general iterability which constitutes a violation of the allegedly rigorous purity of every event of discourse or every speech act. (Derrida 18) Derridas view on the event of the speech act is that there is a background to the iterability or possible repetition of an utterance, which means that each utterance or speech act must be taken in the context in which it is said. This has an inevitable effect on the operation or understanding of the words which are spoken and what they signify. Contrary to Austins view that emphasise understanding of the thing and the notion (Derrida 18), Derrida stresses that we must also consider that the: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦motivations, indestructible necessity and systematic effects would be subject to analysisà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ (Derrida 18) Here the importance of context is fore grounded in relation to the event and is subject to the same metaphysical origins (Derrida 18) which Austin appropriates to the event. Derrida concludes by suggesting that in order to understand context, the conscious intentions of the speaker (and receiver) must be definite. However consciousness is not a definite and is open to discussion and discourse. Therefore although utterances may be specific, the specificity is not exclusive to having an opposite or contrary effect on the listener and thus the event is open to further metaphysical debate. In the final section of the essay Derrida focuses on Signature' as an indicator and measure of the presence of the writer or author. The signature denotes the writer as the source of the text, or the speaker of an utterance, and they hold the form of regulation for the sign or words which are spoken or written. Derrida illustrates that the possibility and inevitability of repetition and iterability is essential to the signature; as with earlier discussions on the nature of signs and language. By its very nature the signature is iterable, as it must be, and is always repeated in order to be recognisable as a signature specific to the author. As Derrida points out although a signature is singular to the author, yet again paradoxically, there is an inevitable plurality to its production; in that it is repeated time and again as a sign of the presence of the writer. Derrida refers back to earlier arguments stating that: By definition, a written signature implies the actual or empirical nonpresence of the signer. (Derrida 20) The signature thereby signifies the absence of the writer, while at the same time denoting the presence of the signer in the past, and can be taken as a substitute for their physical presence; it also implies the presence of the reader in the future or present. Derrida also rather playfully adds his own signature to the end of the essay, as a performative example of an event. As readers we are made aware that Derrida must have at some point made the signature to the paper, however the printed copy of the signature in front of us is not the original or authentic mark/sign made by Derrida, it is an repeated printed copy of the same. This act highlights key elements of Derridas arguments from the essay, as to the nature of iterability, repetition, absence and context. The communication of Derridas ideas in the preceding essay are somehow signified as more genuine, or sincere because he has placed his signature at the end of the essay and placed a mark/sign of authenticity to the essay. Derridas conclusions to the essay tie in with this idea, in that while language can be philosophised in an ordinary manner, as a means of communicating semantics, there is always an underlying and infinite possibility to other factors such as presence, knowledge , representation, and truth. For Derrida the practice of communication and the spoken word or writing must be inclusive of these elements in order for a text to be understood or communicated in its entirety. Derridas stylistic presence is evident in the title and structure of the essay, in the use of questions, often at times rhetorical, and the proposition of paradoxes. The essay is actually structured in the reverse order of the title Signature Event Context: Context is discussed first in presentation of Condillacs ideas, followed by Austins arguments on the Event, and the essay ends with Derridas thoughts on Signature.  [6]  This playing with the order of the elements which Derrida is discussing is somewhat typical of Derridas stylistic and consciously playful approach to writing. At times the language and style is analogous to the spoken word or a speech; which again is self-referential to the form of the text, as it was initially a spoken text/utterance. The form and structure of the essay reiterates the ideas and arguments that Derrida presents. The essay is structured in a fairly accessible yet formal manner whereby Derrida at times breaks arguments or ideas down into listed or numbered sections. Although the complexity of the ideas and concepts presented are perhaps more complicated than the stylistic form of the written language. Derrida repeats certain points and arguments, by presenting his theories in a manner which reiterates the essence of his arguments, and by repeating the same central arguments in a slightly altered form. He uses repetition of the arguments to make the ideas that he is presenting familiar and understandable to the reader, and this is his general approach to the function and understanding of language, signs and words the more familiar we become with words, the easier they are to understand in their true meaning. The meaning lies in the repetition and iterability not only of the words, but also in the concepts and ideas which lie beneath the semantics of the sentences and content of the essay. Derridas arguments are therefore communicated to us as readers when we read and understand the text in the context of the structure of the essay, and experience the text as part of a wider cultural discourse.

