Citation
Strategic policy assessment and Congressional reform

Material Information

Title:
Strategic policy assessment and Congressional reform the future in committee
Creator:
Bezold, Clement
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xi, 279 leaves : ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Anticipation ( jstor )
Business executives ( jstor )
Congressional committees ( jstor )
Executive branch ( jstor )
Executive committees ( jstor )
Jurisdiction ( jstor )
National growth ( jstor )
Public policy ( jstor )
Senators ( jstor )
Subcommittees ( jstor )
City of Miami ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 263-277).
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Clement Bezold.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
025510801 ( ALEPH )
AAT9960 ( NOTIS )
02987408 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text













STRATEGIC POLICY ASSESSMENT AND CONGRESSIONAL REFORM:
THE FUTURE IN COMMITTEE


by


Clement Bezold


A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of
The University of Florida
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy



UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1976
























Copyright 1976

by


Clement Bezold













ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


This dissertation is the product of assistance from a variety

of persons and institutions. I would like to acknowledge their

contributions and express my heartfelt thanks:

To the supervisory committee: Victor A. Thompson, chairman;

William G. Munselle; Eric M. Uslaner; Keith R. Legg; John S. Fitch;

and Ramona R. Rush.

To Jon L. Mills, director of the Center for Governmental Re-

sponsibility, for continued institutional, financial, and personal

support. This research grew out of the center's project on congres-

sional accountability and grew into its project on Congress and

the future. To others on the center staff for their support, and

to William Munselle, who prompted my first research for the center.

To Michael McIntosh and the McIntosh Foundation for funding

provided to the center and used in this research.

To the senators, representatives, staff persons, officials,

and experts who responded to formal and informal interview ques-

tions which provided most of the information for this dissertation.

To Roger Davidson, Fred Holborn, Herbert Jasper, Genevieve Knezo,

and James Thornton, who reviewed chapters dealing with cases with

which they had been involved as staff persons. Their comments were

thoughtful and helpful for accuracy of information and interpre-

tation, although the responsibility for questions of interpretation

remains my own.








To the Governmental Studies Division of the Brookings Insti-

tution for guest privileges, for a friendly and intellectual

atmosphere, for increased access to congressional offices result-

ing from association with the institution, and for regular volley-

ball games. To Alvin Toffler, the Committee for Anticipatory

Democracy, and Hazel Henderson for information concerning this

research and, more importantly, for support of my personal and

professional commitments that paralleled this research and aided

in its completion. To Congressman Dante B. Fascell and his staff

for my introduction to Capitol Hill as a congressional intern in

1968.

To friends, fellow students, and colleagues who contributed

to the final accomplishment of this dissertation: Robert Bradley,

Elizabeth Ferris, William Goodwin, Carolyn Herrington, Michael

and Sylvia Lenaghan, Charlotte Miller, Mary Jane Parker, Steven

Reinemund, and Elizabeth Smith. To Martha Hetrick for editorial

work on the manuscript, and to Roberta Solt and Susan Eddy Mauldin

for typing the final copy.

And finally to my family, particularly my mother and father,

Katherine and Henry Bezold, for the warm environment in which I

grew up and their continuing encouragement.














CONTENTS


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii

ABBREVIATIONS vii

ABSTRACT ix

CHAPTER 1 CONGRESS AND STRATEGIC POLICY ASSESSMENT 1
Introduction 2. Congressional Policy Making 4. Congressional
Ability to Anticipate Problems 5. Policy Analysis in Congress 7.
Policy Analysis and Strategic Policy Assessment 9. Congressional
Reform 14. SPA Reforms in the 93rd Congress 22. Notes 26

CHAPTER 2 STRATEGIC POLICY ASSESSMENT PROPOSALS: PURPOSIVE
BEHAVIOR AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL 28
Introduction 29. Stages of Successful Activity on a Bill 31.
Member Factors: Goals 34. Committee Factors 43. Hypotheses 48.
Methodology 50. Notes 54

CHAPTER 3 THE FORESIGHT PROVISION OF THE COMMITTEE REFORM
AMENDEMNTS OF 1974 56
Building Strategic Policy Assessment Into the House Committee
System 57. The Bolling Committee 57. Proposals in the Bolling
Committee 59. Stage 1: Instigation and Publicizing 61. Stage 2:
Information Gathering 64. Stage 3: Formulation 86. Interest
Aggregation 94. Mobilization 96. Modification 97. Member Goals
and Policy Attitudes 99. Conclusion 105. Notes 107.

CHAPTER 4 THE BALANCED NATIONAL GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT
OF 1974 110
Introduction 111. Growth Policy and Strategic Policy Assessment
116. Instigating and Publicizing for Growth Policy 117. Formula-
tion 125. Moving a Bill Without a Committee 130. National Growth
and the Budget Report 132. Interest and Support Outside Congress
140. The Senate Government Operations Committee 141. Senator
Humphrey's Goals 143. Summary: Incubating an SPA Reform 144.
Notes 148.









CHAPTER 5 THE FULL OPPORTUNITY AND NATIONAL GOALS AND PRIORITIES
ACT 151
Introduction 152. Instigation and Publicizing 154. Formulation
156. S. 843 in the 90th Congress 158. The 91st Congress 166.
The 92nd Congress 177. The 93rd Congress 184. Member Goals and
Attitudes 188. Summary: Six Stages 192. Notes 198.

CHAPTER 6 HYPOTHESES AND COMPARISONS 202
Introduction 203. Six Stages in Legislative Activity 203.
Hypotheses 207. Committee Factors 209. Committee Comparisons
219. Member Goals 223. SPA Policy Attitude 226. Summary 233.
Notes 234.

CHAPTER 7 IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 236
Viability: Implications for Congressional Reform 237. Implica-
tions of This Research 239. Conclusion 244.

APPENDICES 247

REFERENCES 263

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 278










ABBREVIATIONS


ACIR
ACP
AIP


BoB


Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations
Academy for Contemporary Problems
American Institute of Planners

Bureau of the Budget (in 1970 the Office of Management
and Budget), Executive Office of the President


Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, U.S. Senate
Committee on Banking and Currency, U.S. House of
Representatives
Council of Economic Advisers, Executive Office of the
President
Committee for Economic Development
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate
Congressional Office of Policy and Planning (proposed
in S. 3050, 93rd Congress)
Committee on Public Works, U.S. House
Congressional Quarterly
Congressional Record (daily edition)
Congressional Research Service
Council of Social Advisers (proposed in S. 5, 93rd Congress)


Federal Register


Department of Health, Education and Welfare


International Society for Technology Assessment


Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, U.S. Congress
Joint Committee on Congressional Operations, U.S. Congress
Joint Committee on the Economic Report (established by
1946 Employment Act; became Joint Economic Committee),
U.S. Congress
Joint Committee on the Social Report (proposed in S. 5,
93rd Congress)
Joint Economic Committee (formerly JCER), U.S. Congress


CAF
CBC

CEA

CED
CGO
CLPW
COPP

CPW
CQ
CR
CRS
CSA


FR


HEW


ISTA


JCAE
JCCO
JCER


JCSR

JEC










Legislative Reorganization Act (of 1946 and 1970)


NAS National Academy of Sciences
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NGRS National Goals Research Staff, Executive Office of the
President, 1969-1970
NSF National Science Foundation


OBNGD Office of Balanced National Growth and Development
(proposed in S. 3050, 93rd Congress)
OEO Office of Economic Opportunity, Executive Office of
the President
OGPA Office of Goals and Priorities Analysis (proposed in S. 5,
93rd Congress)
OTA Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress


PPBS Planning, programming, budgeting system


R&D Research and development


SCC Select Committee on Committees, U.S. House of Representa-
tives, 93rd Congress
SPA Stratetic policy assessment


UAC Urban Advisory Committee, Executive Office of the Presi-
dent, 1969-1970

WWICS Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars


viii


LRA










Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


STRATEGIC POLICY ASSESSMENT AND CONGRESSIONAL REFORM:
THE FUTURE IN COMMITTEE

by

Clement Bezold
March, 1976
Chairman: Victor A. Thompson
Major Department: Political Science

During the 93rd Congress several reforms were proposed to

make Congress better able to anticipate emerging problems and

to deal with them before they reach a crisis stage. Three of

these reform proposals have been examined in this research in

order to understand the nature of congressional reform in a

technical, analytical area.

The foresight provision of the Committee Reform Amendments

of 1974 (H. Res. 988), prompted by Representative John C. Culver

(D., Iowa), requires committees of the House to perform futures

research and forecasting. The Full Opportunity and National Goals

and Priorities Act (S. 5), sponsored by Senator Walter F. Mondale

(D., Minn.), would establish a Council of Social Advisers and a

congressional Office of Goals and Priorities Analysis. Senator

Hubert H. Humphrey's (D., Minn.) Balanced National Growth and

Development Act of 1974 (S. 3050) would establish mechanisms to

set national growth policy.

The term strategic policy assessment has been used to mean

the analysis of emerging trends and conditions and the clarification









of policy goals and options in relation to these trends and condi-

tions. Depending on context, a strategic policy assessment reform

may have three effects on congressional decision making: (1) to

increase the ability of Congress to search for emerging issues that

should be on the congressional agenda; (2) to provide information

for current decisions on relevant future trends, events, or condi-

tions; and (3) to force the conscious interrelation of decisions

taken at different times or places within government.

Hypotheses were formulated relating committee and member fac-

tors to the legislative processing of three proposals. Stages of

processing analyzed were: (1) instigating and publicizing, (2)

information gathering, (3) formulation, (4) interest aggregation,

(5) mobilization, and (6) modification. Analyses were based on

documentary research and extensive interviews of sponsors, commit-

tee members, staff, and other officials and experts.

Findings showed that successful processing required a sup-

portive committee chairman; staff with expertise in policy analysis

or decision-making processes and, where the reform involved sig-

nificant changes, skill in political information gathering and

bargaining; interest group support; and favorable bureaucratic

activity. Interest group support was generated only if the reform

was linked to another, more immediately relevant issue or to

professional benefit; favorable activity from bureaucratic enti-

ties occurred when the strategic policy assessment reform would

benefit the entity. Bureaucratic opposition occurred where a










competing unit would be established by a reform. Strategic policy

assessment reforms were found to generate opposition in relation

to the degree of change to be required in present decision-making

structures, in procedures, and in distribution of power.

Sponsors of strategic policy assessment legislation were found

to be motivated by conceptions of good policy rather than by the

benefits of reelection or a career beyond the chamber. Like their

colleagues in committee, sponsors expressed dissatisfaction with

the ways in which Congress normally searches for problems, but

they were more optimistic than fellow committee members regarding

the ability of government to anticipate emerging problems and to

deal with them before they reach a crisis stage.

It was suggested that further research is necessary on policy

analysis and strategic policy assessment activities in Congress

so that the impact of strategic policy assessment reforms may be

better understood. S. 5 and S. 3050 had effects on other reform

efforts despite the fact that neither was enacted. It was also

suggested that other attempts at strategic policy assessment

reform should focus on the specific operation of existing units,

and where reforms would require significant changes, more attention

should be given to generating public awareness and support for

strategic policy assessment reforms.
























CHAPTER


CONGRESS AND STRATEGIC POLICY ASSESSMENT













INTRODUCTION


Calls for reform of the decision-making processes of the U.S.

Congress are not new. Neither are the social and economic problems

that generate such calls. In recent years, however, the problems

have more frequently developed into crises, and the calls for

reform have become numerous and urgent. During the 93rd Congress

a serious monetary crisis, a food shortage crisis, an unemployment

and welfare crisis, and most important, an energy crisis beset

the nation (Harman, 1973: 475; WWICS, 1973). These crises were

accompanied by proposals to reform congressional processes in

response to these changing social and economic conditions and

thereby to strengthen the policy-making function of national

government.

Our research has concerned three of these efforts at reform-

ing congressional processes and strengthening the ability of

Congress to perform more comprehensive analytic functions basic

to the making of policy. A House resolution and two Senate bills

proposed mechanisms that would enhance the ability of members of

Congress and committees to analyze trends and conditions, and to

clarify policy goals and legislative options relative to these

trends and conditions; that is, to assess policy strategically

in order to anticipate emerging issues and deal with problems









before they reach the crisis stage. The reforms chosen for study

would require increased legislative responsibility for strategic

policy assessment, increased staffing and new committees for

more comprehensive analysis, and additional techniques for

anticipating the future. Thus, information of social and economic

realities, the effects of governmental action, and the inter-

relatedness of decisions taken at many locations within Congress

and other parts of the government might be marshaled. In such re-

forms "futures analysis" is expected to provide the information,

if not the political will, to keep the "institutional agenda"

(what Congress is considering) consistent with the "systematic

agenda" (issues within the polity that deserve consideration).

First, the societal-institutional context of Congress is ex-

plained as it relates to policy making, including the institu-

tional capacity of Congress as a representative assembly to an-

ticipate emerging problems effectively. These questions are then

examined in terms of policy analysis--ways of knowing--within

Congress. Strategic policy assessment--the analysis of emerging

trends and conditions and the clarification of policy goals and

options in relation to these conditions--is then considered in

the context of congressional policy analysis. Finally, the his-

torical development of analytical functions and responsibilities

in Congress through major reforms of the past thirty years is

traced before describing three reforms of the 93rd Congress that

supply our case studies of the varieties of the congressional

will to reform in this analytical area.









CONGRESSIONAL POLICY MAKING


The bases of national policy making in the United States have

precluded treatment of basic or chronic problems. Working in a

context of social and legislative pluralism, both Congress and

the President deal with problems immediately thrust on them by

pressures of the calendar, problems that can be handled quickly,

and problems in an acute, or crisis, stage (Polsby, 1971: 5-6).

This tendency is accentuated in Congress by the recognized

and legitimate pluralism of goals which accompanies the members

of this representative assembly. Lack of focus characterizes

congressional policy making because of the pluralism of goals,

the tendency to pay attention to organized interests, the absence

of effective policy leadership coupled with scatterationn of re-

sponsibility" as committees and subcommittees become principal

sources of policy formulation.

A count made during the 93rd Congress "showed 57 standing and

special committees--a total of 345 work units for 535 members"

(Davidson, 1974: 4). This fragmentation of legislative work units

contributed to fragmented policy.


Committees and subcommittees rarely consult
or cooperate among themselves on matters of
mutual concern. Thus there is rarely an
opportunity to examine comprehensive
approaches to national problems, much less
the cumulative effects of piecemeal ap-
proaches. (Davidson, 1974: 4)









In addition, the multiplicity of committees offers many oppor-

tunities for delays in committee work, in floor amendments and

votes, in conference committee action.

Lack of political focus, structural fragmentation, and pro-

cedural complexity tend to slow the progress of Congress through

the institutional agenda and to reduce the number of new issues

that may be added to it. The crowded congressional agenda is set

by current and past issues reflected in existing legislation

(Cobb & Elder, 1972). The agenda-building process is reinforced

by congressional procedures, executive branch structures, and

interest group configurations. Given such a setting, Congress

and its committees seldom monitor changing conditions. If

changing conditions generate a problem for a politically relevant

group, if a problem is severe enough to generate constituent de-

mands, the problem will likely find a place on the agenda. This

kind of agenda-building process results in the "quick fix, crisis

management, and damage limitation" syndrome. In addition, it

underrepresents those affected by emerging problems but lacking

interest-group structures to translate their concern to members

of Congress.



CONGRESSIONAL ABILITY TO ANTICIPATE PROBLEMS

These problems of congressional agenda-setting raise questions

about the ability of Congress to anticipate emerging problems and

deal with them before they reach a crisis stage. These questions










involve the fundamental aspects of democratic governments. The

self-centered, individualistic nature of a liberal democracy is

reflected in a legislative inability to anticipate emerging

problems and to direct the allocation of resources to combat them.

At the level of the individual,anticipating problems may require

foregoing current satisfactions. As a member of Congress put it,

"Forcing the country to meet problems before they reach a crisis

stage necessitates foregoing current expenditures and satisfac-

tions. This requires a discipline that isn't in the personal or

political lives of the people."l This lack of discipline poses a

problem for legislators. As another member of Congress put it:



There is a problem with legislating in ad-
vance: programs cost money. The public
does not want something they don't think
they need and they don't see the current
need for anticipated problems. Con-
gress has a representative function. The
public which is represented is not inter-
ested in the future in any specific terms.
In effect a member has to become a sales-
man for the problem; a crisis helps sell
the urgency of the need to deal with the
problem.



The role of Congress, rather than the executive, in antici-

pating problems has also been questioned. Congress has barely

responded to the twentieth century, it has been suggested, and

its decline vis-a-vis the executive will continue (Huntington,

1972, 1974). Congress has dispersed power to committees during

this century and has gradually insulated itself from new political









forces that social change has generated. Simultaneously, legis-

lation has become "much too complex politically to be effectively

handled by a representative assembly" (Huntington, 1972). In the

view of such commentators, Congress may take the initiative only

to obstruct executive proposals and must be relegated to an in-

creasingly marginal role in national policy making.

But few members of the 93rd Congress, whose prerogatives and

constitutional powers were severely threatened by a hostile Re-

publican administration, were ready to accept so marginal a role.

Recognizing at least some of the problems of a representative

assembly, most members of Congress were ready to meet the challenge

presented to the Congress by the Nixon impoundments. Several mem-

bers were ready to propose changes to remedy congressional dis-

abilities as a policy-making body. While members of Congress did

not use such a term as strategic policy assessment, the reforms

proposed would add to the capacity of Congress to perform the

functions this term denotes by requiring futures researchand

forecasting, a social reporting system, and mechanisms to set

national growth policy within Congress.



POLICY ANALYSIS IN CONGRESS

The reforms that were proposed in Congress and chosen for

our research would adjust the policy analysis for congressional

policy making. Policy is a statement of choice of a goal and,

often, some means or set of means to attain the chosen goal.









Policy analysis is the gathering and processing of information

according to well-known criteria and the matching of this infor-

mation against certain goals (Polsby, 1969).

Congress has not been renowned for systematic policy analysis.

Some committees, particularly the Joint Economic Committee and the

Joint Committee on Internal Revenue and Taxation, are known for

thorough analysis (Manley, 1968), but "all knowledge on a par-

ticular topic is rarely collected in a single spot or system-

atically marshalled" (Polsby, 1969: 101). Even less commonly made

are attempts to collect or synthesize information systematically

across several policy areas.

One reason for the relative absence of thorough policy

analysis is that members of Congress have traditionally seen

themselves as self-sufficient legislators. As we shall see, the

suggestion that Congress should add more staff for policy analysis

was thought, until recently, to be a slur on the capacity of mem-

bers for competent decision making. A more fundamental reason,

however, lies in the pluralism of goals and bargaining processes.


Much congressional policy analysis takes
place under adversary circumstances. Thus
congressional decision-makers ordinarily
cannot enjoy the luxury of examining al-
ternative means to stipulated ends. In
an adversary process ends are not stipu-
lated but contested. Agreement on means
is often sought as a substitute for
agreement on ends. Ends are scaled down,
pulled out of shape, or otherwise trans-
formed. (Posby, 1969: 104)
(Polsby, 1969: 104)









As specific policies become more complex, this problem is

compounded.


Means and ends are hopelessly intertwined.
The real choice is between rival policies
that encapsulate somewhat different mixes
of means and ends. The principal
participants [in the political process]
may not be clear about their goals. What
we call goals or objectives may, in large
part, be operationally determined by the
policies we can agree on. The mixtures of
values found in complex policies may have
to be taken in packages, so that policies
may determine goals at least as much as
general objectives determine policies.
(Wildavsky, 1966: 307-308)


Strategic policy assessment is a type of policy analysis which

is concerned with the conditions underlying policy choices and with

clarifying policy goals and options in relation to these condi-

tions. Strategic in this context refers to major or fundamental

policy questions--those which are often obscured by the continual

mixing of ends and means.



POLICY ANALYSIS AND STRATEGIC POLICY ASSESSMENT


The mixing of ends and means is important for congressional

policy making in that it adds to the problem of crisis decision

making. As we shall see, this mixing of ends and means affects

congressional reform efforts without stopping attempts to pro-

vide more effective means of analyzing emerging conditions and










dealing with problems before the crisis stage. One group concerned

with increasing the anticipatory capacity of Congress coined the

term strategic policy assessment.

Officials of the executive branch, several members of Con-
2
gress and staff, and outside experts met in 1973 under the aus-

pices of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

(WWICS). They recommended that specific mechanisms be established

to perform strategic policy assessment in both the executive and

legislative branches.3 No one from Congress belonged to the sub-

group that drafted the WWICS proposal, and it was not turned into

a specific legislative proposal--it had no "policy entrepreneur"

within Congress. However, participating members of Congress had

been actively interested in policy-making reform, and as we shall

see, some had already become entrepreneurs for their own proposals.

For our purposes strategic policy assessment entails the

analysis of emerging trends and conditions and the clarification

of policy goals and options in relation to these conditions. The

WWICS group did not develop a rigorous conceptual or operational

definition of this term. Justifying the need for strategic policy

assessment in terms of the crisis management syndrome, the group

formulated this statement:


[Such assessments] endeavor to identify
emerging long-term trends and problems,
formulate and evaluate alternative courses
of action to deal with them, and evaluate
the effects of actions that have been put
in train. This objective presupposes a
continued assessment of social values and
preferences.
(WWICS, 1973: S2117)









If governmental mechanisms are to enhance the capability for

strategic policy assessment, they must direct attention and

generate alternatives (Simon, 1966) during the "intelligence"

stage of the decision-making process (Lasswell, 1971). Strategic

policy assessment may also be a component of what agenda-building

theories call the "predecisional" or "prepolitical" process de-

termining the issues and alternatives considered and influencing

the choices made (Cobb & Elder, 1972).

Recognizing the similarity between planning and the activity

being advocated, the WWICS group differentiated between strategic

policy assessment and centralized economic planning.


What is conceived of here is not the develop-
ment of detailed tactics and closely adhered-
to targets, which often accompany plans, but
rather a more analytical and conceptual pro-
cess of identifying and assessing options
available from a long-range perspective.
(WWICS, 1973: S2116-17)


While a full definition of strategic policy assessment must in-

clude its relation to planning and to an adequate taxonomy of

federal policies and programs in terms of the ends-means chain

as well as the decision process, our definition will suffice

for an exploration of congressional reform efforts related to

strategic policy assessment.

Strategic policy assessment (SPA), depending on the particular re-

form whereby it is adopted, may provide three functions for con-

gressional policy making: (1) to search for emerging issues,









(2) to inform current decisions with relevant futures analysis,

(3) to force the conscious interrelationship of decisions made at

different locations in Congress or the government. The search

for emerging issues--a crucial, early-warning function for any

organization (Downs, 1967: 169-91)--concerns additions that should

be made to the institutional agenda. Current decisions are in-

formed by knowledge of likely future trends, events, or condi-

tions that may affect the goals sought by decision makers and the

potential impact of a decision on its policy environment. Both

these functions are analytic, and analysis may or may not be used

to make a specific decision. Strategic policy assessment, through

the use of futures analysis to search for emerging issues and in-

form current decisions, would tend to encourage a systematic con-

sideration of the range of issues on the agenda at a given time

and to force the interrelationship of individual decisions. The

conscious interrelationship of decisions is forced when the deci-

sion process is so structured that analytic functions must be

performed.

A fourth function, one beyond the realm of SPA, is to provide

the political will, whether expressed in popular support or

political leadership, necessary for anticipating problems. We

are concerned with reforms affecting analysis rather than the

exercise of political will or leadership, such as strengthening

the parties or leadership within Congress.









The analytical techniques for acquiring and processing infor-

mation essential to strategic policy assessment may be summarized

by the term futures analysis. Futures analysis may include such

activities as futures research, forecasting, and technology

assessment. All these activities are aimed at exploring the un-

certainties of what is to come, and some of them were specifically

mentioned in congressional reform proposals. The future is com-

posed of "a large set of alternatives." Futures research and fore-

casting, then, are "means of discovering and articulating the

more important of the alternative futures and estimating the

trajectory likely to be produced by contemplated policies" (Gor-

don, 1974: 90). Among futures techniques are genius forecasting,

trend extrapolation, consensus or Delphi methods, simulation,

cross-impact analysis, scenario generation, decision trees, and

econometric forecasting (Gordon, 1974: 90-113).

"As a process of ordering certainties and uncertainties and

their implications with regard to public policy decision-making,"

technology assessment is


the name for a class of policy studies which
attempt to look at the widest possible scope
of impacts in society of the introduction of
a new technology or the extension of an
established technology in new and different
ways. Its goal is to inform the policy pro-
cess by putting before the decision maker
an analyzed set of options, alternatives,
and consequences. (oates forthcoming)
(Coates, forthcoming)









Thus, "technology assessment is a most general and important form

of applied futures research" (Coates, forthcoming).4

Having defined the important terms of our discussion and

described the operative processes of information and analysis in

decision making, let us consider reforms that have improved con-

gressional policy-making ability by providing increased staffing,

changes in committee structure, and new responsibilities for

analyzing current and future conditions.



CONGRESSIONAL REFORM

Reforms strengthening the search, decision-informing, and

decision-interrelating functions of the legislative process have

been proposed in the past, and some have been enacted. These re-

forms have been crucial to the development of the policy analysis

capability in Congress, and our discussion supplies the background

preliminary to consideration of four important reforms of recent

date. Among historical reforms affecting the information and

analysis capability have been


the establishment of the standing
committee system in 1825, periodic reform
of the House and Senate rules to expedite
legislative business, and the fis-
cal reforms following World War I that
unified the Appropriations Committees
and established the General Accounting
Office (Saoma, 1969: 134)
(Saloma, 1969: 134)









Adding to its information resources, the Congress established the

Legislative Reference Service in 1914, providing a central staff

for some analytical functions. The Office of Legislative Counsel

was set up in 1919 to insure the consistency of legislative pro-

posals with existing law. A more technical, policy-relevant staff

was added with the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation in

1926. This staff has earned a reputation for competent analysis

of tax policy matters, in the service of the House Ways and Means

and Senate Finance Committees (Manley, 1968).

In addition to such analysis reforms, other reforms have

affected the interrelating function.


The most important rationalization [inter-
relationship of decisions] in congres-
sional organization and procedure since
1921 has been the indirect discipline in
the legislative and administrative pro-
cesses introduced by executive reform
such as the executive budget and legis-
lative clearance.
native clearance. (Saloma, 1969: 134)



Analysis capacity per se has not been a major concern within

Congress. For most of its history Congress worked in the tradition

that "each member of Congress was a statesman capable of handling

all legislative problems himself" (Gross, 1953: 282). Thus, pro-

posals to add professional staff were taken as a slur on the

capacities of members themselves; yet the increasing activity of

the federal government required increasing legislative analysis.

Committees frequently borrowed officials of the executive branch,









sometimes for lengthy periods and particularly when one party

controlled Congress and the White House (Kofmehl, 1962: 3;

Gross, 1953: 280-81). Lobbyists were also often important in

providing policy analysis to Congress in support of lobby group

interests. Only in the last thirty years has this tradition of

the self-informed statesman been seriously challenged by increased

congressional staffing.

Four legislative initiatives taken during the past thirty

years illustrate how the Congress has acted to change itself and

the executive-legislative relationship in the area of policy

analysis and assessment: the Legislative Reorganization Acts of

1946 and 1970, the Employment Act of 1946, and the Technology

Assessment Act of 1972.



THE LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1946


An omnibus reform bill, the Legislative Reorganization Act

(LRA) of 1946 allowed each committee four professional staff mem-

bers, under the direction of the chairman and the ranking minority

member, and expanded the informational services that the Legisla-

tive Reference Service and the General Accounting Office (GAO)

might provide Congress. But these provisions amounted to only a

few among thirty-eight provisions including pay raises and a re-

tirement system for members of Congress. The committee staffing

provision resulted not only from the realization of need but also









from a conservative Republican effort to prohibit the formal

assignment of executive personnel to committees without the per-

mission of the Senate Rules and Administration or House Adminis-

tration Committees (Gross, 1953: 281).

The most important renovation was the "rationalization" of

committee jurisdictions to make them parallel to executive de-

partments and to reduce the number of committees from thirty-three

to fifteen in the Senate and from forty-eight to nineteen in the

House. The number of subcommittees, however, was little changed.

Before the passage of the act, there were 140 subcommittees; after-

ward, 131 and 146 depending on the count (Gross, 1953: 270). The

change, buried in a large legislative package, was not so severe

as it might have been. It has been stated that these changes did

little to modernize jurisdictional categories and that the act

had unanticipated consequences: ". strengthening the seniority

system, reinforcing committee autonomy, and inhibiting the ability

of Congress to adapt to changing configurations of public issues"

(Davidson, 1974: 4).


THE EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1946


Another legislative initiative relevant to policy assessment

concerns was passed in 1946: the Employment Act of 1946 (P.L. 304,

79th Congress).5 Beyond setting maximum employment as a goal of

the federal government, the act was a congressionally initiated









change in the national decision-making process. Two of its four

purposes are of paramount concern:


Second, to place the responsibility on the
President for seeing to it that the economy
was purposively analyzed at regular inter-
vals and that the Congress was informed
of economic trends and of the President's
program to meet the challenge of those
trends; And finally [fourth], to
establish a mechanism in Congress which
would facilitate legislative analysis and
action, and fix legislative responsibility
for the carrying out of a full employment
policy. (Bailey, 1950: 14-15)



This act added to the federal government's strategic policy assess-

ment functions, but principally through the executive branch; the

responsibility for economic analysis and planning initiative for

full employment programs rested with the President.

The original intent of the act's sponsors was to use the bud-

get process to achieve full employment, but this intent was

weakened during its passage. In earlier versions the Bureau of

the Budget (BoB) was to prepare a national production and employ-

ment budget based on economic planning within the BoB (Bailey,

1950: 164-70). This budget was to be considered by a joint con-

gressional committee on the budget. Proponents of this version saw

it as an extension of


responsibility in the field of economic
planning and policy integration [and] as in-
struments of potential reform which might









ramify into the entire pattern of govern-
mental operations, increasing efficiency
and clarifying political responsibility
and accountability. (Bailey, 1950: 53)
(Bailey, 1950: 53)


Business and other conservative groups saw accountability other-

wise. Partly because of their pressure for an identifiable group

whose appointment Congress would have to approve (Bailey, 1950:

165-70), a Council of Economic Advisers assumed the functions

contemplated for the BoB:


To aid the President in preparation of the
annual economic report; to gather and
analyze on current and prospective trends
and their effect on the achievement of
full employment; to appraise federal pro-
grams in terms of their contribution to
full employment; to develop and recommend
policies to achieve the stated policy.
(P.L. 304, 79th Congress, Sec. 4c)


The second function explicitly requires the government to recog-

nize and analyze long-term trends and emerging issues and thereby

commits the Congress to receive this analysis. However, when

economic analysis was shifted to the CEA from the BoB, a corres-

ponding shift was made in the pertinent congressional committee,

changing the proposed budget committee to the Joint Committee

on the Economic Report (JCER). Thus the analytical functions were

isolated from the budget-making process.

The JCER was to increase the analytical capacity of Congress

by examining the annual economic report issued by the President









in December and by reporting to other committees of Congress by

May 1. Its recommendations were to guide congressional committees

"dealing with legislation affecting employment, production, and

purchasing power." The joint committee was also to "study means

of coordinating programs in order to further the policy of this

act." In its early years, however, the Joint Committee on the

Economic Report did not take the assertive role mandated by the

Employment Act of 1946 (Gross, 1953: 334).6 It did not force the

conscious interrelationship of decisions across committees; it

did not perform this assessment-related function. The establish-

ment in Congress of decision-forcing mechanisms in the budget pro-

cess waited until the 93rd Congress.


THE LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1970


The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (LRA) (P.L. 90-510)

was the product of six years of development following hearings

and activities prompted by Senator Mike Monroney (D., Okla.), a

sponsor of the 1946 LRA. Most of this activity took place in the

privacy of Congress. Inclusion of antisecrecy amendments attracted

some media attention, but otherwise press coverage was virtually

nonexistent, demonstrating, in the words of former Representative

Donald Rumsfeld (R., Ill.),that "Congressional reform is an issue

without a constituency" (Bibby & Davidson, 1972: 259).

The act added personnel to the staffs of committees, and the

data resources of Congress were increased including access to









information from the executive branch. Committees were encouraged

to make their rules explicit. Congressional responsibility to

oversee the executive branch, added as an explicit function in

1946, was reiterated in the 1970 LRA. Although staff resources

were increased in the Congressional Research Service (CRS) as

well as in committee, no mention was made of the type of policy

analysis that congressional committee staff should perform. How-

ever, the CRS was given expanded responsibility for policy

analysis for committees (Beckman, 1974b): The CRS became re-

sponsible for an in-house search for emerging issues that pro-

duces subject lists of issues and policy areas meriting CRS

analysis and committee attention. Committee response to this in-

creased capability was mixed during the 93rd Congress. Many com-

mittees were not interested in Congressional Research Service

suggestions; others requested information on a large number of

issues and acted on them (Bezold, 1974: 460-61).


THE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ACT OF 1972


The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) was established by

the Technology Assessment Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-484). The product

of efforts in the House Science and Astronautics Committee, par-

ticularly by Representative Emilio Daddario (D., Conn.), chair-

man of the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development,

OTA's purpose was to provide information on the physical, bio-

logical, economic, social, and political effects of technological









applications. OTA is directed by a Technology Assessment Board,

essentially a joint congressional committee composed of five

representatives and five senators.

This technology assessment activity was placed in a con-

gressional support organization primarily because the President

seemed uninterested in issues of science and technology. During

the Nixon administration the Office of Science and Technology in

the Executive Office of the President had been abolished, and the

function of advising the President on scientific matters was

transferred to the head of the National Science Foundation (NSF).

This decrease in presidential interest in science coincided with

popular interest, particularly among environmentalists, in ex-

amining the likely consequences of a new scientific or techno-

logical application like the supersonic transport plane, the SST.

OTA had just begun operation in 1973, during the 93rd

Congress, having chosen six initial assessments, or reports, to be

made. Discussion within OTA suggested that the agency perform an
"early warning" function for Congress, and the WWICS proposal listed

OTA as a likely place to establish the policy assessment activities

proposed. It is still too soon to evaluate OTA's contribution, but

this office may play an important role in SPA in Congress.



SPA REFORMS IN THE 93RD CONGRESS

In order to understand the process of congressional reform in

relation to strategic policy assessment, our discussion will focus









on three legislatively initiated proposals during the 93rd Con-

gress. The bills chosen represent a cross-section of congres-

sional approaches to SPA: the foresight provision of House Reso-

lution 988 (the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974), Senate

bill 5 (the Full Opportunity and National Goals and Priorities

Act), and Senate bill 3050 (the Balanced National Growth and De-

velopment Act of 1974).

The foresight provision of the Committee Reform Amendments

of 1974 (H. Res. 988) was proposed during the 93rd Congress by

the House Select Committee on Committees (the Bolling committee)

along with several other reforms bearing on SPA functions in the

House. Because of the efforts of Representative John C. Culver

(D., Iowa), a "foresight responsibility" was included for com-

mittees of the House, whereby they would


review and study any conditions or cir-
cumstances which may indicate the necessity
or desirability of enacting new or addi-
tional legislation within the jurisdiction
of that committee (whether or not any bill
or resolution has been introduced with re-
spect thereto), and shall on a continuing
basis undertake futures research and fore-
casting on matters within the jurisdiction
of that committee. ( 1974e: 389)



The Full Opportunity and National Goals and Priorities Act

(S. 5) was proposed by Senator Walter F. Mondale (D., Minn.) and

favorably reported by the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Com-

mittee (CLPW).A Council of Social Advisers (CSA) was to be









established to gather information and analyze social conditions,

trends, and programs in a fashion similar to that of the Council

of Economic Advisers. A congressional Office of Goals and

Priorities Analysis (OGPA) was to examine national priority

judgments found in the President's proposed budget and to formu-

late recommendations for congressional goals and priorities.

As proposed by Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D., Minn.) and re-

ferred to the Senate Government Operations Committee (CGO), the

Balanced National Growth and Development Act of 1974 (S. 3050)

would establish an office within the Executive Office of the Presi-

dent to assess national needs, goals, and priorities and to pre-

pare an annual report on national growth and development policy.

The annual report would include "appropriate projections and fore-

casts regarding future social, economic, environmental, and

scientific developments affecting the growth of the Nation stated

in five-, ten-, and twenty-five-year time frames. (S. 3050).

The proposed executive office would also force policy coordination

among various departments by contributing directly to the formula-

tion of the presidential budget. Within Congress an Office of

Policy and Planning would conduct "a continuing, nonpartisan

analysis of national goals, priorities, and urban and rural growth

policies." This office was to provide Congress "with the data and

analyses necessary for enlightened decisions with respect to such

matters." Further, the office was to recommend interrelated policies

and programs to the Congress. The bill also proposed an independent









Foundation for America's Future and a national citizens' advisory

network to provide independent research and citizen input for

national growth policy.

The three bills chosen for study bear on different aspects

of strategic policy assessment functions. They represent a di-

versity of congressional approaches to the problem of creating

and reconciling policy legislatively. The foresight provision of

H. Res. 988was aimed at searching for emerging problems and in-

forming current decisions within the jurisdiction of individual

committees. The Mondale bill (S. 5)was aimed at forcing analysis

across the field of social policy and, to a limited extent,

forcing the conscious interrelationship of decisions within the

Council of Social Advisers and in an Office of Goals and Priorities

Analysis within Congress. The Humphrey proposal (S. 3050) would

augment the search for emerging issues, inform current decisions

regarding future developments, and force the conscious interrela-

tionship of decisions across broad areas of policy made both in

Congress and in the White House. Examination of these three SPA

reform proposals has shown how Congress does and does not bring

about change in its own operations, particularly in its ability

to adjust its crisis decision making. To demonstrate the successes

and failures of certain approaches may be useful to future efforts

to add to the anticipatory capacity of national decision making.

In order to present case studies of these bills, a set of

factors, relationships, and hypotheses have been developed to










evaluate comparative legislative responsibility in the develop-

ment of each bill. In Chapter 2 we have set forth criteria for

the development of legislative enactments and the operative goals

of legislators, along with hypotheses necessary to examine each

proposal. In Chapter 3 we have presented a case study of H. Res. 988;

in Chapter 4, of the Mondale bill; in Chapter 5, of the Humphrey

proposal. In Chapter 6 the hypotheses have been reevaluated in light of

these case studies. In Chapter 7 conclusions for the maturity and

viability of SPA reforms and implications for congressional reform

have been summarized.



NOTES

1. Statements throughout the text that are quoted without
attribution have been drawn from more than seventy-five confiden-
tial interviews with members of Congress, congressional and
executive staff members, outside experts, and public and private
interest-group representatives.

2. Reps. John D. Dingell (D., Mich.), Guy Vander Tagt (R.,
Mich.), Alan Steelman (R., Tex.), Senators Philip A. Hart (D.,
Mich.), James L. Buckley (R., N.Y.), and Hubert H. Humphrey (D.,
Minn.).

3. The WWICS group recommended that the congressional Office
of Technology Assessment (OTA) be broadly mandated to include
social concerns and that a strategic assessment staff, a distinct
entity with a deputy director, be added to OTA. An executive
office of strategic policy assessment was to be added to the
Office of Management and Budget, to address selected major prob-
lems from a multidisciplinary and long-term perspective. To maxi-
mize its impact on emergent policy considerations, this office
was to "review and comment on the President's budget as well as
longer term implications of resource allocation decisions .
and legislation which has significant long-term policy implica-
tions" (WWICS, 1973: S2117-18).

4. For a listing of steps in technology assessment, see
Coates, 1975 and forthcoming.










5. That the call for reforms in national decision making to
cope with the future is not new is shown by the prefatory comments
to a major work on the Employment Act of 1946:
The day of policy planning by haphazard pressures and
personal and political whim is fast running out, for
the basic assumption underlying such irresponsible
policymaking has been that our society was resilient
enough to stand it. What if a needed policy were warped
out of shape by the nature of our political processes?
No great and lasting harm was done. There was always
time to start again, to explore new paths, skip around
in a labyrinth of blind alleys. But what if we guess
wrong today? The power and problems of government may
result in physical destruction or economic disaster.
(Bailey, 1950: viii-ix)

6. The Joint Committee on the Economic Report became the Joint
Economic Committee. Its staff has a reputation as one of the best
analytical staffs of any congressional committee.

7. For an evaluation of OTA's operations during the 93rd Con-
gress, see Craig Decker's attempt to "assess the assessors"
(Decker, 1975).
























CHAPTER


STRATEGIC POLICY ASSESSMENT PROPOSALS
PURPOSIVE BEHAVIOR AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL














INTRODUCTION


Our examination of three legislative initiatives has been

structured in order to understand strategic policy assessment

reforms in Congress that were aimed at making government better

able to cope with the future. The legislative initiatives

examined are the foresight provision of the Committee Reform

Amendments of 1974 (H. Res. 988), the Full Opportunity and

National Goals and Priorities Act (S. 5), and the Balanced

National Growth and Development Act of 1974 (S. 3050). At the

level of the major operating group within Congress, the commit-

tees, certain key resources, or factors, have been selected for

consideration. These key factors at the committee level have

been chosen in order to allow an identification of "who was

responsible for a bill's enactment."

The research on Congress most relevant to our purposes

examined thirteen bills handled by three Senate committees in

order to "ascertain what aspects of committee life best help us

understand the characteristic patterns of legislative action and

inaction, initiative and deference" (Price, 1972: x). The issues

address were the "decline" of parliaments in the face of ascen-

dant executives and the sources and conditions of legislative









independence and creativity in the U.S. Congress. In other

relevant research the functioning of six House committees from

1955 to 1966 was examined in order to describe and generalize

about committee similarities and differences (Fenno, 1973).

The following preliminary questions derived from the work

of Price and Fenno have guided this research: (1) What are the

determinants of activity by an individual member of Congress on

SPA proposals? The member's perception of the need to anticipate

problems and his perception of the relation of strategic policy

assessment to this need was examined. Personal background factors

and committee incentives were identified that would lead a member

to take an initiative and so become a policy entrepreneur in

this area. We asked how strategic policy assessment would affect

the member's institutional position and how he thought strategic

policy assessment would change patterns of congressional decision

making or the distribution of power within Congress. (2) What

factors condition successful activity by a committee on Congress

on the SPA provisions? The impact of different legislative pack-

ages in which strategic policy assessment has been proposed was

studied as well as the differences in committee handling of these

packages. Factors were sought to explain these differences.

Finally, we sought to identify the types of interest group and

administration activity that accompanied these proposals or were

generated by them. The methods used to gather information to

answer these questions are discussed below.









STAGES OF SUCCESSFUL ACTIVITY ON A BILL


While these questions deal with member and committee factors

at the committee level of analysis, it is necessary to consider

the meaning of successful committee action for our unit of

analysis, namely legislative initiatives. Successful committee

action on a bill has been considered in terms of the degree of

development of six stages involved in processing any bill; those

suggested by Price.

Several attempts have been made to define the stages of deci-

sion making, or policy making, that a bill ordinarily goes through

(Lasswell, 1963; Robinson, 1962; Gergen, 1968; Almond, 1960). In

surveying these stages, David Price rejected a "rational actor"

approach to policy making (see Allison, 1971):


The introduction, publicizing, legitimizing,
and processing of a piece of legislation in-
volves a great deal more than the "gentle"
rationalistic, problem-solving process of
intelligence, recommendation, and prescrip-
tion. The process entails gathering "in-
telligence" and responding to articulated
needs and sentiments, but it also requires
stimulating those sentiments, activating
and mollifying groups, and precipitating
and participating in conflicts.
(Price, 1972: 5)


Price postulated six stages or functions in the processing of a

piece of legislation:









1. Instigation and publicizing. The public or pri-
vate advocacy of an issue as one worthy of attention
and ameliorative action. Typical instigators include
the staff man or lower-level bureaucrat who calls a
problem to his superior's attention, the Congressman
who highlights an issue through investigative hear-
ings, or the author who documents and dramatizes a
social need.
2. Formulation. Devising and advocating a specific
legislative remedy for a supposed need. The formulator
draws boundaries around an issue and establishes a
focal point for its further consideration.
3. Information gathering. Collecting data on the
nature of hazards and abuses; the alternative schemes
for solving problems and their costs; benefits; and
inherent difficulties; the likely political impact
of each scheme; and the feasibility of various com-
promises. Information gathering is crucial to each
of the other functions--to devising a workable pro-
posal, as well as to plotting its political course
and building a sense of need and legitimacy.
4. Interest aggregation. Responding to the needs
and wishes of individuals or groups affected by a
given proposal. In one instance, it might mean the
championing of one group over or against others, in
another the assumption of a mediating, "balancing"
role, in yet another the stimulating of latent group
sentiments. Such activities may both resolve and
exacerbate conflict; they may, on the one hand, con-
tribute to the instigation and mobilization effort or,
on the other, give rise to attempts at modification
or obstruction.
5. Mobilization. The exertion of pressure, persua-
sion, or control on behalf of a measure by one who
is able, often by virtue of his institutional posi-
tion, to take effective and relatively direct action
to secure enactment. Whether an issue goes beyond
the publicizing and formulating stages usually depends
on the support it receives from individuals, groups,
or governmental units that possess authority and
legitimacy in the policy area and on the extent of
the "intra-elite organizing" by key leaders. Mobilizers
may become involved in other functions as a part of
these efforts, but they may benefit from, or be
stimulated by, those who were active at the "earlier"
stages as well.









6. Modification. The marginal alteration of a pro-
posal, sometimes "strengthening" it, sometimes
granting certain concessions to its opponents in or-
der to facilitate final passage. Modification may or
may not complement actions taken at earlier points,
but in any case the modifier shares responsibility
for a bill's final form. (Price, 1972: 4-5)



A bill's passage, in Price's schema, will depend on its maturity

and viability. A bill's maturity corresponds to its progress

through these stages. The viability of a bill (whether or not "it

will fly") depends on the degree of responsiveness and support

for the bill in the parent body (Price, 1972: 304).

The three bills chosen reached a variety of levels of maturity

and viability. The foresight provision was adopted by the House;

the full opportunity proposal passed the Senate Labor and Public

Welfare Committee (it had passed this committee and the Senate in

two previous congresses); the Humphrey proposal was not even con-

sidered by the Senate Government Operations Committee. In this

research we explored factors affecting the developmental process

for three legislative initiatives and the context that condi-

tioned their viability or nonviability.

One contextual factor that conditions a bill's viability in

the House or Senate, Price noted, is the presence of a crisis or

sense of need in a relevant sector. A variety of crises, most

notably the energy crisis, demanded notice in the 93rd Congress

(SCC, 1973b: 475; WWICS, 1973). The extent to which events such

as the energy crisis were translated into a sense of need for









changes through strategic policy assessment reforms in the decision-

making system has been examined in our research. The member and

committee factors that may have affected the maturity of these SPA

proposals must first be identified specifically. Then we may hy-

pothesize the relationship of these factors to the processing of

three proposals.



MEMBER FACTORS: GOALS

The viability of a proposal is determined by the level of

support it receives in the parent chamber and by other enabling

conditions, but the birth and growth of a bill--its maturity in

terms of Price's six stages--depends on the "irreducibility of

legislative initiative"--the need for a policy entrepreneur (Price,

1972: 306-11). Then, what determines a politician's actions, as

a sponsor, a supporter, or an opponent of legislation? Research

on the general determinants of political activity have focused on

the predispositions, perceptions, roles, and motivations of poli-

ticians (Barber, 1965; Payne, 1968; Davidson, 1969; Wahlke,

Eulau, Buchanan, & Ferguson, 1962; Putnam, 1973). A recent

approach by Richard Fenno resolved some of the difficulty of

linking such general factors to legislative activity. There are

certain basic goals pursued by congressmen; Fenno (1973) suggested

(1) reelection, (2) good public policy, (3) power in the House,

(4) a career beyond the House, and (5) private gain.









