Suchergebnisse

Article IV's command that "the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" stands as one of the few remaining lacunae in the judicially enforced Constitution. For well over a century, federal courts have viewed the provision — traditionally known as the Guarantee Clause but now referred to by some as the "Republican Form of Government" Clause — as a paradigmatic example of a nonjusticiable political question. In recent years, however, both the Supreme Court and lower federal courts have signaled a new willingness to reconsider this much-criticized jurisdictional barrier in an appropriate case, leading many to predict that its eventual demise is only a matter of time. The interpretive possibilities inherent in a judicially enforceable Guarantee Clause have tantalized generations of constitutional theorists, leading to a significant body of research attempting to uncover what was meant by the provision's oblique reference to "a Republican Form of Government." But this research has almost completely ignored a separate inquiry that is equally critical to understanding the provision's meaning and significance — namely, what it means for the United States to "guarantee" such republican government to the states. This Article seeks to shed new light on the original meaning of the term "guarantee" in the Guarantee Clause by looking to an unexpected source — namely, eighteenth-century treaty practice. The language of the Guarantee Clause closely parallels language that was frequently used in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century treaties. The interpretation of such treaty provisions was informed by well-settled background principles of international law, which attached particular legal significance to the term "guarantee." As used in eighteenth-century treaties, the term "guarantee" signified a diplomatic commitment whereby one nation pledged its support to the protection of some preexisting right or entitlement possessed by another sovereign. Importantly, however, such provisions were deemed to exist solely for the benefit of the guaranteed sovereign and conferred no separate rights or entitlements on the nation pledging the guarantee. Viewing the Guarantee Clause through the lens of eighteenth-century treaty practice casts significant doubt on claims by modern scholars that the provision should be understood as a repository of judicially enforceable individual rights. Rather, both the text of the provision and contextual evidence regarding its original understanding strongly suggest that the provision more likely reflected a quasi-diplomatic, treaty-like commitment on the part of the federal government to its quasi-sovereign component states. This evidence lends new, and heretofore unappreciated, support to the Supreme Court's longstanding practice of treating Guarantee Clause claims as beyond the scope of judicial cognizance.

One year of implementation of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, which is of great importance to the poor is nearing completion. In view of this the subject is topical and relevant. It is vital to analyse critically the problems in the law itself. The author traces a comparative account of the Employment Assurance Scheme and NREGA. Many shortcomings of the NREGA are pointed out. It is argued that the crucial provisions in NREGA 2005 undermine the proclaimed guarantee and it would be idle to pretend that this Act would change the geography of poverty in India. The author treats this analysis of NREGA as a mode of raising our voices on behalf of the poor to expand their rights.

Are price‐matching guarantees anticompetitive? We examine the incentives for price‐matching guarantees in markets where information about prices is costly. The conventional explanation of price matching as facilitating cartel pricing finds some theoretical support, but our model provides an additional explanation. A price‐matching guarantee may be a credible and easily understood means of communicating to uninformed consumers that a firm is low priced. The credibility of the signal is assured by the behavior of informed consumers. We contrast the testable implications of our model with those arising from two theories of price matching as anticompetitive, and show that available evidence supports the signalling theory.

We revisit the revenue comparison of standard auction formats, including first-price, second-price, and English auctions. We rank auctions according to their revenue guarantees, i.e., the greatest lower bound of revenue across all informational environments, where we hold fixed the distribution of bidders' values. We conclude that if we restrict attention to the symmetric affiliated models of Milgrom and Weber (1982) and monotonic pure-strategy equilibria, first-price, second-price, and English auctions are revenue guarantee equivalent: they have the same revenue guarantee, which is equal to that of the first-price auction as characterized by Bergemann, Brooks, and Morris (2017). If we consider all equilibria or if we allow more general models of information, then first-price auctions have a greater revenue guarantee than all other auctions considered. (JEL D44, D83)

Applying standard portfolio-sort techniques to bank asset returns for 15 countries from 2004 to 2018, we uncover a risk premium associated with implicit government guarantees. This risk premium is intimately tied to sovereign risk, suggesting that guaranteed banks, defined as those of particular importance to the national economy, inherit the risk of the guarantor. Indeed, this premium does not exist in safe-haven countries. We rationalize these findings with a model in which implicit government guarantees are risky in the sense that they provide protection that depends on the aggregate state of the economy.

© 2019 Elsevier B.V. Applying standard portfolio-sort techniques to bank asset returns for 15 countries from 2004 to 2018, we uncover a risk premium associated with implicit government guarantees. This risk premium is intimately tied to sovereign risk, suggesting that guaranteed banks, defined as those of particular importance to the national economy, inherit the risk of the guarantor. Indeed, this premium does not exist in safe-haven countries. We rationalize these findings with a model in which implicit government guarantees are risky in the sense that they provide protection that depends on the aggregate state of the economy.