Gun Control - We Should Give a Gun to Every Citizen Essay -- Constitut

Gun Control – We Should Give a Gun to Every Citizen If the second amendment to the United States Constitution clearly states that, â€Å"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,† why do our lawmakers constantly debate the topic of weapons? Radical Democrats wish to make all guns illegal, meaning only policemen and servicemen would be equipped with guns (â€Å"Mission†). Radical Republicans (i.e. Charlton Heston), on the other hand, wish to place no restrictions whatsoever on guns, making semi-automatic and fully-automatic guns available to everybody living in or visiting the United States, without a background check or profile of the gun buyer (Heston). It seems that every time a terrible crime is committed in the United States involving a gun, the debate about gun control flares up again. The Columbine massacre and other school shootings, shootings at churches and in the workplace, the serial sniper near Washington D.C., and rises in gang activity are all examples of such events that have sp arked debates in Washington. Both sides, Democrat and Republican, have good points, but they are far from a solution. Radical Democrats have reason to want to eliminate guns from America because every year in America thousands of people are injured or killed by a firearm. It is also true that in the early 1990s there were an estimated 200 million privately-owned guns in the United States, and to try and confiscate all of those guns would be ridiculous (â€Å"Gun Control†). Radical Republicans have the 2nd amendment on their side in their quest to make all guns legal and unrestricted. They don’t have practicality or the safety of the country on their side, however. The release of fully-automatic guns into the public wou... ...he possibilities are endless. Giving a gun to every citizen of the United States is the only way to make our streets safe. It is also a very good way to stimulate the economy and prevent against foreign invasion. It may even save your life. WORKS CITED â€Å"The Assault Weapons Ban: Questions & Answers.† Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. August 2002. Brady Campaign. Org. 3 Dec 2002 http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunlaws/awb.asp>. â€Å"Gun Control.† 30 Mar 2002. Just Facts: A Resource for Independent Thinkers. 2 Dec 2002 http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm>. Heston, Charles. â€Å"NRA President Charlton Heston’s Opening Comments.† 20 May 2000. NRA Annual Meeting. 2 Dec 2002 http://nrahq.org/transcripts/hestonam.asp>. â€Å"Mission.† GCN Introduction. July 1996. Gun Control Network. 2 Dec 2002 http://www.gun-control-network.org/genintro.htm>.

Passionate About Teaching Essay example -- Personal Narrative Educatio

Ending Statement Feminist and Critical Pedagogies I came back to graduate school last semester at the ripe-old age of 31, unsure of what I wanted to get out of it. I had spent a year in graduate studies in English at the University of Maine about six years earlier, but left because I wasn't ready to commit to an academic life. In the six years since I left Maine, my life had been anything but academic. For the first year or so, I "temped" at conventions and tradeshows, went on auditions and performed in regional theater. Then a friend of mine introduced me to her acting teacher, and I got involved in a two-year intensive acting program which forced me to look at myself and my life deeply (and luckily got me into therapy)! During that time I began a temp job at a small executive search firm where a few acting friends also worked. The job turned permanent and lasted over three years while I finished my acting program and began auditioning. Looking back now, I guess the problem was, once I finished class, I wasn't the same person who h ad originally gone out on auditions. I found myself reading books on writing (never acting) on my lunch breaks from the stifling office secretarial job. But people who asked about my life heard about my auditions and singing classes and wish to be on Broadway. I never looked at the fact that that wish was a very old, childhood wish which had slowly stopped giving me what it had for so long: something to dream about, aspire to. Something, I now admit, to make me interesting. The decision to leave it behind was painful (no one outside of "the business" could understand why I would want to leave behind such a glorious, exciting dream. Interestingly, all of my friends who were at various levels of s... ...at at least I now know that I need to teach--in some format, somewhere, and I need to apply what I've learned and continue to learn and question my own learning. But I can't decide if going on for a PhD is really what I want anymore. I always thought that was the mark of success. But I wonder if it will really allow me to work with the students I am most interested in helping. I am particularly interested in working with those who didn't get enough out of school but who decided to come back and give it another try, to see if they'd find something different this time around. I want to provide something different. I know I want to keep teaching and talking about teaching. I know I want to keep the hope that teaching writing is valuable and opens up possibilities for students who maybe thought they had none. Is that too naive? Maybe. But it seems like it's worth a try.