Fenno showed that membership on different committees enhances

some goals more than others (Fenno, 1973). Research on freshman

representatives in the 92nd Congress yielded similar results

(Bullock, 1973). Our research was concerned with the question how

SPA reform was related to member goals. These goals are not finely

sorted in the daily activity of Congressmen. A member's actions

must reach a threshold before he will relate his activity to a

personal version of these five goals. More than a member who

merely votes yes or no, the sponsors of bills were more likely

to be able to express how the various aspects of their work on

bills related to their goals.


GOOD POLICY AND A POLICY ATTITUDE TOWARD SPA

Previous research has not eliminated the difficulty of deter-

mining what constitutes the pursuit of good policy. Being con-

cerned with the relative importance of policy goals against re-

election, power in the chamber, etc., Fenno and Bullock did not

provide a set of dimensions for good policy.

Faced with this substantive question, we have specified what

may be involved in a Congressman's policy attitude, as John

Kingdon called the background attitudes which inform a member's

activity apart from other external sources such as constituents,

party leaders, etc. (Kingdon, 1973: 345-54). A set of factors

relevant to a policy attitude toward SPA has been developed based

on preliminary research and congressional testimony and discussion

in this area. The elements of a policy attitude include:










Satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the ways in which
Congress normally searches for problems to consider.
Judgments of the extent to which major problems can
be anticipated.
Opinions on the ability to predict social trends or
activity.
Judgments of the ability to direct or control future
conditions.
Judgments of the role of Congress in providing a
"positive, inspiring vision" of the future.
Familiarity with future-oriented information (e.g.,
five-, ten-, and twenty-five-year forecasts) in
legislative work.



These elements reflect the fact that SPA is a meta-issue. It

deals with the policy process; with the analysis of conditions,

goals, and means involved in substantive policy issues such as

health or transportation. While a member's good policy goal may

move him to stand for or against a particular SPA reform, a high

level of activity will probably enable the member to articulate

the background elements of his policy attitude. The significance

of each of these elements and the expected position of those

supporting SPA reforms have yet to be considered.

TO SEARCH FOR PROBLEMS. The ways in which Congress normally

searches for problems have been described as sufficient to include

all politically relevant issues (Schneier, 1970) and wide ranging,

if not systematic (Beckman, 1974a). Political in this context

means that if an emerging issue has sufficient importance because

of interest group or constitutent support, it is put on the agenda.

Yet the absence of a more systematic search for emerging problems










is one of the causes of recurrent crisis. Presumably, a member

active on behalf of SPA reforms will be dissatisfied with the nor-

mal ways in which Congress searches for problems. This dissatis-

faction may be coupled with a high degree of search activity on

his own.

TO ANTICIPATE EMERGING PROBLEMS. SPA involves searching for

emerging issues and informing current decision, presumably

activity that will encourage the Congress to deal with emerging

problems. The existence of a crisis eases the burdens of political

decision makers by providing a consensus that the particular

problem must be confronted. As we have said, it is difficult for

democratic governments, particularly representative assemblies,

to anticipate problems. Proponents of SPA reforms may recognize

this, but they will probably feel that the government can anti-

cipate problems or, at least, must attempt to do so.

TO PREDICT SOCIAL TRENDS. One of the arguments against the

analysis functions of SPA proposals was that Congress is unable

to predict social trends and conditions. This argument was raised

particularly in the debate over establishment of the Council of

Social Advisers. Presumably, members supporting SPA will believe

that the government does have some ability to predict social

trends and conditions effectively or that a definite need exists

to develop this ability.

TO DIRECT OR CONTROL THE FUTURE. SPA functions imply a com-

mitment by the government to make a more effective and conscious










impact on the future. Presumably, those in favor of SPA reforms,

especially reforms which would force decisions, will favor greater

governmental activity to direct or control the future. This

attitude involves an implicit or explicit response to the ideo-

logical implications of government activity in a "free," i.e.,

uncontrolled, society.

A "POSITIVE, INSPIRING VISION." Preliminary interviews with

staff and members of Congress and testimony on SPA issues brought

occasional references to the need for the government to provide

a "positive, inspiring vision" for the country (SCC, 1973b:

472-79; Harman, 1972). The specific policy dimensions of a par-

ticular member's vision are beyond this research, yet members

concerned with SPA may realize that with 535 members and 345 work

groups (Davidson, 1974: 8), Congress is at a comparative disad-

vantage to the President in enunciating large-scale, comprehensive

goals.

FUTURES INFORMATION. Two aspects of congressional informa-

tion sources may help us understand a member's policy attitude in

relation to SPA. First is an awareness of future-oriented informa-

tion, in terms of trends or conditions five, ten, or twenty-five

years in the future, for use in day-to-day legislative activities.

Members proposing SPA reforms will likely be conscious of or seek

out this type of information.

Second is an awareness of the existence of the subject lists

of emerging issues produced by the Congressional Research Service









for each congressional committee. While distribution of these

lists is made by committee chairmen and therefore may be somewhat

skewed, members supporting SPA reforms are like to know and make

use of these lists.

Several categories have been used to explore what may be

called the members' policy attitude toward strategic policy assess-

ment. Regardless of the exact composition of "good policy," it is

likely to be a dominant goal for members actively pursuing SPA

reforms. Good policy as a goal must be posited to explain their

activity, given the complexity of the issue, the lack of constitu-

ent attention, and the absence of significant interest group

pressure.



THE INSTITUTIONAL POWER GOAL


Power in the chamber is important as a goal of representatives.

This goal affects the operation of certain committees and their

desirability, particularly the taxing and spending committees.

Whether the goal of institutional power moves a representative

or a senator to support SPA reforms will depend on the member's

estimation of the reform's impact on his position. If, for

instance, a reform bill creates a new committee and the sponsor may

become chairman of it, this goal might come into play. Although the

Humphrey (S. 3050) and Mondale (S. 5) bills (more appropriately

Senator Jacob Javits' amendment) would establish new committees,

given the doubtfulness of their passage, the institutional power

goal hardly explains the actions of the sponsors. Similarly, the









Bolling committee proposed to create a separate oversight/foresight

subcommittee in each committee. Oversight is not one of the more

sought-after operations within Congress, and foresight is an

unknown quantity. Therefore the foresight provision probably offered

little power-in-the-chamber incentive to those who might become

chairmen of these subcommittees.

However, institutional power considerations may have stirred

opponents to the SPA reforms. It is likely that SPA reforms which

shift the least power will generate the least opposition from the

chairmen of the 345 committees and subcommittees of the 93rd Con-

gress. The Humphrey proposal might seriously affect the power of

the standing committees through the formation of the Joint Com-

mittee on National Growth and Development, basically a leadership

committee for both houses, and thus it would tend to generate

opposition from committee members whose power was threatened.

Mondale's Title I would set up a social reporting system without

any change in the committee structure, while Senator Javits'

Title II would create an Office of Goals and Priorities Analysis.

This office would analyze federal programs and priorities, but

it would have no power to change committee activities. The

futures research and forecasting required by the foresight provi-

sion could not affect the distribution of power within committees

unless it occurred in conjunction with shifts caused by the

existence of an oversight subcommittee.









THE GOAL OF REELECTION


Recent work on Congress has stressed the reelection goal in

motivating members' behavior that results in patterns of con-

gressional operation (Mayhew, 1974).3 Yet it is unlikely that the

reelection goal played an important part in the member actions

either for or against the SPA reforms because complex technical

issues like structural and procedural change in Congress are often

beyond the comprehension of the voters and almost always beyond

their interest. Thus, there is usually little constituent atten-

tion to such issues. As a member of Congress put it, "Congres-

sional reform is an issue without a constituency" (Bibby & David-

son, 1972: 252). Since relatively little outside pressure builds

for or against congressional reform proposals, little hope of

reelection can be ascribed to a member's actions on such reforms.

In 1974 issue-hungry Republicans in the House were unsuccessful

in making the Bolling committee proposal a reelection issue.



CAREERS BEYOND THE CHAMBER


Some SPA-related issues, such as national growth policy or a

council of social advisers, have national appeal, and these

issues may help generate support, beyond a particular congres-

sional district or state, which would be of value to a senator

building a national constituency.

Representative John C. Culver (D., Iowa) ran successfully for

the Senate at the end of the 93rd Congress, but the foresight









provision probably had little, if any, effect on his race. However,

both Senator Mondale and Senator Humphrey were presidential as-

pirants during the 93rd Congress. Humphrey unveiled the outlines

of his growth policy proposal in the presidential primary cam-

paign in California in 1972. Both the Mondale and the Humphrey pro-

posals were of the type which might interest a national consti-

tuency, and therefore the career-beyond-the-chamber goal may have

had some impact on their advocacy of SPA reform.



PRIVATE GAIN


Given the incipient nature of these reforms and the lack of

interest group involvement, there was probably little opportunity

for private gain. Therefore this goal--also absent in other re-

search on member goals (Fenno, 1973; Bullock, 1973)--probably had

a negligible effect on the actions of supporters and opponents.

Because of the awkwardness--and slight chance of an affirmative

answer--of asking a member if he expected any private gain, no

such questions were asked during our interviews.

Other member factors, principally various resources and costs

(see Wildavsky, 1966; Adrian & Press, 1968), are involved in a

member's actions, and these factors have been noted in describing

member's goal pursuits and the context of the committee factors.









COMMITTEE FACTORS

This research, like that of Price, concerns the activity of

certain committees on specific proposals; Fenno concentrated on

general committee behavior. In their work the following major

committee factors affected the processing of a bill:


The role of the committee and subcommittee chairmen.
The experience and orientation of the staff.
The membership of the committee in terms of partisan
or ideological composition.
The lobbying and influence of executive and con-
gressional bureaucrats and interest groups.
The resultant patterns of conflict.


A favorable committee chairman is essential to the expedi-

tious processing of a bill. This factor probably was involved in

the case of the Mondale bill (S. 5) in the Labor and Public Wel-

fare Committee, where Senator Harrison A. Williams, Jr. (D., N.J.)

was chairman, and for the foresight provision, although Represen-

tative Richard Bolling's (D., Mo.) select committee operated more

collegially than most standing committees. The opposition of

Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (D., N.C.), chairman of the Government

Operations Committee, was probably a major reason why Senator

Humphrey's bill was not considered in this committee. Subcommittee

chairmen are particularly important in the Senate, Price noted,

because of the decentralization of power there. Senator Mondale's

proposal was undoubtedly aided by the fact that in previous Con-

gresses it had been handled by his special subcommittee.









Staff activity is essential in formulating proposals and

gathering information or overseeing these processes. The earlier

reforms, particularly the Employment Act of 1946 (Bailey, 1950)

and the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (Bibby & David-

son, 1972) enjoyed a variety of crucial staff input throughout

the six stages of processing. Among the determinants of a bill's

maturity, Price noted the accessibility, quality, and roles and

orientations of the staff members performing the information-

gathering function, especially for a technical procedural issue.

Given the nature of SPA reforms, it is likely that background

experience or interest in SPA-related matters or techniques will

be essential for effective formulation and information gathering.

Equally important, if a bill is to move beyond the early stages

of maturity, will be the political information-gathering and bar-

gaining skills of the staff. Thus, the experience as well as the

amount of policy entrepreneurship of the staff should be impor-

tant for the maturity of these three reforms.

The bureaucratic and interest group activity directed at a

committee considering a bill is generally important. A bill that

potentially infringes on bureaucratic structures often brings out

powerful government lobbying (Price, 1972). Also, bureaucratic

structures may anticipate the bill's importance to their opera-

tions and actually play an important part in its drafting. Since

the major focus of this research is congressional reform, a major

concern is how these SPA reforms would affect the congressional









bureaucracy, and this concern requires an examination of the role,

if any, of the committee staff, the Congressional Research Ser-

vice, the General Accounting Office, and the Office of Technology

Assessment.

The successful processing of a bill requires effective interest

aggregation and mobilization of support. Because SPA is a complex

issue whose effects are indirect or uncertain, these proposals

have not generated widespread support or opposition. Just as con-

stituent attention to congressional reforms is slight, so too is

interest group activity. One exception occurred among those aca-

demic and professional groups whose members would benefit from

greater use of particular techniques and an implied increase in

employment for the group. It is likely that SPA proposals, par-

ticularly where they portend conflict in forcing decisions, will

not mature if interest-group support is limited to academic and

professional groups. A bill is not likely to mature if interest

groups oppose it out of fear of adverse effects, given the uncer-

tainty of the impact of these reforms on established contacts

and relationships with Congress as well as on policy questions.

This proposition should hold true especially where the decision-

forcing function is involved. The history of the 1946 Employment

Act suggests that major interest groups will enter the process if

a significant SPA reform is seriously considered.

The impact of the ideological and partisan composition of a

committee will be shown depending on the type of bill. Partisan voting









is often most pronounced when the vote deals with internal pro-

cedural matters in the House or Senate. To the extent that SPA is

likely to affect the relative positions of the majority and

minority parties, this impact will be reflected in the voting.

Likewise, votes on Democratic proposals to make changes in an un-

willing Republican executive will show partisan division, as the

vote showed in the case of the Mondale bill (S. 5).

Ideological factors and patterns of conflict on SPA reforms

may not be directed at the SPA provisions, particularly if the

SPA provisions are a relatively small part of a larger legisla-

tive package. These factors and patterns were not directed at the

foresight provision--a relatively small procedural issue alongside

larger and more controversial procedural and jurisdictional issues.

SPA provisions may also be perceived and dealt with in terms

of the issues SPA may suggest for the agenda or in terms of its

impact on proposals already being considered. There are historical

examples of federal government agencies performing SPA functions.

The National Resources Planning Board under President Roosevelt in

the late 1930s and early 1940s provided SPA functions in support

of the President's programs. Congress did not appreciate goals

being enunciated by Presidential bureaucrats. Congress was par-

ticularly unhappy with the board's "new bill of rights" and its

social welfare implications (Roth, 1959; 242-51; Bailey, 1950:

25-28). Partly for this reason the Council of Economic Advisers

was established to advise rather than plan. President Nixon formed









a National Goals Research Staff, but this staff was never allowed

to have any impact, somewhat because of the issues it was expected

to raise (Full Opportunity, 1971: 71; Bezold, 1974: 465). Senator

Mondale's proposal of the Council of Social Advisers and Senator

Humphrey's Office of Balanced Growth and Development may have

been viewed in these terms by committee members.

In addition to the impact of historical analogues, the com-

mittee that handles a proposal may have an impact on the issue

potential of an SPA provision in its larger legislative package.

Certain committees promote the active and partisan pursuit of

good policy (Fenno, 1973), and most of the bills of these com-

mittees reflect what Aage Clausen would call the social welfare

voting pattern (Fenno, 1973; Clausen, 1973). Senator Mondale's

proposal was produced in the Labor and Public Welfare Committee,

a major source of social welfare votes in the Senate. In this

sense, activity by other members for or against the bill may be

conditioned by its committee's (and its sponsor's) reputation, in

this case for liberal, welfare-oriented proposals.

Conflict in Congress generally deals with means, and it is

resolved by agreement on specific programs (Wildavsky, 1966;

Polsby, 1972). SPA reforms which raise the conflict to higher

levels on the ends-means chain, to larger goals, may be seen as

shifting the policy battleground onto unknown territory. Thus,

the greater the potential impact of SPA on the types of conflicts

within Congress, the more opposition may be expected. In terms









of the ends-means chain the foresight provision promised the

least change and hence generated the least opposition. The Office

of Goals and Priorities Analysis in the Mondale proposal (S. 5)

and the Office of Policy and Planning in the Humphrey proposal

(S. 3050) may have been supported or opposed on their potential

to shift congressional focus toward higher-level goals.

Also, SPA proposalsmay be consciously considered, not in terms

of substantive issues, but in terms of distribution of power in

the chamber or in committees. Thus the institutional power goal

operates in the format of committee influence. In the original

Bolling committee proposal the foresight provision was to be

performed by an oversight subcommittee. The requirement for this

subcommittee was eliminated in the modification stage of the

bill's processing, perhaps because of the potential impact of

an oversight subcommittee on a full committee's operations and

distribution of power.



HYPOTHESES


The factors affecting the processing of a bill can be thought

of in terms of member factors--goals and attitudes--and committee

factors--personal, political, and informational resources focused

at the committee level. In the case studies in Chapters 3, 4,

and 5 we have examined some hypothetical relationships among

these factors:









MEMBER FACTORS

Action in sponsoring SPA legislation will be directly re-

lated to the predominance of the good policy goal over reelec-

tion, power in the chamber, or a career beyond the chamber.

Favorable activity on behalf of SPA legislation by sponsors and

supporters will be accompanied by the following beliefs or judg-

ments as elements of the SPA policy attitude:


1. That the ways in which Congress searches for prob-
lems to consider are inadequate.
2. That emerging problems can be anticipated before
they reach a crisis stage.
3. That social events and conditions can be predicted
or that the capability to do so should be developed.
4. That the government should attempt to direct or
control future developments.
5. That Congress is at a comparative disadvantage to
the President in providing a large-scale "positive,
inspiring vision" for the nation.
6. That information on likely future conditions in-
cluding Congressional Research Service lists of
emerging issues is available.


COMMITTEE FACTORS

Favorable committee action will be directly related to the

following factors:


1. A supportive committee or subcommittee chairman.
2. Staff interest or experience with SPA-related
activities as well as political information-gathering
and bargaining skills.
3. An ideologically liberal or Democratic majority
which perceives that SPA will raise social welfare or









government management issues or a congressional re-
form majority which perceives that its institutional
position will be helped or at least not hurt by con-
gressional adoption of SPA techniques.
4. Constituent-oriented and/or broadly based interest-
group support and support from those groups with a
professional stake in SPA-related activity.
5. Positive activity from bureaucratic structures
(executive agencies and congressional support organi-
zations) based on potential benefit from conducting
SPA activity or from its policy implications.
6. The extent to which the SPA proposal affects lower
levels of the ends-means chain: does not attempt to
analyze and force decisions across policy areas, uses
the existing committee structure without changes, and
offers no significant threat to the prevailing dis-
tribution of power among members.


Favorable action by the parent chamber will depend on similar

factors.



METHODOLOGY

In order to examine our hypotheses through case studies of

SPA-related proposals, information was gathered through documen-

tary research and personal interviews.

The interviews were conducted with members of Congress, per-

sonal and committee staffs, and persons in congressional support

organizations and executive agencies as well as persons in research

institutes, universities, and elsewhere, who were involved with the

three bills or general SPA areas. The interviewing approach and

techniques owe much to David Price (1972). That is, interviewing

was committee focused, with structured questions for committee









members and less structured interviews for staff members and

others. To this basic format were added questions on the member's

goals and his policy attitude. In arranging interviews, if the

member was unavailable, the questions were asked of a relevant

staff person.

Thus, committee-focused interviewing sought three types of

information: (1) Details of the origin and processing of the

three bills were gathered in terms of six stages: instigation and

publicizing, formulation, information gathering, interest aggre-

gation, mobilization, and modification. (2) Information was sought

on member goals of good policy, power in the chamber, and reelection,

and the relation of goals to activity for or against the SPA

bills. A high level of activity on the part of the member was re-

quired for this information. (3) General questions were used to

explore the background dimensions of the member's policy attitude

toward SPA.

Originally, one questionnaire was developed which contained

all three categories of questions (see Appendix 1), but preliminary

testing showed that members who had not actively supported or

opposed the bills could not answer questions about the bills'

processing or about their goals in relation to the bill. There-

fore, a shorter set of questions was taken from the first

questionnaire (see Appendix 2). These questions were used to

gather information on the member's policy attitude and position

toward the relevant bills. The first questionnaire was used for









most of the interviewing of Boiling committee members. The

shorter set of questions was used in most of the Senate interviews.

The shortened interviews took from ten minutes to half an

hour; interviews from the original form took from twenty minutes

to one hour. The time involved in arranging the interview, pre-

paring any additional specific questions, conducting the inter-

view, and writing it up varied from approximately one to four

hours. Several staff persons were interviewed on multiple occasions.

A letter was sent to each committee member stating the pur-

pose of the research, asking for an interview, and stating that

if the member were unavailable, the relevant staff member would

do for the purpose. Interviewing a "staff surrogate" about member

goals was found more effective than interviewing the member him-

self, because the staff was more accessible, usually gave more

time, and in some cases were more frank (Bullock, 1973). The

interviews, held during the months of June, July, August, Septem-

ber, and December of 1974, confirmed Bullock's observations, al-

though some senators and representatives proved to be both

accessible and frank.

Access to members and staff for the interviews varied widely.

On the Senate side the higher in seniority or the more opposed

to the bills, the more difficult it was to arrange an interview.

Particularly for key members, repeated calls were necessary to

arrange the interviews. Access to some offices was aided by our

association with the Brookings Institution through its visiting









scholars program. Most interviews were located in members'

offices, but many took place in committee and congressional

support organization offices, rooms off the House and Senate

floor, Capitol Hill restaurants, etc.

Committee-focused interviews produced seven interviews with

Bolling committee members (4 Democrats, 3 Republicans), nine in-

terviews with Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee members

(5 Democrats, 4 Republicans), and nine with Senate Government

Operations Committee members (6 Democrats, 3 Republicans). In

addition, member interviews were conducted for the Hansen com-

mittee, which provided the major amendment in the form of a sub-

stitute to the Bolling committee product.

Fifty unstructured interviews, many of extensive length, were

used to gather information from the staffs of each of the com-

mittees, from congressional support organizations, particularly

CRS, from the executive branch, from experts outside Congress

associated with social indicators, the futurist movement, and

technology assessment, as well as from persons involved with such

groups as the National Goals Research Staff, the Commission on

Critical Choices for Americans, and the Woodrow Wilson Interna-

tional Center for Scholars.

Documentary research made use of the publicly available hear-

ings and other relevant documents as well as of unpublished ma-

terials in the files of sponsors and most active supporters of

the three bills.









The interviews were announced as confidential, and statements

quoted in the text will not be attributed when taken from inter-

views. Exceptions to confidentiality were made for responses by

sponsors of SPA proposals regarding their policy attitudes.

During the interview key words or phrases in each response were

recorded on the interview form. As soon as possible after the

interview, these notes were expanded to their original form.

In Chapters 3, 4, and 5 the results of this interviewing and

documentary research have been described in order to illuminate

the processing of each SPA proposal through the stages of matura-

tion. In Chapter 6 the three cases are compared in relation to

the hypotheses stated above. In Chapter 7 the conclusions of the

research and its implications for congressional reform are con-

sidered.



NOTES

1. Price said of responsibility:
The use of the concept of responsibility is also appro-
priate .. in light of the connotations it has in
modern ethics. The term came into prominence in
the nineteenth century with the collapse of the cosmic
or natural structures of obligation. Responsi-
bility was, in this sense, the ethical corollary of
man as the maker of history; placed in a world where
he had to fashion his future, man identified himself
as one who was answerable for that future (Winter,
1968: 255). The term thus seems particularly appro-
priate to denote innovative or assertive political
action. (Price, 1972: 337)









2. Anthony Downs has suggested that patterns of organiza-
tional innovation and change will be "highly dependent on the
perspectives of those responsible for the search function" (1967:
23). In Congress research on member's voting decisions suggests
that Congressmen "rarely seek out new information sources," yet
those who do "have a disproportionate influence on Congressional
outcomes" (Kingdon, 1973: 220).

3. Mayhew's "mono-goal" description of members of Congress
preoccupied almost exclusively with reelection is an imaginative
treatment and explains the symbolic nature of much behavior. How-
ever, Mayhew's treatment is of little value in understanding how
or why many members of Congress become deeply involved in the
policy questions they deal with, apparently irrespective of their
reelection value. This question is particularly interesting for
SPA issues, which as yet have little reelection value.
























CHAPTER


THE FORESIGHT PROVISION OF THE
COMMITTEE REFORM AMENDMENTS OF 1974













BUILDING STRATEGIC POLICY ASSESSMENT
INTO THE HOUSE COMMITTEE SYSTEM


Thus far, strategic policy assessment has been conceptualized

in terms of three functions of policy making: (1) to search out

emerging issues and to put such issues on the agenda, (2) to

provide futures information for current decisions, (3) to force

decisions or conscious interrelationship of various decisions.

The first two functions in Congress should be enhanced by the

foresight provision of the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974

(H. Res. 988). The foresight provision is an explicit statement

that House Committees must monitor conditions in their policy

areas and undertake "futures research and forecasting." This chap-

ter examines the Bolling committee, the stages of the foresight

provision's establishment, and member goals and attitudes. The

discussion includes the variety of options considered by the

committee and its staff.



THE BOLLING COMMITTEE

The Select Committee on Committees (SCC) of the House, generally

called the Bolling committee after its chairman, Richard Bolling

(D., Mo.), was an intensive bipartisan effort to modernize the

House committee system. The establishment of the committee was









preceded by sentiment variously located within the House in favor

of congressional reform, and the idea of the committee originated

in talks among Carl Albert, the Speaker; Gerald Ford, the minority

leader; and Richard Bolling (Davidson, 1974; SCC, 1973a: 526).

Even at the beginning the Bolling Committee's mandate stirred

controversy. During floor debate, questions were raised about the

cost as well as the need for a select committee when a Joint

Committee on Congressional Operations was already in existence

(CR, 1973: S.591-603). However, H. Res. 132, establishing the

committee, was passed on January 31, 1973, in the 93rd Congress.

This resolution gave the committee the task of a "thorough and

complete" study of House Rules X and XI, establishing the commit-

tee system, defining jurisdictions, and regulating procedures.

The five Democrats and five Republicans chosen for the select

committee were a relatively accurate reflection of the ideologi-

cal composition of the House, but they were distinguished by

their commitment to Congress as an institution.l The seven Bolling

committee members interviewed responded easily to questions on SPA.

Senators on the Governmental Operations Committee and those on

the Labor and Public Welfare Committee were generally not able to

reply as easily. A Bolling committee member and staff person at-

tributed this facility to the thinking that members had done as a

result of their attachment to Congress as an institution and of

their work on the Bolling committee.










A diversified committee staff was recruited from congressional

committees, representatives' offices, the Congressional Research

Service (CRS), executive agencies, and universities. Its director

was Charles Sheldon, who had been director of the science policy

division of CRS. Walter Oleszek had taken leave from the govern-

ment division of CRS to work for the Bolling committee. Two

lawyers on the staff brought experience as legislative aides:

Linda Kamm and Robert Ketchum. Two political scientists, Roger

Davidson and Terry Finn, also had previous legislative or cam-

paign staff experience, and Davidson had written extensively on

Congress (Davidson, 1969; Davidson, Kovenock & O'Leary, 1971;

Bibby & Davidson, 1972). From the executive came Spencer Beresford,

an attorney with the National Aeronautics and Space Administra-

tion. This staff provided significant input to the Bolling com-

mittee's efforts at congressional reform.



PROPOSALS IN THE BOLLING COMMITTEE


The Select Committee on Committees considered several possi-

bilities for centralizing either the information gathering and

analysis or the decision making of Congress. A central goals or

planning committee was rejected for reasons to be discussed.

Instead, the Bolling committee gave each committee a "foresight

responsibility," as it was termed (SCC, 1974e: 65). Significantly,

the foresight provision made one of the first explicit state-

ments that congressional committees in policy making must show a










systematic concern for likely future conditions. Committees, as

we have said, are the principal centers of policy making in Congress;

the foresight provision placed the responsibility for legislative

anticipation at that level.

Specifically it was proposed:


Each committee [other than Budget and Appro-
priations] shall review and study any condi-
tions or circumstances which may indicate
the necessity or desirability of enacting
any new or additional legislation within the
jurisdiction of that committee. [Whether or
not any bill or resolution has been intro-
duced with respect thereto], and shall on a
continuing basis undertake futures research
and forecasting on matters within the juris-
diction of that committee.
(SCC, 1974e: 389)



In reporting on this section, the Bolling committee stated

that foresight activities would use forecasts to anticipate emerg-

ing issues and futures research to identify future options and

assess the costs,benefits and effects of various options (SCC,

1974e: 65).

Other of the Bolling committee's recommendations would influ-

ence the strategic policy assessment functions, although these

recommendations were not aimed directly at systematic assessment

of future needs and alternatives. Procedural reforms were recom-

mended such as the joint and sequential referral of bills to dif-

ferent committees, the periodic review of the House committee

structure, and, most important, the jurisdictional changes pro-

posed in the committee system.










The implications of these reforms for SPA concerns are examined

following examination of the foresight provision's development

through the six stages: (1) instigation and publicizing, (2) infor-

mation gathering, (3) formulation, (4) interest aggregation,

(5) mobilization, and (6) modification. Finally, member goals and

SPA policy attitudes have been considered in relation to the fore-

sight provision.



STAGE 1: INSTIGATION AND PUBLICIZING


Instigation and publicizing involves the public and private

advocacy of an issue as worthy of attention and ameliorative action

(Price, 1972: 4). Typical instigators include members of Congress,

staff members or bureaucrats, and writers, and these instigators

were active in publicizing the types of concerns that led to the

foresight provision.

Writers may perform the role of describing, in terms to catch

the popular imagination, the probable nature of the future. During

the period 1970-1973 various works were published that brought

the future into the news: the Club of Rome's The Limits to Growth

(Meadows, Meadows, Randers & Behrens, 1972), the work of Herman

Kahn (Kahn & Bruce-Briggs, 1972), and Alvin Toffler's Future Shock.

The most direct relevance of these authors to the foresight provi-

sion is Alvin Toffler's friendship with Representative John C. Culver

(D., Iowa). Culver and Toffler met shortly after Future Shock was

published and found that they shared similar concerns, and they










have maintained an ongoing discussion of the political implications

of Toffler's work and the meaning of "anticipatory democracy."2

Among members of Congress, Representative Culver was the

important figure in publicizing SPA concerns in the context of

the House committee reforms, as interviews showed. Culver saw

the structuring of committees as a major hindrance to congres-

sional ability to confront the future. In December, 1972, he

wrote to members of the House, urging the formation of a select

committee to look at this question. In a "Dear Colleague" letter

he noted that the twenty-five years since the 1946 Legislative Reorgani-

zation Act "have seen a revolution in the areas of public policy

and concern and have added dimensions to congressional responsi-

bility which were not--and in many instances could not--be foreseen

in 1946" (Culver, 1972b). Thus, Culver was important in instigating

the larger congressional reform efforts as well as its SPA aspects.

Once on the Bolling Committee he suggested to his fellow committee

members that their work should provide a "systematic basis of

policy formulation in the context of an anticipation of future

as well as reactive time frame." The committee must be able "to

cast the analysis into a context that envisions society as it may

emerge by say 1980, 1990" (Culver, 1973b).

Other persons involved in instigating and publicizing for

the foresight responsibility were committee staff members and

certain congressional bureaucrats. In the congressional bureau-

cracy the unit most involved with futures analysis groups and










with types of SPA problems before the Bolling committee was the

Science Policy Research Division of the Congressional Research

Service. The Bolling committee's staff director, Charles

Sheldon, had left the staff of the House Science and Astronautics

Committee to become the division's director. Walter Hahn, formerly

on the staff of President Nixon's short-lived National Goals

Research Staff, had joined the science policy division as acting

director. Members of the division had been involved in a variety

of efforts to examine the information needs of Congress (CRS,

1971; SCC, 1974f) and national goals (Huddle, 1971), and the work

of Sheldon and Hahn was important for the specific outcome of the

foresight provision.

These staff members and bureaucrats were interested in specific

techniques, particularly in regard to policy analysis, to be used

in governmental decision making. A source of experts in this regard

was the technology assessment movement. Forecasting techniques

developed in the space industry were called on by the advocates of

technology assessment to question the advance of technology and its

unanticipated effects on the environment. Thus, technology assess-

ment represented an attempt to estimate likely second- and third-

order consequences of the application of a technology (Coates, 1975).

A professional society, the International Society for Technology

Assessment, had been founded by Walter Hahn and others in 1972,

and several journals, such as Technology Assessment and Futures,

supported the advancement of the methodology. On a more popular










level the problems of confronting the future were discussed by

members of the World Future Society and in its publication The

Futurist.



STAGE 2: INFORMATION GATHERING


Information gathering was a massive undertaking for the

Bolling committee. Committee members and staff interviewed other

representatives and committee staff and held hearings, the tradi-

tional form of information gathering in committees.


Each member of the House received a
letter of invitation; and great pains were
taken to accommodate Members in scheduling
testimony. Fifty-two Members (including 12
committee chairmen) appeared before the
Committee, and 16 members submitted written
statements for the record. Thirty-nine
experts participated in a dozen panels on
such topics as committee dynamics, the
budgetary process, informational resources,
staffing and executive and State legislative
developments. Sixteen public witnesses--
representing labor, business, and citizen
groups--also presented their views. The
1,765 pages of record, fully indexed, offer
a detailed portrait of the contemporary
House of Representatives, as seen by insiders
and outsiders alike.
(Davidson, 1974: 11)



In addition, staff and consultant studies of specific topics were

commissioned including seven committee plans based on various

assumptions.

In the course of all this testimony and study, several problems

relevant to strategic policy assessment were raised, and a few










solutions were offered. Our discussion has been organized to show

the response of members of Congress to SPA-related problems and

the testimony of various panels of experts in regard to SPA

issues as well as the committee response to this testimony. The

alternative committee plans generated to gather further information

are then considered. The most important proposals for our concerns

dealt with futures analysis by committees, a central goals or

growth committee, and a shift in committee jurisdictions.


MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE COMMENT

Testimony by members of Congress most often focused on the

activities of specific committees; however, several members raised

SPA-relevant problems. Peter W. Rodino (D., N.J.) pointed out

that a major information problem is the "failure to provide the

synthesis needed to overcome committee fragmentation" (SCC, 1973a:

151). Dante B. Fascell (D., Fla.) stressed the fact that the

committees' main responsibility is to meet new needs. To do so

effectively, legislative committees must develop "the resources'

to anticipate the legislative needs of the future" (SCC, 1973a:

511). Fortney H. Stark (D., Calif.) suggested that Congress use

"foresight, not hindsight" in its policy making. Stark's major

suggestion was to restructure committee jurisdictions (SCC, 1973c:

334-40). Chet Holfield (D., Calif.) provided a specific, yet

provincial, use of forecasts in a presentation on the "national

energy dilemma." His purpose was to suggest that the Joint Committee










on Atomic Energy, which had prepared the forecasts, take juris-

diction over energy research and development.

Serious and articulate testimony offering specific remedies

came from John W. Davis (D., Ga.), then chairman of the Subcommittee

on Research and Development of the Space and Astronautics Committee.

Davis stressed the need to view Congress as a system: "Congress

should seek out and be more responsible to the needs of the Nation.

The Congressional 'system' needs more so-called feedback, suggesting

more in-house expertise, and more responsive structure" in terms

of committee jurisdictions. He noted that a responsive Congress--

"any responsive organization--must approach the future as an environ-

mental unknown that needs systematic evaluation" (SCC, 1973a: 200).

On the search for problems he commented that "if the House could

develop and institutionalize a method of evaluating possible future

developments more systematically and thoroughly than has been the

case to date, legislation might perhaps be more preventive than

curative" (SCC, 1973a: 199-200). Davis even raised the question of

control of the future: "The future will never be completely deter-

minable. But if we become more familiar with the probability, we

can perhaps do a better job of shaping it the way we think it should

be. Indeed it is incumbent upon us to do so if we do not wish to

bestow a deteriorating world on posterity" (SCC, 1973a: 219).

Davis specifically suggested that the emerging issues service

(see Chapter 1) of the Congressional Research Service be expanded

"to provide more comprehensive information on fundamental trends










and likely decision points in economic, social, environmental,

scientific, technological, and other areas of concern" (SCC, 1973a:

200). Davis' testimony generated little reaction from the Boiling

committee members present at the time he testified. Culver and

Bolling, who were most interested in Davis' topic, were absent.


THE EXPERTS SPEAK

Testimony contributing most directly to the foresight provi-

sion came from panel discussions with experts (SCC, 1973b, 1973c).

The effectiveness of any particular set of panelists varied

widely depending on the witness, the Bolling committee members

present, the relationship between the witness and the staff, and

the content of testimony. Effective testimony for SPA reforms must

suggest how committees may survey emerging conditions and relate this

information to a choice of their legislative goals and options.

Panels varied widely in regard to effective content.

THE FUTURIST PANEL. Culver had wanted some consideration of

"how to cast the analysis into a context that envisions the

society as it may emerge by say, 1980 and 1990" (Culver, 1973b).

To supply this consideration, futurists were empaneled to testify

on congressional reform for the first time as futurists (Cornish

& Schmalz, 1973).

Victor Ferkiss, professor of government at Georgetown University

and author of Technological Man (1969), noted trends in the United

States toward scarcity in an absolute and a relative sense,









particularly in food and energy. Problems the government must

confront, he testified, include dealing with scarcity and alloca-

tion priorities, the impact of science and technology, environmental

problems, and the increasingly close interrelation of domestic and

international affairs. Ferkiss recommended that the House become

more flexible in its committee jurisdictions, using broader gauged,

ad hoc committees, and that it confront the problem of national

development policy. "It seems to me we have to get into the area of

long-range economic planning, not just fiscal planning or planning

in terms of wages and prices, but planning in terms of resource

allocation" (SCC, 1973b: 468-42).

Another futurist, Willis Harman, of the Stanford Research

Institute, suggested that Congress have more cross-cutting or

horizontal committees, perhaps a committee on the nation's future,

and the formation of a network type of relationship to allow a

"loose but effective coordination of the activities of a large

number of autonomous agencies" (public and private). Most needed

in the six to eight years to come, Harman noted, "is a positive,

inspiring vision of where this Nation, where this society, where

the world can go" (SCC, 1973b: 472-79).

Charles Williams, in the Virginia office of the Stanford

Research Institute, formerly staff director of the National Goals

Research Staff, made similar statements and, in particular, re-

iterated the notion that "the utmost priority of national leader-

ship is a vision of a workable future." His recommendations










for the committee system were to list emerging problems and to

match the committee structure to these problems; to list the

opportunities inherent in a "high quality future," defined by

the believable vision he called for; and to structure the commit-

tees to optimize the likelihood of bringing that vision into

being (SCC, 1973b: 479-87).

The reaction of committee members and staffers was mixed.

Some were enthusiastic; others, interested but unsatisfied; and

one member and two staffers interviewed expressed dissatisfac-

tion with the futurist panel. John Culver thought the futurist panel

provocative and challenging. They raised, Culver believed, the most

difficult aspect of the Bolling committee's responsibility:


that is to give consideration struc-
turally here in the Congress as to how we
equip ourselves better to anticipate the
problems that our country and the world are
going to be forced, necessarily, to deal
with.
(SCC, 1973b: 507)



The futurist panel, Culver went on, forced a confrontation be-

tween "rather basic judgments about whether we want to be able

to shape and influence various trends in society." Culver

stressed that "futurism" "should be instilled as a responsibility

within any committee jurisdictional inquiry." Otherwise, with

futurism isolated in one committee, "it reduces itself all too

easily into esoteric irrelevance" (SCC, 1973b: 509).










The lack of prediction of political activity in the futurists'

testimony was noted by Paul S. Sarbanes (D., Md.), especially in

relation to their social and economic predictions. He tried three

times unsuccessfully to get the futurists to "relate these trends

to the kinds of pressures or strains that may appear in our political

life" (SCC, 1973b: 53).

THE BUDGET PROCESS PANELS. The panels on the budget process

raised some issues of forcing the conscious interrelationship of

decisions by using the budget to set national priorities. Alice

Rivlin, of the Brookings Institution, suggested that forcing could

occur in terms of three-year budgets; that this year's votes on

the third year to come would focus the attention of Congress, the

executive, and the public on "the big decisions that must be made

now if the budget priorities are to be altered two or three years

in the future" (SCC, 1973b: 151). During these panels scattered

mention was made of other SPA functions, but these were not pursued.

For example: Boiling had been influenced while on the Joint Economic

Committee by his chairmanship of a subcommittee concerned with macro-

economic analysis and by his part in the joint committee's activity

on "the restoration of sovereignty to solve social problems," which

had proposed a national planning system (JEC, 1971), and so he

raised the question of the need for national planning:


It seems to me that we are
going to have to insist on the development
of national planning for policy. The










great gap in governmental institutions is
that we simply don't ever take the trouble
to look ahead and see what kind of trouble
we are going to be in on energy or education
until after we have had the crisis. I am
not trying to cut off discussion [of budget,
tax expenditures, and the appropriations
process], but we are really talking in a
vacuum. We are trying to deal with a piece
of the problem.
(SCC, 1973b: 179-80)



No one on the budget panel responded to his inquiry, and the

discussion returned to the subject of tax expenditures (SCC,

1973b: 179-80).

THE COMMITTEE INFORMATION SOURCES PANEL. While the futurists

interpreted general trends in society, the panel on committee

information sources told the Bolling committee how committees

might alter their decision-making activities to better search

for emerging problems and to be cognizant of trends in policy

areas.

Bertram Gross, a formulator of the Employment Act of 1946

and early advocate of developing social indicators, suggested

that committees and subcommittees of the House be given a mandate

to keep ahead of the docket:


The kinds of studies that would look at
these [basic trends and emerging problems]
in terms of the new kinds of legislation
needed, the adjustments in the existing
status, this kind of review would go beyond
the mere post audit operation in the moni-
toring and surveillance functions discharged
by various committees. It would go beyond










that by trying to help to keep the various
members of Congress ahead of the game.
A little advance intelligence which
goes beyond looking at the past and the
bills ahead of you, that kind of intelli-
gence is perfectly feasible in properly
staffed subcommittees and committees.
(SCC, 1973b: 335)


Through futures analyses or scenario generation or goal projec-

tions, Gross suggested that committees would build a framework

for looking at measures that would or should come before them

(SCC, 1973b: 335).

In testimony close to the terms actually used in the fore-

sight provision, "futures research and forecasting," Walter Hahn,

senior specialist in science and technology and acting director

of the science policy division of CRS, agreed with other panelists

that Congress had too little information on the larger or more

comprehensive context of current decisions. Hahn offered several

suggestions, among them the greater use of forecasts, technology

forecasts in particular, and consideration of a larger range of

options, or future alternatives, through futures research. "Where-

as technology forecasting addresses the question of where are we

likely to go and emphasizes the technological element," Hahn noted,

"futures research talks more about where we can go and it deals

more with social aspects of the situation and the larger concept

in which we are seeing the events that are going on" (SCC, 1973b:

338). Hahn had noted that nowhere in Congress were technological









forecasts synthesized and assessed for potential legislative

impact.3

The panel on information sources produced some interesting

statements on Congress and its information needs, prompting Repre-

sentative William A. Steiger (R., Wis.) to remark that the infor-

mation systems of Congress might be less at fault than incurious

members:


Perhaps what bothers me about this panel is
that it doesn't answer the significant ques-
tion of whether or not Congress doesn't al-
ready have all the resources available to
it dependent on one fact, the initiative of
the Member to search out and find people,
groups, individuals, who can help guide and
direct him or her in doing this work.
(SCC, 1973b: 352)


Speaking of the generalist role of members of Congress, Bertram

Gross cautioned against reforms that would convert Congress into

a bureaucracy and destroy the generalist function, but "the real

answer to your question," Gross replied, "has to go into the

more difficult area of values and interest." Once a congressman's

values and interests are known, the question becomes how he may

"escape being flooded by information and misinformation and out-

right deception and unintended deception on all sorts of very

critical issues" (SCC, 1973b: 354). Walter Hahn answered comment

by saying that Congress would profit from better synthesis and

packaging of the information available to it, so that this infor-

mation would be "more easily grasped and more purposefully used"









(SCC, 1973b: 354). Edward Schneier, political scientist and former

Senate staffer, answered in terms of the impact of information

systems on congressional use of time. The larger the number of

critical and well-known issues, the less time Congress has for

creativee intelligence." He advised that Congress should keep its

information sources pluralistic and diverse, not defining how to

spend time because of an over-defined system of information

resources (SCC, 1973b: 354-55).

THE STATE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE PANEL. The panel on state

legislative committees made useful suggestions for the foresight

provision. The panelists agreed that three functions deserved special

attention: budgeting, oversight, and foresight or policy planning,

but they disagreed whether to make these functions mandatory in each

committee or in separate committees set up for the purpose.

Larry Margolis, of the Citizens Conference on State Legisla-

tures, suggested a task force on policy planning within substan-

tive committees as well as task forces on fiscal and oversight

matters and governmental structure. The task forces were to

result in a "platoon system where a team of Members and a staff

is working on long-range policy studies while the same Members

differently staffed and organized, are working on the immediate

concerns of legislation in the session." A separate task force was

needed, Margolis said, because "it simply does not contribute to

the effectiveness of long-range policy deliberations to conduct

them in the same atmosphere as specific legislation is made"

(SCC, 1973b: 376).









Alan Rosenthal, a political scientist at Rutgers associated

with the Eagleton Institute of Politics, would have a separate

functional committee for policy planning. The fact that standing

committees have not done policy planning may mean that they won't:

there is no way to jazz up the present structure. Let

the committees do what they want to do and create other committees

to do what should be done" (SCC, 1973b: 382). Oversight should

have a separate committee because oversight "gets lost in the

hurly-burly of manufacturing bills and raising batting averages"

and because "you can't really expect congressmen who devised a

program and enacted it to look at that and say, 'it is lousy'"

(SCC, 1973b: 383).

Representative Culver responded in a manner indicative of

things to come, on the idea of futures committees or anticipatory

planning. Every committee should be "anticipating impact and al-

ternative policy choices. We should try to develop that type of

rigor as part and parcel of the operation of each of these com-

mittees," Culver noted (SCC, 1973b: 384).

THE EXECUTIVE ORGANIZATION PANEL. The panel on executive organi-

zation brought lively and thoughtful discussion of strategic

policy assessment issues but often left questions of SPA in Con-

gress unanswered. For instance, Representative Sarbanes asked

whether Congress should have an institution such as the Office of

Management and Budget to develop policy, anticipate policy judg-

ments, and coordinate policy, but the subject was quickly changed









(SCC, 1973b: 406). Likewise, in response to testimony favoring a

national goals and policies committee for each house, Culver

asked how we may "require this type of systematic attention to

future requirements and needs in all of the various areas of

public policy under [the committee's] consideration" (SCC, 1973b:

450). Robert Seamans, president of the National Academy of Engineer-

ing, replied that research and development should be considered

planning for the future, but he was not able to be more specific

about what committees should do (SCC, 1973b: 450).

In the fall, hearings were again held, this time for representa-

tives of citizen interest groups and members of the House who had

not testified in the spring. The major exchange relevant to the

Bolling committee's work on strategic policy assessment took place

between John Culver and John Gardner, speaking as chairman of

Common Cause. Culver pressed Gardner to describe the "futurist

components" in committee policy making. Gardner replied that

sophisticated forecasting was essential for national policy making.

He suggested that each committee, rather than generate its own

forecasts, should have someone to keep in touch with forecasting

in the executive branch, the private sector, and the universities.

Gardner concurred with Culver on the decentralized approach for

this "futurist" function.

Thus ended the hearing phase of the Bolling committee's work.

Some information relevant to strategic policy assessment had

been gathered, but at the wrong time, as with Representative John









Davis. The futurists presented much information on conditions,

but little on specific congressional strategies. The panels on

information systems and state legislative committees provided

information that was later to be used in drafting the foresight

provision and, at the time, sparked discussion. The panels on

budget and executive organization raised the decision-forcing

questions relevant to a central committee. Despite some interest

in the centralized approach, Representative Culver was searching

for means to decentralize policy planning into the committees.

Most experts could not respond, although the testimony of Bertram

Gross, Walter Hahn, Alan Rosenthal, Larry Margolis, and John

Gardner supplied some specific ideas.


COMMITTEE SYSTEM PLANS

Besides topic-oriented hearings, a way to gather information

on the committee system is to design such a system. Seven committee

plans were prepared in order to examine various assumptions or

theoretical approaches. Whereas the panel discussions dealt with

all three SPA functions, the committee system plans dealt mainly

with the third function: forcing the conscious interrelationship

of decisions. The alternative committee systems were designed

either by Bolling committee members or staffers or outside con-

sultants--prior to the Sarbanes-Steiger draft prepared for the

committee mark-up sessions.









THE BOLLING-SHELDON PLAN. The first plan was introduced "for

the record" by Richard Bolling on June 26, 1973, during the futurist

testimony, the last summer panel. SPA activities figured promi-

nently in this document. A House central policy committee, ba-

sically a leadership committee, would set overall revenue and

budget goals to "deal with broad issues of policy extending beyond

any simple grouping of committees." In addition, the plan provided

for a budget committee and a national policy planning committee.

The latter would


have a major role in supporting the work of
the House Central Policy Committee by identi-
fying national goals emerging from the work
of their committees, and other sources by
providing early warning on emerging issues
and trends, by providing oversight and pro-
gram analysis. In addition it would be re-
sponsible for most matters involving advanced
technology and futures work. Hence its con-
cern with technology assessment, its support
of basic science, its responsibility for the
space program.
(SCC, 1973b: 495; emphasis added)


The first plan would create four primarily substantive and four

primarily functional committees presided over by the House

central policy committee:


House Central Policy Committee
Primarily Substantive Primarily Functional
Economics committee Budget committee
Human resources committee National policy planning
National resources and committee
environmental committee Intergovernmental affairs
International affairs and committee
defense committee Legislative branch policy
and management committee









This first plan grew out of informal discussions between chairman

Richard Bolling and chief of staff Charles Sheldon, who wrote the

plan (SCC, 1973b: 413), and it reflects Sheldon's science policy

background: a rationalistic, problem-solving approach.

THE AUGUST STUDY: THE STAFF GAME. The staff simulated the

work of the actual committee by debating and formulating their

own policies and plans. In the major staff plan, SPA concerns

were shown in the formation of a budget committee, but a proposed

long-range study committee was voted down 4 to 4 with two absten-

tions. In terms of activity within committees the staff recom-

mended that each subcommittee have an oversight subcommittee, a

budget subcommittee, and no more than three subcommittees (SCC,

1973c: 419). No foresight activities were mentioned for the

committees.

Within the staff was a rough division between the lawyers or

"political types," Linda Kamm and Robert Ketchum; the political

scientists, Roger Davidson and Terry Finn; and the science policy

or "hard science types," Spencer Beresford and Charles Sheldon.

While all had various kinds of operational experience with legis-

latures, they came with diverse backgrounds and orientations.

Beresford, joined by Gerald Grady and Charles Sheldon, was

pushing national goals or growth policy activities by a central

committee with more enthusiasm than was shown for foresight by

each committee. The political types saw little value in futures

research and forecasting activities in either approach. As one









staff member put it, this view resulted from the problem of

linking general goals to the specifics of implementation. "This

problem," the staffer noted, "exists within planning groups .

Planning that is done by nonoperational types often is looked

on as pious hopes and thoughts not related to needs or day-to-day

activities."

In making additional comments on the staff report, Spencer

Beresford and Gerald Grady urged that the long-range study com-

mittee be reconsidered:


The proposed committee would provide a
mechanism for coordinating the work of the
standing committees so as to develop coher-
ent and comprehensive House positions and
policies. It would not have legislative
authority. Its responsibilities would in-
clude future legislative problems and
options, long-range planning, and evaluation
of major federal activities in terms of
their long-range effectiveness and cost.
(SCC, 1973c: 438)


Beresford noted that this type of activity was performed in

various places within Congress but was narrowly focused and

occurred principally in response to requests and inquiries rather

than to meet recognized needs. Gerald Grady,who was familiar with

the SPA proposal of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for

Scholars (WWICS) agreed with Beresford and used a description

similar to that provided by WWICS: the governmental units should

analyze, more thoroughly and systematically, long-term trends









and problems, to identify the key issues, to formulate and evaluate

policy choices and courses of action, and to evaluate the effects

of actions that have been taken" (SCC, 1973c: 442).

While there was disagreement over the role and utility of

futures analysis and a central committee, the staff showed more

agreement on the need to force decisions, and this agreement was

reflected in three other plans, based on assumptions of a small

number of committees, a large number of committees, and minimal

change.

THE PLAN FOR A SMALL NUMBER OF COMMITTEES. While the plan

drawn by the political scientists Davidson and Finn for a small

number of committees did not mention foresight for either sub-

committee or committee, it did attempt to force the conscious

interrelationship of decisions by establishing a small number of

multi-interest committees and strengthening the Office of the

Speaker as a coordinating mechanism. Davidson and Finn, as one

staffer put it, were "intrigued with the possibilities to achieve

politically what Beresford and, to some extent, Grady proposed

doing with a special body. In that sense [Davidson & Finn] fell

between the politicos, Kamm and Ketchum, and the science types,

Beresford and Sheldon."

THE PLAN FOR A LARGE NUMBER OF COMMITTEES. The plan based

on a large number of committees contained thirty-six committees

and six select committees. In addition to the budget committee,

it would establish a national goals and growth policies committee.









This new committee, which would not have
legislative authority, would be responsible
for long-range studies and plans of alter-
native national goals, and growth policies.
It would analyze long-term trends, problems,
and evaluate the major Federal activities
in terms of their long-range effectiveness,
cost, and impact on national growth.
(SCC, 1973c: 469)


THE MINIMAL CHANGE PLAN. The plan assuming minimal change

from the existing situation made no committee or subcommittee

changes relevant to SPA although it did suggest that growth

policy could be added by leadership, joint, or select committee

or by an independent office similar to the Office of Technology

Assessment. In a paper appended to this plan, Spencer Beresford

described this option in some detail. Noting that the present

congressional approach to national problems was typically short-

sighted and fragmented, that Congress as an institution seemed

reluctant to make, often even to recognize, hard choices,

Beresford described what is needed:


an arrangement for the systematic,
long-range, integrated study of our princi-
pal future national problems. Such studies
could identify and analyze these problems,
on a time scale of five to fifteen years or
longer, formulate alternative courses of
action for dealing with them, and consider
the probable effects of such alternatives
and of any relevant programs and other
actions that are already underway.
(SCC, 1973c: 483)









THE DICK PLAN. The next committee plan was suggested by

Bess E. Dick, former staff director of the Judiciary Committee:


watching the House of Representatives
in action, one would almost conclude that
Mother Chaos was married to Father Time.
The House of Representatives looks at what
is before it and behind it. It does not look
ahead; it responds to crises but does not
foresee them. It lacks the strength of sim-
plicity and it lacks direction.
(SCC, 1973c: 487)


Dick called for more active partisan leadership that would be

accomplished by a congressional policy committee manned "entirely

by the majority party." It would set congressional priorities and

draw a direct line from the leadership to the committees.

THE HUDDLE PLAN. The last plan in the information-gathering

efforts of the Bolling committee was, according to a staff member,

the most theoretical, the most futurist, and the least attended

to. Walter Huddle, senior specialist in the science policy divi-

sion of.the Congressional Research Service, tried to develop

theoretically a system that would organize committees around

function rather than substantive categories. In introducing the

plan, Lester Jayson, director of the Congressional Research Ser-

vice, noted that the distinction between functional and substan-

tive organization is that functional requirements do not seem to

change as rapidly or radically as substantive requirements. A

leadership committee was also suggested by the plan, presumably

to force coordination among decisions.









The Huddle plan, Jayson noted, was based on the assumption

that "the substantive problems facing the Congress would be

subject to radical and increasing rates of change; given this

assumption it was then proposed that a target concept of organi-

zation (perhaps toward the year 2000) might help to provide some

insights as to the general and incremental changes in a coherent

way (SCC, 1973c: 558). In discussing the need for this approach

Huddle raised the problem of constituent attitude:


Whatever the mechanism that determines how
long-term the future outlook of the Congress,
the point can be offered that there is a
tendency for the public at large to be con-
cerned with short-range problems, needs, and
goals.
The problem facing the House, then, is
to strike a proper balance in legislative
actions between short-range and long-range
effects. To do this requires, in turn, the
identification of both short- and long-range
concerns, even though the public attends
mainly to the former.
(SCC, 1973c: 562)


Huddle spoke of the goal of continuous planning for the House

and its organizational requirements:


The function of anticipating the future and
providing for it cannot be safely neglected
in a modern and rapidly changing world. Two
elements are indispensable for this purpose:
(1) an institution charged with looking
ahead, defining future problems, estimating
their probability, and exploring the ways of
coping with them; and (2) an organization
that is flexible and adaptable enough to
take up these future problems legislatively
before they turn into catastrophic certainties.
(SCC, 1973c: 571)









Huddle's first element entails the SPA function of searching for

emerging problems. His second element implicitly includes inform-

ing current decisions and forcing their conscious interrelationship.

What pictures emerge from these seven committee plans regard-

ing the treatment of strategic policy assessment in this aspect

of the Boiling committee's information gathering? Those plans

formulated in whole (Huddle) or in large part (Sheldon) by CRS

science policy personnel included explicit mention of the SPA

functions. However, in both cases there was a detached quality

about the analysis. Sheldon's plan would place the national goals

function in a central committee that did not have the power to

act on those goals. Huddle's "systems analysis" approach to the

House tended to ignore the legitimate clash of values and the

need to structure this conflict; rather it would simply solve

problems. The plan for a small number of committees tried to

force decisions by aggregating jurisdictions, and the plan for

a large number included a budget committee and a national goals

and growth policy committee. Spencer Beresford's suggestions for

the SPA functions were appended to the other two staff plans.

The plan by Bess Dick was concerned with SPA only from the

perspective of stronger party leadership.

How much and what parts of the information gathered by the

Boiling committee through hearings, panel discussions, and com-

mittee plans were actually used? On what basis were the options

chosen? The answers to these questions were found in the formula-

tion stage of House Resolution 988.










STAGE 3: FORMULATION


In the formulation stage, specific legislative remedies are

devised and advocated. In the process, boundaries are drawn around

an issue, and a focal point is established. Formulation of House

Resolution 988 was concentrated into the last two months of 1973

and the early months of 1974:


The transition from an advanced seminar in
the legislative process to a working group
willing to make hard political choices was
a critical one, and was accomplished during
the fall of 1973 through a series of three
steps. First, an intensive working session
was held one weekend at the Chairman's home.
Second, Paul Sarbanes (D-Md) and William
Steiger (R-Wis) were delegated to work with
the staff on a draft report to serve as a
basis for discussion. The full Committee then
refined this draft in a series of informal
sessions, releasing the preliminary proposal
just before legislators scattered for the
Christmas recess. (Davidson, 1974: 11)



In February and March, open mark-up sessions (SCC, 1974b) were held

to work on adjustments to the Steiger-Sarbanes draft (SCC, 1974a).


THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE QUESTION

The formulation of the foresight provision can be seen in two

stages: (1) the decision against any central planning, goals, or

futures committee and (2) the decision to add foresight to each

committee's oversight responsibility by requiring futures research

and forecasting.









Representative Culver was interested in the central approach

early in the work of the Bolling committee; yet the problem of

leadership was often raised. As a staff member put it, "You can't

put a steel rod in a plate of spaghetti." Therefore Culver raised

questions, as we have said, regarding the decentralization of

foresight. The central committee issue remained alive, however,

until the weekend meeting at Bolling's home, when it was rejected

in a close vote.

Another reason the central committee question was rejected

stemmed from the simultaneous consideration of budget reform

elsewhere in Congress. The possibility of the formation of budget

committees and a budget office displaced much of the Bolling com-

mittee's concern for a central committee, although Culver and,

to a lesser extent, Bolling and Lloyd Meeds (D., Wash.) were still

interested in a central committee, which was intensely interest-

ing to Spencer Beresford and other staff members.

An outcome of their interest, despite the decision against

such a committee, was Appendix L of the final report, entitled

"National Goals Function." This brief statement written by

Spencer Beresford suggested that when budget committees were

established, they should work in the context of national goals

and priorities and long-range cost projections. "National goals

can provide a framework for priorities and budget allocations,

as well as for program selection, emphasis and timing" (SCC,

1974e: 353). In Chapters 4 and 5 we have considered the question









of the national goals approach in the 1974 budget reform, for

the Senate was much more concerned to use the budget to set

national goals and priorities than the House.


THE FORESIGHT PROVISION: THE DECENTRALIZED APPROACH

Two major components of the decision to decentralize futures

concern were (1) making it part of the oversight responsibility

of committees and (2) describing specifically what was required,

namely futures research and forecasting.

THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES. The foresight provision, as a

staffer put it, was "not a hot issue." Culver remained intensely

interested in some type of SPA or futurist reform, as was evident

during the hearings. On the staff Beresford and Sheldon continued

to be concerned about it. Among other committee members and

staff, these were not major issues; generally, the realization was

that the irrational structure of committee jurisdictions posed a

major problem. Restructuring committee jurisdictions would force

a more coherent consideration of interrelated decisions; this problem

occupied the largest amount of committee member and staff time

(Davidson & Oleszek, 1975: 16). This jurisdictional issue would

prove most influential for the course and ultimate product of

the Bolling committee.

Another background factor was the generally strong interest

in oversight among committee members. Much discussion throughout

the course of hearings and panels had centered on how to make

committees more effective in overseeing programs and policies.









Among several approaches to oversight, most members agreed with

Larry Margolis that each committee should be given an explicit

oversight responsibility. They were opposed to leaving oversight

as solely the responsibility of the Committee on Government Opera-

tions. This activity should be taken more seriously by the author-

izing committees, they agreed, but a dispute occurred over the

establishment of separate oversight subcommittees. Some, par-

ticularly William Steiger, felt that some committee members should

not be isolated in an oversight subcommittee to watchdog the prod-

ucts of other committee members. However, the majority of the

Bolling committee favored separate oversight subcommittees.

A problem with the foresight provision was that it called for

analysis not directly related to the day-to day committee activity

of considering specific bills. Oversight suffered from a similar

problem. The immediate incentives in Congress are for processing

bills--"raising one's batting average," to paraphrase Rosenthal

(SCC, 1973b: 383). Although oversight and foresight may be viewed

as separate operations, given the political support for oversight,

it made sense to attach foresight to it. Culver and David Martin

were the leading advocates of greater oversight (Davidson & Oleszek,

1975: 26), and Culver persuaded Martin that foresight should be

part of the separate oversight subcommittee's responsibilities.

FUTURES RESEARCH AND FORECASTING. The foresight provision

could be heard in amorphous form in John Culver's comments and

questions throughout the hearings and panel discussions. The




Full Text
STRATEGIC POLICY ASSESSMENT AND CONGRESSIONAL REFORM
THE FUTURE IN COMMITTEE
by
Clement Bezold
A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of
The University of Florida
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1976

Copyright 1976
by
Clement Bezold

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This dissertation is the product of assistance from a variety
of persons and institutions. I would like to acknowledge their
contributions and express my heartfelt thanks:
To the supervisory committee: Victor A. Thompson, chairman-,
William G. Munselle-, Eric M. Uslaner; Keith R. Legg; John S. Fitch;
and Ramona R. Rush.
To Jon L. Mills, director of the Center for Governmental Re¬
sponsibility, for continued institutional, financial, and personal
support. This research grew out of the center's project on congres¬
sional accountability and grew into its project on Congress and
the future. To others on the center staff for their support, and
to William Munselle, who prompted my first research for the center.
To Michael McIntosh and the McIntosh Foundation for funding
provided to the center and used in this research.
To the senators, representatives, staff persons, officials,
and experts who responded to formal and informal interview ques¬
tions which provided most of the information for this dissertation.
To Roger Davidson, Fred Holborn, Herbert Jasper, Genevieve Knezo,
and James Thornton, who reviewed chapters dealing with cases with
which they had been involved as staff persons. Their comments were
thoughtful and helpful for accuracy of information and interpre¬
tation, although the responsibility for questions of interpretation
remains my own.

To the Governmental Studies Division of the Brookings Insti¬
tution for guest privileges, for a friendly and intellectual
atmosphere, for increased access to congressional offices result¬
ing from association with the institution, and for regular volley¬
ball games. To Alvin Toffler, the Committee for Anticipatory
Democracy, and Hazel Henderson for information concerning this
research and, more importantly, for support of my personal and
professional commitments that paralleled this research and aided
in its completion. To Congressman Dante B. Fascell and his staff
for my introduction to Capitol Hill as a congressional intern in
1968.
To friends, fellow students, and colleagues who contributed
to the final accomplishment of this dissertation: Robert Bradley,
Elizabeth Ferris, William Goodwin, Carolyn Herrington, Michael
and Sylvia Lenaghan, Charlotte Miller, Mary Jane Parker, Steven
Reinemund, and Elizabeth Smith. To Martha Hetrick for editorial
work on the manuscript, and to Roberta Solt and Susan Eddy Mauldin
for typing the final copy.
And finally to my family, particularly my mother and father,
Katherine and Henry Bezold, for the warm environment in which I
grew up and their continuing encouragement.
iv

CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
ABBREVIATIONS vii
ABSTRACT ix
CHAPTER 1 CONGRESS AND STRATEGIC POLICY ASSESSMENT 1
Introduction 2. Congressional Policy Making 4. Congressional
Ability to Anticipate Problems 5. Policy Analysis in Congress 7.
Policy Analysis and Strategic Policy Assessment 9. Congressional
Reform 14. SPA Reforms in the 93rd Congress 22. Notes 26
CHAPTER 2 STRATEGIC POLICY ASSESSMENT PROPOSALS: PURPOSIVE
BEHAVIOR AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL 28
Introduction 29. Stages of Successful Activity on a Bill 31.
Member Factors: Goals 34. Committee Factors 43. Hypotheses 48.
Methodology 50. Notes 54
CHAPTER 3 THE FORESIGHT PROVISION OF THE COMMITTEE REFORM
AMENDEMNTS OF 1974 56
Building Strategic Policy Assessment Into the House Committee
System 57. The Bolling Committee 57. Proposals in the Bolling
Committee 59. Stage 1: Instigation and Publicizing 61. Stage 2:
Information Gathering 64. Stage 3: Formulation 86. Interest
Aggregation 94. Mobilization 96. Modification 97. Member Goals
and Policy Attitudes 99. Conclusion 105. Notes 107.
CHAPTER 4 THE BALANCED NATIONAL GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT
OF 1974 110
Introduction 111. Growth Policy and Strategic Policy Assessment
116. Instigating and Publicizing for Growth Policy 117. Formula¬
tion 125. Moving a Bill Without a Committee 130. National Growth
and the Budget Report 132. Interest and Support Outside Congress
140. The Senate Government Operations Committee 141. Senator
Humphrey's Goals 143. Summary: Incubating an SPA Reform 144.
Notes 148.
v

CHAPTER 5 THE FULL OPPORTUNITY AND NATIONAL GOALS AND PRIORITIES
ACT 151
Introduction 152. Instigation and Publicizing 154. Formulation
156. S. 843 in the 90th Congress 158. The 91st Congress 166.
The 92nd Congress 177. The 93rd Congress 184. Member Goals and
Attitudes 188. Summary: Six Stages 192. Notes 198.
CHAPTER 6 HYPOTHESES AND COMPARISONS 202
Introduction 203. Six Stages in Legislative Activity 203.
Hypotheses 207. Committee Factors 209. Committee Comparisons
219. Member Goals 223. SPA Policy Attitude 226. Summary 233.
Notes 234.
CHAPTER 7 IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 236
Viability: Implications for Congressional Reform 237. Implica¬
tions of This Research 239. Conclusion 244.
APPENDICES 247
REFERENCES 263
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 278
vi

ABBREVIATIONS
ACIR Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations
ACP Academy for Contemporary Problems
AIP American Institute of Planners
BoB Bureau of the Budget (in 1970 the Office of Management
and Budget), Executive Office of the President
CAF Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, U.S. Senate
CBC Committee on Banking and Currency, U.S. House of
Representatives
CEA Council of Economic Advisers, Executive Office of the
President
CED Committee for Economic Development
C60 Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate
CLPW Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate
COPP Congressional Office of Policy and Planning (proposed
in S. 3050, 93rd Congress)
CPW Committee on Public Works, U.S. House
CQ Congressional Quarterly
CR Congressional Record (daily edition)
CRS Congressional Research Service
CSA Council of Social Advisers (proposed in S. 5, 93rd Congress)
FR Federal Register
HEW Department of Health, Education and Welfare
ISTA International Society for Technology Assessment
JCAE Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, U.S. Congress
JCCO Joint Committee on Congressional Operations, U.S. Congress
JCER Joint Committee on the Economic Report (established by
1946 Employment Act; became Joint Economic Committee),
U.S. Congress
JCSR Joint Committee on the Social Report (proposed in S. 5,
93rd Congress)
JEC Joint Economic Committee (formerly JCER), U.S. Congress

LRA Legislative Reorganization Act (of 1946 and 1970)
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NGRS National Goals Research Staff, Executive Office of the
President, 1969-1970
NSF National Science Foundation
OBNGD Office of Balanced National Growth and Development
(proposed in S. 3050, 93rd Congress)
0E0 Office of Economic Opportunity, Executive Office of
the President
OGPA Office of Goals and Priorities Analysis (proposed in S. 5,
93rd Congress)
OTA Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress
PPBS Planning, programming, budgeting system
R&D Research and development
SCC Select Committee on Committees, U.S. House of Representa¬
tives, 93rd Congress
SPA Stratetic policy assessment
UAC Urban Advisory Committee, Executive Office of the Presi¬
dent, 1969-1970
WWICS Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
vn i

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
STRATEGIC POLICY ASSESSMENT AND CONGRESSIONAL REFORM:
THE FUTURE IN COMMITTEE
by
Clement Bezold
March, 1976
Chairman: Victor A. Thompson
Major Department: Political Science
During the 93rd Congress several reforms were proposed to
make Congress better able to anticipate emerging problems and
to deal with them before they reach a crisis stage. Three of
these reform proposals have been examined in this research in
order to understand the nature of congressional reform in a
technical, analytical area.
The foresight provision of the Committee Reform Amendments
of 1974 (H. Res. 988), prompted by Representative John C. Culver
(D., Iowa), requires committees of the House to perform futures
research and forecasting. The Full Opportunity and National Goals
and Priorities Act (S. 5), sponsored by Senator Walter F. Mondale
(D., Minn.), would establish a Council of Social Advisers and a
congressional Office of Goals and Priorities Analysis. Senator
Hubert H. Humphrey's (D., Minn.) Balanced National Growth and
Development Act of 1974 (S. 3050) would establish mechanisms to
set national growth policy.
The term strategic policy assessment has been used to mean
the analysis of emerging trends and conditions and the clarification
IX

of policy goals and options in relation to these trends and condi¬
tions. Depending on context, a strategic policy assessment reform
may have three effects on congressional decision making: (1) to
increase the ability of Congress to search for emerging issues that
should be on the congressional agenda; (2) to provide information
for current decisions on relevant future trends, events, or condi¬
tions; and (3) to force the conscious interrelation of decisions
taken at different times or places within government.
Hypotheses were formulated relating committee and member fac¬
tors to the legislative processing of three proposals. Stages of
processing analyzed were: (1) instigating and publicizing, (2)
information gathering, (3) formulation, (4) interest aggregation,
(5) mobilization, and (6) modification. Analyses were based on
documentary research and extensive interviews of sponsors, commit¬
tee members, staff, and other officials and experts.
Findings showed that successful processing required a sup¬
portive committee chairman; staff with expertise in policy analysis
or decision-making processes and, where the reform involved sig¬
nificant changes, skill in political information gathering and
bargaining; interest group support; and favorable bureaucratic
activity. Interest group support was generated only if the reform
was linked to another, more immediately relevant issue or to
professional benefit; favorable activity from bureaucratic enti¬
ties occurred when the strategic policy assessment reform would
benefit the entity. Bureaucratic opposition occurred where a
x

competing unit would be established by a reform. Strategic policy
assessment reforms were found to generate opposition in relation
to the degree of change to be required in present decision-making
structures, in procedures, and in distribution of power.
Sponsors of strategic policy assessment legislation were found
to be motivated by conceptions of good policy rather than by the
benefits of reelection or a career beyond the chamber. Like their
colleagues in committee, sponsors expressed dissatisfaction with
the ways in which Congress normally searches for problems, but
they were more optimistic than fellow committee members regarding
the ability of government to anticipate emerging problems and to
deal with them before they reach a crisis stage.
It was suggested that further research is necessary on policy
analysis and strategic policy assessment activities in Congress
so that the impact of strategic policy assessment reforms may be
better understood. S. 5 and S. 3050 had effects on other reform
efforts despite the fact that neither was enacted. It was also
suggested that other attempts at strategic policy assessment
reform should focus on the specific operation of existing units,
and where reforms would require significant changes, more attention
should be given to generating public awareness and support for
strategic policy assessment reforms.

CHAPTER 1
CONGRESS AND STRATEGIC POLICY ASSESSMENT

INTRODUCTION
Calls for reform of the decision-making processes of the U.S.
Congress are not new. Neither are the social and economic problems
that generate such calls. In recent years, however, the problems
have more frequently developed into crises, and the calls for
reform have become numerous and urgent. During the 93rd Congress
a serious monetary crisis, a food shortage crisis, an unemployment
and welfare crisis, and most important, an energy crisis beset
the nation (Harman, 1973: 475; WWICS, 1973). These crises were
accompanied by proposals to reform congressional processes in
response to these changing social and economic conditions and
thereby to strengthen the policy-making function of national
government.
Our research has concerned three of these efforts at reform¬
ing congressional processes and strengthening the ability of
Congress to perform more comprehensive analytic functions basic
to the making of policy. A House resolution and two Senate bills
proposed mechanisms that would enhance the ability of members of
Congress and committees to analyze trends and conditions, and to
clarify policy goals and legislative options relative to these
trends and conditions; that is, to assess policy strategically
in order to anticipate emerging issues and deal with problems
2

3
before they reach the crisis stage. The reforms chosen for study
would require increased legislative responsibility for strategic
policy assessment, increased staffing and new committees for
more comprehensive analysis, and additional techniques for
anticipating the future. Thus, information of social and economic
realities, the effects of governmental action, and the inter¬
relatedness of decisions taken at many locations within Congress
and other parts of the government might be marshaled. In such re¬
forms "futures analysis" is expected to provide the information,
if not the political will, to keep the "institutional agenda"
(what Congress is considering) consistent with the "systematic
agenda" (issues within the polity that deserve consideration).
First, the societal-institutional context of Congress is ex¬
plained as it relates to policy making, including the institu¬
tional capacity of Congress as a representative assembly to an¬
ticipate emerging problems effectively. These questions are then
examined in terms of policy analysis--ways of knowing--within
Congress. Strategic policy assessment--the analysis of emerging
trends and conditions and the clarification of policy goals and
options in relation to these conditions--is then considered in
the context of congressional policy analysis. Finally, the his¬
torical development of analytical functions and responsibilities
in Congress through major reforms of the past thirty years is
traced before describing three reforms of the 93rd Congress that
supply our case studies of the varieties of the congressional
will to reform in this analytical area.

4
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY MAKING
The bases of national policy making in the United States have
precluded treatment of basic or chronic problems. Working in a
context of social and legislative pluralism, both Congress and
the President deal with problems immediately thrust on them by
pressures of the calendar, problems that can be handled quickly,
and problems in an acute, or crisis, stage (Polsby, 1971: 5-6).
This tendency is accentuated in Congress by the recognized
and legitimate pluralism of goals which accompanies the members
of this representative assembly. Lack of focus characterizes
congressional policy making because of the pluralism of goals,
the tendency to pay attention to organized interests, the absence
of effective policy leadership coupled with "scatteration of re¬
sponsibility" as committees and subcommittees become principal
sources of policy formulation.
A count made during the 93rd Congress "showed 57 standing and
special committees--a total of 345 work units for 535 members"
(Davidson, 1974: 4). This fragmentation of legislative work units
contributed to fragmented policy.
Committees and subcommittees rarely consult
or cooperate among themselves on matters of
mutual concern. Thus there is rarely an
opportunity to examine comprehensive
approaches to national problems, much less
the cumulative effects of piecemeal ap-
proaches- (Davidson, 1974: 4)

5
In addition, the multiplicity of committees offers many oppor¬
tunities for delays in committee work, in floor amendments and
votes, in conference committee action.
Lack of political focus, structural fragmentation, and pro¬
cedural complexity tend to slow the progress of Congress through
the institutional agenda and to reduce the number of new issues
that may be added to it. The crowded congressional agenda is set
by current and past issues reflected in existing legislation
(Cobb & Elder, 1972). The agenda-building process is reinforced
by congressional procedures, executive branch structures, and
interest group configurations. Given such a setting, Congress
and its committees seldom monitor changing conditions. If
changing conditions generate a problem for a politically relevant
group, if a problem is severe enough to generate constituent de¬
mands, the problem will likely find a place on the agenda. This
kind of agenda-building process results in the "quick fix, crisis
management, and damage limitation" syndrome. In addition, it
underrepresents those affected by emerging problems but lacking
interest-group structures to translate their concern to members
of Congress.
CONGRESSIONAL ABILITY TO ANTICIPATE PROBLEMS
These problems of congressional agenda-setting raise questions
about the ability of Congress to anticipate emerging problems and
deal with them before they reach a crisis stage. These questions

6
involve the fundamental aspects of democratic governments. The
self-centered, individualistic nature of a liberal democracy is
reflected in a legislative inability to anticipate emerging
problems and to direct the allocation of resources to combat them.
At the level of the individual, anticipating problems may require
foregoing current satisfactions. As a member of Congress put it,
"Forcing the country to meet problems before they reach a crisis
stage necessitates foregoing current expenditures and satisfac¬
tions. This requires a discipline that isn't in the personal or
political lives of the people."^ This lack of discipline poses a
problem for legislators. As another member of Congress put it:
There is a problem with legislating in ad¬
vance: programs cost money. The public
does not want something they don't think
they need and they don't see the current
need for anticipated problems. . . . Con¬
gress has a representative function. The
public which is represented is not inter¬
ested in the future in any specific terms.
In effect a member has to become a sales¬
man for the problem; a crisis helps sell
the urgency of the need to deal with the
problem.
The role of Congress, rather than the executive, in antici¬
pating problems has also been questioned. Congress has barely
responded to the twentieth century, it has been suggested, and
its decline vis-a-vis the executive will continue (Huntington,
1972, 1974). Congress has dispersed power to committees during
this century and has gradually insulated itself from new political

7
forces that social change has generated. Simultaneously, legis¬
lation has become "much too complex politically to be effectively
handled by a representative assembly" (Huntington, 1972). In the
view of such commentators, Congress may take the initiative only
to obstruct executive proposals and must be relegated to an in¬
creasingly marginal role in national policymaking.
But few members of the 93rd Congress, whose prerogatives and
constitutional powers were severely threatened by a hostile Re¬
publican administration, were ready to accept so marginal a role.
Recognizing at least some of the problems of a representative
assembly, most members of Congress were ready to meet the challenge
presented to the Congress by the Nixon impoundments. Several mem¬
bers were ready to propose changes to remedy congressional dis¬
abilities as a policy-making body. While members of Congress did
not use such a term as strategic policy assessment, the reforms
proposed would add to the capacity of Congress to perform the
functions this term denotes by requiring futures research and
forecasting, a social reporting system, and mechanisms to set
national growth policy within Congress.
POLICY ANALYSIS IN CONGRESS
The reforms that were proposed in Congress and chosen for
our research would adjust the policy analysis for congressional
policy making. Policy is a statement of choice of a goal and,
often, some means or set of means to attain the chosen goal.

8
Policy analysis is the gathering and processing of information
according to well-known criteria and the matching of this infor¬
mation against certain goals (Polsby, 1969).
Congress has not been renowned for systematic policy analysis.
Some committees, particularly the Joint Economic Committee and the
Joint Committee on Internal Revenue and Taxation, are known for
thorough analysis (Manley, 1968), but "all knowledge on a par¬
ticular topic is rarely collected in a single spot or system¬
atically marshalled" (Polsby, 1969: 101). Even less commonly made
are attempts to collect or synthesize information systematically
across several policy areas.
One reason for the relative absence of thorough policy
analysis is that members of Congress have traditionally seen
themselves as self-sufficient legislators. As we shall see, the
suggestion that Congress should add more staff for policy analysis
was thought, until recently, to be a slur on the capacity of mem¬
bers for competent decision making. A more fundamental reason,
however, lies in the pluralism of goals and bargaining processes.
Much congressional policy analysis takes
place under adversary circumstances. Thus
congressional decision-makers ordinarily
cannot enjoy the luxury of examining al¬
ternative means to stipulated ends. In
an adversary process ends are not stipu¬
lated but contested. Agreement on means
is often sought as a substitute for
agreement on ends. Ends are scaled down,
pulled out of shape, or otherwise trans-
f0rmed‘ (Polsby, 1969: 104)

9
As specific policies become more complex, this problem is
compounded.
Means and ends are hopelessly intertwined.
The real choice is between rival policies
that encapsulate somewhat different mixes
of means and ends. . . . The principal
participants [in the political process]
may not be clear about their goals. What
we call goals or objectives may, in large
part, be operationally determined by the
policies we can agree on. The mixtures of
values found in complex policies may have
to be taken in packages, so that policies
may determine goals at least as much as
general objectives determine policies.
(Wildavsky, 1966: 307-308)
Strategic policy assessment is a type of policy analysis which
is concerned with the conditions underlying policy choices and with
clarifying policy goals and options in relation to these condi¬
tions. strategic in this context refers to major or fundamental
policy questions--those which are often obscured by the continual
mixing of ends and means.
POLICY ANALYSIS AND STRATEGIC POLICY ASSESSMENT
The mixing of ends and means is important for congressional
policy making in that it adds to the problem of crisis decision
making. As we shall see, this mixing of ends and means affects
congressional reform efforts without stopping attempts to pro¬
vide more effective means of analyzing emerging conditions and

10
dealing with problems before the crisis stage. One group concerned
with increasing the anticipatory capacity of Congress coined the
term strategic policy assessment.
Officials of the executive branch, several members of Con-
2
gress and staff, and outside experts met in 1973 under the aus¬
pices of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
(WWICS). They recommended that specific mechanisms be established
to perform strategic policy assessment in both the executive and
3
legislative branches. No one from Congress belonged to the sub¬
group that drafted the WWICS proposal, and it was not turned into
a specific legislative proposal--it had no "policy entrepreneur"
within Congress. However, participating members of Congress had
been actively interested in policy-making reform, and as we shall
see, some had already become entrepreneurs for their own proposals.
For our purposes strategic policy assessment entails the
analysis of emerging trends and conditions and the clarification
of policy goals and options in relation to these conditions. The
WWICS group did not develop a rigorous conceptual or operational
definition of this term. Justifying the need for strategic policy
assessment in terms of the crisis management syndrome, the group
formulated this statement:
[Such assessments] endeavor to identify
emerging long-term trends and problems,
formulate and evaluate alternative courses
of action to deal with them, and evaluate
the effects of actions that have been put
in train. This objective presupposes a
continued assessment of social values and
preferences.
(WWICS, 1973: S2117)

11
If governmental mechanisms are to enhance the capability for
strategic policy assessment, they must direct attention and
generate alternatives (Simon, 1966) during the "intelligence"
stage of the decision-making process (Lasswell, 1971). Strategic
policy assessment may also be a component of what agenda-building
theories call the "predecisional" or "prepolitical" process de¬
termining the issues and alternatives considered and influencing
the choices made (Cobb & Elder, 1972).
Recognizing the similarity between planning and the activity
being advocated, the WWICS group differentiated between strategic
policy assessment and centralized economic planning.
What is conceived of here is not the develop¬
ment of detailed tactics and closely adhered-
to targets, which often accompany plans, but
rather a more analytical and conceptual pro¬
cess of identifying and assessing options
available from a long-range perspective.
(WWICS, 1973: S2116-17)
While a full definition of strategic policy assessment must in¬
clude its relation to planning and to an adequate taxonomy of
federal policies and programs in terms of the ends-means chain
as well as the decision process, our definition will suffice
for an exploration of congressional reform efforts related to
strategic policy assessment.
Strategic policy assessment (SPA), depending on the particular re¬
form whereby it is adopted, may provide three functions for con¬
gressional policy making: (1) to search for emerging issues,

12
(2) to inform current decisions with relevant futures analysis,
(3) to force the conscious interrelationship of decisions made at
different locations in Congress or the government. The Search
for emerging issues--a crucial, early-warning function for any
organization (Downs, 1967: 169-91)--concerns additions that should
be made to the institutional agenda. Current decisions are in¬
formed by knowledge of likely future trends, events, or condi¬
tions that may affect the goals sought by decision makers and the
potential impact of a decision on its policy environment. Both
these functions are analytic, and analysis may or may not be used
to make a specific decision. Strategic policy assessment, through
the use of futures analysis to search for emerging issues and in¬
form current decisions, would tend to encourage a systematic con¬
sideration of the range of issues on the agenda at a given time
and to force the interrelationship of individual decisions. The
conscious interrelationship of decisions is forced when the deci¬
sion process is so structured that analytic functions must be
performed.
A fourth function, one beyond the realm of SPA, is to provide
the political will, whether expressed in popular support or
political leadership, necessary for anticipating problems. We
are concerned with reforms affecting analysis rather than the
exercise of political will or leadership, such as strengthening
the parties or leadership within Congress.

13
The analytical techniques for acquiring and processing infor¬
mation essential to strategic policy assessment may be summarized
by the term futures analysis. Futures analysis may include such
activities as futures research, forecasting, and technology
assessment. All these activities are aimed at exploring the un¬
certainties of what is to come, and some of them were specifically
mentioned in congressional reform proposals. The future is com¬
posed of "a large set of alternatives." Futures research and fore¬
casting, then, are "means of discovering and articulating the
more important of the alternative futures and estimating the
trajectory likely to be produced by contemplated policies" (Gor¬
don, 1974: 90). Among futures techniques are genius forecasting,
trend extrapolation, consensus or Delphi methods, simulation,
cross-impact analysis, scenario generation, decision trees, and
econometric forecasting (Gordon, 1974: 90-113).
"As a process of ordering certainties and uncertainties and
their implications with regard to public policy decision-making,"
technology assessment is
the name for a class of policy studies which
attempt to look at the widest possible scope
of impacts in society of the introduction of
a new technology or the extension of an
established technology in new and different
ways. Its goal is to inform the policy pro¬
cess by putting before the decision maker
an analyzed set of options, alternatives,
and consequences. (CoateSi forthcoming)

14
Thus, "technology assessment is a most general and important form
of applied futures research" (Coates, forthcoming).^
Having defined the important terms of our discussion and
described the operative processes of information and analysis in
decision making, let us consider reforms that have improved con¬
gressional policy-making ability by providing increased staffing,
changes in committee structure, and new responsibilities for
analyzing current and future conditions.
CONGRESSIONAL REFORM
Reforms strengthening the search, decision-informing, and
decision-interrelating functions of the legislative process have
been proposed in the past, and some have been enacted. These re¬
forms have been crucial to the development of the policy analysis
capability in Congress, and our discussion supplies the background
preliminary to consideration of four important reforms of recent
date. Among historical reforms affecting the information and
analysis capability have been
. . . the establishment of the standing
committee system in 1825, periodic reform
of the House and Senate rules to expedite
legislative business, . . . and the fis¬
cal reforms following World War 1 that
unified the Appropriations Committees
and established the General Accounting
0ffice‘ (Saloma, 1969: 134)

15
Adding to its information resources, the Congress established the
Legislative Reference Service in 1914, providing a central staff
for some analytical functions. The Office of Legislative Counsel
was set up in 1919 to insure the consistency of legislative pro¬
posals with existing law. A more technical, policy-relevant staff
was added with the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation in
1926. This staff has earned a reputation for competent analysis
of tax policy matters, in the service of the House Ways and Means
and Senate Finance Committees (Manley, 1968).
In addition to such analysis reforms, other reforms have
affected the interrelating function.
The most important rationalization [inter¬
relationship of decisions] in congres¬
sional organization and procedure since
1921 has been the indirect discipline in
the legislative and administrative pro¬
cesses introduced by executive reform
such as the executive budget and legis¬
lative clearance. ,c , ,ncri
(Saloma, 1969: 134)
Analysis capacity per se has not been a major concern within
Congress. For most of its history Congress worked in the tradition
that "each member of Congress was a statesman capable of handling
all legislative problems himself" (Gross, 1953: 282). Thus, pro¬
posals to add professional staff were taken as a slur on the
capacities of members themselves; yet the increasing activity of
the federal government required increasing legislative analysis.
Committees frequently borrowed officials of the executive branch,

16
sometimes for lengthy periods and particularly when one party
controlled Congress and the White House (Kofmehl, 1962: 3;
Gross, 1953: 280-81). Lobbyists were also often important in
providing policy analysis to Congress in support of lobby group
interests. Only in the last thirty years has this tradition of
the self-informed statesman been seriously challenged by increased
congressional staffing.
Four legislative initiatives taken during the past thirty
years illustrate how the Congress has acted to change itself and
the executive-legislative relationship in the area of policy
analysis and assessment: the Legislative Reorganization Acts of
1946 and 1970, the Employment Act of 1946, and the Technology
Assessment Act of 1972.
THE LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1946
An omnibus reform bill, the Legislative Reorganization Act
(LRA) of .1946 allowed each committee four professional staff mem¬
bers, under the direction of the chairman and the ranking minority
member, and expanded the informational services that the Legisla¬
tive Reference Service and the General Accounting Office (GAO)
might provide Congress. But these provisions amounted to only a
few among thirty-eight provisions including pay raises and a re¬
tirement system for members of Congress. The commmittee staffing
provision resulted not only from the realization of need but also

17
from a conservative Republican effort to prohibit the formal
assignment of executive personnel to committees without the per¬
mission of the Senate Rules and Administration or House Adminis¬
tration Committees (Gross, 1953: 281).
The most important renovation was the "rationalization" of
committee jurisdictions to make them parallel to executive de¬
partments and to reduce the number of committees from thirty-three
to fifteen in the Senate and from forty-eight to nineteen in the
House. The number of subcommittees, however, was little changed.
Before the passage of the act, there were 140 subcommittees; after¬
ward, 131 and 146 depending on the count (Gross, 1953: 270). The
change, buried in a large legislative package, was not so severe
as it might have been. It has been stated that these changes did
little to modernize jurisdictional categories and that the act
had unanticipated consequences: "... strengthening the seniority
system, reinforcing committee autonomy, and inhibiting the ability
of Congress to adapt to changing configurations of public issues"
(Davidson, 1974: 4).
THE EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1946
Another legislative initiative relevant to policy assessment
concerns was passed in 1946: the Employment Act of 1946 (P.L. 304,
79th Congress). Beyond setting maximum employment as a goal of
the federal government, the act was a congressionally initiated

18
change in the national decision-making process. Two of its four
purposes are of paramount concern:
Second, to place the responsibility on the
President for seeing to it that the economy
was purposively analyzed at regular inter¬
vals and that the Congress was informed
of economic trends and of the President's
program to meet the challenge of those
trends; . . . And finally [fourth], to
establish a mechanism in Congress which
would facilitate legislative analysis and
action, and fix legislative responsibility
for the carrying out of a full employment
pollcy‘ (Bailey, 1950: 14-15)
This act added to the federal government's strategic policy assess¬
ment functions, but principally through the executive branch; the
responsibility for economic analysis and planning initiative for
full employment programs rested with the President.
The original intent of the act's sponsors was to use the bud¬
get process to achieve full employment, but this intent was
weakened during its passage. In earlier versions the Bureau of
the Budget (BoB) was to prepare a national production and employ¬
ment budget based on economic planning within the BoB (Bailey,
1950: 164-70). This budget was to be considered by a joint con¬
gressional committee on the budget. Proponents of this version saw
it as an extension of
. . . responsibility in the field of economic
planning and policy integration [and] as in¬
struments of potential reform which might

19
ramify into the entire pattern of govern¬
mental operations, increasing efficiency
and clarifying political responsibility
and accountability. ., 1f,cn co\
J (Bailey, 1950: 53)
Business and other conservative groups saw accountability other¬
wise. Partly because of their pressure for an identifiable group
whose appointment Congress would have to approve (Bailey, 1950:
165-70), a Council of Economic Advisers assumed the functions
contemplated for the BoB:
To aid the President in preparation of the
annual economic report; to gather and
analyze on current and prospective trends
and their effect on the achievement of
full employment; to appraise federal pro¬
grams in terms of their contribution to
full employment; to develop and recommend
policies to achieve the stated policy.
(P.L. 304, 79th Congress, Sec. 4c)
The second function explicitly requires the government to recog¬
nize and analyze long-term trends and emerging issues and thereby
commits the Congress to receive this analysis. However, when
economic analysis was shifted to the CEA from the BoB, a corres¬
ponding shift was made in the pertinent congressional committee,
changing the proposed budget committee to the Joint Committee
on the Economic Report (JCER). Thus the analytical functions were
isolated from the budget-making process.
The JCER was to increase the analytical capacity of Congress
by examining the annual economic report issued by the President

20
in December and by reporting to other committees of Congress by
May 1. Its recommendations were to guide congressional committees
"dealing with legislation affecting employment, production, and
purchasing power." The joint committee was also to "study means
of coordinating programs in order to further the policy of this
act." In its early years, however, the Joint Committee on the
Economic Report did not take the assertive role mandated by the
Employment Act of 1946 (Gross, 1953: 334).^ It did not force the
conscious interrelationship of decisions across committees; it
did not perform this assessment-related function. The establish¬
ment in Congress of decision-forcing mechanisms in the budget pro¬
cess waited until the 93rd Congress.
THE LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1970
The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (LRA) (P.L. 90-510)
was the product of six years of development following hearings
and activities prompted by Senator Mike Monroney (D., Okla.), a
sponsor of the 1946 LRA. Most of this activity took place in the
privacy of Congress. Inclusion of antisecrecy amendments attracted
some media attention, but otherwise press coverage was virtually
nonexistent, demonstrating, in the words of former Representative
Donald Rumsfeld (R., Ill.), that "Congressional reform is an issue
without a constituency" (Bibby & Davidson, 1972: 259).
The act added personnel to the staffs of committees, and the
data resources of Congress were increased including access to