Coase(1972) †durable and monopoly[2] Essay

R. H. COASE Universityof ChicagoLaw School that A SSUME a supplier owns the total stock of a completely durable good. At what price will he sell it? To take a concrete example, assume that one person owns all the land in the United States and, to simplify the analysis, that all land is of uniform quality. Assume also that the landowner is not able to work the land himself, that ownership of land yields no utility and that there are no costs involved in disposing of the land. If there were a large number of landownersand the price were competitively determined, the price would be that at which the amount demandedwas equal to the amount of land in the United States. If we imagine this fixed supply of land to be various amounts either greater or smaller, and then discover what the competitively determinedprice would be, we can trace out the demand schedule for American land. Assume that this demand schedule is DD and that from this a marginal revenue schedule, MR, has been derived. Both schedules are shown in Figure I. Let the total amount of land in existence be OQ. Then, if the price were competitively determined,the price would be OB (see Figure I). We now have to determine the price which the monopolistic landowner would charge for a unit of land in the assumed conditions. The diagramwould seem to suggest (and has, I believe, suggested to some) that such a monopolistic landownerwould charge the price OA, would sell the quantity of land OM, thus maximising his receipts, and would hold off the market the quantity of land, MQ. But suppose that he did this. MQ land and money equal to OA X OM would be in the possession of the original landowner while OM land would be owned by others. In these circumstances, why should the original landownercontinue to hold MQ off the market? The original landownercould obviously improve his position by selling more land since he could by this means acquire more money. It is true that this would reduce the value of the land OM owned by those who had previously bought land from him-but the loss would fall on them, not on him. If the same assumption about his behaviour was made as before, he would then sell part of MQ. But this is not the end of the story, since some of MQ would still remain unsold. The process would continue as long as the original landowner retained any land, that is, until OQ had been sold. And if there were no costs of disposing of the land, the whole process would take place in the twinkling of an eye. 143 144 THE JOURNAL OF LAW AND ECONOMICS Figure D I z mj A † _ o Q : D 0 M Q QUANTITY MR It might be objected to this supposedbehaviourunder which land is sold in separate transactions involving blocks of land, probably of diminishing size, that it would be even better if the landowner sold the land by infinitesimal units, thus maximising his total revenue. But this is neither here nor there. Whatever the intermediatesteps are assumed to be, OQ land will be sold. And given that OQ is going to be sold, the value of a unit of land is going to be OB and given this, no buyer of land will pay more than OB for it. Although the demand schedule may be correctly drawn in that, if the quantity of land is OM, the price would be OA, the landownerwould find himself in the position that, if he were charged more than OB, he would sell nothing. The demand schedule facing the original landowner would be infinitely elastic at the competitive price and this even though he was the sole supplier. With complete durability, the price becomes independent of the number of suppliers and is thus always equal to the competitive price. DURABILITYAND MONOPOLY 145 How could the landowner avoid this result? He could do this and obtain the price OA from the sale of OM land by making special contractual arrangements with the purchasersof land by which, as a condition of sale, he agreed to hold unsold in perpetuity the quantity of land MQ. Alternatively, he could agree to buy back any land that was offered to him in the future at a price just under OA, thus making it against his interest to sell more than OM land. Another way in which essentially the same result could be obtained would be for the landowner not to sell the land but to lease it for relatively short periods of time. It would then be comparatively easy for him to assure lessees that no increasein supply will occur during the lease period either by entering into all leases at the same point in time, or by announcing that he would not change the rental price during the lease period or by agreeing to adjust the prices charged to existing lessees if a lower charge is made to others during the lease period. In any case, even if such contractual arrangementscannot be made, lessees have some reason to believe that the landownerwill not, in fact, lease more than OM land by charging lower prices for some of the unutilised land (after having entered into contracts at OA) because it would not be in his self-interest to do so. With this kind of leasing, the total earnings of the landowner depend largely on the rents at which land can be leased in future periods and the yield from these rents will tend to be higher the greater the confidence the lessees have that the amount of land leased during the lease period will not be more than OM. That confidence would obviously be weakened