21
information from the executive branch. Committees were encouraged
to make their rules explicit. Congressional responsibility to
oversee the executive branch, added as an explicit function in
1946, was reiterated in the 1970 LRA. Although staff resources
were increased in the Congressional Research Service (CRS) as
well as in committee, no mention was made of the type of policy
analysis that congressional committee staff should perform. How¬
ever, the CRS was given expanded responsibility for policy
analysis for committees (Beckman, 1974b): The CRS became re¬
sponsible for an in-house search for emerging issues that pro¬
duces subject lists of issues and policy areas meriting CRS
analysis and committee attention. Committee response to this in¬
creased capability was mixed during the 93rd Congress. Many com¬
mittees were not interested in Congressional Research Service
suggestions; others requested information on a large number of
issues and acted on them (Bezold, 1974: 460-61).
THE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ACT OF 1972
The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) was established by
the Technology Assessment Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-484). The product
of efforts in the House Science and Astronautics Committee, par¬
ticularly by Representative Emilio Daddario (D., Conn.), chair¬
man of the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development,
OTA's purpose was to provide information on the physical, bio¬
logical, economic, social, and political effects of technological

22
applications. OTA is directed by a Technology Assessment Board,
essentially a joint congressional committee composed of five
representatives and five senators.
This technology assessment activity was placed in a con¬
gressional support organization primarily because the President
seemed uninterested in issues of science and technology. During
the Nixon administration the Office of Science and Technology in
the Executive Office of the President had been abolished, and the
function of advising the President on scientific matters was
transferred to the head of the National Science Foundation (NSF).
This decrease in presidential interest in science coincided with
popular interest, particularly among environmentalists, in ex¬
amining the likely consequences of a new scientific or techno¬
logical application like the supersonic transport plane, the SST.
OTA had just begun operation in 1973, during the 93rd
Congress, having chosen six initial assessments, or reports, to be
made. Discussion within OTA suggested that the agency perform an
"early warning" function for Congress, and the WWICS proposal listed
OTA as a likely place to establish the policy assessment activities
proposed.^ It is still too soon to evaluate OTA's contribution, but
this office may play an important role in SPA in Congress.
SPA REFORMS IN THE 93RD CONGRESS
In order to understand the process of congressional reform in
relation to strategic policy assessment, our discussion will focus

23
on three legislatively initiated proposals during the 93rd Con¬
gress. The bills chosen represent a cross-section of congres¬
sional approaches to SPA: the foresight provision of House Reso¬
lution 988 (the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974), Senate
bill 5 (the Full Opportunity and National Goals and Priorities
Act), and Senate bill 3050 (the Balanced National Growth and De¬
velopment Act of 1974).
The foresight provision of the Committee Reform Amendments
of 1974 (H. Res. 988) was proposed during the 93rd Congress by
the House Select Committee on Committees (the Bolling committee)
along with several other reforms bearing on SPA functions in the
House. Because of the efforts of Representative John C. Culver
(D., Iowa), a "foresight responsibility" was included for com¬
mittees of the House, whereby they would
. . .review and study any conditions or cir¬
cumstances which may indicate the necessity
or desirability of enacting new or addi¬
tional legislation within the jurisdiction
of that committee (whether or not any bill
or resolution has been introduced with re¬
spect thereto), and shall on a continuing
basis undertake futures research and fore¬
casting on matters within the jurisdiction
of that committee. (SCC, ig74e; 38g)
The Full Opportunity and National Goals and Priorities Act
(S. 5) was proposed by Senator Walter F. Móndale (D., Minn.) and
favorably reported by the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Com¬
mittee (CLPW).A Council of Social Advisers (CSA) was to be

24
established to gather information and analyze social conditions,
trends, and programs in a fashion similar to that of the Council
of Economic Advisers. A congressional Office of Goals and
Priorities Analysis (OGPA) was to examine national priority
judgments found in the President's proposed budget and to formu¬
late recommendations for congressional goals and priorities.
As proposed by Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D., Minn.) and re¬
ferred to the Senate Government Operations Committee (CGO), the
Balanced National Growth and Development Act of 1974 (S. 3050)
would establish an office within the Executive Office of the Presi¬
dent to assess national needs, goals, and priorities and to pre¬
pare an annual report on national growth and development policy.
The annual report would include "appropriate projections and fore¬
casts regarding future social, economic, environmental, and
scientific developments affecting the growth of the Nation stated
in five-, ten-, and twenty-five-year time frames. . . " (S. 3050).
The proposed executive office would also force policy coordination
among various departments by contributing directly to the formula¬
tion of the presidential budget. Within Congress an Office of
Policy and Planning would conduct "a continuing, nonpartisan
analysis of national goals, priorities, and urban and rural growth
policies." This office was to provide Congress "with the data and
analyses necessary for enlightened decisions with respect to such
matters." Further, the office was to recommend interrelated policies
and programs to the Congress. The bill also proposed an independent

25
Foundation for America's Future and a national citizens' advisory
network to provide independent research and citizen input for
national growth policy.
The three bills chosen for study bear on different aspects
of strategic policy assessment functions. They represent a di¬
versity of congressional approaches to the problem of creating
and reconciling policy legislatively. The foresight provision of
H. Res. 988 was aimed at searching for emerging problems and in¬
forming current decisions within the jurisdiction of individual
conmittees. The Mondale bill (S. 5) was aimed at forcing analysis
across the field of social policy and, to a limited extent,
forcing the conscious interrelationship of decisions within the
Council of Social Advisers and in an Office of Goals and Priorities
Analysis within Congress. The Humphrey proposal (S. 3050) would
augment the search for emerging issues, inform current decisions
regarding future developments, and force the conscious interrela¬
tionship of decisions across broad areas of policy made both in
Congress and in the White House. Examination of these three SPA
reform proposals has shown how Congress does and does not bring
about change in its own operations, particularly in its ability
to adjust its crisis decision making. To demonstrate the successes
and failures of certain approaches may be useful to future efforts
to add to the anticipatory capacity of national decision making.
In order to present case studies of these bills, a set of
factors, relationships, and hypotheses have been developed to

26
evaluate comparative legislative responsibility in the develop¬
ment of each bill. In Chapter 2 we have set forth criteria for
the development of legislative enactments and the operative goals
of legislators, along with hypotheses necessary to examine each
proposal. In Chapter 3 we have presented a case study of H. Res. 988;
in Chapter 4, of the Mondale bill; in Chapter 5, of the Humphrey
proposal. In Chapter 6 the hypotheses have been reevaluated in light of
these case studies. In Chapter 7 conclusions for the maturity and
viability of SPA reforms and implications for congressional reform
have been summarized.
NOTES
1. Statements throughout the text that are quoted without
attribution have been drawn from more than seventy-five confiden¬
tial interviews with members of Congress, congressional and
executive staff members, outside experts, and public and private
interest-group representatives.
2. Reps. John D. Dingell (D., Mich.), Guy Vander Tagt (R.,
Mich.), Alan Steelman (R., Tex.), Senators Philip A. Hart (D.,
Mich.), James L. Buckley (R., N.Y.), and Hubert H. Humphrey (D.,
Minn.).
3. The WWICS group recommended that the congressional Office
of Technology Assessment (OTA) be broadly mandated to include
social concerns and that a strategic assessment staff, a distinct
entity with a deputy director, be added to OTA. An executive
office of strategic policy assessment was to be added to the
Office of Management and Budget, to address selected major prob¬
lems from a multidisciplinary and long-term perspective. To maxi¬
mize its impact on emergent policy considerations, this office
was to "review and comment on the President's budget as well as
longer term implications of resource allocation decisions . . .
and legislation which has significant long-term policy implica¬
tions" (WWICS, 1973: S2117-18).
4. For a listing of steps in technology assessment, see
Coates, 1975 and forthcoming.

27
5. That the call for reforms in national decision making to
cope with the future is not new is shown by the prefatory comments
to a major work on the Employment Act of 1946:
The day of policy planning by haphazard pressures and
personal and political whim is fast running out, for
the basic assumption underlying such irresponsible
policymaking has been that our society was resilient
enough to stand it. What if a needed policy were warped
out of shape by the nature of our political processes?
No great and lasting harm was done. There was always
time to start again, to explore new paths, skip around
in a labyrinth of blind alleys. But what if we guess
wrong today? The power and problems of government may
result in physical destruction or economic disaster.
(Bailey, 1950: viii-ix)
6. The Joint Committee on the Economic Report became the Joint
Economic Committee. Its staff has a reputation as one of the best
analytical staffs of any congressional committee.
7. For an evaluation of OTA's operations during the 93rd Con¬
gress, see Craig Decker's attempt to "assess the assessors"
(Decker, 1975).

CHAPTER 2
STRATEGIC POLICY ASSESSMENT PROPOSALS
PURPOSIVE BEHAVIOR AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL

INTRODUCTION
Our examination of three legislative initiatives has been
structured in order to understand strategic policy assessment
reforms in Congress that were aimed at making government better
able to cope with the future. The legislative initiatives
examined are the foresight provision of the Committee Reform
Amendments of 1974 (H. Res. 988), the Full Opportunity and
National Goals and Priorities Act (S. 5), and the Balanced
National Growth and Development Act of 1974 (S. 3050). At the
level of the major operating group within Congress, the commit¬
tees, certain key resources, or factors, have been selected for
consideration. These key factors at the committee level have
been chosen in order to allow an identification of "who was
responsible for a bill's enactment."
The research on Congress most relevant to our purposes
examined thirteen bills handled by three Senate committees in
order to "ascertain what aspects of committee life best help us
understand the characteristic patterns of legislative action and
inaction, initiative and deference" (Price, 1972: x). The issues
address were the "decline" of parliaments in the face of ascen¬
dant executives and the sources and conditions of legislative
29

30
independence and creativity in the U.S. Congress. In other
relevant research the functioning of six House committees from
1955 to 1966 was examined in order to describe and generalize
about committee similarities and differences (Fenno, 1973).
The following preliminary questions derived from the work
of Price and Fenno have guided this research: (1) what are the
determinants of activity by an individual member of Congress on
spa proposals? The member's perception of the need to anticipate
problems and his perception of the relation of strategic policy
assessment to this need was examined. Personal background factors
and committee incentives were identified that would lead a member
to take an initiative and so become a policy entrepreneur in
this area. We asked how strategic policy assessment would affect
the member's institutional position and how he thought strategic
policy assessment would change patterns of congressional decision
making or the distribution of power within Congress. (2) what
factors condition successful activity by a committee on Congress
on the spa provisions? The impact of different legislative pack¬
ages in which strategic policy assessment has been proposed was
studied as well as the differences in committee handling of these
packages. Factors were sought to explain these differences.
Finally, we sought to identify the types of interest group and
administration activity that accompanied these proposals or were
generated by them. The methods used to gather information to
answer these questions are discussed below.

31
STAGES OF SUCCESSFUL ACTIVITY ON A BILL
While these questions deal with member and committee factors
at the committee level of analysis, it is necessary to consider
the meaning of successful committee action for our unit of
analysis, namely legislative initiatives. Successful committee
action on a bill has been considered in terms of the degree of
development of six stages involved in processing any bill; those
suggested by Price.
Several attempts have been made to define the stages of deci¬
sion making, or policy making, that a bill ordinarily goes through
(Lasswell, 1963; Robinson, 1962; Gergen, 1968; Almond, 1960). In
surveying these stages, David Price rejected a "rational actor"
approach to policy making (see Allison, 1971):
The introduction, publicizing, legitimizing,
and processing of a piece of legislation in¬
volves a great deal more than the "gentle"
rationalistic, problem-solving process of
intelligence, recommendation, and prescrip¬
tion. The process entails gathering "in¬
telligence" and responding to articulated
needs and sentiments, but it also requires
stimulating those sentiments, activating
and mollifying groups, and precipitating
and participating in conflicts.
(Price, 1972: 5)
Price postulated six stages or functions in the processing of a
piece of legislation:

32
1. Instigation and publicizing. The public 0T pri¬
vate advocacy of an issue as one worthy of attention
and ameliorative action. Typical instigators include
the staff man or lower-level bureaucrat who calls a
problem to his superior's attention, the Congressman
who highlights an issue through investigative hear¬
ings, or the author who documents and dramatizes a
social need.
2. Formulation. Devising and advocating a specific
legislative remedy for a supposed need. The formulator
draws boundaries around an issue and establishes a
focal point for its further consideration.
3. information gathering. Collecting data on the
nature of hazards and abuses; the alternative schemes
for solving problems and their costs; benefits; and
inherent difficulties; the likely political impact
of each scheme; and the feasibility of various com¬
promises. Information gathering is crucial to each
of the other functions--to devising a workable pro¬
posal, as well as to plotting its political course
and building a sense of need and legitimacy.
4. interest aggregation. Responding to the needs
and wishes of individuals or groups affected by a
given proposal. In one instance, it might mean the
championing of one group over or against others, in
another the assumption of a mediating, "balancing"
role, in yet another the stimulating of latent group
sentiments. Such activities may both resolve and
exacerbate conflict; they may, on the one hand, con¬
tribute to the instigation and mobilization effort or,
on the other, give rise to attempts at modification
or obstruction.
5. Mobilization. The exertion of pressure, persua¬
sion, or control on behalf of a measure by one who
is able, often by virtue of his institutional posi¬
tion, to take effective and relatively direct action
to secure enactment. Whether an issue goes beyond
the publicizing and formulating stages usually depends
on the support it receives from individuals, groups,
or governmental units that possess authority and
legitimacy in the policy area and on the extent of
the "intra-elite organizing" by key leaders. Mobilizers
may become involved in other functions as a part of
these efforts, but they may benefit from, or be
stimulated by, those who were active at the "earlier"
stages as wel 1 .

33
6. Modification. The marginal alteration of a pro¬
posal, sometimes "strengthening" it, sometimes
granting certain concessions to its opponents in or¬
der to facilitate final passage. Modification may or
may not complement actions taken at earlier points,
but in any case the modifier shares responsibility
for a bill's final form. (Price, ,g72. 4_5)
A bill's passage, in Price's schema, will depend on its maturity
and viability. A bill's maturity corresponds to its progress
through these stages. The viability of a bill (whether or not "it
will fly") depends on the degree of responsiveness and support
for the bill in the parent body (Price, 1972: 304).
The three bills chosen reached a variety of levels of maturity
and viability. The foresight provision was adopted by the House;
the full opportunity proposal passed the Senate Labor and Public
Welfare Committee (it had passed this committee and the Senate in
two previous congresses); the Humphrey proposal was not even con¬
sidered by the Senate Government Operations Committee. In this
research we explored factors affecting the developmental process
for three legislative initiatives and the context that condi¬
tioned their viability or nonviability.
One contextual factor that conditions a bill's viability in
the House or Senate, Price noted, is the presence of a crisis or
sense of need in a relevant sector. A variety of crises, most
notably the energy crisis, demanded notice in the 93rd Congress
(SCC, 1973b: 475; WWICS, 1973). The extent to which events such
as the energy crisis were translated into a sense of need for

34
changes through strategic policy assessment reforms in the decision¬
making system has been examined in our research. The member and
committee factors that may have affected the maturity of these SPA
proposals must first be identified specifically. Then we may hy¬
pothesize the relationship of these factors to the processing of
three proposals.
MEMBER FACTORS: GOALS
The viability of a proposal is determined by the level of
support it receives in the parent chamber and by other enabling
conditions, but the birth and growth of a bill--its maturity in
terms of Price's six stages--depends on the "irreducibility of
legislative initiative"--the need for a policy entrepreneur (Price,
1972: 306-11). Then, what determines a politician's actions, as
a sponsor, a supporter, or an opponent of legislation? Research
on the general determinants of political activity have focused on
the predispositions, perceptions, roles, and motivations of poli¬
ticians (Barber, 1965; Payne, 1968; Davidson, 1969; Wahlke,
Eulau, Buchanan, & Ferguson, 1962; Putnam, 1973). A recent
approach by Richard Fenno resolved some of the difficulty of
linking such general factors to legislative activity. There are
certain basic goals pursued by congressmen; Fenno (1973) suggested
(1) reelection, (2) good public policy, (3) power in the House,
(4) a career beyond the House, and (5) private gain.

35
Fenno showed that membership on different committees enhances
some goals more than others (Fenno, 1973). Research on freshman
representatives in the 92nd Congress yielded similar results
(Bullock, 1973). Our research was concerned with the question how
SPA reform was related to member goals. These goals are not finely
sorted in the daily activity of Congressmen. A member's actions
must reach a threshold before he will relate his activity to a
personal version of these five goals. More than a member who
merely votes yes or no, the sponsors of bills were more likely
to be able to express how the various aspects of their work on
bills related to their goals.
GOOD POLICY AND A POLICY ATTITUDE TOWARD SPA
Previous research has not eliminated the difficulty of deter¬
mining what constitutes the pursuit of good policy. Being con¬
cerned with the relative importance of policy goals against re-
election, power in the chamber, etc., Fenno and Bullock did not
provide a set of dimensions for good policy.
Faced with this substantive question, we have specified what
may be involved in a Congressman's policy attitude, as John
Kingdon called the background attitudes which inform a member's
activity apart from other external sources such as constituents,
party leaders, etc. (Kingdon, 1973: 345-54). A set of factors
relevant to a policy attitude toward SPA has been developed based
on preliminary research and congressional testimony and discussion
in this area. The elements of a policy attitude include:

36
Satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the ways in which
Congress normally searches for problems to consider.
Judgments of the extent to which major problems can
be anticipated.
Opinions on the ability to predict social trends or
activity.
Judgments of the ability to direct or control future
conditions.
Judgments of the role of Congress in providing a
"positive, inspiring vision" of the future.
Familiarity with future-oriented information (e.g.,
five-, ten-, and twenty-five-year forecasts) in
legislative work.
These elements reflect the fact that SPA is a meta-issue. It
deals with the policy process; with the analysis of conditions,
goals, and means involved in substantive policy issues such as
health or transportation. While a member's good policy goal may
move him to stand for or against a particular SPA reform, a high
level of activity will probably enable the member to articulate
the background elements of his policy attitude. The significance
of each of these elements and the expected position of those
supporting SPA reforms have yet to be considered.
TO SEARCH FOR PROBLEMS. The ways in which Congress normally
searches for problems have been described as sufficient to include
all politically relevant issues (Schneier, 1970) and wide ranging,
if not systematic (Beckman, 1974a). Political in this context
means that if an emerging issue has sufficient importance because
of interest group or constitutent support, it is put on the agenda.
Yet the absence of a more systematic search for emerging problems

37
is one of the causes of recurrent crisis. Presumably, a member
active on behalf of SPA reforms will be dissatisfied with the nor¬
mal ways in which Congress searches for problems. This dissatis¬
faction may be coupled with a high degree of search activity on
2
his own.
TO ANTICIPATE EMERGING PROBLEMS. SPA involves searching for
emerging issues and informing current decision, presumably
activity that will encourage the Congress to deal with emerging
problems. The existence of a crisis eases the burdens of political
decision makers by providing a consensus that the particular
problem must be confronted. As we have said, it is difficult for
democratic governments, particularly representative assemblies,
to anticipate problems. Proponents of SPA reforms may recognize
this, but they will probably feel that the government can anti¬
cipate problems or, at least, must attempt to do so.
TO PREDICT SOCIAL TRENDS. One of the arguments against the
analysis functions of SPA proposals was that Congress is unable
to predict social trends and conditions. This argument was raised
particularly in the debate over establishment of the Council of
Social Advisers. Presumably, members supporting SPA will believe
that the government does have some ability to predict social
trends and conditions effectively or that a definite need exists
to develop this ability.
TO DIRECT OR CONTROL THE FUTURE. SPA functions imply a com¬
mitment by the government to make a more effective and conscious

38
impact on the future. Presumably, those in favor of SPA reforms,
especially reforms which would force decisions, will favor greater
governmental activity to direct or control the future. This
attitude involves an implicit or explicit response to the ideo¬
logical implications of government activity in a "free," i.e.,
uncontrolled, society.
A "POSITIVE, INSPIRING VISION." Preliminary interviews with
staff and members of Congress and testimony on SPA issues brought
occasional references to the need for the government to provide
a "positive, inspiring vision" for the country (SCC, 1973b:
472-79; Harman, 1972). The specific policy dimensions of a par¬
ticular member's vision are beyond this research, yet members
concerned with SPA may realize that with 535 members and 345 work
groups (Davidson, 1974: 8), Congress is at a comparative disad¬
vantage to the President in enunciating large-scale, comprehensive
goals.
FUTURES INFORMATION. Two aspects of congressional informa¬
tion sources may help us understand a member's policy attitude in
relation to SPA. First is an awareness of future-oriented informa¬
tion, in terms of trends or conditions five, ten, or twenty-five
years in the future, for use in day-to-day legislative activities.
Members proposing SPA reforms will likely be conscious of or seek
out this type of information.
Second is an awareness of the existence of the subject lists
of emerging issues produced by the Congressional Research Service

39
for each congressional committee. While distribution of these
lists is made by committee chairmen and therefore may be somewhat
skewed, members supporting SPA reforms are like to know and make
use of these lists.
Several categories have been used to explore what may be
called the members' policy attitude toward strategic policy assess¬
ment. Regardless of the exact composition of "good policy," it is
likely to be a dominant goal for members actively pursuing SPA
reforms. Good policy as a goal must be posited to explain their
activity, given the complexity of the issue, the lack of constitu¬
ent attention, and the absence of significant interest group
pressure.
THE INSTITUTIONAL POWER GOAL
Power in the chamber is important as a goal of representatives.
This goal affects the operation of certain committees and their
desirability, particularly the taxing and spending committees.
Whether the goal of institutional power moves a representative
or a senator to support SPA reforms will depend on the member's
estimation of the reform's impact on his position. If, for
instance, a reform bill creates a new committee and the sponsor may
become chairman of it, this goal might come into play. Although the
Humphrey (S. 3050) and Móndale (S. 5) bills (more appropriately
Senator Jacob Javits' amendment) would establish new committees,
given the doubtfulness of their passage, the institutional power
goal hardly explains the actions of the sponsors. Similarly, the

40
Bolling committee proposed to create a separate oversight/foresight
subcommittee in each committee. Oversight is not one of the more
sought-after operations within Congress, and foresight is an
unknown quantity. Therefore the foresight provision probably offered
little power-in-the-chamber incentive to those who might become
chairmen of these subcommittees.
However, institutional power considerations may have stirred
opponents to the SPA reforms. It is likely that SPA reforms which
shift the least power will generate the least opposition from the
chairmen of the 345 committees and subcommittees of the 93rd Con¬
gress. The Humphrey proposal might seriously affect the power of
the standing committees through the formation of the Joint Com¬
mittee on National Growth and Development, basically a leadership
committee for both houses, and thus it would tend to generate
opposition from committee members whose power was threatened.
Mondale's Title I would set up a social reporting system without
any change in the committee structure, while Senator Javits'
Title II would create an Office of Goals and Priorities Analysis.
This office would analyze federal programs and priorities, but
it would have no power to change committee activities. The
futures research and forecasting required by the foresight provi¬
sion could not affect the distribution of power within committees
unless it occurred in conjunction with shifts caused by the
existence of an oversight subcommittee.

41
THE GOAL OF REELECTION
Recent work on Congress has stressed the reelection goal in
motivating members' behavior that results in patterns of con-
gressional operation (Mayhew, 1974). Yet it is unlikely that the
reelection goal played an important part in the member actions
either for or against the SPA reforms because complex technical
issues like structural and procedural change in Congress are often
beyond the comprehension of the voters and almost always beyond
their interest. Thus, there is usually little constituent atten¬
tion to such issues. As a member of Congress put it, "Congres¬
sional reform is an issue without a constituency" (Bibby & David¬
son, 1972: 252). Since relatively little outside pressure builds
for or against congressional reform proposals, little hope of
reelection can be ascribed to a member's actions on such reforms.
In 1974 issue-hungry Republicans in the House were unsuccessful
in making the Bolling committee proposal a reelection issue.
CAREERS BEYOND THE CHAMBER
Some SPA-related issues, such as national growth policy or a
council of social advisers, have national appeal, and these
issues may help generate support, beyond a particular congres¬
sional district or state, which would be of value to a senator
building a national constituency.
Representative John C. Culver (D., Iowa) ran successfully for
the Senate at the end of the 93rd Congress, but the foresight

42
provision probably had little, if any, effect on his race. However,
both Senator Mondale and Senator Humphrey were presidential as¬
pirants during the 93rd Congress. Humphrey unveiled the outlines
of his growth policy proposal in the presidential primary cam¬
paign in California in 1972. Both the Mondale and the Humphrey pro¬
posals were of the type which might interest a national consti¬
tuency, and therefore the career-beyond-the-chamber goal may have
had some impact on their advocacy of SPA reform.
PRIVATE GAIN
Given the incipient nature of these reforms and the lack of
interest group involvement, there was probably little opportunity
for private gain. Therefore this goal--also absent in other re¬
search on member goals (Fenno, 1973; Bullock, 1973)--probably had
a negligible effect on the actions of supporters and opponents.
Because of the awkwardness--and slight chance of an affirmative
answer--of asking a member if he expected any private gain, no
such questions were asked during our interviews.
Other member factors, principally various resources and costs
(see Wildavsky, 1966; Adrian & Press, 1968), are involved in a
member's actions, and these factors have been noted in describing
member's goal pursuits and the context of the committee factors.

43
COMMITTEE FACTORS
This research, like that of Price, concerns the activity of
certain committees on specific proposals; Fenno concentrated on
general committee behavior. In their work the following major
committee factors affected the processing of a bill;
The role of the committee and subcommittee chairmen.
The experience and orientation of the staff.
The membership of the committee in terms of partisan
or ideological composition.
The lobbying and influence of executive and con¬
gressional bureaucrats and interest groups.
The resultant patterns of conflict.
A favorable committee chairman is essential to the expedi¬
tious processing of a bill. This factor probably was involved in
the case of the Mondale bill (S. 5) in the Labor and Public Wel¬
fare Committee, where Senator Harrison A. Williams, Jr. (D., N.J.)
was chairman, and for the foresight provision, although Represen¬
tative Richard Bolling's (D., Mo.) select committee operated more
collegially than most standing committees. The opposition of
Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (D., N.C.), chairman of the Government
Operations Committee, was probably a major reason why Senator
Humphrey's bill was not considered in this committee. Subcommittee
chairmen are particularly important in the Senate, Price noted,
because of the decentralization of power there. Senator Mondale's
proposal was undoubtedly aided by the fact that in previous Con¬
gresses it had been handled by his special subcommittee.

44
Staff activity is essential in formulating proposals and
gathering information or overseeing these processes. The earlier
reforms, particularly the Employment Act of 1946 (Bailey, 1950)
and the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (Bibby & David¬
son, 1972) enjoyed a variety of crucial staff input throughout
the six stages of processing. Among the determinants of a bill's
maturity, Price noted the accessibility, quality, and roles and
orientations of the staff members performing the information¬
gathering function, especially for a technical procedural issue.
Given the nature of SPA reforms, it is likely that background
experience or interest in SPA-related matters or techniques will
be essential for effective formulation and information gathering.
Equally important, if a bill is to move beyond the early stages
of maturity, will be the political information-gathering and bar¬
gaining skills of the staff. Thus, the experience as well as the
amount of policy entrepreneurship of the staff should be impor¬
tant for the maturity of these three reforms.
The bureaucratic and interest group activity directed at a
committee considering a bill is generally important. A bill that
potentially infringes on bureaucratic structures often brings out
powerful government lobbying (Price, 1972). Also, bureaucratic
structures may anticipate the bill's importance to their opera¬
tions and actually play an important part in its drafting. Since
the major focus of this research is congressional reform, a major
concern is how these SPA reforms would affect the congressional

45
bureaucracy, and this concern requires an examination of the role,
if any, of the committee staff, the Congressional Research Ser¬
vice, the General Accounting Office, and the Office of Technology
Assessment.
The successful processing of a bill requires effective interest
aggregation and mobilization of support. Because SPA is a complex
issue whose effects are indirect or uncertain, these proposals
have not generated widespread support or opposition. Just as con¬
stituent attention to congressional reforms is slight, so too is
interest group activity. One exception occurred among those aca¬
demic and professional groups whose members would benefit from
greater use of particular techniques and an implied increase in
employment for the group. It is likely that SPA proposals, par¬
ticularly where they portend conflict in forcing decisions, will
not mature if interest-group support is limited to academic and
professional groups. A bill is not likely to mature if interest
groups oppose it out of fear of adverse effects, given the uncer¬
tainty of the impact of these reforms on éstablished contacts
and relationships with Congress as well as on policy questions.
This proposition should hold true especially where the decision¬
forcing function is involved. The history of the 1946 Employment
Act suggests that major interest groups will enter the process if
a significant SPA reform is seriously considered.
The impact of the ideological and partisan composition of a
committee will be shown depending on the type of bill. Partisan voting

46
is often most pronounced when the vote deals with internal pro¬
cedural matters in the House or Senate. To the extent that SPA is
likely to affect the relative positions of the majority and
minority parties, this impact will be reflected in the voting.
Likewise, votes on Democratic proposals to make changes in an un¬
willing Republican executive will show partisan division, as the
vote showed in the case of the Mondale bill (S. 5).
Ideological factors and patterns of conflict on SPA reforms
may not be directed at the SPA provisions, particularly if the
SPA provisions are a relatively small part of a larger legisla¬
tive package. These factors and patterns were not directed at the
foresight provision--a relatively small procedural issue alongside
larger and more controversial procedural and jurisdictional issues.
SPA provisions may also be perceived and dealt with in terms
of the issues SPA may suggest for the agenda or in terms of its
impact on proposals already being considered. There are historical
examples of federal government agencies performing SPA functions.
The National Resources Planning Board under President Roosevelt in
the late 1930s and early 1940s provided SPA functions in support
of the President's programs. Congress did not appreciate goals
being enunciated by Presidential bureaucrats. Congress was par¬
ticularly unhappy with the board's "new bill of rights" and its
social welfare implications (Roth, 1959; 242-51; Bailey, 1950:
25-28). Partly for this reason the Council of Economic Advisers
was established to advise rather than plan. President Nixon formed

47
a National Goals Research Staff, but this staff was never allowed
to have any impact, somewhat because of the issues it was expected
to raise (Full Opportunity, 1971: 71; Bezold, 1974: 465). Senator
Mondale's proposal of the Council of Social Advisers and Senator
Humphrey's Office of Balanced Growth and Development may have
been viewed in these terms by committee members.
In addition to the impact of historical analogues, the com¬
mittee that handles a proposal may have an impact on the issue
potential of an SPA provision in its larger legislative package.
Certain committees promote the active and partisan pursuit of
good policy (Fenno, 1973), and most of the bills of these com¬
mittees reflect what Aage Clausen would call the social welfare
voting pattern (Fenno, 1973; Clausen, 1973). Senator Mondale's
proposal was produced in the Labor and Public Welfare Committee,
a major source of social welfare votes in the Senate. In this
sense, activity by other members for or against the bill may be
conditioned by its committee's (and its sponsor's) reputation, in
this case for liberal, welfare-oriented proposals.
Conflict in Congress generally deals with means, and it is
resolved by agreement on specific programs (Wildavsky, 1966;
Polsby, 1972). SPA reforms which raise the conflict to higher
levels on the ends-means chain, to larger goals, may be seen as
shifting the policy battleground onto unknown territory. Thus,
the greater the potential impact of SPA on the types of conflicts
within Congress, the more opposition may be expected. In terms

48
of the ends-means chain the foresight provision promised the
least change and hence generated the least opposition. The Office
of Goals and Priorities Analysis in the Mondale proposal (S. 5)
and the Office of Policy and Planning in the Humphrey proposal
(S. 3050) may have been supported or opposed on their potential
to shift congressional focus toward higher-level goals.
Also, SPA proposals may be consciously considered, not in terms
of substantive issues, but in terms of distribution of power in
the chamber or in committees. Thus the institutional power goal
operates in the format of committee influence. In the original
Bolling committee proposal the foresight provision was to be
performed by an oversight subcommittee. The requirement for this
subcommittee was eliminated in the modification stage of the
bill's processing, perhaps because of the potential impact of
an oversight subcommittee on a full committee's operations and
distribution of power.
HYPOTHESES
The factors affecting the processing of a bill can be thought
of in terms of member factors--goals and attitudes--and committee
factors--personal, political, and informational resources focused
at the committee level. In the case studies in Chapters 3, 4,
and 5 we have examined some hypothetical relationships among
these factors:

49
MEMBER FACTORS
Action in sponsoring SPA legislation will be directly re¬
lated to the predominance of the good policy goal over reelec¬
tion, power in the chamber, or a career beyond the chamber.
Favorable activity on behalf of SPA legislation by sponsors and
supporters will be accompanied by the following beliefs or judg¬
ments as elements of the SPA policy attitude:
1. That the ways in which Congress searches for prob¬
lems to consider are inadequate.
2. That emerging problems can be anticipated before
they reach a crisis stage.
3. That social events and conditions can be predicted
or that the capability to do so should be developed.
4. That the government should attempt to direct or
control future developments.
5. That Congress is at a comparative disadvantage to
the President in providing a large-scale "positive,
inspiring vision" for the nation.
6. That information on likely future conditions in¬
cluding Congressional Research Service lists of
emerging issues is available.
COMMITTEE FACTORS
Favorable committee action will be directly related to the
following factors:
1. A supportive committee or subcommittee chairman.
2. Staff interest or experience with SPA-related
activities as well as political information-gathering
and bargaining skills.
3. An ideologically liberal or Democratic majority
which perceives that SPA will raise social welfare or

50
government management issues or a congressional re¬
form majority which perceives that its institutional
position will be helped or at least not hurt by con¬
gressional adoption of SPA techniques.
4. Constituent-oriented and/or broadly based interest-
group support and support from those groups with a
professional stake in SPA-related activity.
5. Positive activity from bureaucratic structures
(executive agencies and congressional support organi¬
zations) based on potential benefit from conducting
SPA activity or from its policy implications.
6. The extent to which the SPA proposal affects lower
levels of the ends-means chain: does not attempt to
analyze and force decisions across policy areas, uses
the existing committee structure without changes, and
offers no significant threat to the prevailing dis¬
tribution of power among members.
Favorable action by the parent chamber will depend on similar
factors.
METHODOLOGY
In order to examine our hypotheses through case studies of
SPA-related proposals, information was gathered through documen¬
tary research and personal interviews.
The interviews were conducted with members of Congress, per¬
sonal and committee staffs, and persons in congressional support
organizations and executive agencies as well as persons in research
institutes, universities, and elsewhere, who were involved with the
three bills or general SPA areas. The interviewing approach and
techniques owe much to David Price (1972). That is, interviewing
was committee focused, with structured questions for committee

51
members and less structured interviews for staff members and
others. To this basic format were added questions on the member's
goals and his policy attitude. In arranging interviews, if the
member was unavailable, the questions were asked of a relevant
staff person.
Thus, committee-focused interviewing sought three types of
information: (1) Details of the origin and processing of the
three bills were gathered in terms of six stages: instigation and
publicizing, formulation, information gathering, interest aggre¬
gation, mobilization, and modification. (2) Information was sought
on member goals of good policy, power in the chamber, and reelection,
and the relation of goals to activity for or against the SPA
bills. A high level of activity on the part of the member was re¬
quired for this information. (3) General questions were used to
explore the background dimensions of the member's policy attitude
toward SPA.
Originally, one questionnaire was developed which contained
all three categories of questions (see Appendix 1), but preliminary
testing showed that members who had not actively supported or
opposed the bills could not answer questions about the bills'
processing or about their goals in relation to the bill. There¬
fore, a shorter set of questions was taken from the first
questionnaire (see Appendix 2). These questions were used to
gather information on the member's policy attitude and position
toward the relevant bills. The first questionnaire was used for

52
most of the interviewing of Bolling committee members. The
shorter set of questions was used in most of the Senate interviews.
The shortened interviews took from ten minutes to half an
hour; interviews from the original form took from twenty minutes
to one hour. The time involved in arranging the interview, pre¬
paring any additional specific questions, conducting the inter¬
view, and writing it up varied from approximately one to four
hours. Several staff persons were interviewed on multiple occasions.
A letter was sent to each committee member stating the pur¬
pose of the research, asking for an interview, and stating that
if the member were unavailable, the relevant staff member would
do for the purpose. Interviewing a "staff surrogate" about member
goals was found more effective than interviewing the member him¬
self, because the staff was more accessible, usually gave more
time, and in some cases were more frank (Bullock, 1973). The
interviews, held during the months of June, July, August, Septem¬
ber, and December of 1974, confirmed Bullock's observations, al¬
though some senators and representatives proved to be both
accessible and frank.
Access to members and staff for the interviews varied widely.
On the Senate side the higher in seniority or the more opposed
to the bills, the more difficult it was to arrange an interview.
Particularly for key members, repeated calls were necessary to
arrange the interviews. Access to some offices was aided by our
association with the Brookings Institution through its visiting

53
scholars program. Most interviews were located in members'
offices, but many took place in committee and congressional
support organization offices, rooms off the House and Senate
floor, Capitol Hill restaurants, etc.
Committee-focused interviews produced seven interviews with
Bolling committee members (4 Democrats, 3 Republicans), nine in¬
terviews with Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee members
(5 Democrats, 4 Republicans), and nine with Senate Government
Operations Committee members (6 Democrats, 3 Republicans). In
addition, member interviews were conducted for the Hansen com¬
mittee, which provided the major amendment in the form of a sub¬
stitute to the Bolling committee product.
Fifty unstructured interviews, many of extensive length, were
used to gather information from the staffs of each of the com¬
mittees, from congressional support organizations, particularly
CRS, from the executive branch, from experts outside Congress
associated with social indicators, the futurist movement, and
technology assessment, as well as from persons involved with such
groups as the National Goals Research Staff, the Commission on
Critical Choices for Americans, and the Woodrow Wilson Interna¬
tional Center for Scholars.
Documentary research made use of the publicly available hear¬
ings and other relevant documents as well as of unpublished ma¬
terials in the files of sponsors and most active supporters of
the three bills.

54
The interviews were announced as confidential, and statements
quoted in the text will not be attributed when taken from inter¬
views. Exceptions to confidentiality were made for responses by
sponsors of SPA proposals regarding their policy attitudes.
During the interview key words or phrases in each response were
recorded on the interview form. As soon as possible after the
interview, these notes were expanded to their original form.
In Chapters 3, 4, and 5 the results of this interviewing and
documentary research have been described in order to illuminate
the processing of each SPA proposal through the stages of matura¬
tion. In Chapter 6 the three cases are compared in relation to
the hypotheses stated above. In Chapter 7 the conclusions of the
research and its implications for congressional reform are con¬
sidered.
NOTES
1. Price said of responsibility:
The use of the concept of responsibility is also appro¬
priate ... in light of the connotations it has in
modern ethics. The term . . . came into prominence in
the nineteenth century with the collapse of the cosmic
or natural structures of obligation. . . . Responsi¬
bility was, in this sense, the ethical corollary of
man as the maker of history; placed in a world where
he had to fashion his future, man identified himself
as one who was answerable for that future (Winter,
1968: 255). The term thus seems particularly appro¬
priate to denote innovative or assertive political
act10n- (Price, 1972: 337)

55
2. Anthony Downs has suggested that patterns of organiza¬
tional innovation and change will be "highly dependent on the
perspectives of those responsible for the search function" (1967:
23). In Congress research on member's voting decisions suggests
that Congressmen "rarely seek out new information sources," yet
those who do "have a disproportionate influence on Congressional
outcomes" (Kingdon, 1973: 220).
3. Mayhew's "mono-goal" description of members of Congress
preoccupied almost exclusively with reelection is an imaginative
treatment and explains the symbolic nature of much behavior. How¬
ever, Mayhew's treatment is of little value in understanding how
or why many members of Congress become deeply involved in the
policy questions they deal with, apparently irrespective of their
reelection value. This question is particularly interesting for
SPA issues, which as yet have little reelection value.

THE FORESIGHT PROVISION OF THE
COMMITTEE REFORM AMENDMENTS OF 1974

BUILDING STRATEGIC POLICY ASSESSMENT
INTO THE HOUSE COMMITTEE SYSTEM
Thus far, strategic policy assessment has been conceptualized
in terms of three functions of policy making: (1) to search out
emerging issues and to put such issues on the agenda, (2) to
provide futures information for current decisions, (3) to force
decisions or conscious interrelationship of various decisions.
The first two functions in Congress should be enhanced by the
foresight provision of the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974
(H. Res. 988). The foresight provision is an explicit statement
that House Committees must monitor conditions in their policy
areas and undertake "futures research and forecasting." This chap¬
ter examines the Bolling committee, the stages of the foresight
provision's establishment, and member goals and attitudes. The
discussion includes the variety of options considered by the
committee and its staff.
THE BOLLING COMMITTEE
The Select Committee on Committees (SCC) of the House, generally
called the Bolling committee after its chairman, Richard Bolling
(D., Mo.), was an intensive bipartisan effort to modernize the
House committee system. The establishment of the committee was
57

58
preceded by sentiment variously located within the House in favor
of congressional reform, and the idea of the committee originated
in talks among Carl Albert, the Speaker; Gerald Ford, the minority
leader; and Richard Bolling (Davidson, 1974; SCC, 1973a: 526).
Even at the beginning the Bolling Committee's mandate stirred
controversy. During floor debate, questions were raised about the
cost as well as the need for a select committee when a Joint
Committee on Congressional Operations was already in existence
(CR, 1973: S.591-603). However, H. Res. 132, establishing the
committee, was passed on January 31, 1973, in the 93rd Congress.
This resolution gave the committee the task of a "thorough and
complete" study of House Rules X and XI, establishing the commit¬
tee system, defining jurisdictions, and regulating procedures.
The five Democrats and five Republicans chosen for the select
committee were a relatively accurate reflection of the ideologi¬
cal composition of the House, but they were distinguished by
their commitment to Congress as an institution.^ The seven Bolling
committee members interviewed responded easily to questions on SPA.
Senators on the Governmental Operations Committee and those on
the Labor and Public Welfare Committee were generally not able to
reply as easily. A Bolling committee member and staff person at¬
tributed this facility to the thinking that members had done as a
result of their attachment to Congress as an institution and of
their work on the Bolling committee.

59
A diversified committee staff was recruited from congressional
committees, representatives' offices, the Congressional Research
Service (CRS), executive agencies, and universities. Its director
was Charles Sheldon, who had been director of the science policy
division of CRS. Walter Oleszek had taken leave from the govern¬
ment division of CRS to work for the Bolling committee. Two
lawyers on the staff brought experience as legislative aides:
Linda Kamm and Robert Ketchum. Two political scientists, Roger
Davidson and Terry Finn, also had previous legislative or cam¬
paign staff experience, and Davidson had written extensively on
Congress (Davidson, 1969; Davidson, Kovenock & O'Leary, 1971;
Bibby & Davidson, 1972). From the executive came Spencer Beresford,
an attorney with the National Aeronautics and Space Administra¬
tion. This staff provided significant input to the Bolling com¬
mittee's efforts at congressional reform.
PROPOSALS IN THE BOLLING COMMITTEE
The Select Committee on Committees considered several possi¬
bilities for centralizing either the information gathering and
analysis or the decision making of Congress. A central goals or
planning committee was rejected for reasons to be discussed.
Instead, the Bolling committee gave each committee a "foresight
responsibility," as it was termed (SCC, 1974e: 65). Significantly,
the foresight provision made one of the first explicit state¬
ments that congressional committees in policy making must show a

60
systematic concern for likely future conditions,
we have said, are the principal centers of policy
the foresight provision placed the responsibility
anticipation at that level.
Specifically it was proposed:
Committees, as
making in Congress;
for legislative
Each committee [other than Budget and Appro¬
priations] shall review and study any condi¬
tions or circumstances which may indicate
the necessity or desirability of enacting
any new or additional legislation within the
jurisdiction of that committee. [Whether or
not any bill or resolution has been intro¬
duced with respect thereto], and shall on a
continuing basis undertake futures research
and forecasting on matters within the juris¬
diction of that committee.
(SCC, 1974e: 389)
In reporting on this section, the Bolling committee stated
that foresight activities would use forecasts to anticipate emerg¬
ing issues and futures research to identify future options and
assess the costs, benefits, and effects of various options (SCC,
1974e: 65).
Other of the Bolling committee's recommendations would influ¬
ence the strategic policy assessment functions, although these
recommendations were not aimed directly at systematic assessment
of future needs and alternatives. Procedural reforms were recom¬
mended such as the joint and sequential referral of bills to dif¬
ferent committees, the periodic review of the House committee
structure, and, most important, the jurisdictional changes pro¬
posed in the committee system.

61
The implications of these reforms for SPA concerns are examined
following examination of the foresight provision's development
through the six stages: (1) instigation and publicizing, (2) infor¬
mation gathering, (3) formulation, (4) interest aggregation,
(5) mobilization, and (6) modification. Finally, member goals and
SPA policy attitudes have been considered in relation to the fore¬
sight provision.
STAGE 1: INSTIGATION AND PUBLICIZING
Instigation and publicizing involves the public and private
advocacy of an issue as worthy of attention and ameliorative action
(Price, 1972: 4). Typical instigators include members of Congress,
staff members or bureaucrats, and writers, and these instigators
were active in publicizing the types of concerns that led to the
foresight provision.
Writers may perform the role of describing, in terms to catch
the popular imagination, the probable nature of the future. During
the period 1970-1973 various works were published that brought
the future into the news: the Club of Rome's The Limits to Growth
(Meadows, Meadows, Randers & Behrens, 1972), the work of Herman
Kahn (Kahn & Bruce-Briggs, 1972), and Alvin Toffler's Future shock.
The most direct relevance of these authors to the foresight provi¬
sion is Alvin Toffler's friendship with Representative John C. Culver
(D., Iowa). Culver and Toffler met shortly after Future shock was
published and found that they shared similar concerns, and they

62
have maintained an ongoing discussion of the political implications
2
of Toffler's work and the meaning of "anticipatory democracy."
Among members of Congress, Representative Culver was the
important figure in publicizing SPA concerns in the context of
the House committee reforms, as interviews showed. Culver saw
the structuring of committees as a major hindrance to congres¬
sional ability to confront the future. In December, 1972, he
wrote to members of the House, urging the formation of a select
committee to look at this question. In a "Dear Colleague" letter
he noted that the twenty-five years since the 1946 Legislative Reorgani¬
zation Act "have seen a revolution in the areas of public policy
and concern and have added dimensions to congressional responsi¬
bility which were not--and in many instances could not--be foreseen
in 1946" (Culver, 1972b). Thus, Culver was important in instigating
the larger congressional reform efforts as well as its SPA aspects.
Once on the Bolling Committee he suggested to his fellow committee
members that their work should provide a "systematic basis of
policy formulation in the context of an anticipation of future
as well as reactive time frame." The committee must be able "to
cast the analysis into a context that envisions society as it may
emerge by say 1980, 1990" (Culver, 1973b).
Other persons involved in instigating and publicizing for
the foresight responsibility were committee staff members and
certain congressional bureaucrats. In the congressional bureau¬
cracy the unit most involved with futures analysis groups and

63
with types of SPA problems before the Bolling committee was the
Science Policy Research Division of the Congressional Research
Service. The Bolling committee's staff director, Charles
Sheldon, had left the staff of the House Science and Astronautics
Committee to become the division's director. Walter Hahn, formerly
on the staff of President Nixon's short-lived National Goals
Research Staff, had joined the science policy division as acting
director. Members of the division had been involved in a variety
of efforts to examine the information needs of Congress (CRS,
1971; SCC, 1974f) and national goals (Huddle, 1971), and the work
of Sheldon and Hahn was important for the specific outcome of the
foresight provision.
These staff members and bureaucrats were interested in specific
techniques, particularly in regard to policy analysis, to be used
in governmental decision making. A source of experts in this regard
was the technology assessment movement. Forecasting techniques
developed in the space industry were called on by the advocates of
technology assessment to question the advance of technology and its
unanticipated effects on the environment. Thus, technology assess¬
ment represented an attempt to estimate likely second- and third-
order consequences of the application of a technology (Coates, 1975).
A professional society, the International Society for Technology
Assessment, had been founded by Walter Hahn and others in 1972,
and several journals, such as Technology Assessment and Futures,
supported the advancement of the methodology. On a more popular

64
level the problems of confronting the future were discussed by
members of the World Future Society and in its publication The
Futurist.
STAGE 2: INFORMATION GATHERING
Information gathering was a massive undertaking for the
Bolling committee. Committee members and staff interviewed other
representatives and committee staff and held hearings, the tradi¬
tional form of information gathering in committees.
. . . Each member of the House received a
letter of invitation; and great pains were
taken to accommodate Members in scheduling
testimony. Fifty-two Members (including 12
committee chairmen) appeared before the
Committee, and 16 members submitted written
statements for the record. Thirty-nine
experts participated in a dozen panels on
such topics as committee dynamics, the
budgetary process, informational resources,
staffing and executive and State legislative
developments. Sixteen public witnesses--
representing labor, business, and citizen
groups--also presented their views. The
1,765 pages of record, fully indexed, offer
a detailed portrait of the contemporary
House of Representatives, as seen by insiders
and outsiders alike.
(Davidson, 1974: 11)
In addition, staff and consultant studies of specific topics were
commissioned including seven committee plans based on various
assumptions.
In the course of all this testimony and study, several problems
relevant to strategic policy assessment were raised, and a few

65
solutions were offered. Our discussion has been organized to show
the response of members of Congress to SPA-related problems and
the testimony of various panels of experts in regard to SPA
issues as well as the committee response to this testimony. The
alternative committee plans generated to gather further information
are then considered. The most important proposals for our concerns
dealt with futures analysis by committees, a central goals or
growth committee, and a shift in committee jurisdictions.
MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE COMMENT
Testimony by members of Congress most often focused on the
activities of specific committees; however, several members raised
SPA-relevant problems. Peter W. Rodino (0., N.J.) pointed out
that a major information problem is the "failure to provide the
synthesis needed to overcome committee fragmentation" (SCC, 1973a:
151). Dante B. Fascell (D., Fla.) stressed the fact that the
committees' main responsibility is to meet new needs. To do so
effectively, legislative committees must develop "the resources
to anticipate the legislative needs of the future" (SCC, 1973a:
511). Fortney H. Stark (D., Calif.) suggested that Congress use
"foresight, not hindsight" in its policy making. Stark's major
suggestion was to restructure committee jurisdictions (SCC, 1973c:
334-40). Chet Holfield (D., Calif.) provided a specific, yet
provincial, use of forecasts in a presentation on the "national
energy dilemma." His purpose was to suggest that the Joint Committee

66
on Atomic Energy, which had prepared the forecasts, take juris¬
diction over energy research and development.
Serious and articulate testimony offering specific remedies
came from John W. Davis (D., Ga.), then chairman of the Subcommittee
on Research and Development of the Space and Astronautics Committee.
Davis stressed the need to view Congress as a system: "Congress
should seek out and be more responsible to the needs of the Nation.
The Congressional 'system' needs more so-called feedback, suggesting
more in-house expertise, and more responsive structure" in terms
of committee jurisdictions. He noted that a responsive Congress--
"any responsive organization--must approach the future as an environ¬
mental unknown that needs systematic evaluation" (SCC, 1973a: 200).
On the search for problems he commented that "if the House could
develop and institutionalize a method of evaluating possible future
developments more systematically and thoroughly than has been the
case to date, legislation might perhaps be more preventive than
curative" (SCC, 1973a: 199-200). Davis even raised the question of
control of the future: "The future will never be completely deter¬
minable. But if we become more familiar with the probability, we
can perhaps do a better job of shaping it the way we think it should
be. Indeed it is incumbent upon us to do so if we do not wish to
bestow a deteriorating world on posterity" (SCC, 1973a: 219).
Davis specifically suggested that the emerging issues service
(see Chapter 1) of the Congressional Research Service be expanded
"to provide more comprehensive information on fundamental trends

67
and likely decision points in economic, social, environmental,
scientific, technological, and other areas of concern" (SCC, 1973a:
200). Davis' testimony generated little reaction from the Bolling
committee members present at the time he testified. Culver and
Bolling, who were most interested in Davis' topic, were absent.
THE EXPERTS SPEAK
Testimony contributing most directly to the foresight provi¬
sion came from panel discussions with experts (SCC, 1973b, 1973c).
The effectiveness of any particular set of panelists varied
widely depending on the witness, the Bolling committee members
present, the relationship between the witness and the staff, and
the content of testimony. Effective testimony for SPA reforms must
suggest how committees may survey emerging conditions and relate this
information to a choice of their legislative goals and options.
Panels varied widely in regard to effective content.
THE FUTURIST PANEL. Culver had wanted some consideration of
"how to cast the analysis into a context that envisions the
society as it may emerge by say, 1980 and 1990" (Culver, 1973b).
To supply this consideration, futurists were empaneled to testify
on congressional reform for the first time as futurists (Cornish
& Schmalz, 1973).
Victor Ferkiss, professor of government at Georgetown University
and author of Technological Man (1969), noted trends in the United
States toward scarcity in an absolute and a relative sense,

68
particularly in food and energy. Problems the government must
confront, he testified, include dealing with scarcity and alloca¬
tion priorities, the impact of science and technology, environmental
problems, and the increasingly close interrelation of domestic and
international affairs. Ferkiss recommended that the House become
more flexible in its committee jurisdictions, using broader gauged,
ad hoc committees, and that it confront the problem of national
development policy. "It seems to me we have to get into the area of
long-range economic planning, not just fiscal planning or planning
in terms of wages and prices, but planning in terms of resource
allocation" (SCC, 1973b: 468-42).
Another futurist, Willis Harman, of the Stanford Research
Institute, suggested that Congress have more cross-cutting or
horizontal committees, perhaps a committee on the nation's future,
and the formation of a network type of relationship to allow a
"loose but effective coordination of the activities of a large
number of autonomous agencies" (public and private). Most needed
in the six to eight years to come, Harman noted, "is a positive,
inspiring vision of where this Nation, where this society, where
the world can go" (SCC, 1973b: 472-79).
Charles Williams, in the Virginia office of the Stanford
Research Institute, formerly staff director of the National Goals
Research Staff, made similar statements and, in particular, re¬
iterated the notion that "the utmost priority of national leader¬
ship ... is a vision of a workable future." His recommendations

69
for the committee system were to list emerging problems and to
match the committee structure to these problems; to list the
opportunities inherent in a "high quality future," defined by
the believable vision he called for; and to structure the commit¬
tees to optimize the likelihood of bringing that vision into
being (SCC, 1973b: 479-87).
The reaction of committee members and staffers was mixed.
Some were enthusiastic; others, interested but unsatisfied; and
one member and two staffers interviewed expressed dissatisfac¬
tion with the futurist panel. John Culver thought the futurist panel
provocative and challenging. They raised, Culver believed, the most
difficult aspect of the Bolling committee's responsibility:
. . . that is to give consideration struc¬
turally here in the Congress as to how we
equip ourselves better to anticipate the
problems that our country and the world are
going to be forced, necessarily, to deal
wi th.
(SCC, 1973b: 507)
The futurist panel, Culver went on, forced a confrontation be¬
tween "rather basic judgments about whether we want to be able
to shape and influence various trends in society." Culver
stressed that "futurism" "should be instilled as a responsibility
within any committee jurisdictional inquiry." Otherwise, with
futurism isolated in one committee, "it reduces itself all too
easily into esoteric irrelevance" (SCC, 1973b: 509).

70
The lack of prediction of political activity in the futurists'
testimony was noted by Paul S. Sarbanes (D., Md.), especially in
relation to their social and economic predictions. He tried three
times unsuccessfully to get the futurists to "relate these trends
to the kinds of pressures or strains that may appear in our political
life" (SCC, 1973b: 53).
THE BUDGET PROCESS PANELS. The panels on the budget process
raised some issues of forcing the conscious interrelationship of
decisions by using the budget to set national priorities. Alice
Rivlin, of the Brookings Institution, suggested that forcing could
occur in terms of three-year budgets; that this year's votes on
the third year to come would focus the attention of Congress, the
executive, and the public on "the big decisions that must be made
now if the budget priorities are to be altered two or three years
in the future" (SCC, 1973b: 151). During these panels scattered
mention was made of other SPA functions, but these were not pursued.
For example: Bolling had been influenced while on the Joint Economic
Committee by his chairmanship of a subcommittee concerned with macro-
economic analysis and by his part in the joint committee's activity
on "the restoration of sovereignty to solve social problems," which
had proposed a national planning system (JEC, 1971), and so he
raised the question of the need for national planning:
It seems to me . . . that ... we are
going to have to insist on the development
of national planning for policy. . . . The

71
great gap in governmental institutions is
that we simply don't ever take the trouble
to look ahead and see what kind of trouble
we are going to be in on energy or education
until after we have had the crisis. I am
not trying to cut off discussion [of budget,
tax expenditures, and the appropriations
process], but we are really talking in a
vacuum. We are trying to deal with a piece
of the problem.
(SCC, 1973b: 179-80)
No one on the budget panel responded to his inquiry, and the
discussion returned to the subject of tax expenditures (SCC,
1973b: 179-80).
THE COMMITTEE INFORMATION SOURCES PANEL. While the futurists
interpreted general trends in society, the panel on committee
information sources told the Bolling committee how committees
might alter their decision-making activities to better search
for emerging problems and to be cognizant of trends in policy
areas.
Bertram Gross, a formulator of the Employment Act of 1946
and early advocate of developing social indicators, suggested
that committees and subcommittees of the House be given a mandate
to keep ahead of the docket:
The kinds of studies that would look at
these [basic trends and emerging problems]
in terms of the new kinds of legislation
needed, the adjustments in the existing
status, this kind of review would go beyond
the mere post audit operation in the moni¬
toring and surveillance functions discharged
by various committees. It would go beyond

72
that by trying to help to keep the various
members of Congress ahead of the game.
A little advance intelligence which
goes beyond looking at the past and the
bills ahead of you, that kind of intelli¬
gence is perfectly feasible in properly
staffed subcommittees and committees.
(SCC, 1973b: 335)
Through futures analyses or scenario generation or goal projec¬
tions, Gross suggested that committees would build a framework
for looking at measures that would or should come before them
(SCC, 1973b: 335).
In testimony close to the terms actually used in the fore¬
sight provision, "futures research and forecasting," Walter Hahn,
senior specialist in science and technology and acting director
of the science policy division of CRS, agreed with other panelists
that Congress had too little information on the larger or more
comprehensive context of current decisions. Hahn offered several
suggestions, among them the greater use of forecasts, technology
forecasts in particular, and consideration of a larger range of
options, or future alternatives, through futures research. "Where¬
as technology forecasting addresses the question of where are we
likely to go and emphasizes the technological element," Hahn noted,
"futures research talks more about where we can go and it deals
more with social aspects of the situation and the larger concept
in which we are seeing the events that are going on" (SCC, 1973b:
338). Hahn had noted that nowhere in Congress were technological

73
forecasts synthesized and assessed for potential legislative
impact.^
The panel on information sources produced some interesting
statements on Congress and its information needs, prompting Repre¬
sentative William A. Steiger (R., Wis.) to remark that the infor¬
mation systems of Congress might be less at fault than incurious
members:
Perhaps what bothers me about this panel is
that it doesn't answer the significant ques¬
tion of whether or not Congress doesn't al¬
ready have all the resources available to
it dependent on one fact, the initiative of
the Member to search out and find people,
groups, individuals, who can help guide and
direct him or her in doing this work.
(SCC, 1973b: 352)
Speaking of the generalist role of members of Congress, Bertram
Gross cautioned against reforms that would convert Congress into
a bureaucracy and destroy the generalist function, but "the real
answer to your question," Gross replied, "has to go into the
more difficult area of values and interest." Once a congressman's
values and interests are known, the question becomes how he may
"escape being flooded by information and misinformation and out¬
right deception and unintended deception on all sorts of very
critical issues" (SCC, 1973b: 354). Walter Hahn answered comment
by saying that Congress would profit from better synthesis and
packaging of the information available to it, so that this infor¬
mation would be "more easily grasped and more purposefully used"

74
(SCC, 1973b: 354). Edward Schneier, political scientist and former
Senate staffer, answered in terms of the impact of information
systems on congressional use of time. The larger the number of
critical and well-known issues, the less time Congress has for
'treative intelligence." He advised that Congress should keep its
information sources pluralistic and diverse, not defining how to
spend time because of an over-defined system of information
resources (SCC, 1973b: 354-55).
THE STATE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE PANEL. The panel on state
legislative committees made useful suggestions for the foresight
provision. The panelists agreed that three functions deserved special
attention: budgeting, oversight, and foresight or policy planning,
but they disagreed whether to make these functions mandatory in each
committee or in separate committees set up for the purpose.
Larry Margolis, of the Citizens Conference on State Legisla¬
tures, suggested a task force on policy planning within substan¬
tive committees as well as task forces on fiscal and oversight
matters and governmental structure. The task forces were to
result in a "platoon system where a team of Members and a staff
is working on long-range policy studies while the same Members
differently staffed and organized, are working on the immediate
concerns of legislation in the session." A separate task force was
needed, Margolis said, because "it simply does not contribute to
the effectiveness of long-range policy deliberations to conduct
them in the same atmosphere as specific legislation is made"
(SCC, 1973b: 376).

75
Alan Rosenthal, a political scientist at Rutgers associated
with the Eagleton Institute of Politics, would have a separate
functional committee for policy planning. The fact that standing
committees have not done policy planning may mean that they won't:
. . there is no way to jazz up the present structure. . . . Let
the committees do what they want to do and create other committees
to do what should be done" (SCC, 1973b: 382). Oversight should
have a separate committee because oversight "gets lost in the
hurly-burly of manufacturing bills and raising batting averages"
and because "you can't really expect congressmen who devised a
program and enacted it to look at that and say, 'it is lousy"'
(SCC, 1973b: 383).
Representative Culver responded in a manner indicative of
things to come, on the idea of futures committees or anticipatory
planning. Every committee should be "anticipating impact and al¬
ternative policy choices. We should try to develop that type of
rigor as part and parcel of the operation of each of these com¬
mittees," Culver noted (SCC, 1973b: 384).
THE EXECUTIVE ORGANIZATION PANEL. The panel on executive organi¬
zation brought lively and thoughtful discussion of strategic
policy assessment issues but often left questions of SPA in Con¬
gress unanswered. For instance, Representative Sarbanes asked
whether Congress should have an institution such as the Office of
Management and Budget to develop policy, anticipate policy judg¬
ments, and coordinate policy, but the subject was quickly changed

76
(SCC, 1973b: 406). Likewise, in response to testimony favoring a
national goals and policies committee for each house, Culver
asked how we may "require this type of systematic attention to
future requirements and needs in all of the various areas of
public policy under [the committee's] consideration" (SCC, 1973b:
450). Robert Seamans, president of the National Academy of Engineer¬
ing, replied that research and development should be considered
planning for the future, but he was not able to be more specific
about what committees should do (SCC, 1973b: 450).
In the fall, hearings were again held, this time for representa¬
tives of citizen interest groups and members of the House who had
not testified in the spring. The major exchange relevant to the
Bolling committee's work on strategic policy assessment took place
between John Culver and John Gardner, speaking as chairman of
Common Cause. Culver pressed Gardner to describe the "futurist
components" in committee policy making. Gardner replied that
sophisticated forecasting was essential for national policy making.
He suggested that each committee, rather than generate its own
forecasts, should have someone to keep in touch with forecasting
in the executive branch, the private sector, and the universities.
Gardner concurred with Culver on the decentralized approach for
this "futurist" function.
Thus ended the hearing phase of the Bolling committee's work.
Some information relevant to strategic policy assessment had
been gathered, but at the wrong time, as with Representative John

77
Davis. The futurists presented much information on conditions,
but little on specific congressional strategies. The panels on
information systems and state legislative committees provided
information that was later to be used in drafting the foresight
provision and, at the time, sparked discussion. The panels on
budget and executive organization raised the decision-forcing
questions relevant to a central committee. Despite some interest
in the centralized approach, Representative Culver was searching
for means to decentralize policy planning into the committees.
Most experts could not respond, although the testimony of Bertram
Gross, Walter Hahn, Alan Rosenthal, Larry Margolis, and John
Gardner supplied some specific ideas.
COMMITTEE SYSTEM PLANS
Besides topic-oriented hearings, a way to gather information
on the committee system is to design such a system. Seven committee
plans were prepared in order to examine various assumptions or
theoretical approaches. Whereas the panel discussions dealt with
all three SPA functions, the committee system plans dealt mainly
with the third function: forcing the conscious interrelationship
of decisions. The alternative committee systems were designed
either by Bolling committee members or staffers or outside con¬
sul tants--prior to the Sarbanes-Steiger draft prepared for the
committee mark-up sessions.

78
THE BOLL ING-SHELDON PLAN. The first plan was introduced "for
the record" by Richard Bolling on June 26, 1973, during the futurist
testimony, the last summer panel. SPA activities figured promi¬
nently in this document. A House central policy committee, ba¬
sically a leadership committee, would set overall revenue and
budget goals to "deal with broad issues of policy extending beyond
any simple grouping of committees." In addition, the plan provided
for a budget committee and a national policy planning committee.
The latter would
have a major role in supporting the work of
the House Central Policy Committee by identi¬
fying national goals emerging from the work
of their committees, and other sources by
providing early warning on emerging issues
and trends, by providing oversight and pro¬
gram analysis. In addition it would be re¬
sponsible for most matters involving advanced
technology and futures work. Hence its con¬
cern with technology assessment, its support
of basic science, its responsibility for the
space program.
(SCC, 1973b: 495; emphasis added)
The first plan would create four primarily substantive and four
primarily functional committees presided over by the House
central policy committee:
House Central Poney Committee
Primarily Substantive
Economics committee
Human resources committee
National resources and
environmental committee
International affairs and
defense committee
Primarily Functional
Budget committee
National policy planning
committee
Intergovernmental affairs
committee
Legislative branch policy
and management committee

79
This first plan grew out of informal discussions between chairman
Richard Bolling and chief of staff Charles Sheldon, who wrote the
plan (SCC, 1973b: 413), and it reflects Sheldon's science policy
background: a rationalistic, problem-solving approach.
THE AUGUST STUDY: THE STAFF GAME. The staff simulated the
work of the actual committee by debating and formulating their
own policies and plans. In the major staff plan, SPA concerns
were shown in the formation of a budget committee, but a proposed
long-range study committee was voted down 4 to 4 with two absten¬
tions. In terms of activity within committees the staff recom¬
mended that each subcommittee have an oversight subcommittee, a
budget subcommittee, and no more than three subcommittees (SCC,
1973c: 419). No foresight activities were mentioned for the
committees.
Within the staff was a rough division between the lawyers or
"political types," Linda Kamm and Robert Ketchum; the political
scientists, Roger Davidson and Terry Finn; and the science policy
or "hard science types," Spencer Beresford and Charles Sheldon.
While all had various kinds of operational experience with legis¬
latures, they came with diverse backgrounds and orientations.
Beresford, joined by Gerald Grady and Charles Sheldon, was
pushing national goals or growth policy activities by a central
committee with more enthusiasm than was shown for foresight by
each committee. The political types saw little value in futures
research and forecasting activities in either approach. As one

80
staff member put it, this view resulted from the problem of
linking general goals to the specifics of implementation. "This
problem," the staffer noted, "exists within planning groups. . . .
Planning that is done by nonoperational types often is looked
on as pious hopes and thoughts not related to needs or day-to-day
5
activities."
In making additional comments on the staff report, Spencer
Beresford and Gerald Grady urged that the long-range study com¬
mittee be reconsidered:
The proposed committee would provide a
mechanism for coordinating the work of the
standing committees so as to develop coher¬
ent and comprehensive House positions and
policies. It would not have legislative
authority. Its responsibilities would in¬
clude future legislative problems and
options, long-range planning, and evaluation
of major federal activities in terms of
their long-range effectiveness and cost.
(SCC, 1973c: 438)
Beresford noted that this type of activity was performed in
various places within Congress but was narrowly focused and
occurred principally in response to requests and inquiries rather
than to meet recognized needs. Gerald Grady, who was familiar with
the SPA proposal of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars (WWICS) agreed with Beresford and used a description
similar to that provided by WWICS: the governmental units should
analyze, more thoroughly and systematically, long-term trends

81
and problems, to identify the key issues, to formulate and evaluate
policy choices and courses of action, and to evaluate the effects
of actions that have been taken" (SCC, 1973c: 442).
While there was disagreement over the role and utility of
futures analysis and a central committee, the staff showed more
agreement on the need to force decisions, and this agreement was
reflected in three other plans, based on assumptions of a small
number of committees, a large number of committees, and minimal
change.
THE PLAN FOR A SMALL NUMBER OF COMMITTEES. While the plan
drawn by the political scientists Davidson and Finn for a small
number of committees did not mention foresight for either sub¬
committee or committee, it did attempt to force the conscious
interrelationship of decisions by establishing a small number of
multi-interest committees and strengthening the Office of the
Speaker as a coordinating mechanism. Davidson and Finn, as one
staffer put it, were "intrigued with the possibilities to achieve
politically what Beresford and, to some extent, Grady proposed
doing with a special body. In that sense [Davidson & Finn] fell
between the politicos, Kamm and Ketchum, and the science types,
Beresford and Sheldon."
THE PLAN FOR A LARGE NUMBER OF COMMITTEES. The plan based
on a large number of committees contained thirty-six committees
and six select committees. In addition to the budget committee,
it would establish a national goals and growth policies committee.

82
This new committee, which would not have
legislative authority, would be responsible
for long-range studies and plans of alter¬
native national goals, and growth policies.
It would analyze long-term trends, problems,
and evaluate the major Federal activities
in terms of their long-range effectiveness,
cost, and impact on national growth.
(SCC, 1973c: 469)
THE MINIMAL CHANGE PLAN. The plan assuming minimal change
from the existing situation made no committee or subcommittee
changes relevant to SPA although it did suggest that growth
policy could be added by leadership, joint, or select committee
or by an independent office similar to the Office of Technology
Assessment. In a paper appended to this plan, Spencer Beresford
described this option in some detail. Noting that the present
congressional approach to national problems was typically short¬
sighted and fragmented, that Congress as an institution seemed
reluctant to make, often even to recognize, hard choices,
Beresford described what is needed:
. . . an arrangement for the systematic,
long-range, integrated study of our princi¬
pal future national problems. Such studies
could identify and analyze these problems,
on a time scale of five to fifteen years or
longer, formulate alternative courses of
action for dealing with them, and consider
the probable effects of such alternatives
and of any relevant programs and other
actions that are already underway.
(SCC, 1973c: 483)

83
THE DICK PLAN. The next committee plan was suggested by
Bess E. Dick, former staff director of the Judiciary Committee:
. . . watching the House of Representatives
in action, one would almost conclude that
Mother Chaos was married to Father Time.
The House of Representatives looks at what
is before it and behind it. It does not look
ahead; it responds to crises but does not
foresee them. It lacks the strength of sim¬
plicity and it lacks direction.
(SCC, 1973c: 487)
Dick called for more active partisan leadership that would be
accomplished by a congressional policy committee manned "entirely
by the majority party." It would set congressional priorities and
draw a direct line from the leadership to the committees.
THE HUDDLE PLAN. The last plan in the information-gathering
efforts of the Bolling committee was, according to a staff member,
the most theoretical, the most futurist, and the least attended
to. Walter Huddle, senior specialist in the science policy divi¬
sion of .the Congressional Research Service, tried to develop
theoretically a system that would organize committees around
function rather than substantive categories. In introducing the
plan, Lester Jayson, director of the Congressional Research Ser¬
vice, noted that the distinction between functional and substan¬
tive organization is that functional requirements do not seem to
change as rapidly or radically as substantive requirements. A
leadership committee was also suggested by the plan, presumably
to force coordination among decisions.

84
The Huddle plan, Jayson noted, was based on the assumption
that "the substantive problems facing the Congress would be
subject to radical and increasing rates of change; given this
assumption it was then proposed that a target concept of organi¬
zation (perhaps toward the year 2000) might help to provide some
insights as to the general and incremental changes in a coherent
way (SCC, 1973c: 558). In discussing the need for this approach
Huddle raised the problem of constituent attitude:
Whatever the mechanism that determines how
long-term the future outlook of the Congress,
the point can be offered that there is a
tendency for the public at large to be con¬
cerned with short-range problems, needs, and
goals.
The problem facing the House, then, is
to strike a proper balance in legislative
actions between short-range and long-range
effects. To do this requires, in turn, the
identification of both short- and long-range
concerns, even though the public attends
mainly to the former.
(SCC, 1973c: 562)
Huddle Spoke of the goal of continuous planning for the House
and its organizational requirements:
The function of anticipating the future and
providing for it cannot be safely neglected
in a modern and rapidly changing world. Two
elements are indispensable for this purpose:
(1) an institution charged with looking
ahead, defining future problems, estimating
their probability, and exploring the ways of
coping with them; and (2) an organization
that is flexible and adaptable enough to
take up these future problems legislatively
before they turn into catastrophic certainties.
(SCC, 1973c: 571)

85
Huddle's first element entails the SPA function of searching for
emerging problems. His second element implicitly includes inform¬
ing current decisions and forcing their conscious interrelationship.
What pictures emerge from these seven committee plans regard¬
ing the treatment of strategic policy assessment in this aspect
of the Bolling committee's information gathering? Those plans
formulated in whole (Huddle) or in large part (Sheldon) by CRS
science policy personnel included explicit mention of the SPA
functions. However, in both cases there was a detached quality
about the analysis. Sheldon's plan would place the national goals
function in a central committee that did not have the power to
act on those goals. Huddle's "systems analysis" approach to the
House tended to ignore the legitimate clash of values and the
need to structure this conflict; rather it would simply solve
problems. The plan for a small number of committees tried to
force decisions by aggregating jurisdictions, and the plan for
a large number included a budget committee and a national goals
and growth policy committee. Spencer Beresford's suggestions for
the SPA functions were appended to the other two staff plans.
The plan by Bess Dick was concerned with SPA only from the
perspective of stronger party leadership.
How much and what parts of the information gathered by the
Bolling committee through hearings, panel discussions, and com¬
mittee plans were actually used? On what basis were the options
chosen? The answers to these questions were found in the formula¬
tion stage of House Resolution 988.

86
STAGE 3: FORMULATION
In the formulation stage, specific legislative remedies are
devised and advocated. In the process, boundaries are drawn around
an issue, and a focal point is established. Formulation of House
Resolution 988 was concentrated into the last two months of 1973
and the early months of 1974:
The transition from an advanced seminar in
the legislative process to a working group
willing to make hard political choices was
a critical one, and was accomplished during
the fall of 1973 through a series of three
steps. First, an intensive working session
was held one weekend at the Chairman's home.
Second, Paul Sarbanes (D-Md) and William
Steiger (R-Wis) were delegated to work with
the staff on a draft report to serve as a
basis for discussion. The full Committee then
refined this draft in a series of informal
sessions, releasing the
just before legislators
Christmas recess.
preliminary proposal
scattered for the
(Davidson, 1974: 11)
In February and March, open mark-up sessions (SCC, 1974b) were held
to work on adjustments to the Steiger-Sarbanes draft (SCC, 1974a).
THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE QUESTION
The formulation of the foresight provision can be seen in two
stages: (1) the decision against any central planning, goals, or
futures committee and (2) the decision to add foresight to each
committee's oversight responsibility by requiring futures research
and forecasting.

87
Representative Culver was interested in the central approach
early in the work of the Bolling committee; yet the problem of
leadership was often raised. As a staff member put it, "You can't
put a steel rod in a plate of spaghetti." Therefore Culver raised
questions, as we have said, regarding the decentralization of
foresight. The central committee issue remained alive, however,
until the weekend meeting at Bolling's home, when it was rejected
in a close vote.
Another reason the central committee question was rejected
stemmed from the simultaneous consideration of budget reform
elsewhere in Congress. The possibility of the formation of budget
committees and a budget office displaced much of the Bolling com¬
mittee's concern for a central committee, although Culver and,
to a lesser extent, Bolling and Lloyd Meeds (D., Wash.) were still
interested in a central committee, which was intensely interest¬
ing to Spencer Beresford and other staff members.
An outcome of their interest, despite the decision against
such a committee, was Appendix L of the final report, entitled
"National Goals Function." This brief statement written by
Spencer Beresford suggested that when budget committees were
established, they should work in the context of national goals
and priorities and long-range cost projections. "National goals
can provide a framework for priorities and budget allocations,
as well as for program selection, emphasis and timing" (SCC,
1974e: 353). In Chapters 4 and 5 we have considered the question

88
of the national goals approach in the 1974 budget reform, for
the Senate was much more concerned to use the budget to set
national goals and priorities than the House.
THE FORESIGHT PROVISION: THE DECENTRALIZED APPROACH
Two major components of the decision to decentralize futures
concern were (1) making it part of the oversight responsibility
of committees and (2) describing specifically what was required,
namely futures research and forecasting.
THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES. The foresight provision, as a
staffer put it, was "not a hot issue." Culver remained intensely
interested in some type of SPA or futurist reform, as was evident
during the hearings. On the staff Beresford and Sheldon continued
to be concerned about it. Among other committee members and
staff, these were not major issues; generally, the realization was
that the irrational structure of committee jurisdictions posed a
major problem. Restructuring committee jurisdictions would force
a more coherent consideration of interrelated decisions; this problem
occupied the largest amount of committee member and staff time
(Davidson & Oleszek, 1975: 16). This jurisdictional issue would
prove most influential for the course and ultimate product of
the Bolling committee.
Another background factor was the generally strong interest
in oversight among committee members. Much discussion throughout
the course of hearings and panels had centered on how to make
committees more effective in overseeing programs and policies.

89
Among several approaches to oversight, most members agreed with
Larry Margolis that each committee should be given an explicit
oversight responsibility. They were opposed to leaving oversight
as solely the responsibility of the Committee on Government Opera¬
tions. This activity should be taken more seriously by the author¬
izing committees, they agreed, but a dispute occurred over the
establishment of separate oversight subcommittees. Some, par¬
ticularly William Steiger, felt that some committee members should
not be isolated in an oversight subcommittee to watchdog the prod¬
ucts of other committee members. However, the majority of the
Bolling committee favored separate oversight subcommittees.
A problem with the foresight provision was that it called for
analysis not directly related to the day-to day committee activity
of considering specific bills. Oversight suffered from a similar
problem. The immediate incentives in Congress are for processing
bills--"raising one's batting average," to paraphrase Rosenthal
(SCC, 1973b: 383). Although oversight and foresight may be viewed
as separate operations, given the political support for oversight,
>
it made sense to attach foresight to it. Culver and David Martin
were the leading advocates of greater oversight (Davidson & Oleszek,
1975: 26), and Culver persuaded Martin that foresight should be
part of the separate oversight subcommittee's responsibilities.
FUTURES RESEARCH AND FORECASTING. The foresight provision
could be heard in amorphous form in John Culver's comments and
questions throughout the hearings and panel discussions. The

90
committees, Culver thought, should be "anticipating impact and
alternative policy choices" and doing "anticipatory planning."
Culver's concerns took specific form under the hand of Spencer
Beresford, with the aid of Charles Sheldon and Walter Hahn. The
language of the Steiger-Sarbanes draft and House Resolution 988
added to committee duties a review of "the application, adminis¬
tration, execution and effectiveness of the laws within the com¬
mittee's jurisdiction," and an obligation to "review and study
any conditions or circumstances which may indicate the necessity
or desirability of enacting new or additional legislation within
the jurisdiction of that committee" (SCC, 1974e: 388-89). Thus
committees or subcommittees would gain the responsibility to
search for emerging issues. The second part of that lengthy sen¬
tence (see Appendix 1) required that each committee "shall on a
continuing basis undertake futures research and forecasting on
matters within the jurisdiction of that committee" (SCC, 1974e:
389). Futures research and forecasting were chosen as the "terms
of art," meaningful to experts in that field and thus giving a
more explicit statement of what was expected of committees.
During the February and March mark-up sessions there was ex¬
tensive discussion on how oversight would be conducted, funded,
and structured into the committee system. The foresight section
was seldom mentioned. As one member said, "They had overkill on
oversight and neglected foresight." On Thursday, February 28, the
committee voted to have committees establish oversight subcom¬
mittees. After the vote had been taken, Culver stated:

91
At that point in the record, could it also
be clear that we are, of course, incorporat¬
ing the future [sic] research and forecast¬
ing responsibility as part of that? I gather
that is included in the language. Chairman
Bolling: It is here.
(SCC, 1974b: 337)
In the report accompanying House Resolution 988, Beresford
prepared a description of the foresight provision to clarify its
meaning. He called it a "foresight responsibility" and stated
that it should aid the House in becoming "more responsible to
national needs, anticipating problems before they become crises.
The proposed 'foresight' function should provide a better basis
for substantive legislation as well as oversight. It should also
assist in setting national priorities and making budget alloca¬
tions" (SCC, 1974e: 65).
The recommendation of the select committee
also includes a "foresight" responsibility
for each standing committee, which will
probably be assigned to the oversight sub¬
committees. That is, these legislative
units would have the additional responsi¬
bility of identifying and assessing condi¬
tions and trends that might require future
legislative action. More specifically, this
would provide a locus for the systematic,
long-range, and integrated study of our prin¬
cipal future national problems. Such studies
would include forecasting so that, to some
degree, relevant circumstances could be
foreseen and the relevant decisions antici¬
pated. They would also make probabilistic
estimates that certain events would occur by
certain times or within specific time periods.
In addition, by means of futures research,
future options and times could be identified;
and the costs, benefits, and effects of the
various options, including present programs,
could be assessed and compared.
(SCC, 1974e: 65)

92
Thus the term foresight appeared in the report, but not in the
language of the resolution. While a mechanism was established to
coordinate committee oversight, no such device was created for
foresight activities. Each committee is required to submit an
oversight report on its plans for that Congress by April 15. No
counterpart foresight report was established. The foresight
language was made the second half of the oversight paragraph,
Rule X, Sec. 2b(1). This section requires all standing committees
(other than the Committee on Appropriations) to do oversight and
foresight. Appropriations was excluded "because that Committee's
subcommittees already function to review and examine agency re¬
quests for funds" (SCC, 1974e: 63), one of the most effective
forms of oversight.
COMMITTEE JURISDICTIONS. Because of the importance of the
committee's decision on the jurisdictional question for the later
treatment of its report and its approach to forcing the conscious
interrelationship of decision, the jurisdictional decision is here
briefly stated. According to a staffer, the committee reasoned that
. . . every topic is interrelated, and
these relationships--not to mention priori-
ties--are constantly changing. Thus, we
can't rationalize a distribution of work¬
load that will be valid for all time. Thus,
we will (a) focus on a manageable number
of currently "hot" issues and try to
rationalize the structure around them,
letting other things fall into place as

93
best we can; and (b) we will build in some
basic flexibility, so that future Congresses
(mainly the Speakers and their advisers)
won't have to go through this kind of
trauma in shifting the structure to meet
new congeries of problems.
The major problem areas which this reorganization tried to con¬
front were energy, the environment, transportation, health, and
international economic affairs. Focusing on these pressing prob¬
lems led the committee to suggest the following changes in juris
dictions:
Energy and environmental concerns would be
consolidated in a committee built from the
existing Interior Committee, with research
and development brought together in the
Science and Technology Committee. Transporta¬
tion would be the vortex of an expanded
Public Works Committee, with key segments
transferred from Commerce (surface trans¬
portation and aviation) and Banking and Cur¬
rency (mass transit). The Commerce Commit¬
tee would gain a stronger grasp on health
problems with new responsibilities including
the non-tax aspects of medicare (from Ways
and Means). International economic affairs
would be primarily the province of the
Foreign Affairs Committee, which would gain
jurisdiction from Banking (export controls
and trade) and Ways and Means (tariffs). In
most areas, the Select Committee contented
itself with correcting the most glaring
anachronisms which had crept into jurisdic¬
tional alignments.
(Davidson & Oleszek, 1975: 18-19)
The Bolling committee recommended fifteen committees whose juris
dictions were relatively broad and equal to those of other

94
committees in the group. Each representative could serve on only
one of these "exclusive committees." In addition, seven functional
or less important committees were recommended:
Exclusive Committees
Agriculture and Forestry
Appropriations
Armed Services
Banking, Currency, and Housing
Commerce and Health
Education
Energy and Environment
Foreign Affairs
Government Operations
Judiciary
Labor
Public Works and Transportation
Rules
Science and Technology
Ways and Means
Nonexclusive Committees
Budget
House Administration
Standards of Official Conduct
Merchant Marine and Fisheries
Small Business
District of Columbia
Veterans Affairs
The notion of coherence in five pressing problem areas was "de¬
signed to foster greater consistency in public policy by forcing
trade-offs among contending interests to be made directly as a
result of committee deliberation and bargaining" (Davidson &
Oleszek, 1975: 19). The remainder of the House was not as concerned
about this notion of policy coherence.
INTEREST AGGREGATION
The nature of interest aggregation on congressional reform
issues is distinctive from other types of conflict, of which more
will be said later. Suffice it here to say that the primary

95
constituencies for these bills were not public and private in¬
terest groups outside Congress, although these groups were in¬
volved, but rather committees, members, and groups within Congress.
On the foresight provision little interest aggregation was
necessary. John Culver had David Martin agree to include the
foresight language in the oversight section. Martin was the lead¬
ing advocate of a separate oversight committee, and Culver's
support for the separate subcommittee in exchange for Martin's
inclusion of the foresight language aggregated the most important
interests at this point, Culver's and Martin's. Other Bolling
committee members either supported Culver or were indifferent.
One member expressed his support and explained his lack of direct
involvement by saying:
The foresight provision came about because
Culve^ wanted it intensely. Martin wanted
the oversight subcommittees and didn't mind
putting it [foresight provision] with his
proposal [for an oversight subcommittee]
for the support. I was for it but knew that
it did not need any more work. Other com¬
mittee members did not really oppose it,
because of Culver's intensity, brilliance,
eloquence, and bullheaded stubbornness.
The other interest that effectively aggregated itself was
the Congressional Research Service, or more specifically, the
science policy division. To the extent that the foresight provi¬
sion dealt with their area of technical expertise, they were
very concerned that something be included. As we have noted, the

96
language ultimately used was formulated by Beresford in conjunc¬
tion with Sheldon and Hahn, and it is very similar to language
in Hahn's testimony. As another staff member put it:
. . . there was an undercurrent of pushing
for foresight by the big science types,
Beresford and Sheldon. Sheldon recognized
the potential benefit it would have for
the science part of CRS. Culver and the
other members weren't aware or did not
care about this.
MOBILIZATION
The entire Bolling package mobilized much opposition and some
support. The patterns of mobilization are interesting because of
what they show about congressional reform issues. Opponents were
(1) members of Congress who would lose power or who feared the
possibility of losing it if the jurisdictional changes were made,
(2) staff members who feared job losses, and (3) interest groups
who feared loss of established and known lines of contact. David¬
son noted the essential difference between mobilization on this
bill and on other types of issues.
Individual legislators and staff aides lost
little time in communicating their concerns
to those organizations and groups outside
Congress with which they deal. Here it was
a case of lobbyists being lobbied by Capitol
Hill personnel.
(Davidson, 1974: 17; emphasis added)

97
This opposition was manifested in the Democratic caucus, a
majority of whose members in the 93rd Congress were committee
and subcommittee chairmen (Davidson, 1974: 16). On May 19th the
caucus decided by a narrow margin to refer the Bolling committee
bill to its Committee on Organization Study and Review, generally
called the Hansen committee after its chairman, Julia Butler
Hansen (D., Wash.). Members of the Hansen committee included
Philip Burton (D., Calif.), a member of the Committees on Educa¬
tion and Labor and on Interior and Insular Affairs; James G.
O'Hara (D., Mich.), a friend of labor and chairman of the Educa¬
tion Subcommittee; and Frank Thompson (D., N.J.), chairman of
the Labor Subcommittee. A major point of opposition to H. Res.
988 was the separation of the Education and Labor Committee into
two different committees. Another was the elimination of the
Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. Thus, the Hansen com¬
mittee was likely from the beginning to look critically at the
jurisdictional changes in the Bolling report.
MODIFICATION
The major modification to H. Res. 988 was the amendment
offered as a substitute and produced by the Hansen committee:
H. Res. 1248. H. Res. 988 and the accompanying report had been
produced by a ten-person committee with a sixteen-person staff,
an expenditure of more than $1 million, and more than a year of
work. The Hansen report was based on the work of an eleven-person

98
committee with two part-time staff members: Joe Carter, of Repre¬
sentative Hansen's office, and Bill Cable, of the staff of the
Education and Labor Committee. Since they could not duplicate the
effort of the Bolling committee, the Hansen committee and these
staffers concentrated on the sections to which there was some
objection. As a result, most of their attention was given to
jurisdictional disputes. In the procedural area some changes were
made; enough, in fact, to earn Representative Bolling's favorable
comments (CR, 1974, E6364).
Yet the foresight provision was basically untouched. A single
change made the formation of a specific oversight subcommittee
optional rather than mandatory. All committees with more than
fifteen members (later all committees with more than twenty mem¬
bers) had to have at least four subcommittees, although subcom¬
mittee functions and jurisdictions were not specified. No one on
the Hansen committee gave the foresight provision much attention;
it was simply assumed as part of oversight. Exclusion of the
Appropriations Committee reinforced the treatment of foresight
as simply part of oversight. While the mandate to oversee and fore¬
see was retained, the requirement for an oversight subcommittee
was dropped.
The other major modification to H. Res. 988 and to the fore¬
sight provision was the exclusion of the Budget Committee from
coverage under the oversight (and foresight) provision, Rule X,
Sec. 2b(l). The budget committees were not established at the

99
time of the formulation of H. Res. 988 but had been by the time
it was considered on the floor. On the floor, Representative
Neal Smith (D., Iowa) offered several technical amendments deal¬
ing with the Budget Committee. These amendments handled the over¬
sight question in the same fashion as the Appropriations Committee
(CR, 1974: HI0106-07). Thus the House oversight/foresight rule
applies to "each standing committee (other than the Committee on
Appropriations and the Committee on the Budget)."
Modification of the jurisdictional provisions was more
severe.
Education and Labor was kept intact, Post
Office and Civil Service was retained, and
Merchant Marine and Fisheries strengthened
rather than emasculated--a package designed
to appease key labor unions. Ways and Means
lost very little of its vast authority.
. . . Committees which the Bolling plan
sought to strengthen--mainly Foreign Af¬
fairs, Public Works, Science and Astro¬
nautics, and Government Operations--gained
certain new duties but fewer than under the
earlier scheme.
(Davidson & Oleszek, 1975: 21)
MEMBERS GOALS AND POLICY ATTITUDES
What was the relevance to the foresight provision of the goals
and policy attitudes of the members of the Bolling committee? In¬
terviews with members showed that questions about goals were
meaningful only when the member had exceeded a certain threshold
level of activity. Thus, members below this threshold could not

100
answer questions on how the foresight provision related to their
goals. However, these members could express some of the policy
attitudes which, it was suggested in Chapter 2, may underlie the
good policy goal relative to strategic policy assessment. There¬
fore, in this section the goals of Representative Culver, the only
member who crossed the activity threshold, are examined as well
as some attitudes expressed by other members of the committee.
THE GOALS OF JOHN C. CULVER
There was unanimous agreement among members of the Bolling
committee interviewed that John Culver was the person responsible
for the foresight provision. What were Culver's goals in relation
to his advocacy of the provision? The pursuit of good policy, or
more appropriately the pursuit of better policy-making structures
and procedures, was clearly Culver's major goal in establishing
the foresight provision. Culver's attitudes included a dissatis¬
faction with "antiquated" congressional methods of searching for
problems; confidence that, given better methods of raising issues,
the government could anticipate problems more effectively; and
the belief that the government should be ready to exert positive
influence or direction where it is useful to achieve national
goals or objectives.
It should be recalled that much of Culver's time in 1974 was
spent pursuing a career beyond the House, namely, the Iowa Senate
seat of retiring Harold Hughes. Thus Culver's work on the Bolling

101
Committee occurred in the context of other activities and other
goals. In 1972, when Culver considered running for the Senate,
his speeches mentioned congressional committee reform as well as
state-level, citizen-oriented SPA activities. In a speech entitled
"As We Move into the Future, Which Way Do We Go?" (1972a), Culver
proposed that a conference be sponsored by the Governor of Iowa
on the future of the state. Later in 1972 Culver decided against
the Senate race; yet the state conference idea did not move that
year because of its connection with his incipient candidacy. How¬
ever, Culver kept up the pressure, this time to no apparent elec¬
toral advantage, and in 1973 Republican Governor Robert Ray did
sponsor an Iowa 2000 project (Ray, 1974). In 1974 Culver ran for
the Senate and won. In this race Culver did not use the need for
better mechanisms for confronting the future as a campaign issue,
although his opponent did; an "echo effect" according to a Culver
staff member. Thus it appears that Culver would use SPA concerns
to his electoral advantage when possible, but infrequently, and
this goal was not significant in determining whether or not Culver
pursued SPA issues.
OTHER MEMBERS' ATTITUDES
The policy attitudes of the other committee members were
generally favorable toward strategic policy assessment. Virtually
all expressed dissatisfaction with the ways in which Congress
normally searches for problems. "Congress doesn't search much

102
until problems become acute," one member stated. Because of this
failure, another member, paraphrasing Emerson, noted that "events
are in the saddle and riding mankind." Among the dissatisfied,
most mentioned that some committees were better than others in
searching out emerging issues. The one member who was not unhappy
with congressional search for problems believed that while Con¬
gress could do more, congressional activity fit in with its role
as a representative legislature.
The ability of the government to anticipate and deal with
problems before the crisis stage was questioned by many members.
Their comments raised some fundamental problems for the antici¬
patory role of legislatures. More information of a type that
specifies emerging problems "may be enough for a first step, but
it depends on what the members and committees want," one member
pointed out. Another stated that "change in the sense of using
future-oriented information to prevent crisis will only come when
present institutions are changed. Crises are often necessary to
get something done." A third member suggested that Congress is
ill equipped to anticipate problems because of the lack of poli¬
tical and personal discipline on the part of the people and their
representatives. Another justified congressional inability to
anticipate by pointing out that "part of our representative sys¬
tem is that the representatives have a limited view." Thus, Cul¬
ver's optimism for the anticipatory capacity of Congress was not
widespread among his colleagues on the Bolling committee.