and the rent that could be charged in future reduced, if extra land above OM is leased during the current lease period. It is this which would tend to give lessees confidence that such extra land will not be leased. Of course, the negotiating of such rental contracts for short periods for each piece of land might be extremely costly and indeed might be so costly as to offset the gain in revenue from the limitation in the amount of land utilised. But, if not too costly, leasing would tend to ensure that only OM land was utilised. Another alternative would be for the landowner to give MQ land to someone who is less concernedabout money-makingthan he is. For example, the landowner might donate MQ land to the government to be used â€Å"in the public interest†. Some such contractual or institutional arrangementsas these would enable the landowner to charge the monopoly price. But in the absence of such arrangements,the price charged will be the competitive price. It may be thought that this argument does not apply if the permanently durable good is produced by a monopolist supplier rather than being part of nature. But this is not so. Assume that the demand schedule for this good is DD, representingthe present value of its future services for various quantities of the good. Assume that it is produced by a single firm and that marginal costs are constant. MR representsthe marginal revenue schedule and MC the 146 THE JOURNAL OF LAW AND ECONOMICS marginalcost schedule. All schedulesare shown in Figure II. Cost and demand conditions are assumed to remain the same in the future. In effect, this means that if the competitive output, OQ, is produced originally, nothing will be producedin later periods. A similar argument to that used in the case of the landowner will demonstrate that the price that this producer will charge (assuming outright sale) will not be OA, the apparentmonopolyprice, but will be OB, since the demand for his output of this good is infinitely elastic at this price up to the output OQ. Again, it is possible to introduce conditions into the contract for sale which would avoid this. An agreement not to produce any more of the good afterOM has been produced,an offer to buy back the good at any time in the future at a price just under OB, or the use of leasing rather than outright sale, would all have the effect of making it possible to charge OA (just as similararrangementswould enable the monopolist landowner to achieve the monopoly price). Figure 1T A QB CL MC 0 /l M IA ! Q M-r-rvMR ~U-lM 11 I DURABILITYAND MONOPOLY 147 Some of these arrangementsmay not be legally enforceableand, in any case, are likely to involve additional costs as against those incurredin outright sale. There is, however, an alternative which was not available to the hypothetical landownerand that is to make the good less durable. This may raise the costs of providing the stream of services affordedby the durable good, may result in charges over the future which have a present value greater than OA and a supply of services less than that affordedby OM of the durable good. Profits will also be less than they would be if this firm could sell OM at price OA. But this is not a real alternative in the absence of the various contractual arrangementsmentioned. If the durable good is produced, the output will be OQ at price OB. If a less durable good is produced, a higher price can be charged because consumers do not have to fear an increase in supply if they buy at the monopoly price. The productionof a less durable good as against a more durable good is very similar to a policy of leasing since, by making the good less durable,the producersells the services providedby the good for short periods of time (because the good wears out) whereas in leasing the same result is achieved by selling the services of a given durable good in short period segments. The reason why making a good less durable enables a producer to charge higher prices than he could if the good were extremely durable is that it makes it in his self-interest not to increase supply since, if he did this, it would tend to lead consumers to believe that he might do this again in the future, a belief which would make it impossible for him to charge the monopoly price (as was explained in the case of land for leasing). Another circumstance reinforces the conclusion that making a good less durable will enable the monopolist producer to charge a higher price. What a consumer has to fear is an increasein supply during the period in which he (or someone to whom he transfers the good) is deriving services from the good. The less durable the good, the shorter is this period. But the shorter the period that the supplierhas in which to increase supply, the greater will be the additional costs of increasing supply. Lessened durability reduces the gain from an increase in supply and thus reduces the likelihood that it will occur. The analysis up to this point has proceededon the assumption that marginal costs were constant for the durable good. It needs modification if marginal costs rise with increases in the rate of output. With constant marginal costs, production would take place in the first period and would then cease. With rising marginalcosts, productionwould extend over a period of time, although, since price would fall as the stock of the durable good