103
Members' attitudes about the ability to predict social and
economic activity varied inversely with their familiarity with
macro-economic analysis. Two members familiar with aggregate
economic questions said they were not familiar with the current
state of the art of forecasting. Others were less hesitant, and
two mentioned education forecasts as having been useful in their
committee work. Another member familiar with economic analysis
pointed out that predictive ability was not the only concern:
"Given a great amount of information and good intuition, you can
predict a little, but more importantly, you can provide alterna¬
tive predictions." A generally conservative member linked attempts
at prediction to planning and stated that "any prediction is an
uncertain business, but this is no reason not to attempt to pre¬
dict. Planning is part of rational behavior." Another raised the
problem that at times the government cannot make accurate predic¬
tions and at other times cannot learn from them: "Officials have
their jobs and positions by virtue of their relationship to the
status quo or the nature of the status quo. Predictions which
might adversely affect this are not welcome."
When members were asked to reveal their attitudes toward the
extent to which the government should direct or control the
future, the most partisan division was raised. Two of the four
Democrats interviewed said that the purpose of government was to
provide direction. A third agreed but noted that control in
terms of planning should not be seen as taking a straitjacket

104
approach; rather planning should be seen as a continual adjust¬
ment of goals in relation to assessments of current and future
conditions. A fourth went on to specify that "if the future is
to be controlled or directed, there must be political leadership,
[and] the people's faith must be restored in the process." The
Republicans were less accepting. "I don't like the word control
said one. Another could not "give any answer. . . . [It] depends
on the individual circumstances. We may be able to control the
future in the area of energy self-sufficience, [but] not many
areas are like that." The third Republican was "not sure that
the authority should be wielded by the federal government. The
federal government is better as a catalyst. . . . The alternative
[to control by business] of government management is worse than
any present problems."
What effect did these policy attitudes have on the member's
activity regarding the foresight provision? The interviews sug¬
gested that other members were generally less optimistic than
Culver about the government's anticipatory capacity, particularly
that of Congress. Among members least interested in the fore¬
sight provision was the least optimism found; yet these attitudes
did not prompt them to oppose the foresight provision. Favorable
attitudes, however, led some members to support the central
goals initiatives that Culver made until the October vote at
Representative Bolling's home and to support the decentralized
approach that became the foresight provision. Culver's preeminent

105
role made action other than taci t: support for the foresight pro¬
vision unnecessary.
CONCLUSION
House Resolution 988 established the foresight responsibility
of House committees, thereby requiring a decentralized form of
strategic policy assessment which would involve an increased
search for emerging issues and more futures information for
current decisions through "futures research and forecasting."
Although they may make committees more aware of the interrelation¬
ship between their decisions and those of other committees, the
foresight activities will not force the conscious interrelation¬
ship of decisions across committees.
The passage of the foresight provision conformed to one pat¬
tern of factors suggested by the hypotheses in Chapter 2. The
basic need for a policy entrepreneur was met in John Culver,
whose "intensity, brilliance, eloquence, and bullheaded stubborn¬
ness" assured the provision's existence. His basic goal in the
process was good policy.
The committee chairman, Richard Bolling, was favorable to
the foresight provision. The staff, in this case Spencer Beres-
ford and Charles Sheldon, had background and expertise in the
forecasting and futures research area. The major bureaucratic
entity involved was the science policy division of the Congres¬
sional Research Service. Walter Hahn, acting as director while

106
Sheldon worked as staff director of the Bolling committee, con¬
tributed through testimony and comments to the specific language
used. Just as a member, wanting to pass legislation in a given
area but unfamiliar with specific programmatic or substantive
details, will often turn to the executive agency responsible for
: M r
implementing the legislation, Congress turned for information to
a bureaucratic agency of its own, the Congressional Research
Service.
Active lobbying on the foresight provision by other interests
was lacking. John Gardner of Common Cause supported the principle
of the foresight provision during Culver's questioning. Various
experts suggested similar activities; yet interest group support
and opposition was directed at other sections of House Resolution 988.
The committee's members either supported the provision or were
indifferent. No consideration was given to types of issues that
futures research and forecasting might raise or to changes such
activity might cause in the internal distribution of power. The
central goals committee had been rejected, partly because it
would have required more leadership in the House and a change in
the distribution and use of power that Bolling committee members
felt was beyond their ability to effectively propose--even had they
agreed on its desirability. Once the language of the foresight pro¬
vision reached the Steiger-Sarbanes draft, it remained unchanged,
except for the requirement of a separate oversight committee, which
was later made optional for reasons not involving the foresight

107
provision. Once the provision was thus packaged, it received little
attention because it would not force decisions across committee
boundaries, it would be used by existing committees, and it would
pose no threat to the distribution of power within committees.
Thus, the foresight provision sprang from Culver's intense
advocacy, was formulated by the science policy types, placed in
the larger legislative package, and left unchanged. What may be
a very significant reform for the anticipatory capacity of the
House was given a quiet birth.
NOTES
1. The Democrats were Richard Bolling (Mo.), Robert C.
Stephens, Jr. ( Ga .), John C. Culver (Iowa), Lloyd Meeds (Wash.),
and Paul S. Sarbanes (Md.). The Republicans were David T. Martin
(Neb.), Peter H. B. Freí inghuysen (N.J.), Charles E. Wiggins
(Calif.), William Stergh (Wis.), and C. W. Bill Young (Fla.).
2. At the end of his book, Toffler discusses the implica¬
tions of "future shock" for government:
Political democracy, by incorporating larger and larger num¬
bers in social decision making, facilitates feedback. And it
is precisely this feedback that is essential to control. To
assess control over accelerated change, we shall need still
more advanced and more democratic feedback mechanisms. . . .
To master change, we shall therefore need both a clarifica¬
tion of important long-range social goals and a democrati¬
zation of the way in which we arrive at them.
(1970: 476-77)
To achieve this, Toffler suggested a continuing plebiscite on the
future, through social future assemblies. These would not replace
the system of policy making by elected officials but "would pro¬
duce temporary direction indicators, broad objectives good for a
limited time only, and intended as advisory to the elected
political representatives or the community or nation" (1970: 483).
This would begin to provide "anticipatory democracy"--the political
remedy for future shock.

108
More recently Toffler has stated that the need for anticipa¬
tory democracy stems from two crucial problems:
First, lack of future consciousness: Instead of anticipating
the problems and opportunities of the future, we lurch from
crisis to crisis. Our political system is "future blind."
Second, lack of participation: Our government and other in¬
stitutions have grown so large and complicated that most
people feel powerless. They complained of being "planned upon."
(1975b: 224)
He went on to list several specific activities that might be use¬
ful, but noted that "There is no single or magical way to build
a truly anticipatory democracy. In general we need to support
any program that increases future awareness in the society, while
simultaneously creating new channels for genuine, broad-based
citizen participation" (1975b: 224).
3. In response to interest in Congress, particularly to the
foresight provision, CRS established a futures research group
within CRS, partly to fulfill this function of synthesizing fore¬
casts (Jayson, 1974: 8). One of the early projects of this group
was to contract a study with the Futures Group, a think-tank in
Connecticut to design a "futures information system" for Congress.
4. Margolis added to budgeting, oversight, and policy planning
a concern for governmental structure.
5. In the words of a less favorable staffer, futures research
is "intellectual bullshit."
6. Beresford defended the choice of the term "long-range studies"
as less offensive than the more descriptive term "policy planning."
However, he conceded "that an apter name than 'long-range studies'
may be found. The Woodrow Wilson Center refers to the same function
as 'strategic assessment.' A number of other names have been
suggested ranging from 'the Committee on Legislative Coordination'
to 'the Committee on National Issues,' and 'the Committee on the
Future'" (SCC, 1973c: 482).
7. The foresight provision next gained attention near the end
of the mark-up process when Representative Frelinghuysen, one of
the least active members of the committee, showed a lack of
familiarity:
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN: On Page 23, I notice there is a typo on
Line 5. It says Futures Research.
Chairman BOLLING: Not future research. It is Futures Research.
Mr. SHELDON: It is explained in the report.

109
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN: Commodity futures?
Mr. SHELDON: No; it is a study of alternate futures. One can
have the option of going down one path of planning and
program on [sic] another path. These are alternative
futures among which one can select.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN: That sounds like painful jargon.
Chairman BOLLING: It is pretty well accepted jargon.
(SCC, 1974b: 665)

CHAPTER 4
THE BALANCED NATIONAL GROWTH
AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974

INTRODUCTION
The Balanced National Growth and Development Act of 1974
(S. 3050) was introduced by Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D., Minn.)
during the second session of the 93rd Congress. This major reform
bill provided for each of the three strategic policy assessment
functions: (1) to search for emerging problems, (2) to inform
current decisions on likely developments, and (3) to force con¬
scious interrelationship of decisions. In terms of the last set
of factors affecting committee treatment (see Chapter 2), this
bill would affect higher and lower levels of the ends-means chain;
it would adjust the existing committee structures and could
seriously affect the distribution of power among members of Con¬
gress. In terms of congressional reform, this bill would bring
about decision forcing, not in terms of the budget, as through
the 1974 budget reform, but in terms of specific growth and de¬
velopment policy goals rather than through budget totals per se.
Because formal hearings were not held on the bill, nor was it
considered on the Senate floor, Senator Humphrey used a variety
of other means to advocate the bill or its concepts. The organi¬
zation of this chapter reflects the incipient nature of the
bill's processing,suggested by these noncommittee activities.
Ill

112
S. 3050 declared sixteen national goals in its statement of
purpose, among them the expansion of the Employment Act of 1946
to include income distribution that would assure for all the
nation's people income for adequate levels of nutrition, health,
education, housing, and cultural opportunity. Yet the major
thrust of the bill was not toward specific policies but toward
the framework and process by which national growth policy might
be developed.
In the Executive Office of the President, the bill would
establish an Office of Balanced National Growth and Development
(OBNGD), which was to prepare an annual report on national
growth. This office was to operate under the direction of the
President with the advice of the Council on National Growth and
Development. Operating basically as a supercábinet, the office
would take over some coordinative functions of the Office of
Management and Budget and provide for greater national growth
planning.
By the provisions of S. 3050, multistate regional planning
networks composed of governors and representatives of state
legislatures would direct interstate planning, assure the com¬
patibility of comprehensive state plans, and advise the Presi¬
dent through the Office of Balanced National Growth and Develop¬
ment. A National Citizen's Council on America's Future would
advise Congress and the President, and establish a national net¬
work of state and regional citizen's councils. A Foundation on the

113
American Future was to guide policy research on the effects of
national development policy, or the lack of such policy, and the
effects of individual programs on alternative patterns of
development.
In Congress the bill would create a Joint Committee on
Balanced National Growth and Development and a Congressional
Office of Policy and Planning. Composing the joint committee,
twenty-six committee chairmen or their designates and one half
of the ranking minority members would be drawn from twelve House,
twelve Senate, and two joint committees, the most powerful and
the most relevant to growth and development policy in CongressJ
The ranking minority members of these committees were to be
represented in alternating Congresses. The joint committee would
be empowered to formulate and refer to appropriate committees
"such proposals or recommendations as will promote the purposes
of this Act." The Congressional Office of Policy and Planning,
another central staff organization for Congress, was to prepare
an annual Balanced National Goals, Priorities, and Growth Policy
Report.
In the remainder of this chapter we have considered in detail
the relationship of growth policy to strategic policy assessment
and the specifics of S. 3050. Senator Humphrey's advocacy of the
bill without the benefit of normal committee resources required
a variety of activities: amendments to the budget reform bill and

114
to a bill establishing a commission on supplies and shortages,
introduction of the bill in the House, comments on the President's
biennial growth report, and hearings on related matters in other
congressional committees. These activities are briefly examined.
The support outside Congress for the bill and Humphrey's goals
and committee member attitudes are considered. Finally the six
stages of the bill's processing are used to provide a summary of
the chapter.
GROWTH POLICY AND STRATEGIC POLICY ASSESSMENT
There is an ongoing debate over the meaning of a growth
policy: what is included, what is not. Without entering this
debate over the definition of growth policy, we have used one
presentation of it to suggest the potential of such policy. A
group whose work is respected by congressional committees working
in the growth policy area, the Academy for Contemporary Problems
(formerly part of the Batel le Institute, Columbus, Ohio),
described the first requirement of a growth policy as
the provision of procedures and horizontal
organization necessary to orchestrate the
activities of vertically structured
specialized agencies so that separate pro¬
grams, projects, and policies are har¬
monized to achieve the larger ends of
policies on growth and development.
(Hartley, Patton, Widner, Rainey,
Findley & Petersilia, 1974: 21)

115
The academy group likened growth policy to a three-legged stool
standing on social, environmental, and economic policy legs (see
Figure T). These broad categories were refined into four sub¬
stantive elements within growth policy: (1) a population policy
intended to influence the demographic growth of a region; (2) a
policy on technology intended to influence the way technologies
are introduced into the social and physical environment; (3) re¬
source and environmental policies intended to influence the way
the population utilizes land, air, water, and other natural re¬
sources through technology; and (4) development policies intended
to influence the geographic distribution of population, economic
activity, services, and social well-being (Hartley et ai., 1974:
24). Growth policy so defined includes all major aspects of do¬
mestic policy and presumes a forcing of the conscious interrela¬
tionship of decisions.
INSTIGATING AND PUBLICIZING FOR GROWTH POLICY
A major source of publicity for growth policy questions on a
national and international scale was The Limits to Growth (Meadows,
Meadows, Randers & Behrens, 1972), a work sponsored by the Club
of Rome, seventy-five scientists, industrialists, economists, and
educators whose purpose is to spur action on major world problems
through research projects. The first report was prepared by a
team of computer systems experts who used a simulation model
(Forrester, 1971), to examine the likely trajectory of world

Figure 1. The Structure of Growth Policy.
SOURCE: David K. Hartley et al., "Ex¬
periments in Growth Policy," Mimeo.
(Columbus, Ohio: Academy for Con¬
temporary Problems, May, 1974).


118
growth. The results, based largely on the assumption of continued
exponential growth, indicated a major collapse of the world system
preceded by a precipitous decline in population during the next
century (Meadows et ai., 1972). The Limits to Growth was released
with much fanfare and little preliminary argument over methods.
It prompted significant exchanges and comments among experts in
various fields (Kaysen, 1972; Heilbroner, 1972; Mishan, 1972;
Schwartz & Foin, 1972). The debate was carried over into the
popular press (Church, 1972; Klein, 1972), and was used as an
argument for greater concern for the environment (Ulph, 1973).
During the 93rd Congress another report sponsored by the Club
of Rome was published: Mankind at the Turning Point (Mesarovic &
Pestel, 1974). The "turning point" occurs at recognition of the
need for "organic growth" rather than the prevailing unbalanced
and undifferentiated growth. Although the second work was based
on a more sophisticated model, which disaggregates the world into
ten regions, its pessimism about the outcome of continuing
current actions is similar to that of the first report:
Rather than collapse of the world system as
such [as Suggested by The Limits to Growth],
catastrophes or collapses on a regional
level could occur, possibly long before
the middle of the next century, although in
different regions, for different reasons,
and at different times. Since the world is
a system, such catastrophes will be felt
profoundly throughout the entire world.
(Mesarovic & Pestel, 1974: 55)

119
These Club of Rome reports found their way into the activities
of the 93rd Congress on several paths. One was the project on
sustainable growth of the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars
(WWICS, 1973). The WWICS project, under the direction of Chester
Cooper, a fellow during 1973 and 1974, held several meetings for
government officials and academics. The project produced a
directory of national and international research efforts (WWICS,
1974) and prepared a "Proposal for Developing Capacities at the
National Level for Strategic Policy Assessments" (WWICS, 1973).
The project made officials in Congress and the executive branch»
as well as researchers, aware of various efforts in the growth
policy area and reinforced many of these efforts. Humphrey praised
the work of the WWICS group and included their proposal with
S. 3050 in the Congressional Record (CR, 1974: S2116—19). Similar
work was done by the Academy for Contemporary Problems. Meetings
were held which involved research and committee staff in defining
growth policy and the mechanisms needed to establish it.
These activities by research groups were preceded by a variety
of governmental activity which considered growth policy from two
perspectives: rural problems and urban growth problems. Urban
development and the lack of policies to guide urban growth were
an ongoing concern of the 1960s. Rural growth problems received
increasing attention, because of the concerns of Presidents
Kennedy and Johnson, through programs like the Appalachian re-
2
gional effort and through various government reports.

120
The incident that joined such concern for urban and rural
growth, according to James Sundquist, was the Watts riot in 1965:
"More and more they [politicians] came to talk of national growth
policy as the context in which all of the more limited policies
would be rationalized" (Sundquist, 1975: 3). President Nixon re¬
ferred to urban and rural problems in the State of the Union
message and in other speeches and messages of 1970 and 1971
(Sundquist, 1975: 3); yet he did little beyond speaking. Despite
the realization of common interests, the principal initiatives
toward growth policy have come from committees dealing with
housing and urban growth or with agricultural and rural develop¬
ment. Major advances waited until 1970, and they were made in
Congress.
In Title IX of the Agricultural Act of 1970, Congress
declared its commitment "to a sound balance between urban and
rural America" and urged the highest priority for revitalization
and development of rural areas (P.L. 91-524, Sec. 901a). In the
Urban Growth and New Community Development section of the Housing
and Urban Development Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-609, Sec. 702) Congress
declared a commitment to national growth policy:
It declared that "the federal government
must assume responsibility for the develop¬
ment of a national urban growth policy"
that would . . . "help reverse trends in
migration and physical growth which rein¬
force disparities among states, regions,
and cities." The policy would . . . "as a
guide in making specific decisions at the

121
national level, provide a framework for
development of interstate, state, and
local growth and stabilization policy."
(Sundquist, 1975: 4-5)
Title VII of this act also called for the President to issue a
biennial Report on National Growth.
These presidential growth reports became a focus for insti¬
gating and publicizing the need for national growth policies.
The first report (Report on National Growth, 1972) caused Repre¬
sentative Thomas L. Ashley (D., Ohio), the principal author of
Title VII, to hold hearings in the Committee on Banking and
Currency (CBC) to attract comments on the report and to consider
what federal action should be taken on growth policy. Most
testimony in these hearings was critical of the first report.
For example:
Report on National Growth 1972 is no more
than a survey of problems and a commitment
to two obvious goals of growth policy:
first, to the idea of balance between the
nation's urban and rural environments; and
second, to the idea of "orderly" correc¬
tion of existing problems. The report, how¬
ever, fails to examine the implications of
the giving up of federal categorical pro¬
grams in favor of state and local priorities
and procedures, fails to explain how affirma¬
tive federal policies will be made to work,
fails to state what resources will be made
available and whether such resources will be
adequate for the stated purposes; it also
fails to establish mechanisms by which
citizens of the United States can become in-
volved in the process. (CBCi ,972a. 385)

122
Ashley followed up these hearings with the Housing and Urban
Development Act of 1972. In reporting on this bill, the House
Committee on Banking and Currency concluded that there was no al¬
ternative to continued congressional leadership in the growth
policy area. The committee set out three tasks for itself in
developing this growth policy: (1) to define specific development
goals for the nation, (2) to recommend programs and techniques to
achieve these goals, and (3) to construct decision-making and
implementing mechanisms to define and carry out the nation's
growth policy on a continuing basis (CBC, 1972c: 8). S. 3050 was
to take on the third task. Humphrey and Thornton were aware of
Ashley's work, particularly in criticizing the President's growth
reports. Yet Ashley thought Humphrey's approach to growth policy
too broad. Therefore Ashley gave no more support to S. 3050 than
publicizing the need for mechanisms to set growth policy.
The Committee on Banking and Currency was not, alone in the
93rd Congress in instigating and publicizing the need for national
growth policy. Another source was Representative John D. Dingell's
(D., Mich.) Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife Conservation, and
the Environment, of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee.
Based on observations of the implementation of the National En¬
vironmental Policy Act of 1970, Representative Dingell concluded
that the federal government had only begun to conduct full and
adequate environmental assessments of growth-oriented programs
and policies. To encourage a "continuing and open dialogue in

123
the Congress," but with no immediate legislative purpose, Dingell
began hearings on growth and its implications for the future
(Growth and Its Implications, 1973, 1974a, 1974b). The three
volumes produced by Dingell's subcommittee catalogued many of the
3
major sources of the growth debate; the bulk of the volumes is
in the appendices. Hearings on growth and its implications for
the future have become an ongoing feature of the subcommittee.
Representative Dingell also introduced during the 93rd Congress
a proposal (H.R. 14468) for the establishment of a National En¬
vironmental Policy Institute to do strategic policy analysis on
environmental problems. In June, 1974, Dingell held more hearings
on growth policy and in July a round of hearings on his proposals
(H.R. 35 and H.R. 14468) for environmental research centers
(Growth and Its Implications, 1975). Dingell's work aided S. 3050
as Representative Ashley's hearings had done, by publicizing the
need. Dingell also was not interested in becoming the House
sponsor of the Humphrey proposal.
Another approach to national growth policy came from the
Joint Economic Committee (JEC). Senator Lloyd Bentsen (D., Tex.)
had urged the establishment of the Subcommittee on Economic Growth
because "a failure of the government to look ahead and to equip
itself to deal with emerging problems had assumed the proportions
of an acute crisis of public policy" (JEC, 1974: 12). As chairman
of this subcommittee, Bentsen proceeded to hold hearings on long¬
term economic growth. Still another approach to examining national

124
growth questions within Congress occurred in the formation of a
science advisory panel by the House Committee on Public Works
(CPW), to examine the relevance of issues raised within the
national growth question to a national public works investment
policy (CPW, 1974a, 1974b, 1974c).
Humphrey was more involved in the Bentsen and House Public
Works Committee hearings. He testified on S. 3050 during both
sets of hearings. Sen. Humphrey had also been part of an earlier
effort by the JEC Subcommittee on Urban Affairs, to consider the
"restoration of sovereignty to solve social problems" (JEC, 1971).
This subcommittee produced several proposals, including one for
a national planning system. Another member of the subcommittee
suggested that although Humphrey did not initiate this aspect of
the bill, his exposure to it made his sponsorship of the similar
growth bill more likely.
These instigation and publicizing activities were relevant
for S. 3050 in several ways: (1) Activities such as the limits
to growth debate raised public awareness of the growth problem.
(2) A loose network of government officials, academics, research
institute personnel, and others familiar with the problems and
with each other's activities was created. (3) Senator Humphrey
was made more aware of the problem and more ready to propose
specific and remedial structural changes. (4) These activities
reinforced the work of the congressional staff person most
involved in formulating S. 3050.

125
FORMULATION
James E. Thornton's work in formulating S. 3050 was the cul¬
mination of years of interest in growth policy and the policy
process generally. When Thornton had worked for Orville Freeman,
Secretary of Agriculture in the Johnson Administration, he had
been involved in the promotion of the concept of rural-urban
balance articulated by Freeman. Thornton was also involved in
formulating plans for the symposium "Communities of Tomorrow--
National Growth and Its Distribution," held in Washington, D.C.,
in 1967 under the sponsorship of six members of President
Johnson's cabinet and attended by Humphrey. Thus, Thornton was
party to early and major attempts to raise the question of
national growth policy. While in private business during 1969,
Thronton was involved in drafting what became Title IX of the
Agriculture Act of 1970, one of two major statements on growth
policy that year. In 1970 Thornton came to the Hill as staff
director of the Rural Development Subcommittee of the Senate Com¬
mittee on Agriculture and Forestry. Hubert Humphrey had pledged
himself to seek appointment to this committee while campaigning
for a return to the Senate in 1970. Once on the committee,
Senator Humphrey requested and received the chairmanship of the
Subcommittee on Rural Development. James E. Thornton believed,
and persuaded Humphrey, that despite growing public discussion of
urban and national growth policy, there had been little serious
work to define specific mechanisms necessary to formulate national

126
growth policy. Since such an attempt did not fit directly into
the subcommittee's jurisdiction, Thornton spent much of his own
time during 1971 and 1972 drafting a proposal that would become
S. 3050 in 1974.
The major concern in putting S. 3050 together was to make
explicit the process by which national growth policy would be
formulated. Rather than focus on national growth policy per se,
the bill was to set out a process, encompassing relevant insti¬
tutional factors and actors, by which policy would be established.
Thornton focused on changes in the executive, in Congress, among
independent research agencies, and in state and multi state
regional councils of government. Thornton modeled parts of the
Humphrey bill after similar proposals already before Congress.
S. 3050's concern for priority setting in Congress paralleled
that of proposals for a congressional budget as well as Senator
Javits' proposal for a congressional office of Goals and
Priorities Analysis, Title II of S. 5 (See Chapter 5), although
priority setting would make use of growth and development goals
to evaluate budget figures.
Thornton had worked on the proposal for several months when
Humphrey first announced his intention to introduce the bill
during his presidential campaign in the California primary.
After losing his bid for the Democratic nomination, Humphrey
used the idea of S. 3050 in a speech to the American Institute
of Planners (AIP), a potentially supportive interest group, in

127
October, 1972. By February, 1973, some four hundred copies of
the bill had been distributed to the AIP members. Ultimately,
the AIP made a statement on national planning which supported the
major concepts of S. 3050.
As it was published in 1973, the bill would provide "a more
explicit and rational formulation of goals and priorities. Con¬
gress needs more detailed economic, social, environmental, and
program analysis in order to make more informed priority deci¬
sions among alternative programs and courses of action to formu¬
late policies" (CR, 1974: S.2107). Specific findings of need for
the legislation included:(1) the decline in life quality standards
and resource management because of a lack of coordinated policies
for federal programs and of incentives to foster balanced growth
in private enterprise; (2) the imbalance in needs and resources
based on rapid urban growth at the expense of rural areas; (3)
unsound land use policies based on expediency, tradition, short¬
term practices; and (4) the need for coordinated policies dealing
with transportation, public services and facilities, energy,
housing, food and fiber, health services, sewage and solid waste
disposal, public education, crime, poverty, racial inequity, fiscal
and monetary policies, and capital and credit availability (CR,
1974: S.2107).
To overcome these shortcomings, a process was formulated which
would significantly adjust policy making in the executive branch
and in Congress. In the executive branch an Office of Balanced

128
National Growth and Development (OBNGD) would assume analytical
functions analogous to those of the Council of Economic Advisers
and some policy review and budget preparation functions of the
Office of Management and Budget. Functions of the OBNGD were to
be carried out by a director under the supervision of the Presi¬
dent and with the advice of the Council of Balanced National
4
Growth and Development, which was to be a supercabinet.
The Office would provide "policy direction
and coordination of all Federal and Federally
assisted programs for planning and land use
development, programs designed to improve
human resources, and programs designed to
allocate resources, and programs designed to
develop, allocate, or conserve energy re¬
sources" by agencies designated by the
President. (S> 3050j $ec> 202a(1))
To do so, the office was mandated to "establish national growth
policies."
The office was to be responsible for establishing national
growth policies, approved by the President, which "would require
the office to participate in the review of agency and departmental
budgets after they are submitted to the President or the Office
of Management and Budget, but before they are submitted to Con¬
gress" (S. 3050, Sec. 202a(16). The office was also given the task
of establishing a "nationally coordinated multi jurisdictional
comprehensive planning process," including the formation of a sys¬
tem of multi state regional commissions to review planning require¬
ments for all existing and proposed federal programs.

129
The major vehicle of publicity and evaluation of national
growth policy was to be the office's Annual Report on Balanced
National Growth and Development, which would identify significant
trends and problems; evaluate the progress and effectiveness of
federal, regional, and local efforts; provide projections and
forecasts of social, economic, environmental, and scientific
development in five-, ten-, and twenty-five-year time frames.
This report was also to provide policy recommendations, including
necessary draft legislation, transmitted through the Congressional
Office of Policy and Planning to the Joint Committee on National
Growth and Development, the Joint Economic Committee, the Com¬
mittees on Governmental Operations and Appropriations of each
house, as well as such other standing committees as the presiding
officer of each house might designate (S. 3050, Sec. 203b).
S. 3050 gave the 0BNGD a direct line to the budget process.
A corresponding phenomenon is visible in the changes proposed for
Congress by S. 3050. The Congressional Office of Policy and
Planning (C0PP) was to provide the analysis and overview of
priority and growth policy considerations within which meaningful
consideration of individual measures could occur. The C0PP was
to issue a report, The Balanced National Goals, Priorities, and
Growth Policy Report. This provision reflects the need felt in
Congress, not only to establish growth policy, but to establish
in a visible way a congressional version of national budget
priorities. Thus, the report would include an analysis of the

130
President's proposed budget in terms of national goals, priorities,
and growth policies and an analysis of the President's growth re¬
port as well as priority recommendations for Congress in light of
COPP analysis (S. 3050, Sec. 804d).
James Thornton was aware of the magnitude of changes that
S. 3050 was proposing; yet his purpose was to assemble all the
pieces necessary to realize the establishment of a national growth
policy process. Thornton and Humphrey were not concerned, as the
events described will show, with formulating a bill that would
pass the 93rd Congress. Their objective was to draw up a bill con¬
taining all the major elements of national policy making that, in
their judgment, should be confronted.
MOVING A BILL WITHOUT A COMMITTEE
Given the importance of committee resources for successful
treatment of a bill (see Chapter 2), S. 3050 was doomed from the
start. Senator Humphrey was no longer a member of the Government
Operations Committee by the time the bill was introduced. Com¬
mittee chairman Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (D., N.C.), was opposed to the
bill, and no other member was interested in pushing Humphrey's
bill. Humphrey was committed to the issue, however, and he moved
on several fronts to gather information on what growth policy
should be, to publicize the need, to gather support, and to
structure a definite concern for growth policy into other forms
of national decision making. His efforts indicate the style of

131
action for success in Congress that Humphrey preaches to his
staff: Be there and be persistent.
Early in the 93rd Congress, Humphrey had the Subcommittee on
Economic Progress of the Joint Economic Committee print three
thousand copies Of A Proposal for Achieving Balanced National
Growth and Development (JEC, 1973). In a letter of transmittal
to Wright Patman (D., Tex.), chairman of both subcommittee and
JEC, Humphrey stated his hope that the proposal would be carefully
reviewed, "not as a proposal which is being suggested to solve
all of our nation's many complex and difficult problems, but
rather as a proposal to begin focusing national attention on the
urgent need of the nation to get its policy-making house in order"
(JEC, 1973: iii-iv). The special committee printing of the bill
contained a section-by-section analysis and a foldout chart
showing how the new policy-making structure would be integrated
into the existing governmental structure. The bill itself was
printed with the right-hand pages left blank for comments. The
entire volume, more than two hundred pages, was used to spread
information on the bill, and some three thousand copies were
distributed within a year (CR, 1974: S.2104).
In lieu of hearings on the proposal, Senator Humphrey had
relied since 1972 on the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to
monitor state, local, and federal activities relevant to the develop¬
ment of a national growth policy (CRS, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975).
These reports provided a major information source and a framework
for considering the diverse issues affecting growth policy questions.

132
Humphrey devised other ways to gather information and to
stimulate interest in growth policy. Among these were (1) a re¬
quirement that the Congressional Budget Office's annual report
comment on the impact of budget alternatives on balanced national
growth and development (P.L. 93-344, Sec. 202f). He promoted (2)
the adoption of the general "process notion" in S. 3050 in the
Forest and Rangelands Renewable Resources Planning Act (P.L. 93-378)
and (3) the inclusion of a mandate to develop recommendations for
new policy development mechanisms relevant to growth policy for
the executive and Congress as part of the responsibility of the
National Commission on Supplies and Shortages (P.L. 93-426,
Sec. 720). Senator Humphrey encouraged Representative George
Brown (D., Calif.) to introduce (4) a companion bill to S. 3050
on the House side; he provided (5) running commentary on the
President's national growth report, used (6) hearings of the Sub¬
committee on Economic Development of the Joint Economic Committee
and the House Public Works Committee, to further publicize the
subject of national growth policy in general and S. 3050 in
particular.
NATIONAL GROWTH AND THE BUDGET REPORT
A major reform of the 93rd Congress, which would effect SPA,
thereby forcing the conscious interrelationship of decisions,
was the congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
(P.L. 93-344). S. 3050 had been written prior to the furor caused

133
by President Nixon's impoundment of funds, that resulted in a
concerted drive in Congress to reform the budget process. In the
course of developing the budget reform, the Senate was primarily
concerned with establishing a congressional budget so that Con¬
gress would be more effective in setting national priorities; the
House was somewhat more concerned about eliminating the threat
posed by impoundment to the "power of the purse."
If Congress wouldn't bring the budget to growth policy, Hum¬
phrey would take growth policy to the budget. It arrived in the
form of an amendment to the major Senate budget bill (S. 1541)
which mandated the Budget Committees and the Congressional Budget
Office to consider the impact of budget alternatives on national
growth. Specifically, the amendment would force the newly formed
committee
to receive and review all information, data,
analyses, and reports prepared by the Con¬
gressional Office of the Budget on the sub¬
jects of long-range national growth and de¬
velopment, goals, and priorities, reviewing
such material and using them as a guide
during the deliberation on concurrent reso¬
lutions on the budget and in carrying out
other duties assigned in Title IV of this
act- (CR, 1975: S.3770)
A second part of the amendment required that the budget office sub-
5
mit a National Growth Development, Goals, and Priorities Report.
Humphrey prevailed in the budget bill, which passed the Senate on
March 22, 1974. The budget report, due on or before May 1 of each
year, would include

134
an assessment of the probable effect of such
proposed budget outlays and budget authority
and of such allocation of resources, upon
the balanced growth and development of the
nation, such assessment to be drawn from in¬
formation, data, reports, and analyses which
shall be furnished to the Director upon his
request by such Federal departments, agencies,
and bureaus, as he may determine and as may
have such requested subject matter within
their official jurisdiction.
(CGO, 1974: 1946)
In conference with the House, that paragraph was reduced to a
phrase. Thus, the Congressional Budget Office's report on alterna¬
tives to the President's proposal should take "into account how
such alternative allocations will meet national needs and affect
balanced growth and development of the United States" (P.L.
93-344, Sec. 202f). How the CBO will fulfill this mandate has yet
to be seen, but Humphrey's amendment was a logical way to build
concern for national growth into this addition to congressional
decision making, namely, into its own budget process.
THE GROWTH POLICY PROCESS IN A SINGLE POLICY AREA
Senator Humphrey was able to practice his notion of a future-
oriented policy development process through the Forest and Range-
land Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (S. 2296; P.L. 93-378).
James Thornton had persuaded Humphrey to provide leadership in ex¬
perimenting with this process-oriented approach, over the objec¬
tions of personal staff who were fearful that Humphrey would be
caught in a major battle between preservationists and forest
resource users.

135
The report on this bill noted that a sizable portion of the
country's forest and rangeland is owned by the national government.
The report stated:
However, to reach conclusions about what
ought to be done on the Federal lands, we
need knowledge about the current and likely
private actions. Reaching conclusions on
how the public effort can help the private
effort requires a comprehensive understand¬
ing of the whole picture.
In preparing this legislation, the Com¬
mittee refrained from attempting to deter¬
mine in advance what National Policy ought
to be. That is not the goal of this legis-
1ation.
Instead a course was charted which is
designed to produce a National Assessment
of the total picture and of specific needs.
When the facts of the Assessment are in, a
Program will be developed with full public
participation, resulting in a common base
for subsequent budget requests and action.
The process of fact-finding and goal
setting is to be followed up by a detailed
process of program evaluation which will
determine if the effort being made is accom¬
plishing the mission set forth.
(CAF, 1974: 3)
The report went on to say that a key feature of the legislation
was its attempt to prevent short-sighted current actions. The
bill provided for an assessment of situations and needs, es¬
tablished an explicit goal-setting process including public par¬
ticipation, tied budgetary and appropriations processes to the
goals established, and then set up a method of evaluating program
performance. The act set the year 2000 as the target year for
full implementation of planned, intensive, multiple-use, sustained

136
yield management procedures operating on an environmentally sound
basis. S. 2296 provided an exercise in developing a long-range
policy development process for this particular renewable resources
area. Humphrey and Thornton began using it as an example of what
was necessary across all major functional policy areas, as
suggested by S. 3050.
THE LARGER CONTEXT OF THE COMMISSION
ON SUPPLIES AND SHORTAGES
In June, 1974, Humphrey made another effort to gather support
for mechanisms for setting national growth policy, this time by
appending an advisory committee to a proposed National Commission
on Supplies and Shortages. The commission's task was to examine
the issue of long-term policy making in the resources and ma¬
terials area and to propose, at a minimum, ways to establish a
national resources and materials information system.
"In order to establish a means to integrate the study of
supplies and shortages of resources and commodities into the total
problem of balanced national growth and development," Humphrey's
first approach was to have the commission report to Congress and
President on the most appropriate means, within government, multi¬
state networks, and state jurisdictions, to set national growth
policy. Humphrey's original amendment enumerated the aspects of
national policy making to be studied by the commission. When
Senator Mike Mansfield (D., Mont.) objected to this additional

137
freight, Humphrey dropped the amendment's second sentence and a
staggering array of topics:
The principal function of such policy-making
process and coordinating system is to de¬
velop specific national policies relating to
the achievement of a more balanced regional
distribution of economic growth and develop¬
ment, income distribution, environmental
protection, supply and conservation of fuels
and energy transportation systems, employ¬
ment, housing, health care services, food
and fiber production, recreation and cultural
opportunities, communication systems, land
use, human care and development, technology
assessment and transfer, and monetary and
fiscal policy. (cr, lg74; S10396)
After further objections Humphrey asked "to huddle for a few
moments." Despite Senator John V. Tunney's last-minute cautions
against amendments, he caucused with Humphrey and Brock, and
Humphrey won out.
Tunney and Brock agreed to accept Humphrey's amendment, now
a proposal to set up a special advisory committee to the com¬
mission, with its own authorization for appropriation, $75,000.
It was to study how the problems of supplies and shortages could
be integrated into larger questions of national growth and de¬
velopment. The advisory committee was to produce "recommenda¬
tions regarding the establishment of a policy-making process and
structure within the executive and legislative branches of the
Federal Government and a system for coordinating these efforts
with appropriate multistate, regional, and State governmental

138
jurisdiction" (CR, 1974: S10399). Thus Humphrey won endorsement
of the need to integrate materials questions into national growth
policy, a need S. 3050 would meet, and he established a funded
advisory committee to examine the solutions which S.. 3050
offered
INTRODUCTION IN THE HOUSE
S. 3050 was introduced in the House by Representative George
E. Brown, Jr. (D., Calif.), a member of the Committee on Science
and Astronautics. Brown was interested in long-range planning,
and he had come in contact with proposals similar to Humphrey's
through the committee's hearings on federal policy, plans, and
organizations for science and technology. As he introduced the
bill, Brown pointed out the process aspect--that it "does not
specifically prescribe policy, but rather attempts to refocus
national institutions so as to approach virtually the entire
spectrum of domestic policies in relation to growth and develop¬
ment" (CR, 1974: H8947). In the House the bill was referred to
the Rules Committee because its scope was so broad that it fell
in no single committee's jurisdiction. Although Brown introduced
the bill, because it was late in the session, he did not push it.
The House then had no mechanism for dealing with large-scale
proposals overlapping several jurisdictions. A provision of the
Bolling committee reform allows the Speaker to refer bills which
overlap to each committee, either jointly or sequentially. Thus,

139
according to a staff member, in the 94th Congress a companion
measure to S. 3050 would be referred to six committees in the
House.
THE PRESIDENT'S BIENNIAL GROWTH REPORT
A major item in the ongoing debate over national growth has
been the report which the President must make by February of each
even-numbered year. The discussion and report produced by Repre¬
sentative Ashley's hearings on the first report put the issue
in terms of presidential reluctance to take an active and force¬
ful leadership role in developing a national growth policy (CBC,
1972b, 1972c). Congress, then, would have to continue its initia¬
tives toward a growth policy. In this spirit Humphrey upstaged
Ashley and other interested members of Congress in 1974 by
criticizing the President's second growth report. Humphrey re¬
ceived a copy of the draft report as it was being submitted by
the Department of Housing and Urban Development to the White
House. In October he produced his own analysis of the draft re¬
port, using this analysis as a forum for parts of S. 3050 which
would remedy the defects he found in the report (CR, 1974: SI9281 -82).^
JEC AND HOUSE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE HEARINGS
Because no hearings were held specifically on S. 3050, Hum¬
phrey used related hearings to push the bill: hearings on national
growth by the Subcommittee on Economic Development of JEC (JEC,

140
1974) and hearings on the need for a national public works invest¬
ment policy by the House Public Works Committee (CPW, 1974c).
INTEREST AND SUPPORT OUTSIDE CONGRESS
Senator Humphrey and James Thornton were busy gathering
support outside Congress, and during the 93rd Congress general
support for mechanisms to set national growth policy was given by
several groups: among them the National Governors Conference,
the Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties,
the American Institute of Architects, and the American Institute
of Planners. Many of these groups supported one or more concepts
or structures in S. 3050, although none addressed the bill itself
because it was not getting serious consideration in Congress and
because other proposals for national growth policy had been intro¬
duced by Senator Vance Hartke (D., Ind.), although these proposals
were not so thorough or inclusive as S. 3050.
The American Institute of Planners (AIP), for instance, in a
statement on national planning policy, asked that the federal re¬
gional councils be upgraded and a central planning office be
established in the Executive Office of the President, similar to
the Office of Balanced National Growth and Development proposed
in S. 3050. AIP called on Congress to form a Joint Committee on
National Development Policy to give Congress a planning and policy
analysis capacity related to national development. This joint com¬
mittee was to examine the national policy implications of the

141
national budget and review the President's growth report, with
the aid of an additional central staff organization analyzing
major legislative programs in relation to national goals,
priorities, and development trends (AIP, 1974).
Other groups gave support more by their analyses and con¬
ferences than by the endorsement of their professional member¬
ship. Thus, the work of the Academy for Contemporary Problems
and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars reinforced
the staff members working for Representatives Dingell and Ashley
as well as for James Thornton.
Because S. 3050 was not seriously considered, little was heard
from those in opposition to growth policy, and the conflicts among
its supporters were not made obvious. For instance, rural interests
may be more concerned with interregional migration and stimulating
economic growth in rural areas, Sundquist suggested (1975: 11),
while urban interests are more concerned with solving urban-suburban
and racial conflicts and developing declining urban areas; yet
these conflicts never really surfaced during the 93rd Congress.
THE SENATE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
S. 3050 was referred on introduction to the Senate Government
Operations Committee (CGO). Up to this time Humphrey had continued
to work on the bill, but he had not moved to introduce it, because
he was no longer a member of the committee that would consider
it. Finally, in February, 1974, he introduced the bill, whereupon
it was sent to the Government Operations Committee.

142
Among the fifteen members of this committee, interviews re¬
vealed some interest in response to SPA questions, but little or
no thought of specific remedies to the problems of anticipation,
of searching for emerging issues. All expressed some dissatisfac¬
tion with the normal ways that Congress searches for problems.
Most of the members were not sanguine about congressional ability
to anticipate crises, expressing concern about organizational
mechanisms, particularly for identifying and forcing action on
problems. Others noted the value of crises in allowing for
changes in direction, "major shifts." One member, who had been in¬
volved in a state attempt to anticipate problems and to articu¬
late long-range goals, bel ieved that this type of planning and
assessment is done for military issues but not for social ones.
He thought that Congress may be able to anticipate problems and
that, regardless, the attempt to anticipate is valuable in itself.
Yet few of these members had thought about potential changes
or about S. 3050. As a staffer put it after learning that S. 3050
was not going to move, "Pushing it would do no good; no amount
of pushing will overcome opposition of [committee] staff and the
chairman."
Senator Ervin, chairman of the committee, was not particularly
interested in growth policy questions; he did not want to con¬
sider S. 3050. During the 93rd Congress he spent much of his time
chairing the Watergate hearings as well as engaging in a few major
O
legislative activities such as budget reform.

143
SENATOR HUMPHREY'S GOALS
Senator Hubert Humphrey is one of the more legislatively inno¬
vative members of the Senate; yet he is also a perennial contender
for the presidency. The good policy goal is likely to be the
dominant reason for a member's pursuit of SPA reforms (see Chap¬
ter 2), as it was in Representative Culver's pursuit of the fore-
9
sight provision (see Chapter 3). For Senator Humphrey the rela¬
tive importance of good policy versus a career beyond the chamber
is difficult to determine, although our hypothesis appears to be
confirmed. S. 3050 was unveiled during Humphrey's bid for the
presidential nomination in 1972; yet James Thornton did not learn
of Humphrey's campaign uses for the proposal until shortly before
the California speech and well after he had devoted much time to
it. Similarly, Culver was suspected of using an Iowa futures con¬
ference to benefit his senatorial aspirations in 1972. However,
Humphrey, like Culver, continued to press for SPA reform after
the election cycle was over, most immediately in his address to
the American Institute of Planners.
Humphrey's persistence in using various forums to publicize
the need for national growth policy and to build a concern for
it into other aspects of national decision making suggest that
good policy was his dominant goal during the 93rd Congress. This
contention is supported by the relatively minor value to Humphrey
of an increase in power in the Senate. If S. 3050 passed, Humphrey
probably would become chairman of the new Joint Committee on

144
Balanced National Growth and Development created by the bill, but
given Humphrey's position in the Senate (in the 94th Congress he
became chairman of the Joint Economic Committee) and the tentative
nature of this particular incentive, power in the Senate was prob¬
ably not a significant goal in determining Humphrey's advocacy of
S. 3050. Humphrey's actions during the 94th Congress prolonged
this dilemma of the predominant goal. Humphrey switched from
S. 3050 , which provides for national planning by focusing on
growth and development policy process, to a bill which stressed
a more economic approach (S. 1795; 94th Congress). Critics have
said that this shift involved an implicit downgrading of concern
for environmental problems. These critics also suggested that
Humphrey's change was prompted in part by his need for labor sup¬
port if he made a last-minute bid for the Democratic presidential
nomination in 1976. The planning bill has been supported by the
Initiative Committee for National Planning, a group of notables
headed by Wassily Leontief, Harvard economist, and Leonard Wood¬
cock, president of the United Auto Workers Union.
SUMMARY: INCUBATING AN SPA REFORM
INSTIGATION AND PUBLICIZING. The need for national growth
policy was instigated and publicized from diverse sources: the
limits to growth debate; governmental concern for urban and rural
growth, expressed in programs such as Appalachia, the Rural Develop¬
ment Act of 1972, and a variety of reports; work by academic and

145
policy research institutes; and activity by other congressional
committees. S. 3050 proposed the mechanisms necessary to establish
national growth policy. While most publicizing activity included
some mention of specific mechanisms, this concern was usually minor.
Thus, Humphrey was an important instigator of the need for mech¬
anisms, working through amendments to budget process legislation
and on the National Commission on Supplies and Shortages and through
commentary on the President's growth report.
FORMULATION. The large, complex S. 3050 package was formu¬
lated through the interest and persistence of James E. Thornton and
at Humphrey's direction. The formulator "draws boundaries around an
issue and establishes a focal point for its further consideration"
(Price, 1972: 4). Thornton's boundaries in the bill were nothing
short of the whole range of domestic, and some international,
policies as well as the agencies which deal with policy. In addi¬
tion to providing for the analytical units in the executive and
in Congress, which would search for emerging issues and inform
current decisions, Thornton made explicit the governmental forums
which may force the conscious interrelationship of decisions.
Working without significant committee resources, but with signifi¬
cant help from the Congressional Research Service, Thornton spent
a year and a half, much of it his own time, in formulating the
bill, while his major legislative responsibilities for Humphrey
involved the Agriculture Committee. Humphrey could not command
the luxury of a special subcommittee to consider the growth issue.

146
INFORMATION GATHERING. Information was gathered, but not by
a committee handling the bill. The Government Operations Committee
would not consider it. Senator Humphrey's activities in relation to
budget legislation, the supplies and shortages commission, and the
President's growth report aided in the information-gathering
process. A major source of information has been the CRS summaries
of developments in the growth policy area. An important difference
between S. 3050 and the other legislation we have studied is the
lack of a hearing record reflecting at least some of these efforts,
because of the out-of-committee nature of this stage of S. 3050's
development.
INTEREST AGGREGATION. Little interest aggregation took place
during the 93rd Congress when considered in relation to the
interests potentially affected by the bill. Humphrey and Thornton
were in touch with various groups likely to support their efforts,
such as the American Institute of Planners and the Advisory Commis¬
sion on Intergovernmental Relations. A major factor conditioning
the ultimate disposition of a bill, Price (1972) noted, is its
impingement on bureaucratic structures. This major category of
interests was not dealt with in the 93rd Congress: the executive
branch agencies, departments, and offices. Given the effect S. 3050
would have on policy coordination, and hence agency autonomy, it
will never be passed without presidential support, and presidential
support often requires inclusion of the interests of major bureau¬
cratic actors at the time a bill is seriously considered.

147
MOBILIZATION AND MODIFICATION. Stages 5 and 6, must wait for
development in another Congress. "Whether an issue goes beyond
the publicizing and formulating stages usually depends on the
support it receives from individuals, groups, or governmental
units that possess authority and legitimacy in the policy area
and on the extent of 'intraelite organizing' by key leaders"
(Price, 1972: 5). Because the bill stuck at the enabling com¬
mittee level, Humphrey realized that mobilization efforts would
be wasted. As a result of this lack of consideration, opposition
to S. 3050 was not generated. Likewise, there were no modifica¬
tions of S. 3050 during the 93rd Congress because it was not
seriously considered. The establishment of a congressional budget
process and the accompanying Congressional Budget Office will
necessitate much modification if the bill is to be reintroduced.
Unlike the foresight provision--a small change which was con¬
sidered and passed--S. 3050 remained a large, and largely unex¬
amined, reform during the 93rd Congress. While the energy crisis
was at its peak, while several other crises occurred, these events
had little impact on support for mechanisms to set national
growth policy. The bill that reflected Humphrey's interests and
his staffer's commitment and expertise had been dead in committee
from the beginning, but Senator Humphrey persisted in promoting
the concepts of S. 3050 and, whenever possible, the bill itself.
Still, the Balanced National Growth and Development Act of 1974
was doomed to remain in its incubation period.

148
NOTES
1. The committees represented on the Joint Committee on
Balanced National Growth and Development would be: SENATE COM-
MITTEES--Aeronautics and Space Sciences, Agriculture and Forestry,
Appropriations, Armed Services, Banking, Housing and Urban
Affairs, Commerce, Finance, Government Operations, Interior, La¬
bor and Public Welfare, Public Works. HOUSE COMMITTEES--Agricul-
ture, Appropriations, Armed Services, Banking and Currency, Educa¬
tion and Labor, Science and Astronautics, Veteran's Affairs, Ways
and Means. JOINT COMMITTEES--Atomic Energy, Economic (S. 3050,
Sec. 801b)
2. People Left Behind (1968) for example.
3. Among these sources were The Limits to Growth (Meadows
et al., 1972), Blueprint for Survival (Goldsmith, Allen, Allaby,
Davoll & Lawrence, 1972), and government reports on Population
and the American Future (1972) and Resources and Man (National
Academy of Sciences, 1969b).
4. The Council shall be composed of the Attorney General;
the Secretaries of Housing and Urban Development, Agriculture,
Health, Education and Welfare, Interior, Commerce, Defense,
Labor, Transportation, Treasury; and the Chairman of the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Director
of the Foundation on the American Future, the Chairman of the
Domestic Council, the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, the
Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Rela¬
tions, the Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity,
the Administrator of the Federal Energy Office, the Adminis¬
trator of the General Services Administration, the Adminis¬
trator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Chairman
of the Council on Environmental Quality, the Chairman of the
Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Power Commission,
the Federal Communications Commission, and the Director and
Deputy Director of the Office of Balanced National Growth and
Development. (S. 3050j Sec 201
5. Amendment 1030 to S. 1541:
The Office shall review on a continuing basis all legislation,
trends, and developments in government at the Federal, State,
and Local levels, and related trends and developments in the
private sector, including available national resources, which
affect the Nation's growth and development, goals, and

149
priorities. Once each year the Office shall submit to the
Committees on the Budget of both Houses and to each House of
Congress a "National Growth, Development, Goals, and Pri¬
orities Report" containing such information, data, and
analysis as the Director shall deem necessary to enable Con¬
gress to consider fiscal and budgetary matters in terms of
balanced national growth and development policies and national
goals and priorities. (CR> 1974: S3769-71)
6. The act creating both the commission and the special ad¬
visory committee (P.L. 93-426) was later amended twice because
of delays on the part of the executive branch in submitting its
nominations for public members. Both the commission and the ad¬
visory committee are required to submit their recommendations to
the Congress by December 31, 1976. In addition, the authorized
funding levels for both were increased to $1.5 million and $150,000,
respectively. Thornton was appointed executive director of the ad¬
visory committee, with several long-time advocates of national
policy planning named to serve on the committee: Norman Beckman,
assistant director of the Congressional Research Service (re¬
sponsible for CRS publications on growth policy); Wasily Leontief,
Harvard economist, and Leonard Woodcock, president of the United
Auto Workers (cochairmen of the Initiative Committee for National
Planning); Ralph Widner, director of the Academy for Contemporary
Problems.
7. On January 21, 1975, Humphrey again gave his critique of
the final report issued by the President (CR, 1975: S595).
8.To a letter asking for an interview with him or an aide,
Ervin replied thus:
As you may know, I have been continuously occupied with matters
of equal national importance including legislation to require
confirmation of the Director and Deputy Director of 0MB, the
Congressional budget measure, the establishment of the Federal
Energy Administration, energy research, Presidential impound¬
ment, executive privilege, and last but not least, the Water¬
gate matter.
The bills you refer to, which are before this Committee are
S. 1286 (Sen. Hartke's Growth Bill) and S. 3050, and they are
all being processed by the Committee staff in accordance with
usual Committee procedures. The press of work on the matters
mentioned above has prevented me from familiarizing myself
with these bills, and I have not formulated any beliefs and
perceptions with respect to them. Also, further Committee
action on these bills during the balance of this Congress is
doubtful.

150
9. Culver's campaign and election to the Senate suggest
that a career beyond the chamber was a major goal determining
much of his activity beyond his Bolling committee work during
that period.

CHAPTER 5
THE FULL OPPORTUNITY
AND NATIONAL GOALS AND PRIORITIES ACT

INTRODUCTION
Early in 1967 Senator Walter F. Móndale (D., Minn.) introduced
the Full Opportunity and Social Accounting Act (S. 843) in the
90th Congress. In the ensuing eight years the bill went through
several minor changes and a major addition, and emerged in the
93rd Congress as the Full Opportunity and National Goals and
Priorities Act (S. 5).
At its inception in 1967 the Mondale bill (S. 843) called for
a procedure analagous to that established by the Employment Act
of 1946. S. 843 declared full opportunity and social accounting
as national goals, called on the President to submit an annual
social report similar to the economic report prepared by the Coun¬
cil of Economic Advisers (CEA). The social report was to set forth
progress toward full opportunity and also current and foreseeable
needs in various social areas. S. 843 would establish a Council
of Social Advisers (CSA) to the President to develop and maintain
the reliable information, or social indicators, necessary to de¬
termine current social conditions. The Council of Social Advisers
would also recommend program priorities in light of this social
data. S. 843 would create a Joint Committee on the Social Report
in Congress to examine the President's social report. The major
addition to this proposal came in 1969 in the form of an amendment
152

153
by Senator Jacob Javits (R., N.Y.), cosponsored by Mondale, to
establish a congressional Office of Goals and Priorities Analysis
(OGPA), similar to the President's Bureau of the Budget. Appen¬
dix 5 presents S. 5 as introduced with these changes in the 93rd
Congress.
Several factors make the Full Opportunity Act (S. 5) a signi¬
ficant case in the examination of SPA reforms. (1) The bill has
been around for a long time. It has been considered in four Con¬
gresses, the 90th through the 93rd, passing the Senate Committee
on Labor and Public Welfare three times and the Senate twice.
Thus, its history allows more consideration of committee and
Senate treatment of an SPA reform than did S. 3050. (2) Mondale's
proposal dealt primarily with analysis in the executive branch.
With the addition of Senator Javits' Title II, analysis in Con¬
gress was seriously addressed for the first time. Even then,
Title I and Title II were never adequately intermeshed. Analysis
of the bill's history will show the impact of this lack of original
concern. (3) The bill contemplated the use of social science.for
SPA and other policy-related activities. Its history provides
some insight into the debate over the adequacy of social science
concepts and research, and conversely, the role of the government
in developing the social sciences for policy purposes. (4) The
proposal dealt with the involvement of social scientists as poli¬
tical actors promoting their own interests, and it illustrates
the divisions among individuals and groups involved. It also

154
suggests how the existence of a proposal can become a symbolic
reinforcement, in this case, of the work of those in the social
indicators field.
In the following sections we have considered the bill's ori¬
gin, its treatment in four Congresses, and the member goals and
attitudes of its sponsor and the Committee on Labor and Public
Welfare members. The discussion is summarized in terms of the
six stages of the bill's processing.
INSTIGATION AND PUBLICIZING
On the morning of January 4, 1967, Senator Mondale noticed an
article by Joseph Kraft in the Washington Post which began:
With one notable exception, practically
everything that Americans do gets offi¬
cially measured at this time of year. The
exception, the thing that is not measured,
is the social effect or impact on daily
life of all the other things that are
measured.
But probably nowhere else is there a
more pressing need to take regular readings,
and accordingly, some of the most percep¬
tive men inside and outside the government
have begun work for a social counterpart to
the annual economic report made to the
President and the Congress by the Council
of Economic Advisers. (Krafti 1967. A11)
This article prompted Senator Mondale to schedule a speech. Mon¬
dale's interest grew quickly. The speech became a legislative pro¬
posal, the Full Opportunity and Social Accounting Act (S. 843)
in the 90th Congress.

155
Joseph Kraft thus linked academic and executive branch
activity and Mondale's initiative. A year of critical mass for
the social indicators movement had been 1966. Bertram Gross' The
State of the Nation: Social Systems Accounting (1966) made a con¬
ceptual statement on the use of social data for social analysis.
A study funded by NASA to determine the impact of the space pro¬
gram on domestic society produced social indicators, edited by
Raymond Bauer (1966). Another specific aid to the cause was the
report of the National Commission on Technology, Automation, and
Economic Progress in 1966. The commission released its findings
in February, noting the lack of knowledge of the systematic
2
causes of social problems and urged research on this question.
A major advance for social indicators within the government
took place in 1966,when President Johnson assigned the task of
developing social indicators to the Department of Health, Educa¬
tion, and Welfare (HEW). In a March 1 message on domestic health
and education President Johnson stated:
To improve our ability to chart our progress,
I have asked the Secretary of HEW to estab¬
lish, within his office, the resources to
develop the necessary social statistics and
indicators to supplement those prepared by
the Department of Labor Statistics, and
the Council of Economic Advisers. With these
yardsticks, we can better measure the dis¬
tance we have come, and plan the way ahead.
(Full Opportunity, 1967: 264)
HEW implemented this task by forming a panel on social indicators
headed by William Gorham, then assistant secretary for program

156
coordination, who gave the actual working task to Mancur Olson,
an economist. These assignments were accorded favorable publicity
and discussion within the social indicators movement. News of
these efforts filtered through the liberal columnist Joseph Kraft
to Senator Mondale. Kraft was familiar with the work of Gross and
Bauer, and he had been impressed by similar ideas expressed by
Daniel Bell (1966). Kraft was prompted to put his thoughts into
an article by a discussion with Olson about the work at HEW.
No one can assert with confidence the con¬
sequence of having all this information
[economic and population information]
readily and regularly available. Certainly,
it does not make men agree, any more than
they used to, about such things as taxes
and wages . . . but at a minimum, the
statistics act as warning signals. . . .
[The] lack of regular information fosters
an innocence and irresponsibility that is
positively terrifying. . . .
An annual social report . . . can
create a climate of continuing self-
correction; a barrier of irrevocable mis¬
takes, not to say disasters, such as the
loss of the Negro generation, [the postwar
generation of poor Negroes who grew up
hostile to American society] . . . and
that, it seems to me, is perhaps the most
important business now before the nation.
(Kraft, 1966: All)
FORMULATION
Kraft's article touched on matters that concerned Mondale,
and it prompted him to move on the question of a council of
social advisers. Developing the full opportunity bill filled a

157
policy void for Senator Mondale; it allowed him to express him¬
self. His committee assignments did not give him the opportunity
to work on social welfare issues, and he had been looking for
something imaginative and futuristic. The Council of Social Ad¬
visers filled that role. He raised the issue at a meeting with
his staff shortly thereafter. Bill Shands, a journalist who was
on Mondale's staff as a congressional fellow of the American
Political Science Association, began preparing a speech for Món¬
dale on social accounting. Shands1 assignment went through
several drafts. In the process Mondale became more interested
and decided to sponsor legislation on the issue. Shands and Gary
Avery, a political scientist on Mondale's staff, formulated a
bill with the help of the Office of Legislative Counsel for actual
drafting.
Shands reviewed the research on social indicators and long-
range forecasting exercises. Major assistance in developing the
bill and the case for it came from Bertram Gross, the principal
staff person involved in the passage of the Employment Act of
1946, which established the Council of Economic Advisers. Gross,
a professor at Syracuse University, was preparing the first of two
issues in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and So¬
cial science on social indicators (Gross & Springer, 1967). He
suggested that Mondale's proposal be virtually identical to the
1946 act, and his idea was accepted.

158
S. 843 IN THE 90TH CONGRESS
On February 6, 1967, Senator Mondale introduced for himself
and ten other senators the Full Opportunity and Social Accounting
Act (S. 843). Mondale expressed a hope that "this act might accom¬
plish in the area of national social policy what the Employment
Act of 1946 has accomplished in the field of economic policy"
(Full Opportunity, 1967: 478). Mondale went on to praise the
"sophisticated capability [of the Council of Economic Advisers]
to register every quiver in the U.S. economy," and he noted that
the Council of Social Advisers would tend toward similar develop-
3
ment of social analysis.
Mondale's bill was referred to the Government Operations Com¬
mittee, where Senator Fred Harris (D., Okla.) was waiting to hold
hearings in the Subcommittee on Government Research. Harris had
a related proposal for a National Foundation of the Social Sciences,
and he agreed to use his subcommittee for hearings on Mondale's
bill. Hearings were held on five days in June and July, 1967 (Full
Opportunity, 1967: Pts. I, II, III). Thirty-five persons testified
or took part in the seminar; thirty-seven others submitted written
testimony or comments. More than two-thirds of them were academic
or professional researchers. Seven executive branch agencies pre¬
sented unified support for the objectives for S. 843, but vir¬
tually unified disagreement with the means proposed, as we shall
see.

159
STRATEGIC POLICY ASSESSMENT ISSUES AND
THE MOOD OF THE TIMES
The war on poverty had begun. A commitment by liberals like
Mondale had been made to deal with poverty and to formulate other
social programs. Urban riots, particularly during the summer of
the hearings, brought support to S. 843, since the Council of
Social Advisers was presumably to face such problems. For example,
as William Taylor, the staff director of the Equal Rights Commis¬
sion, noted:
The subcommittee is meeting at a time when
our nation is reaping the fight for har¬
vest of a century of neglect and depriva¬
tion.
. . . the establishment of a system of
social accounting is not an end in itself,
but rather a means to assist in establish¬
ing the conditions for economic and social
justice if the will to do so exists. But
it is an important technique because the
rapidly changing conditions of urban life
have created problems of poverty, depriva¬
tion, and discrimination more intransigent
than before, because piecemeal approaches
will not be sufficient, because we need to
establish our goals with much more clarity
and to apply the rigorous test of progress
toward true equality, determining whether
we are fulfilling our goals.
(Full Opportunity, 1967: 368)
Another major aspect of the prevailing mood was confidence in
economic growth and the positive role the Council of Economic
Advisers (CEA) presumably played in that growth.. It was thought
that the effectiveness of the CEA in advising the President how

160
to "fine tune" the economy could be duplicated in the social
area, but this analogy was not universally accepted. While few
challenged the usefulness of the CEA in 1967, objections were
raised about the need for a Council of Social Advisers because
of CEA's existence and because of the inadequacies of social
science. In addition, two other objections relevant to SPA con¬
cerns were raised: namely, the bill failed to distinguish between
policy analysis and actual decision making and priority setting,
and the bill would exacerbate the executive-legislative imbalance
in analytical ability.
Gerhard Colm, chief economist of the National Planning Asso¬
ciation and first expert to testify on the bill, agreed that social
programs had not been adequately related to national goals, but
he objected that other aspects of the Mondale proposal were al¬
ready covered by existing agencies. Colm stated that there was no
need for a Council of Social Advisers. He suggested that the
Council of Economic Advisers be expanded to become a council of
economic and social advisers; likewise, the Joint Economic Com¬
mittee (JEC) would become a joint economic and social committee
(Full Opportunity, 1967: 35-48). This recommendation was to be
repeated by several persons throughout the history of the pro¬
posal, particularly by economists.
In objecting that the social sciences were not ready for the
responsibility, most persons testifying admitted the need to de¬
velop more adequate social indicators, but others, such as Charles

161
Zwick, assistant director of the Bureau of the Budget, pointed out
that the comprehensive theoretical framework available to the
draftees of the Employment Act of 1946 was not available in the
social area in 1966 (Full Opportunity, 1967: 266). William Gorham,
then assistant secretary for program coordination in the Depart¬
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, noted that social scien¬
tists, by training, language, and professional reinforcements,
were "inclined to plead for further research before committing
themselves. . . . [therefore] it might be better to have a body
composed of elder statesmen, clergymen, civil rights activists,
and others distinguished by their sympathy for the disadvantaged
than social scientists" (Full Opportunity, 1967: 254).
Gorham's comments also touched on the objection that the
bill confused analysis and policy recommendation. The problem
arose because the Council of Social Advisers was to be assigned
the task of recommending program priorities in light of the data
it would gather. As Kenneth Boulding, then with the American
Economic Association, pointed out:
It should certainly be the business of the
Council of Social Advisers to develop so¬
cial indicators, and to process information
about the society in ways that will assist
very materially, the process of appraisal
of various programs. The final appraisal
of programs, however, must take place as a
result of a political process, involving a
subtle weighing and evaluating of many
different variables. I am sure that Congress
understands this very well, and it will be
tragic if any misunderstanding of the purpose
of the bill were to prevent it from being
*3aSS6C^' (Full Opportunity, 1967: 491 )

162
Douglas Rae, a political scientist at Yale testifying in support
of the bill, tried to clarify this part of the language by saying
that the Council of Social Advisers would comment on programs
not policies (Full Opportunity, 1967: 417-18). In written
comments Harold Orlans, at the Brookings Institution, suggested
that even the task of evaluating program effectiveness and recom¬
mending priorities based on this evaluation would place too great
a strain on the Council of Social Advisers and would hinder its
improvement of available data on social problems. Orlans noted that
" . . . the scientific pretentiousness and political obliviousness
of some (not all) proponents of national social accounting are an
obstacle to the achievement of the more modest but more realistic
goal of improving our data on significant national problems"
(Full Opportunity, 1967: 510).
Finally, a significant objection was made to the executive
orientation of the bill. Mondale's proposal would establish an
analytical staff in the White House without a comparable unit
within Congress. Amitai Etzioni, a sociologist at Columbia Univer¬
sity, stressed the need for competing centers of analysis.
The rapid growth of the federal R & D sector
left our society with . . . very sizable im¬
balances in our knowledge-producing capacity
. . . [including one] between the executive
branch and the Congress. The pending act
would further exacerbate this imbalance in
favor of the executive ... by making Con¬
gress even more dependent on the executive
for information about the state of society
and the effects of the executive programs on

163
the state of the nation. . . . [Therefore]
the analysis of the data [at least in part]
should be done in a facility attached to
Congress. Without such a close link, so¬
cial accounting will be largely the execu-
tive's account.
(Full Opportunity, 1967: 151-52)
During 1967 and 1968, with a Democratic Congress and an activist
Democratic President, little concern was given to the institu¬
tional capability of Congress vis-a-vis the executive.
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH POSITION
Seven executive branch agencies testified or supplied comments,
generally agreeing with the objectives of S. 843 and disagreeing
with the means. After all, the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare had been working on social indicators (Full Oppor¬
tunity, 1967: 249-54, 495), and PPBS had been instituted to
evaluate and compare program effectiveness (Full Opportunity,
1967: 515-16). The administrative agencies noted the difference
between the mandate of the Council of Economic Advisers and of
the proposed Council of Social Advisers. For example, Charles
Zwick, whose Bureau of the Budget coordinated agency testimony
on the bill, pointed out that in 1946 specific objectives could
be listed for the President's economic report. In contrast, the
goals of S. 843 were overly general. Gardner Ackley, chairman of
the Council of Economic Advisers, agreed noting that the state¬
ment of purpose of the 1946 Act

164
can be and has been translated into a fairly
unambiguous goal of maximum growth of total
output that is consistent with price stability;
and an essentially private economy, without
direct controls. Further, there is general
agreement on fiscal and monetary policies as
tools. . . .
The declaration of purpose in S. 843 is
far from parallel to that of the employment
act. No substantial body of expert or public
opinion would today agree on what it means to
give "every American the opportunity to live
in decency and dignity. ..." Nor is there
any body even of expert opinion that can today
prescribe a set of policies that will assuredly
advance rather than inhibit opportunities to
live in decency and dignity in all of the dimen¬
sions suggested.
(Full Opportunity, 1967: 484)
MONDALE'S RESPONSE AND MODIFICATION
Mondale responded to the suggestion to add social concerns to
the mandate of the Council of Economic Advisers by saying that the
Council of Economic Advisers does not want to, nor can it, deal
with a broad spectrum of social issues; social concerns would re¬
main subordinate to economic concerns in a council of economic
and social advisers. Mondale suggested that a merger was possible
after the Council of Social Advisers had been established and the
social sciences nurtured (Full Opportunity, 1967: 132).
Mondale did make a few minor modifications in the first round
of hearings. The most important for strategic policy assessment
concerns was the addition of a statement on the analysis of the
long-range aspects of social policies as part of the responsibility
of the Council of Social Advisers. Mondale had wanted a "futurist"

165
reform, and his staff had examined most of the available litera¬
ture; yet the bill did not sufficiently reflect their concerns.
Added to the duties of the Council of Social Advisers, then, was
the mandate "to make and furnish such studies, reports, thereon,
and recommendations with respect to programs, activities, and
legislation that the President may request and appraising long-
range aspects of social policy consistent with the policy declared
in Section 2" (Full Opportunity, 1970a: 6-7).
But the Mondale proposal was destined no further than the
hearing room in the 90th Congress. Realizing there was insuffi¬
cient support in the full Government Operations Committee, Senator
Harris avoided bringing the bill to a vote in his subcommittee.
However, events worked changes in the distribution of com¬
mittee assignments in the Senate. The assassination of Robert F.
Kennedy (D., N.Y.) left an opening in 1968 in the Labor and Public
Welfare Committee (CLPW), and it was filled by Mondale. Special
subcommittees were used by CLPW's chairman, Senator Hill, to fa¬
cilitate the spirit of decentralized initiative prevalent on that
committee. In 1964 Senator Hill had created a Special Subcom¬
mittee on Poverty to handle Office of Economic Opportunity legis¬
lation (Price, 1972: 249). When Hill left at the end of 1968, he
was succeeded by Senator Ralph Yarborough (D., Tex.), who con¬
tinued the tradition of encouraging decentralized initiative. In
the 91st Congress Senator Mondale became chairman of CLPW's Sub¬
committee on Migratory Labor as well as of the Special Subcommittee

166
for Planning and Evaluation of Social Programs, specially created
to handle Mondale's bill.
THE 91 ST CONGRESS
Senator Mondale introduced his bill early in the 91st Con¬
gress (hence the low number, S. 5), dropping the term social
accounting; the bill was simply the Full Opportunity Act. The
bill was cosponsored by twenty-three other senators and referred
to the Labor and Public Welfare Committee, where Mondale waited
as chairman of the special subcommittee. While the special sub¬
committee was not equipped with a staff, it allowed Mondale to
hold hearings and to assign Herb Jasper, originally on Mondale's
personal staff, from 1970 through 1972 on his Migratory Labor
Subcommittee staff, to work part time on the bill and act as
counsel to the special subcommittee.
THE ADMINISTRATION'S RESPONSE TO SOCIAL REPORTING
One of the last official acts of the Johnson administration,
on January 19, 1969, had been to issue Toward a Social Report
(1969), the result of work in the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare on social indicators. Not to be outdone in the field
of social reporting, President Nixon made three major changes
relevant to S. 5.
(1) The centralized responsibility for government-wide social
indicators was moved to the Bureau of the Budget. The Office of

167
Statistical Policy in the Bureau of the Budget was to assemble in
a single periodic publication the major social measures available
(Full Opportunity, 1970a: 142).
(2) The Urban Advisory Committee was established and given the
task of policy coordination analogous to the task of the proposed
Council of Social Advisers. Under the direction of Daniel Patrick
Moynihan, this cabinet-level group was to devise a national urban
policy. In his message on the UAC, the President said that the
United States has never had a policy "coherent, consistent, posi¬
tive as to what the national government would hope to see happen;
what it will encourage, what it will discourage" (FR Vol. 34:
1223). The committee was to define that policy. In the executive
reorganization of 1970, the UAC was replaced by the Domestic Coun¬
cil. With more working staff and agency support than the com¬
mittee, the Domestic Council was to fulfill five functions:
clarification of goals, development of alternatives, formulation
of policy, coordination of policy, and review of policy (Graham,
forthcoming). In the process it would be recommending integrated
sets of policy choices in relation to national priorities. Thus,
the description of its functions (though not, in reality, its
operations) was similar to that of the Council of Social Advisers.
(3) The Nixon administration established the National Goals
Research Staff. As Otis Graham pointed out, "Moynihan understood
that policy coordination required some thought about national goals,
and under his prodding a National Goals Research Staff was set up

168
in the White House" (Graham, forthcoming). In his statement
establishing the goals staff, Nixon said that its purpose was "to
assemble data that could help illumine the possible range of
choices for 1976—our 200th Anniversary . . . setting forth some
of the key choices open to us and examining the consequences of
these choices" (Nixon, 1970). As an official involved in producing
the Democrat's Toward a social Report put it, "national goals"
is a congenial phrase for Republicans. President Eisenhower had
a Commission on Goals for Americans. President Nixon used it to
express Republican interest in both social indicators and futures-
type programs.
However, the Nixon administration's commitment to the three
changes was not as strong as their speedy establishment might
suggest. The social indicators publication begun by the Bureau of
the Budget in 1969 was not printed until 1973 (social indicators,
1973). The Domestic Council, despite its mandate, was never ade¬
quately staffed to do the analysis necessary for overall domestic
policy coordination. The National Goals Research Staff ended
abruptly after one year, its first report, Toward Balanced Growth-
Quantity with Quality (1970), presenting little more than bland
descriptions of trends without confronting the hard policy choices
or questioning underlying assumptions.
THE FALL AND WINTER HEARINGS
Hearings in the 91st Congress reflected the same academic bias
as in the previous Congress. Mondale arranged for nine academics

169
to testify, and twelve others sent comments. Also represented
were one person from organized labor and one from the civil rights
movement. Mondale had six former Democratic officials give testi¬
mony or provide comments in support of S. 5. Eight agencies pre¬
sented the united opposition of the Nixon administration. The ar¬
guments for and against were basically similar to those given
during the previous Congress.
However, some major statements did emerge. For example, Joseph
Califano, former special assistant to President Johnson, gave his
often-quoted summary of the information used to make social policy
in the Johnson administration:
The disturbing truth is that the basis of
recommendations by an American Cabinet offi¬
cer of whether to begin, eliminate, or ex¬
pand vast social programs, more nearly re¬
sembles the intuitive judgment of a benevo¬
lent tribal chief in remote Africa, than
the elaborate sophisticated data with which
the Secretary of Defense supports a new ma¬
jor weapons system.
(Full Opportunity, 1970a: 204)
The need of better analysis for social programs found support from
research groups. Ernest Hilgard, a professor of psychology and
education at Stanford, chairman of j:he Behavioral and Social
Sciences Survey Committee of the Social Science Research Council
(the BASS committee), reported basic recommendations (NAS, 1968).
First, a system of social indicators should be developed by the
federal government as part of the national data system. Second,

170
the National Academy of Sciences and National Research Council
should be used to coordinate efforts to develop, on a provisional
basis, an annual social report. Third, the Council of Social Ad¬
visers should be established when "it has been demonstrated that
a useful and objective report is feasible, one that will set forth
alternatives relatively independent of the immediate political
climate" (Full Opportunity, 1970a: 226). This recommendation
underlined a split within the social science communities over the
direction of social indicators research. One faction, led by
Eleanor Sheldon, from the Russell Sage Foundation, took the posi¬
tion that indicators research should be directed at developing
measures useful for determining social change. Other social
scientists were more interested in the applied purposes of social
indicators, such as policy evaluation. Thus, the BASS committee,
taking the position of less immediate policy relevance, gave more
qualified support for the Council of Social Advisers than might
otherwise be expected of the social science community. Reports
from the Committee on Government Programs of the National Academy
of Sciences (NAS, 1968) and from the National Science Foundation
(NSF, 1969) also called for more analysis for government programs.^
One of the politicians who testified in the 91st Congress
was Representative Claude Pepper (D., Fla.). During the 91st
Congress and the next two, Pepper introduced a companion measure
to S. 5 (as a senator, Pepper had encouraged the passage of the

171
Employment Act of 1946) where the bill was assigned to the Rules
Committee, of which Pepper was a member. When he became chairman
of a Select Committee on Crime and involved in that work, Pepper
no longer pushed the Mondale proposal although he did reintroduce
it subsequently.
TITLE II, SENATOR JAVITS, AND PRIORITY SETTING
During the 91st Congress, marked by the continuing war in Viet
Nam and the beginning of a Republican administration, the Demo¬
cratic Congress, especially liberal members of the Senate, became
more concerned with the role of Congress in setting national
priorities. Senator Wi11iam Proxmire (D., Wis.) used his subcom¬
mittee of the Joint Economic Committee to hold hearings on
"changing national priorities" (JEC, 1970). He also proposed es¬
tablishing a national priorities staff within the Joint Economic
Committée... Meanwhile, Senator Gaylord Nelson (D., Wis.) had pro¬
posed a Joint Congressional Committee on National Priorities,
and Senator Abraham Ribicoff (D., Conn.) had held hearings on the
possible extension of the role of the comptroller general in the
priority-setting area. In addition to these proposed reforms, there
were some increases in the analytical capacity of Congress pro¬
vided by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (see Chapter 1).
The legislative initiatives most important for S. 5 were those
of Senator Jacob Javits (R., N.Y.). In the 90th Congress Javits
had proposed a committee on federal budget priorities and expenditures
#

172
policy. Failing to have the bill considered in the 90th and 91st
Congresses by the Government Operations Committee, Javits had
tried to append his proposal to a bill on the floor of the Senate.
The amendment failed by a narrow margin, and davits was looking
for another bill to which he could add his proposal. The Senate
rules made it advantageous to find a bill that might be amended
in committee, S. 5 was a likely candidate, and Senator Mondale
agreed.
Senator Javits noted that congressional attempts to shape
national priorities through appropriations bills had "made mani¬
fest the great need to provide Congress with the requisite data
and analytic tools for critical and sophisticated analysis of
both existing and proposed national programs, and on national
resources" (Full Opportunity, 1970a: 234). His Title II of the
expanded S. 5 would establish an Office of National Goals and
Priorities Analysis (OGPA) for Congress. The office would submit
to Congress each year a national priorities report which would
include, but not be limited to:
An analysis in terms of national priorities of the
annual budget submitted by the President, and of the
Economic Report of the President, and the Social Re¬
port of the President.
An examination of the resources available to the na¬
tion, the foreseeable costs and expected benefits of
existing and proposed federal programs, and the re¬
source and cost implications of alternative sets of
national priorities.

173
Recommendations concerning spending priorities among
federal programs, and courses of action, including
identification of those programs and courses of
action which should be given the greatest priority,
and those which could be more properly deferred.
(Full Opportunity, 1971: 13)
The Joint Economic Committee would hold hearings on the national
goals and priorities report and on other studies produced by the
office. In effect Congress would be supplying itself with an in¬
stitution analogous to the President's Bureau of the Budget. Thus,
to Mondale's proposal for an executive Council of Social Advisers
was added Javits' proposal for a congressional Bureau of the Budget
On March 13, 1970, another day of hearings was held on the
amended bill. In addition to Senator Javits, Senator Charles H.
Percy (R., Ill.), now the twenty-fifth cosponsor of the bill,
joined in supporting S. 5. Charles Zwick, who as assistant director
of the Bureau of the Budget led the Johnson administration's oppo¬
sition to the proposal in 1967, now testified in support of S. 5.
Zwick reviewed his 1967 testimony and pointed out that the Johnson
administration had been in agreement with the objectives of the
bill but had thought the Council of Social Advisers premature. De¬
velopments since then in social indicators had changed this objec¬
tion. Zwick supported establishment of the Council of Social Ad¬
visers and criticized the Nixon administration for the "retro¬
gression" of their position. He added that the Nixon reorganization
plan, revealed on March 12, made a Council of Social Advisers even

174
more important. The Domestic Council created by the President
and staffed by his appointees would be unavailable to Congress be¬
cause of executive privilege. The lack of congressional access
would make the advisers' annual social report more important for
judging executive actions on social programs (Full Opportunity,
1970a: 250). Other Democrats out of the administration also
supported Mondale's proposal, either in whole or part: Wilbur
Cohen, former Secretary of the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare; Mancur Olson; Joseph Califano; Charles Barr, former
Secretary of the Treasury; and Leonard Keyserling, former chair-
5
man of the Council of Economic Advisers.
The Nixon administration's opposition, led by Maurice Mann,
assistant director of the Bureau of the Budget, was similar to
that of the Johnson administration; namely, that social science
analysis was currently inadequate. The opposition argued that ex¬
tensive activities were being undertaken within the administra¬
tion by the Urban Affairs Committee, the Bureau of the Budget,
and several departments. S. 5, they claimed, represented Congress
telling the President how he should structure his executive
office: "The proliferation of statutory units in the executive
office would impair the flexibility of the President to organize
his office as he sees fit. Moreover, an increase in such units
could create a major coordination problem for the President and
the White House staff" (Full Opportunity, 1970a: 145).

175
COMMITTEE AND SENATE ACTION
On April 8, 1970, S. 5 was considered and passed by Senator
Mondale's subcommittee. On July 1 it was passed by the full Com¬
mittee on Labor and Public Welfare. In both cases the twenty-five
members cosponsoring the bill included a majority of the sub¬
committee and the full committee; there was never any question of
passage.
However, a significant change was made at the committee level.
In executive session, after the members had agreed to the bill,
Senator Claiborne Pell (D., R.I.) suggested to Mondale that it
might not be a good idea to have another congressional committee.
Although Mondale favored keeping the Joint Committee on the
Social Report in the bill, he replied that its inclusion had some¬
what bothered him and put it to the members as they were leaving.
The full committee agreed to drop it. Thus, the report issued by
the Council of Social Advisers--rather than going to a joint com¬
mittee created to give it special attention--would be referred to
the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare and the House
Committees on Education and Labor and on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce
The committee report recommending Senate passage of S. 5 (Full
Opportunity, 1970b) gave the normal justifications that Mondale
and others had made since 1967 and added in defense of Title I
that the Council of Social Advisers would fit in with President
Nixon's reorganization plan for the Executive Office of the

176
President by providing the Domestic Council with the information
necessary to make policy recommendations to the President (Full
Opportunity, 1970b: 3). Title II, on the other hand, was justified
as the counterpart to the Council of Social Advisers, "serving
Congress in its examination of budget proposals, program costs
and effectiveness, and national priorities revealed in the
spending." The report also noted that it would aid Congress as
the Domestic Council, the Office of Management and Budget, the
National Security Council, the Office and Council of Environment
Quality, and the Council of Economic Advisers aid the President
by supplying analysis for programs. The report then incorporated
some major discussions from hearings of the 90th as well as the
91st Congress (Full Opportunity, 1970b: 6-11).
On September 10, 1970, the Senate considered S. 5. Senators
Mondale, Javits, and Proxmire spoke for the bill. Senators Peter
H. Dominick (R., Colo.), Robert Griffin (R., Mich.) and John T.
Williams (R., Del.) spoke against it. Dominick raised several
objections:
S. 5 would mandate an office the President
did not want. . . . The proposed amount,
$900,000, would mean a large staff in addi¬
tion to the three members of the CSA. . . .
The council would be involved in overseeing
activities of every state and local govern¬
ment. . . . The CSA would act as a general
overseer group for all federal government
action, designed to establish for the White
House and for Congress the "social order"
as they see it. . . . Congress would not be
able to coordinate the February 15th social

177
report that it receives from the Presi¬
dent, with its own March 1st report pro¬
vided by the Congressional Office of
Goals and Priorities Analysis. . . .
The proposal would give money to staff
people, and not the poor and needy.
(CR, 1970: SI5164)
Senator John Williams commented "perhaps they got the Title 'Full
Opportunity Act1 from the fact that it would give an opportunity
to the Commissioners to promote their own welfare by giving them
a job" (CR, 1970: SI 5166). Despite these objections, S. 5 was
passed by a vote of 31 to 24, divided along partisan and ideo¬
logical lines; of the 24 opposed, all were either Republicans
or Southern Democrats. Meanwhile in the House, the companion bill
did not move. Representative Pepper had been distracted by other
legislative work.
THE 92ND CONGRESS
On January 25, 1971, Mondale introduced S. 5 for himself and
twenty-four other senators (CR, 1971: S119-27). The SPA functions
of his proposal were the same, except that the section creating
a Joint Committee on the Social Report had been deleted. The
social report prepared by the Council of Social Advisers would be
referred to the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare and
the House Committees on Education and Labor and on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce. Thus, Title I was even more executive oriented

178
than when it was first introduced; the imbalance in analytical
capability was increased. The imbalance was mitigated, however,
by Title II, which would create an Office of Goals and Priorities
Analysis (OGPA).
With the addition of the Office of Goals and Priorities
Analysis, the date of the President's annual social report was
moved from March 20 to February 15. The Council of Social Advisers
had to report to the President in January rather than February.
Thus, the office, as critics pointed out, had only two weeks,
February 15 to March 1, to examine the President's social report
and add its comments on this report to its comments on the Presi¬
dent's budget and economic report.
No action by any committee was required in response to the
OGPA report. No committee was required to propose a set of con¬
gressional goals or budget priorities. However, the fact that the
Senate had gone on record in the 91st and again in the 92nd Con¬
gress in support of better priority-setting mechanisms for Con¬
gress was to have an important impact on the ultimate budget re¬
form adopted in the 93rd Congress.^
HEARINGS
The 92nd Congress continued the trend toward shortened hear¬
ings. In one day of hearings five witnesses represented the major
positions during that Congress. The administration's position,
presented by Dwight Ink of the 0MB, remained unchanged: developments

179
throughout the executive branch vitiated the need for a Council
of Social Advisers. The administration chose to ignore the
recommendation of its Population Commission supporting a Council
Of Social Advisers (Population and the American Future, 1972).
In the 91st Congress, Senator Proxmire had defended S. 5
during floor debate after assurances that the Office of Goals and
Priorities Analysis would not infringe on the prerogatives of
the Joint Economic Committee; the proposed Joint Committee on
the Social Report had already been dropped. During the 92nd Con¬
gress Proxmire was chairman of the Joint Economic Committee and
more concerned with retaining its dominant role in discussing
national priorities within Congress. During 1971 he had recom¬
mended enlarging the staff of the Joint Economic Committee to in¬
clude a national priorities section. In the 1971 hearings Prox¬
mire raised his objections about S. 51s infringing on the work
of the Joint Economic Committee to Mondale, but without satisfac¬
tion. They agreed to discuss their disagreements on the Senate
floor (Full Opportunity, 1971; 35).
Raymond Bauer, editor of the ground-breaking social indica¬
tors (1966), was brought to testify on behalf of the bill des¬
pite his initial reluctance to endorse the Council of Social Ad¬
visers because of the short life of the National Goals Research
Staff, to which he had been senior consultant. In his testimony
Bauer reviewed the fate of the goals staff and noted that had
they been a statutory body as the council would be, the goals

180
staff would have been more secure. Bauer suggested that several
executive branch developments and a growing body of social indi¬
cators knowledge had no "central nervous system," "no point of
coordination"; that the council would perform this role.
Even if the Council of Social Advisers was a statutory body,
Bauer went on, the White House had a tremendous power over it:
the "power to ignore." Social reporting would occur in the con¬
text of programs and policies of the administration in office,
and in that sense the annual social report would be a political
document. According to Bauer, the requisites for success of the
Council of Social Advisers, in addition to useful social indica¬
tors and social reporting, would include "diplomacy, skill, oppor¬
tunism, and luck" (Full Opportunity, 1971: 69).
Meanwhile, changes were taking place within the social science
community. Mondale noted after the hearings that he was pleased
that support from the social science community had increased for
the Council of Social Advisers (CR, 1971: SI3107). He pointed out
that those attending a symposium on "Applying Knowledge from the
Behavioral Sciences to Social Legislation" had come to support
what S. 5 called for, although they had not been as supportive
g
in the beginning. Nicholas Demerath, the executive officer of
the American Sociological Association, happily reported that "what
has been a mood of uncertainty has given way recently to one of
greater confidence, indeed a kind of restlessness to get on with
the task of fulfilling our promise to the Nation" (Full Opportunity,

181
1971: 88). Despite this formal support, debates continued within
the social science community. The Coleman report on educational
opportunity had stirred discussion of social science research as
"ammunition" in political debates on educational policy (Caldwell,
1970; Orlans, 1971; Henriot, 1970).^ "Social Science and the
Federal Government" (1971), a volume of the Annals of the Ameri¬
can Academy of Political and Social Science, and another edited
by Bertram Gross, "Political Intelligence for America's Future"
(1970), continued this discussion within the academic community.
Another development during the period of the 92nd Congress
was the counterbudget effort of the National Urban Coalition
(Benson & Wolman, 1971). Realizing that changing priorities had
to be rooted ultimately in federal expenditures, the National
Urban Coalition provided an alternative budget which offered
"careful estimates of the dimensions of national needs, and the
resources required to pay for them for each of the next five fis¬
cal years" (Full Opportunity, 1971: 56). Sol Linowitz, chairman
of the National Urban Coalition, noted in testimony how similar
the coalition's task was to that proposed for the Office of Goals
and Priorities Analysis. The absence of that ability in Congress,
he noted, "engenders Congressional dependence on the executive
branch with respect to the major contours of the budget, and
hence, the shape of our priorities" (Full Opportunity, 1971: 61).^

182
COMMITTEE AND SENATE ACTION
S. 5 passed the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare on June
5 by a vote of 13 to 2. Senator Dominick and Senator Robert Taft,
Jr. (R., Ohio), voted against it. In the report on S. 5, Taft
and Dominick supplied minority views reiterating most of Dominick's
objections at the time of the passage of S. 5 in the previous Con¬
gress (Full Opportunity, 1972: 15-16).
S. 5 was considered by the Senate on July 25, 1972. Móndale
and Javits led the debate, aided at the end by Senator Humphrey
and Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D., Mass.). The opposition was led
by Taft and Dominick, aided by Senators Carl T. Curtis (R., Neb.)
and Marlow W. Cook (R., Ky.).
Mondale took more seriously the opposition of Senator Prox-
mire. As a tactic to placate Proxmire's objections, Mondale had
seriously considered amending S. 5 so that the Council of Economic
Advisers would be expanded to a council of economic and social ad¬
visers. This expanded council would put out an economic report in
December and a social report in January to be considered by the
joint economic and social committee, an expanded Joint Economic
Committee. However, another arrangement was worked out between
Mondale and Proxmire as a floor amendment. Four amendments were
offered. The first was Mondale's compromise with Proxmire. The
Proxmire amendment would make the Joint Economic Committee re¬
sponsible for overseeing the operations of the Office of Goals

183
and Priorities Analysis. In addition, the office would "to the
maximum extent consistent with the provisions of this title,
accord priority to requests made by the JEC. . (CR, 1972:
S25233). Thus, Proxmire would effectively gain the enlarged
priorities staff he had proposed for the Joint Economic Committee.
Mondale and Javits supported Proxmire's amendment, but Taft
offered an amendment to Proxmire's amendment, to eliminate any
reference to the Joint Economic Committee, including the original
assignment that the joint committee hold hearings on the report
of the Office of Goals and Priorities Analysis. Faced with this
threat, Proxmire backed down, withdrawing his amendment in favor
of the original language giving the joint committee the duty to
hold hearings.
Senator William E. Brock (R., Tenn.) offered an amendment to
have the OGPA's assistant director appointed by the minority
leaders of the House and Senate, in the same fashion that the
Senate majority leader and House Speaker appoint the director.
Mondale and Javits supported this amendment as consistent with
strengthening the legislature in a bipartisan sense, and the
amendment was accepted by the Senate (CR, 1972: S25240). The
amendment was, however, not included in the version of S. 5 in¬
troduced in the next Congress.
Taft made one last attempt to amend the bill, by dropping
Title I. This amendment was quickly dispensed with. In the final
vote the bill passed 51 to 40. Those opposed were again either
Republicans or Southern Democrats (CR, 1972: S25244).