increased, the rate of production would decrease as time passed. Since sales occur sequentially, in setting the price in later periods, the producer will not take into account the fall in the value of the existing stock (which is, of course, owned by others). To this extent the behaviourof the producerwill inevitably be com- 148 THE JOURNAL OF LAW AND ECONOMICS petitive in character and the stock (and price) will move towards the competitive level. Because of this, consumers will pay less (and the producer’s profits will be less), than they would if, throughan agreementas to the total quantity that could be produced or an agreement on a re-purchaseprice or through the use of leasing, production were limited to the monopoly output. Reducing the durability of the good is an alternative policy which might be more profitable (as was argued in the case of constant marginal costs). There is an additional element introduced by the fact that production will continue over a period of time. The producerwill have to consider the effect his actions have on the expectations of consumersabout his actions in future periods. He can in general be counted upon to refrain from expanding output when any gain that he might make through disappointingconsumers’expectations (if they thought he would restrict production) would be less than the loss he would suffer in future from not fulfilling them. However, there is no reason why conditions should not be such that it would always pay to disappoint consumers’expectations of a restrictionin output (if they held such expectations) and in such circumstances,output in all periods would be such as to make marginalcost equal to price (if some of the arrangementsmentioned earlierwere not used). This result is particularly likely since, in the assumed conditions of rising marginal costs, prices and production will decline over time. Even in conditions in which the producer would not wish to disappoint consumers’expectations of a restrictionin production, it is by no means easy to say how things would work out in practice since neither the producer nor the consumers would necessarily have clear, or the same, ideas about the future. A full analysis of this situation would be very complicated but could not affect the main contention of this note, that with durability some contractualor institutional arrangementof the type mentioned earlier may be a less costly and perhaps the only way of achieving a monopoly price or that reduceddurability may prove to be a better way out of the difficulty. Oneother qualification should be mentioned. The analysis up to this point has assumed that demand and cost conditions remained unchanged, in effect, that the economy was in a stationary state. The present value of any given amountof the durablegood will always take into account future demands,but if demand remains the same, the present value of its future services (for any givenamount of the durablegood) will remain the same as time passes. However,with increasing demands present values will rise and future production will be greater than has been assumed (with constant marginal costs there willbe some future productionas against none). This enhances the importance ofthe considerationsdiscussed in the previous paragraph,since the future loss fromnot restricting output will tend to be greater. Whether the expected increasein demand would be sufficient to lead the producer to restrict output DURABILITYAND MONOPOLY 149 in earlier periods depends on its extent, on the rate of discount, on the nature of the cost schedule, on whether costs are expected to increase in the meantime (and by how much) and on the confidencewith which these views about the future are held. An expected increase in demand may or may not obviate the need for the contractual arrangementsmentioned earlier (or a reduction in durability) if the monopolist producer of a durable good is to secure the monopoly price. The business practices which I have suggested as devices which a monopolist supplier might use to cope with the problem of durability may, of course, be adopted for reasons which have nothing to do with my argument. A land developer, in selling land on which houses are to be built, may agree to hold neighbouringland off the market to improve the amenities; the supplier of a durable good may agree to buy it back at some specified price in the future because consumers are willing to pay for this reduction in risk; leasing is often a less costly way for the consumer to obtain the services of a durable good; a reduction in durability may enable a supplier to provide a given stream of services at lower cost. Even when these practices are adopted to avoid the consequencesof durability on demand, they are not necessarily undesirable-an agreementnot to produce more than a certain quantity may be a necessary condition in the competitive supply of a durable good for which marginalcost is less than average cost. Nevertheless, these business practices, including reduced durability, may be essential elements in securing a monopolistic price. However, these practices have their costs and they may not, in fact, always be feasible. Furthermore,some of the contractual arrangements will not be enforceable over a long period. In such circumstances, the competitive outcome may be achieved even if there is but a single supplier.