184
THE 93RD CONGRESS
In 1973, at the beginning of the 93rd Congress, Title I of
S. 5 was six years old; Title II was four years old; both had
passed the Senate twice. As the hearing record shows, support
came primarily from the academic community. As a Mondale staffer
put it, "It represents the interests of academicians about 90
percent; the people and the politicians do not understand the
need for it." The arguments for and against the Council of Social
Advisers had changed little, although there was more social in¬
dicators work available to discuss. Also, as the economy began
its downturn, there was less praise for the ability of the Coun¬
cil of Economic Advisers to tell the President how to "fine tune"
the economy. Titles I and II of S. 5 remained disjointed contribu¬
tions to the strategic policy assessment capabilities of Congress.
The titles' relationship would change during this Congress;
rather than continuing as uncoordinated parts of the one proposal,
they were totally separated.
THE POLITICAL SETTING; NIXON
At the beginning of the 93rd Congress President Nixon was riding
the crest of his landslide victory over George McGovern. Nixon
criticized Congress as "do nothing," and hisaides talked of being
able to govern with the support of a one-third minority of members
in Congress, just enough to prevent veto overrides. Nixon's assault
on Congress led the Senate to forego the practice of delaying the

185
introduction of bills until the President has the opportunity to
unveil his program in conjunction with the State of the Union
Address. In a flurry of activity during the first week of the
93rd Congress bills were introduced to show that Congress in fact
had its own programs. As a result, Mondale introduced S. 5 with
only five sponsors, counting himself and Javits.^ The bill by
this time had a low priority for Mondale. Therafter no work was
done to acquire cosponsors, and the bill was left with five sponsors,
rather than the twenty-five cosponsors of the 92nd Congress.
One reason for the lack of effort was the political climate
for social programs engendered by the Nixon presidency. As one
staffer put it, it "took the oomph out of the need for a Council
of Social Advisers." What liberal, he noted, would get excited
about establishing a Council of Social Advisers, only to have
Nixon appoint its members? Actions during the 93rd Congress were
intended to keep the bill alive for future times and better
Presidents.
Hearings on S. 5 during the 90th, 91st, and 92nd Congresses
had become progressively shorter. This trend continued in the
93rd Congress: there were no hearings at all. On July 18, 1973,
the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare passed S. 5 by
a vote of 13 to 3. Senator J. Glenn Beall, Jr. (R., Md.),
joined Dominick and Taft in opposition. The report was virtually
identical to that of the 92nd Congress, with an additional para¬
graph noting the work of the Joint Study Committee on Budget

186
Control and its recommendation for a congressional budget office
similar in function to the Office of Goals and Priorities Analysis
(Full Opportunity, 1973: 2).
Shortly thereafter, Senator Javits, with Mondale's agreement,
amended S. 5 by deleting Title II. Javits pointed out the
similarities between the Office of Goals and Priorities Analysis
and the Congressional Office of the Budget proposed by the Con¬
gressional Budgetary Procedures Act of 1973,.S. 1541 (CGO, 1974:
6-25). As a member of the Committee on Government Operations,
Javits had his title offered as an amendment to S. 1541, Senator
Ervin's budget proposal, for Javits realized that this committee
was the forum for Title II. Mondale concurred. Part of the credit
for the Senate's emphasis on priority setting through the budget
process must go to Javits' and Mondale's S. 5. Javits' persistence
in attempting to give Congress a mechanism for focusing on pri¬
orities made the Senate more amenable to this function of the
budget than the House was.
So Mondale's proposal was returned to nearly its original
condition, namely, to establish the Council of Social Advisers and
its annual social report. The Joint Committee on the Social Re¬
port had been eliminated. Information was still gathered on the
bill and related developments, but in a form similar to that for
S. 3050, namely, a compendium of sources developed by the CRS.
Genevieve Knezo, in the science policy division, had prepared
annotated bibliographies incorporated into the hearings in the

187
91st and the 92nd Congress (Full Opportunity, 1970a: 327-439; 1971:
113-90). In the 93rd Congress these bibliographies were circulated
in the form of a Congressional Research Service "multilith" on
social indicators (Knezo, 1973).
On September 11, 1973, S. 5 was considered on the Senate floor.
An important question was raised about which committee should have
jurisdiction over it. Senator Taft, realizing that the Government
Operations Committee was more conservative and therefore less
likely to accept the social awareness proposal, consulted with
its chairman, Sam Ervin, who agreed to demand that the bill be
referred to his committee for consideration. On the floor Ervin
stated that "this bill is clearly within the jurisdiction of the
Government Operations Committee" (CR, 1973: S29200). As Mondale
well knew, S. 843 had been considered by the Government Operations
Committee in the 90th Congress. Only artful drafting by Senator
Mondale and timely intercession of the pariiamentarian had sent
it to the Labor and Public Welfare Committee in the 91st Congress.
With the provision that the bill remain in committee for only
sixty days, Mondale agreed. Javits, a member of the Government
Operations Committee, concurred although he pointed out that sending
it there "will turn out perhaps not the optimum way to get this
particular bill passed" (CR, 1973: S29200).
That ended the floor debate; the bill was referred to the
Government Operations Committee. On November 24 the bill was called
up from the committee and placed on the calendar. Senator Ervin

188
had taken no action on the bill, and Mondale did not push for
reconsideration during the 93rd Congress. Thus, S. 5 received
favorable action in committee, but no action from the full Senate.
MEMBER GOALS AND ATTITUDES
It appears that Mondale's predominant goal in pursuing S. 5
was good policy. Mondale was interested in social programs and
social policy generally. The Council of Social Advisers repre¬
sented a way to provide the information necessary for better
social programs, although Mondale's conception of the good policy
process never adequately considered Congress as an institution.
In Mondale's bid for the presidency, his proposal for a Coun¬
cil of Social Advisers would be listed as one of many legislative
initiatives. Yet here, as with the foresight provision and S. 3050,
the goal of power beyond the chamber was not a major concern. As
a Mondale staffer put it, presidential aspirations were not among
Mondale's original considerations, or if they were, "he kept it
a good secret." In terms of institutional power Mondale, after he
eliminated the Joint Committee on the Social Report, had his pro¬
posal modified so that the social report went to the Labor and
Public Welfare Committee, of which he was a member. However, this
change is not very significant for Mondale's institutional posi¬
tion. In terms of reelection, as opposed to a career beyond the
chamber, only the normal press releases went out when Mondale
introduced the bill in each Congress, when it passed the Senate,

189
and when an endorsement came from an academic group or government
commission. However, such activity was not very significant for
his reelection efforts.
Good policy was the predominant reason for Javits' activities.
Other members of the committee had not reached the threshold
level of activity that would allow them to relate their actions
to specific goals, but they were able to respond to some of the
strategic policy assessment policy attitude questions. Other mem¬
bers of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare were less hope¬
ful than Mondale about the anticipatory capacity of the government,
particularly Congress. Five of the eight responding on level of
satisfaction with congressional search were dissatisfied. Most of
these members related the search question to a particular area
of concern, i.e., planning, individual initiatives by senators,
priority coordination. One committee member gave a useful descrip¬
tion of the search for problems in the political context of
Congress:
Search results from attempts to anticipate
future needs and issues so you can steal
them from somebody else. This works because
of the generally accepted gentlemen's agree¬
ment [in the Senate] that once you estab¬
lish a lead on an issue, others recognize
it as yours. Thus, the future is searched
by Senators' staff members looking for
issues. Less is done in this regard by com¬
mittee staffers unless it is at the direc¬
tion of the chairman. This search is related
to presidential aspirations, though not
always or necessarily so. You need to have
your own initiatives in order to get power
in the Senate and to make it look as if you
are working in the Senate for your constituents.

190
Three members were generally satisfied with congressional search
although they noted that subcommittee work spread members too
think and that search varied widely across the 535 members of
Congress.
Attitudes about the ability of the government to anticipate
problems before the crisis stage were consistently pessimistic.
Three members specifically mentioned human nature as the reason
for crisis decision making: "History shows that it is part of the
human beast." One Senator raised the fundamental question of the
role of the representative assembly:
There is a problem with legislating in ad¬
vance: programs cost money, the public does
not want something they don't think they
need, and they don't see the current need
for anticipated problems. . . . Congress
has a representative function. The public
which is represented is not interested in
the future in any specific terms. In effect
a member has to become a salesman for the
problem; a crisis helps sell the urgency
of the need to deal with the problem.
Some members, principally those with legislative proposals in
this area, noted that structural or institutional factors would
help raise issues more effectively. On the ability of the govern¬
ment to predict emerging problems, three members said they had
not thought about it. Another was impressed by the attempts at
forecasting in The Limits to Growth but lamented the fact that
these attempts could not be translated into specific policy

191
recommendations. Others noted the greater facility of making pre¬
dictions in physical rather than social areas.
Several members agreed that they did not receive or use much
in the way of forecasts or other future-oriented information. One
office surveyed the staff in response to this question and found
that the futures information received was primarily from lobbyists
and was disregarded when it did not agree with the staff's posi¬
tion. Other members, however, mentioned that they received and
used forecasts, specifically from the Joint Economic Committee
and the Congressional Research Service educational data system.
Among Labor and Public Welfare Committee members, there was little
familiarity with the subject lists, or emerging issues service,
of the Congressional Research Service.
The extent to which the government should direct or control
society drew a more complicated partisan division than was drawn
from the Bolling committee (see Chapter 3). One Democrat favored
heavy government involvement, while another was more cautious and
explicit, stating that the government should provide information
on options as well as leadership and advocacy but it should not
control tastes, wants, and desires. A liberal Republican who
responded noted that as a policy matter, the role of the govern¬
ment is to give direction. More conservative Republicans noted
that the government can exert control in certain areas and does
so by its programs, but according to one of them, this control
should occur in response to a need and not as "an intervention."

192
All the members responding to the question of the ability
of Congress to present a positive, inspiring vision of the future
agreed that Congress cannot do so except in specific areas. A
coherent vision is not possible "with 100 senatorial egomaniacs."
One, however, did note that Congress could play a more definite
part in presenting an inspiring and positive vision given a con¬
text of responsible parties with a large majority in Congress
and a president of the same party.
SUMMARY: SIX STAGES
The summary of S. 5's history in terms of six stages of ma¬
turity is as follows:
STAGE 1: INSTIGATION AND PUBLICIZING. Instigation and publi¬
cizing of the need for S. 5 began in the context of the Great
Society's concern for social problems, a concern fueled by the
riots from 1965 to 1967. Thus, highly visible social problems
coincided with large government programs and academic discussions
calling for social indicators and systems for social reporting
and social accounting. These schemes were discussed by columnists,
particularly liberal columnists such as Joseph Kraft. During the
next six years, publicity of the need for great social analysis
and more specifically, a council of social advisers and an annual
social report, came from several sources, primarily professional
associations and government commissions. Several government

193
commissions, such as the Population Commission, called for a
council of social advisers. Several academic studies called for
better social analysis and, in some cases, supported the Council
of Social Advisers. Mondale during these years made efforts to
publicize these occurrences on behalf of S. 5. However, social
analysis is not a "sexy" issue; it is not usually covered by the
press. News coverage was confined largely to specialized jour¬
nals, particularly in the social sciences. The arguments for a
council were seldom carried over into the popular press and
thereby into the development of a popular opinion about the
Council of Social Advisers.
STAGE 2; FORMULATION. Title I of S. 5 was written in 1967,
and its original formulation was only marginally modified in the
ensuing years. It had been formulated by Bill Shands and other
Mondale staffers. The principal outside person from whom Shands
sought advice was Bertram Gross, an academic who had been a key
staff person in the formulation of the Employment Act of 1946.
Throughout the early stage, there was no in-house source on
Mondale's staff to supply expertise on social science analysis or
the mechanism of national policy formulation.
The resulting formulation was a relatively simple duplica¬
tion of the process of economic reporting established by the
Employment Act of 1946. Namely, there would be a Council of
Social Advisers to provide an annual social report to Congress.
In Congress a joint committee would be created to handle the

194
report. Through this process the function of the Council of
Social Advisers would be to encourage the development of social
analysis and social reporting, much in the way that the Council
of Economic Advisers encouraged the growth of economic data and
analysis.
Title II was formulated by Senator Javits' staff in order to
provide Congress with the technical budgetary expertise the Presi¬
dent received from the Office of Management and Budget. The pro¬
posed congressional office would analyze goals and budget priorities
and report in March of each year. While this report would be con¬
sidered by the Joint Economic Committee, no other changes were to
be made in congressional decision making.
STAGE 3: INFORMATION GATHERING. Mondale profited from the de¬
centralization practiced in the Committee on Labor and Public Wel¬
fare (Price, 1972). Beginning in 1969, Mondale had a special sub¬
committee as the forum in which to consider S. 5. In 1973,when
the special subcommittee was eliminated, Mondale was still allowed
to gather information on S. 5 with the staff of his Subcommittee
on Children and Youth. Information was gathered in hearings during
the 90th, 91st, and 92nd Congress. These hearings became progress¬
ively shorter, primarily because the arguments remained basically
similar during this period. The major new information provided
was the product of developments in the social science community
and in the executive branch relevant to S. 5. Also during this
time, in a manner similar to that noted for S. 3050, the Congressional

195
Research Service prepared an analysis of developments in the social
indicators field, and this analysis was incorporated into the
hearing record in the 91st and 92nd Congress. For the 93rd Congress
there was a separate Congressional Research Service publication on
social indicators (Knezo, 1973). Herb Jasper, the major staff per¬
son on Mondale's special subcommittee, was most responsible for
information gathered during its existence. The political informa¬
tion, in terms of support and opposition that Jasper needed,
followed predictable partisan and ideological lines. Other opposi¬
tion came from Senator Proxmire because of the bill's implications
for his Joint Economic Committee. Jasper also monitored activities
in the House, but once Representative Pepper lost interest in
pushing the bill, there was nothing to be monitored. During the
93rd Congress no hearings were held, and little political informa¬
tion was gathered.
STAGE 4: INTEREST AGGREGATION. One of the factors necessary
for passage of a major strategic policy assessment reform, the
hypotheses of this research suggest, is a spectrum of support ex¬
tending beyond the professional interests most directly affected.
S. 5 fell short on this range. As one staff member put it, the
interests represented by S. 5 were 90 percent academic. Even this
support was weakened by disagreements within the social science
community over both the direction of social indicators research
and the use of a Council of Social Advisers to link social science
more directly to government. Academic support was further weakened

196
by the reluctance of social science organizations to endorse
legislation as other professional organizations do, such as the
medical and bar associations. Labor expressed very little support
for S. 5, although the labor representative who testified had
been involved in questions of social and policy analysis as a mem¬
ber of the Commission on Automation, Technology, and Economic
Progress. Likewise, one of the few businessmen to testify on S. 5
was lobbying for his own profession by suggesting that persons
familiar with the field of business management should be included
among members of the Council of Social Advisers (Full Opportunity,
1971: 102-111).
STAGE 5: MOBILIZATION. S. 5 passed the Senate twice, the Com¬
mittee on Labor and Public Welfare three times, indicating some
mobilization by Mondale and his staff; however, by the 93rd Con¬
gress, very little had been accomplished. The bill passed the
committee, but Mondale was more concerned with keeping the bill
alive than having it actually enacted into law. The opposition,
principally conservative Senators Taft and Dominick, were not too
concerned about mobilizing support to prevent the bill's passage.
Taft did ask Senator Sam Ervin to insure that the bill be referred
to the Committee on Government Operations in hope that if the bill
approached the point of enactment, the precedent would require
consideration by the more conservative Government Operations Com¬
mittee, as well as by the liberal Labor and Public Welfare
Committee.

197
The lack of organized support or opposition, either inside or
outside Congress, is a significant aspect of the bill's history.
Enough support was mobilized for S. 5 to pass the Senate twice;
yet the House never seriously considered the bill. Apparently,
Mondale and his staff made little effort to mobilize in the House.
As Mondale's staff pointed out, there was no real incentive for
Representative Pepper or other members to get involved so long
as the bill was considered almost exclusively a Mondale initia¬
tive. Pepper's interest sprang from his involvement as a senator
with the passage of the Employment Act of 1946; yet he was dis¬
tracted by other legislative duties and left the bill with no
champion on the House side.
STAGE 6: MODIFICATION. An early Strategic policy assessment
modification added to the duties of the Council of Social Ad¬
visors an explicit reference to a responsibility for long-term
analysis. A second modification eliminated the Joint Committee
on the Social Report at the suggestion of a member of the Labor
and Public Welfare Committee that a new committee for Congress
was unnecessary. Mondale was not very attached to the joint com¬
mittee idea, and he agreed to drop it. Another modification, con¬
sidered but not brought about, was to amend the bill, as many
had suggested, so that it would add to or expand the Joint
Economic Committee. The major modifications in the bill's history
were the addition and later deletion of Title II, Senator Javits'
proposal for a congressional Office of Goals and Priorities Analysis

198
Although the procedures in Title I and Title II were never really
intermeshed, the effect of Senator Javits' amendment was to counter¬
act the executive orientation of Title I.
Thus, the Mondale proposal for a Council of Social Advisers,
the "social policy in the White House" approach to 'strategic policy
assessment, had a long history in the Senate. It was spawned in
the right environment to keep it alive: a liberal Labor and Public
Welfare Committee and a Democratic and sufficiently liberal
Senate. Yet the proposal would go no further than the Senate be¬
cause the academic and research community was too divided to
supply significant outside support. Even those social scientists
who did endorse it were never effective in broadening support
for the bill.
The Democratic and Republican administrations were both opposed,
although the Nixon administration tried to co-opt some features of
the proposal through the Social indicators (1973) publication, the
National Research Goals Staff, and the Domestic Council. However,
realization of the inadequacy or failure of these efforts coin¬
cided with realization of the futility of giving a Council of
Social Advisers to a President opposed to social programs and to
congressional prerogatives.
NOTES
1. S. 843 declared:
In order to promote the general welfare, the Congress declares
that it is the continuing policy and responsibility of the

199
federal government, consistent with the primary responsibilities
of state and local governments and the private sector, to pro¬
mote and encourage such conditions as will give every American
the opportunity to live in decency and dignity, and to provide
a clear and precise picture of whether such conditions are
promoted and encouraged in such areas as health, education,
and training, rehabilitation, housing focational opportunities,
the arts and humanities, and specialists for the mentally ill
and retarded, the deprived, the abandoned, and the criminal,
and by measuring progress in meeting such needs.
(S. 843, Sec. 2, in Full Opportunity, 1967: 1-3)
2. Technological advances create new investment opportunities
which expect to be paid out of the enhanced earnings that they
produce. But there are clearly losses, e.g., the displacement
to the worker caused by technological change. There is often
a divergence between the private costs borne by an entrepre¬
neur and the social cost of production.
Although data on crime, health, dependent children, and the
like are collected by federal agencies, there is rarely any
effort to link these problems to underlying conditions, nor
is there full measure of the cost of these ills. Systematic
analysis of such data might suggest possible courses of re¬
medial action.
[Technology and the American Economy, 1966: 97-98)
3. Mondale added:
. . . for just as we thrash around in the area of social policy
today, so too did we thrash around in the area of economic
policy before 1946--making decisions on the basis of untested
theories and inadequate information, and assuming that cycli¬
cal ways of boom and bust were inevitable.
But 20 years ago, the Congress enacted the Employment Act
of 1946, establishing the Council of Economic Advisers and re¬
quiring the President to deliver to Congress an annual report
to Congress on the progress of the economy on the year past,
and prospects for the year ahead. In the two decades since
the enactment of that law, we have developed the sophisticated
capability to register every quiver in the U.S. economy. . . .
The sophisticated data of the Council of Economic Advisers,
and through the annual report of the President, the President's
policies and programs, have been given broad public exposure
while the report statistics accurately measure the performance
of the economy in comparison with past years.
We still debate economic policy, of course, but our deci¬
sions are now shaped on the basis of hard, factual information,
and our economy is doing far better than it has ever done
before. (Full Opportunity, 1967: 478)

200
4. The three reports provided mixed support for S. 5 beyond
their endorsement of advancing social science analysis. The BASS
committee called for a Council of Social Advisers only after it
had been shown that a social report was feasible and could be
done in a nonpolitical manner (NAS, 1969a). The National Academy
of Sciences Advisory Committee on Government Programs recommended
that the Office of Science and Technology be used for coordinating
information and that an institute for advanced research on public
policy be developed to stimulate better research and analysis
(NAS, 1968). The National Science Foundation's board called for
the expansion of the Council of Economic Advisers to include
social scientists (NSF, 1969).
In addition to the mixed support from these groups, the estab¬
lishment of the Council of Social Advisers was endorsed by the
President's Commission on the Causes of Violence.
5. Mondale commented to Zwick and Barr that
since leaving office, all of you come up now and said that
enlightenment, fresh air, and the honesty of not having to
serve in the executive has caused you to confess your error
[in opposing the establishment of a Council of Social Advisers].
Being a politician, this has happened to me many times, so
I think that it is good for the soul. Mr. Califano came up
and said the same thing. He used to be like a snake in the
grass on this issue, raising up to bite me everytime I tried
to get support for it, but he gave, as you know, excellent
testimony here recently in support of the bill.
(Full Opportunity, 1970a:255)
6. Congressman Pepper kept the Joint Committee on the Social
Report in his version of the bill. Mondale hoped that if the bills
ever moved through the House and Senate, the Joint Committee would
be in the House version and included in the conference committee
revision.
7. The Senate would approach budget reform largely as a means
to allow Congress to be more effective in setting national priori¬
ties, while the House would be more concerned with impoundment
control (CGO, 1974: xv). This Senate emphasis on policy and pri¬
orities was later reflected in the choice of the director for the
Congressional Budget Office. "In general, House Committee members
saw the Office as a neutral, analytical arm of Congress similar
to the General Accounting Office. Many Senate members, however,
preferred a more policy oriented agency that would actively recom¬
mend alternatives to the Administration's budget" (CQ, 1975: 59).
The Senate won, and Alice Rivlin, a senior fellow at the Brook¬
ings Institution and coauthor Of Setting National Priorities, was
chosen.

201
8.However, Mondale's interpretation of support from the 1971
conference was not reflected in the listing of its recommendations
in the S. 5 hearing text (Full Opportunity, 1971: 125).
9.In an influential article Peter Henriot raised the follow¬
ing "political questions about social indicators":
(I) Is the root of contemporary social problems a lack of in¬
formation or a conflict of interests? (2) What are the conse¬
quences of the political orientation of the proponents of
social indicators? (3) What political consequences follow
from the fact that social indicator systems are modeled upon
economic systems? (4) Can there be value neutrality in the
choice of questions asked in developing social indicator
systems? (5) What political consequences follow from the fact
that some phenomena can more readily be measured than oth¬
ers?. (6) What influences will lobbying pressures have on the
data gathering? (7) What influence will the character of a
particular agency have upon the gathering of the data?
(8) What is the political importance of the presentation of
a social report which utilizes systems of social indicators?
(9) What safeguards are necessary to prevent the "management
of data?" (10) Is it possible or desirable to prevent indi¬
cators from being used as vindicators and indicators?
(II) To how wide an audience will the data for social indi¬
cators be available? (12) What are the dangers to privacy
system of social indicators might involve? (13) What
upon administration will the use of social indicators
that a
impact
have?
(Henriot, 1970)
10.An annual report similar to the Counterbudget was the
Brookings series on setting National Priorities (Schultze, Hamil¬
ton & Schick, 1970; Schultze, Fried, Rivlin & Teeters, 1971).
These reports presented alternatives to the President's budget
proposal and were referred to during the hearings and floor de¬
bate as an example of the type of analysis that Congress should
be able to do for itself (e.g., Full Opportunity, 1971; CR, 1972:
S2541 ).
11.Herb Jasper left Mondale's staff in March, and the re¬
sponsibilities for S. 5 were transferred to Jim Verdier and
another congressional fellow from the American Academy for the
Advancement of Science, Pamela Ebert.

HYPOTHESES AND COMPARISONS

INTRODUCTION
In this chapter the degree of maturity of the three proposals
in terms of the six stages of legislative processing has been
used to test the hypotheses given in Chapter 2. A brief summary
of these stages for each bill precedes a consideration of the
hypotheses on committee factors and a comparison with previous
descriptions of the committees examined. The importance of member
goals and attitudes is then considered. Finally, the results of
these findings at the committee and member levels are summarized.
SIX STAGES IN LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY
How successfully were these strategic policy assessment (SPA)
proposals processed? How "mature" were they in terms of the six
stages of processing: (1) instigation and publicizing, (2) formu¬
lation, (3) information gathering, (4) interest aggregation,
(5) mobilization, and (6) modification?
Among these proposals only the foresight provision of the
Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 (H. Res. 988) was passed
during the 93rd Congress. The effects of crisis decision making
and the inadequacies of Congress in handling emerging problems
were well publicized in 1972 and early 1973. The issue of congres¬
sional reform, including SPA reforms, was instigated by the party
leadership in the House as well as by Representatives Richard
203

204
Bolling and John Culver. Information gathering was a rich and
involved process, the second major effort for the House since
1946. Information on the potential approaches to foresight by
committees came from a number of sources. The formulation of the
foresight provision, after the decision against a central com¬
mittee, was done by "hard science" staffers in conjunction with
testimony from the science policy division of the Congressional
Research Service (CRS). The major interests involved were Repre¬
sentative Culver's persistent demands, Representative David
Martin's acceptance of foresight as part of the responsibilities
of a separate oversight subcommittee for each committee, and the
bureaucratic interests of the Congressional Research Service.
Support in the committee was unanimous for the provision--if
not for the separate subcommittee—and once it was in the Bolling
committee's proposal, no further mobilization was necessary.
There was much mobilization for and against other parts of the
bill, but the foresight provision remained untouched. The only
modification, and one not aimed at the foresight provision, was
to retain the oversight-foresight mandate for committees while
leaving the establishment of a separate subcommittee to the
discretion of each committee.
The Full Opportunity and National Goals and Priorities Act
(S. 5) passed the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare
for the third time. The need for Title I, Senator Walter Mondale's
proposal for a Council of Social Advisers, received much publicity

205
in 1966 and 1967. During the height of Great Society programs,
urban riots, and much discussion of social indicators and social
reporting, Mondale and others wanted to do for social data and
social programs what the Employment Act of 1946 had done for
economic data and programs. Formulation came easily: a virtual
section-by-section duplication of the 1946 act, this time creating
a Council of Social Advisers. Information gathering continued
for the next six years as hearings were held in the 90th, 91st,
and 92nd Congress; each time progressively shorter, for the basic
issues had already been made clear. The Congressional Research
Service updated information on social indicators activity for
each Congress. Interest aggregation was a major failure in the
bill's history. Even in the early years, support never went much
beyond academic and professional groups. Opinion within the social
science community diverged on the need for the Council of Social
Advisers, and an effective lobbying campaign was never mounted.
Mobilization in the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare re¬
quired little effort, and little effort was likewise required
for Senate passage in the two previous Congresses, as Democrats
and liberal Republicans lined up against Republicans and conserv¬
ative Southern Democrats. In the 93rd Congress no effort was made
after the bill was sent back to the Senate floor from the Com¬
mittee on Government Operations. Another major shortcoming
throughout the bill's history, both in interest aggregation and
mobilization, was the failure to find an effective sponsor of

206
the bill on the House side. Finally, the bill was modified by
deletion of the proposed Joint Committee on the Social Report
and by addition, then deletion in the 93rd Congress, of Senator
Jacob Javits' proposal for a congressional Office of Goals and
Priority Analysis.
Senator Humphrey's Balanced National Growth and Development
Act of 1974 (S. 3050), an SPA reform of major proportions, was
still-born. Despite much publicity on the limits to growth, the
energy crisis, and related problems, the concern generated was
seldom translated into a concern for governmental decision-making
machinery. Some government commissions and reports publicized
the need in this area, but they did not provide much political
benefit for S. 3050. The issue was formulated by an ambitious
Humphrey staffer who was personally committed to it: James E.
Thornton. The impact of the changes in national decision making
would be felt in virtually every congressional committee and
government agency if national policy were developed in conscious
relation to growth and development goals. Given the fact that
Humphrey was not a member of the Committee on Government Opera¬
tions and that Sam Ervin, its chairman, was not interested in
the bill, Humphrey was behooved to use his own and Thornton's
imagination. They had the Congressional Research Service compile
annual lists of developments in the area of growth and develop¬
ment policy. A variety of means were used simultaneously to publi¬
cize and gather support for the need for growth policy and for

207
S. 3050. These means included amendments to bills reforming the
budget process and establishing a commission on supplies and
shortages, the establishment of a long-range policy development
process in the single policy area of national forests and range-
lands, commentary on the President's growth report, and testimony
used to advocate S. 3050 at hearings on other bills. Had the
bill been seriously considered, it would have brought out signifi¬
cant private and bureaucratic interests because of its scope,
and it would have been modified as a result. Since it was not
taken seriously, no modifications were made.
HYPOTHESES
In Chapter 2 the following hypotheses were presented:
MEMBER FACTORS
Action in sponsoring SPA legislation will be directly related
to the predominance of the good policy goal over reelection,
power in the chamber, or a career beyond the chamber.
Favorable activity on behalf of SPA legislation by sponsors
and supporters will be accompanied by the following beliefs or
judgments as elements of the SPA policy attitude:
1. That the ways in which Congress searches for
problems to consider are inadequate.
2. That emerging problems can be anticipated before
they reach a crisis stage.
3. That social events and conditions can be predicted
or that the capability to do so should be developed.

208
4. That the government should attempt to direct or
control future developments.
5. That Congress is at a comparative disadvantage
to the President in providing a large-scale "positive,
inspiring vision" for the nation.
6. That information on likely future conditions in¬
cluding Congressional Research Service lists of
emerging issues is available.
COMMITTEE FACTORS
Favorable committee action will be directly related to the
following factors:
1. A supportive committee or subcommittee chairman.
2. Staff interest or experience with SPA-related
activities as well as political information-gathering
and bargaining skills.
3. An ideologically liberal or Democratic majority
which perceives that SPA will raise social welfare or
government management issues or a congressional re¬
form majority which perceives that its institutional
position will be helped or at least not hurt by con¬
gressional adoption of SPA techniques.
4. Constituent-oriented and/or broadly based interest
group support and support from those groups with a
professional stake in SPA-related activity.
5. Positive activity from bureaucratic structures
(executive agencies and congressional support organi¬
zations) based on potential benefit from conducting
SPA activity or from its policy implications.
6. The extent to which the SPA proposal affects lower
levels of the ends-means chain; does not attempt to
analyze and force decisions across policy areas; uses
the existing committee structure without changes; and
offers no significant threat to the prevailing dis¬
tribution of power among members.
Correspondence of SPA proposals to these hypotheses will be
examined in terms of committee factors, then committee member
goals and elements of the SPA policy attitude.

209
COMMITTEE FACTORS
COMMITTEE AND SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMEN
The three SPA proposals indicated a favorable committee
chairman is a necessary but not sufficient factor in a proposal's
success. Representative Bolling favored the foresight provision,
although his support as chairman was less important because the
select committee operated more col 1egially than most standing
committees. Senator Harrison Williams supported Senator Mondale's
S. 5. Williams maintained the committee's pattern of allowing the
decentralization of power and the encouragement of personal initia¬
tives among members (Price, 1972). Williams had been preceded as
chairman by Senator Ralph Yarborough, who had given Mondale his own
special subcommittee to handle S. 5 in 1969. In the 93rd Congress
the special subcommittee was eliminated. Mondale was able to use
his standing subcommittee staff for work on S. 5, although keeping
the bill alive required little effort. S. 3050 suffered from an
unreceptive chairman, Sam Ervin, in the Committee on Government
Operations.
STAFF
Staff work on the three bills supported the hypothesized need
for SPA-relevant knowledge to formulate the proposals and for
political information-gathering and bargaining skills to mature
proposals that entail significant changes in the distribution of
power.

210
The Bolling committee staff contained at least three types
of members: hard science or science policy, political science,
and lawyer/politicos. Most important for the foresight provision
were the hard science types who translated the call for policy
planning and monitoring emerging conditions at the committee
level into the specific assignment of futures research and fore¬
casting. This translation occurred in conjunction with the efforts
of the science policy division of the Congressional Research
Service. Thus, background experience or familiarity with futures
research and forecasting were made available to other staff mem¬
bers more skilled at political information gathering. However,
once the foresight provision entered the Bolling committee's
major draft, it stayed there, and no further support was neces¬
sary as it was carried along with the bill. It would cause little
change in the distribution of power, either within or across the
House committees, and therefore required little political infor¬
mation gathering or bargaining.
Originally, S. 5 was drafted by a journalist working as an
American Political Science Associaton congressional fellow, with
help from other Mondale staffers and from Bertram Gross, a politi¬
cal scientist and former Senate staff person essential to the
Employment Act of 1946. Thus, knowledgeable persons were involved
in drafting the original bill. With a change in staff in the
91st Congress came some political information and bargaining
skills, but not enough to aid in widening support beyond academic

211
groups. By the 93rd Congress little staff effort was required in
order to keep the bill alive, although some additional information
gathering was done.
No committee staff worked on S. 3050. Instead, James E.
Thornton, originally staff director of Humphrey's Rural Develop¬
ment Subcommittee, was its formulator and entrepreneur. With back¬
ground experience in policy formulation, Thornton had developed
an expertise and a commitment to "process thinking." Because he
had formulated the massive and complex bill, he also knew where
it might be fit into congressional activities. This knowledge
became particularly important to Humphrey's need to push S. 3050
in forums other than the Senate Committee on Government Operations.
Information-gathering staff work was also provided by annual CRS
publications on developments in the growth policy area (CRS, 1972;
1973; 1974; 1975). Interest aggregation work was directed toward
various professional groups, such as the American Institute of
Planners, and government groups or associations, such as the Advi¬
sory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations and the National
League of Cities. But the full-scale efforts necessary for so
far-reaching a bill as S. 3050 were premature during the 93rd
Congress.
COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
In the two committees where the SPA proposals were dealt with,
one involved an ideologically liberal majority and the other, a

212
congressional reform majority. Yet these majorities were not
activated by potential effects of the SPA provisions.
The Democrats among Bolling committee members were more
liberal than average for House Democrats; the Republicans, as
conservative as their party's average in the House (Davidson,
1974: 10); but committee members did not perceive SPA as raising
social welfare or government management issues. They were a con¬
gressional reform majority. In fact, their distinguishing charac¬
teristic was institutional commitment to the Congress. What
Roger Davidson (1969) called marginal members, those who remain
in Washington from Tuesday to Thursday, were not represented on
the committee. Committee members thought foresight beneficial or
at least not harmful, and they were supportive of Culver's fore-
2
sight concerns. The congressional reform nature of the Bolling
committee was quickly made evident by the actions of the Demo¬
cratic caucus and the Hansen committee in amending the bill.
The membership of the Senate Committe on Labor and Public
Welfare (CLPW) was also more liberal than the average for the
Senate, yet only one member perceived that SPA by the Council of
Social Advisers would aid liberal programs. Most thought that
SPA would have no systematic bias toward liberal or conservative
programs, and some had not considered the question at all. Still,
an important factor in S. 5's committee passage was the support
of Mondale's friends on Labor and Public Welfare. This support
adhered to the pattern of decentralized initiative, deference,

213
and reciprocity among this committee's activists (Fenno, 1973;
Price, 1972). In the 93rd Congress Mondale brought Title I to
the floor after Senator Javits had separated his proposal. The
bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Government Opera¬
tions (CGO) because of an agreement between a conservative
Republican and a committee chairman. The conservative realized
that CGOs membership was more conservative than CLPW's, and the
committee chairman was ready to maintain his committee's insti¬
tutional prerogatives. CGO members who ventured an opinion of
the effects of SPA from either Humphrey's S. 3050 or Mondale's
S. 5 did not see any systematic bias from the analysis. Their
attitudes did not move them to push either bill. Given the
chairman's opposition, it was unlikely that effort would have
made a difference. Thus, the composition of the committee was
never an important factor, although Senator Taft's action sug¬
gests that it might have been if the SPA bills had been seriously
consi dered.
INTEREST GROUP SUPPORT
The studies of the three bills tend to confirm the hypothesis
of interest group support to the extent that a proposal involved
changes in structural arrangements in Congress or the executive.
The foresight provision, which did not involve such changes, was
3
passed without direct effort on its behalf. S. 5 made it through
the Senate twice, more from Mondale's efforts and from Democratic

214
and liberal support for both the Council of Social Advisers and
Javits' Office of Goals and Priorities Analysis than from interest
group activity. Interest group support never extended much beyond
academic or related professional groups. S. 5 was modeled after
the Employment Act of 1946. As noted in Chapter 1, "peak associ¬
ations" lined up on both sides of the 1946 act, and this lineup
was sufficient to insure sponsors and opponents in the Senate and
in the House, a level of activity resulting from fears of unem¬
ployment following World War II and involving large segments of
society. No such force was behind Mondale's proposal, despite the
Great Society programs, the urban riots of the 1960s, and the
social activism of the period. Support for the concepts, if not
the specifics, of S. 3050 came from national associations of
planners and architects, the cities, and the state governors.
Thus, some interest aggregation was effected despite the lack
of serious consideration of S. 3050 in Congress, but not enough
to force its consideration by the Committee on Government
Operations.
BUREAUCRATIC ACTIVITY
The hypothesized need for positive bureaucratic activity was
supported by two proposals, the foresight provision and S. 3050,
although the latter did so conversely, by the absence of bureau¬
cratic activity. However, S. 5 refuted the hypothesis by passing
the Senate despite persistent opposition from the executive branch.

215
The foresight provision engendered favorable activity from a
relevant bureaucracy: the Congressional Research Service science
policy division. The staff director of the Bolling committee and
the most relevant testimony for the foresight provision came
from the science policy division. The situation was analogous to
a committee asking the executive agency that will implement a bill
to become involved in drafting it. In this case the congressional
bureaucracy had realized from the beginning that its interests
were at stake.
S. 5 met with opposition from the Johnson and Nixon adminis¬
trations. Although the Democrats were concerned to express their
support of the bill's objectives, both Republicans and Democrats
were concerned that another coordinating group was not needed in
the White House, that the social sciences were not yet ready, and
that other existing units might perform the necessary data gather¬
ing and social analysis. The Council of Economic Advisers was
adamant about the inability of a Council of Social Advisers to
4
meet the assigned task. There were some chinks in the govern¬
mental opposition: Non-bureaucratic government commissions recom¬
mended the establishment of such a council. Indeed, the lack of
a significant bureaucratic support did not deter committee and
Senate passage of S. 5.
S. 3050 never progressed far enough to warrant executive
branch comment. The only reports filed with the Committee on
Government Operations came from the General Accounting Office,

216
which commented on technical questions, and the Advisory Commis¬
sion on Intergovernmental Relations, which endorsed the concept
of the bill and reiterated its endorsement of many specific
provisions.
SPA AS AN ISSUE
In Chapter 2 it was noted that SPA reforms may generate pat¬
terns of conflict reflecting substantive issues that the analysis
may aid, or the SPA reforms may generate conflict because of
changes to be made in the decision-making system. SPA reforms
were thought to generate conflict based on four related effects
that could result from an SPA reform: (1) a rise in the level of
the ends-means chain at which policy disputes take place; (2)
the degree to which the analysis forces the conscious interrela¬
tionship of decisions across policy areas or across committees;
(3) the changes required in existing structures; and (4) the
redistribution of power that is threatened.
The cases tended to support the expected relationships where
the proposal was seriously considered. Thus the minimal change
proposal (the foresight provision) raised no objections, while
the moderate change proposal (S. 5) generated some objections
and the maximal change proposal (S. 3050) was not considered.
The foresight provision calls for futures research and fore¬
casting which may clarify the relationship among means and ends
within a committee's policy areas. No committee is forced, nor

217
is any empowered, to enter the jurisdiction of another committee,
although committee analysis may raise the cross-committee impact
of actions on related policies. The foresight provision did not
require a change in the distribution of power within or among
5
committees. A central goals or growth committee had been con¬
sidered but was rejected because the Bolling committee felt that
members of the House would be opposed to any centralization of
power other than through a budget committee, which was being con¬
sidered elsewhere in the House during the 93rd Congress. The
foresight provision was untouched while other sections of the
Bolling committee proposal, particularly on committee jurisdic¬
tions, were ultimately defeated because of changes to be wrought
in power distribution. Thus, the foresight provision was not
perceived as requiring any1 significant shift in power.
S. 5 would tend to shift policy battles to higher levels on
the ends-means chain. In the executive the shift would occur
through the annual social report and the social advisers' recom¬
mendations on the President's budget and on specific means to
achieve stated ends. In Congress the shift would occur through
Senator Javits' Office of Goals and Priorities Analysis. The
office would clarify the choices facing Congress and the inter¬
relation of specific programs and congressional priorities. The
conscious interrelationship of decisions would be forced in the
executive and in Congress although the analysis would occur in
the context of existing organizations. The Office of Goals and
Priorities Analysis would operate with the current committee

218
structure and procedures, issuing its analysis of the President's
budget proposals and economic and social reports for the considera
tion of existing committees. Mondale's Title I was amended so
that the social reporting system would operate totally within the
context of existing committees. Thus, both titles would force
analysis of the interrelationship of decisions, but the use of
that analysis within existing structures would remain discretionary
S. 3050 would raise policy disputes to higher levels of the
ends-means chain, expressing programs in terms of their impact
on growth policy goals. Such a rise inherently involves cross¬
policy and cross-committee analysis, and it establishes a process
which makes it difficult to ignore the analysis. S. 3050 would
make major changes in structures for policy coordination in the
executive branch and Congress. The bill would create a network
of official and citizens advisory groups throughout the country
and establish a separate independent research foundation. Some
of these changes, such as the joint congressional committee,
were designed to sit on top of the existing structure of commit¬
tees and would include their chairmen; yet it is likely that
this and other changes proposed in the bill would affect the
distribution of power.
The impact of these factors inherent in any SPA reform had a
differing impact on the handling of the three proposals examined
here. The minimal change and discretionary analysis aspects of
the foresight provision aided in its passage; it aroused little

219
attention on these grounds. S. 5 generated opposition from both
Democratic and Republican administrations because of the changes
it would bring about. The Senate committee accepted the changes
in the executive, but eliminated the Joint Committee on the
Social Report; so there would be minimal change in Congress.
The fact that S. 3050 would cause significant changes was not
widely known, because the bill was not seriously considered, yet
it may have been one of the reasons for Senator Ervin's lack of
interest in the bill.
COMMITTEE COMPARISONS
How does the activity of the three committees on the bills
compare with the patterns of committee action described by Price
and Fenno? Price noted that the Senate Government Operations
Committee's "strengths" lay in instigation and publicizing and
in information gathering (1972: 312). In this sense, while the
Senate committee was jurisdictionally most relevant to changing
government structures to provide for SPA, it was ill prepared
to formulate and mobilize for SPA bills. S. 3050 found the corn-
mi tee reluctant to perform even its "strong" functions on an
already formulated bill. While the committee did pursue certain
specific reforms, such as the establishment of a Consumer Protec¬
tion Agency, it did not seek out wide-scale changes in the execu¬
tive branch. Senator Ervin was not interested in this issue, and
his time was taken up with the consumer protection issue, budget
reform, and the Watergate committee.

220
Humphrey's actions, when faced with an unresponsive Committee
on Government Operations, show another characteristic of the
Senate: the importance of individual, non-committee action.
Decision-making inside the Senate is much
less of a committee dominated process than
in the House. . . . [Senators] want to, can,
and do sustain a decision-making process
that is more individualistic and gives
greater influence to the individual legis¬
lator than is the case in the House.
(Fenno, 1973: 146, 147)
Humphrey promoted S. 3050 through diverse activities (see Chapter
4). While Humphrey was individually effective during the early
stages of the bill's history, committee action will ultimately
return to prominence if the bill is ever seriously considered.
The Select Committee on Committees, the Bolling committee,
differed from major standing committes of the House and Senate
in a number of respects that are relevant to our SPA concerns.
Select committees have been created in the House: to serve
interest groups lacking access to standing committees; to serve
individual congressmen and make use of particular talents; to
evade standing committees when circumstances make it necessary;
to perform specific duties in areas of overlapping committee
jurisdiction (Jewell & Patterson, 1973: 273). For the period of
the 93rd Congress the Bolling committee was to review and recom¬
mend changes in committee jurisdictions and procedures, includ¬
ing overlapping committee jurisdictions. Since the Joint Committee

221
on Congressional Operations, whose ongoing duty is to consider
committee operations, would not consider the problem of committee
jurisdictions, the select committee was chosen to examine them.
In addition to its singular purpose and bounded lifespan,
the Bolling committee was distinguished by the collegiality and
bipartisanship of its operation as well as by the quality of its
staff. The policy individualism and policy partisanship of the
House Education and Labor and Senate Labor and Public Welfare
Committees were absent. The Bolling committee resembled the non¬
partisan and less individualistic House Committee on Foreign
Affairs. As this committee during the period of Fenno's research,
then, dealt with one major bill a year, the foreign aid bill,
the Bolling committee similarly produced only one large proposal.
Policy initiatives for members thus meant the incorporation of
a desired change into the larger proposal. Culver insured the
presence of the foresight provision in H. Res. 988, the large
proposal and the object of attention.
Another distinction relevant to SPA reform was the nature of
good policy as pursued by the Bolling committee. The House Com¬
mittees on Education and Labor and on Foreign Affairs have been
described as dominated by the pursuit of good policy (Fenno, 1973).
The Bolling committee's good policy goal dealt with House pro¬
cedures and jurisdictions rather than with substantive policy.
Committee members had a greater commitment to effective House
operations and the reforms implied than the remainder of the

222
House. The Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare and the
House Committee on Education and Labor often produce bills which
are too liberal for the parent chamber. Rather than too liberal
or too conservative, the Bolling committee product was too "con¬
gressional reform" oriented, and sections dealing with committee
jurisdictions were rejected. The opposition to proposed changes
in House processes came, not from the partisan or ideological
groupings evident in response to good policy initiatives in the
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, but from a stake in the
system, or seniority alignment. The foresight provision, a
potentially important reform, did not require any shifts in power
and never became a target of the "congressional reform" opposi¬
tion to the jurisdictional changes.
The treatment of S. 5 by the Committee on Labor and Public
Welfare permits the greatest amount of comparison with previous
research. Price and Fenno ascribed general patterns of decentrali¬
zation, partisanship (muted by the presence of liberal Republi¬
cans), and active pursuit of policy individualism to this commit¬
tee, and these patterns were reflected in the case of S. 5.
Liberal Republicans, particularly Senator Jacob Javits, showed
muted partisanship while encouraging liberal policy individualism.
As liberals and activists, the committee's Democrats were "even
more supportive of policy individualism and in no sense view[ed]
themselves as merely responding to initiatives taken in the policy
environment" (Fenno, 1973: 169). Control of committee staff aug¬
mented this liberal predominance. Javits' control over minority

223
staff in the Labor and Public Welfare Committee often left con-
♦
servative Republic Peter Dominick to muster the oppos'tion without
aid from committee staff (Price, 1972). Conservatives suffered
similarly in Mondale's special subcommittee on S. 5, where Javits
was the ranking minority member.
S. 5 also fits the pattern of liberal senatorial activism
and “public" style (Price, 1972). That members of the Committee
on Labor and Public Welfare at times assume policy leadership
puts them in the position of creating a demand for their legis¬
lation. This committee's members have been known to prod outside
groups to support a senatorial initiative--"the echo creating
the yell" (Price, 1972: 229). Mondale tried to do so with S. 5
and the aid of the Labor and Public Welfare Commitee and the
full Senate. That the "yell" was never loud enough is reflected
by the fact that the House would not consider S. 5.
MEMBER GOALS
Our discussion has suggested numerous factors at the committee
level that are relevant to SPA proposals, but the focus on com¬
mittees should not obscure the importance of the policy entre¬
preneur. The case approach was chosen because it gives some clues
why the phenomenon of "policy making remains singularly resistant
to theory building and generalization" (Price, 1972: 306).
The notion of role has been widely used in studies of Congress,
but few attempts have been made to link role orientations to the

224
legislative efforts that individuals and committees do or do not
undertake (Price, 1972: 339). In this study member goals have
been used to understand the nature of legislative responsibility
shown in the three SPA proposals. By use of goal categories sug¬
gested by Fenno (1973), it was hypothesized that the goal of good
policy would predominate over goals like reelection or power in
the chamber. The case studies have supported this hypothesis that
the goal of good policy would be predominant over the goals of
reelection or power in the chamber in determining SPA-related
action. However, this support and the information gathered on the
relative importance of goals does not adequately explain the ini¬
tiatives taken in the SPA area.
Fenno used the goal categories to understand the general pat¬
terns of reinforcement which differentiate certain committees.
The behavior involved in processing legislative initiatives is
too specific to be fully understood by categories aimed at more
diffuse or aggregate forms of behavior. Why Culver, Humphrey, and
Mondale chose to pursue SPA-related changes has been among our
concerns. In each case study there was a particular set of circum¬
stances that led these members to pursue the specific SPA proposals.
For Mondale a Joseph Kraft column struck a responsive chord:
the idea of social reporting and the mechanism of a Council of
Social Advisers fell neatly together. At the time Mondale did not
belong to the Labor and Public Welfare Committee, and he was dis¬
satisfied with his inability to work more actively on social

225
issues. The social advisers idea allowed him to fill a personal
void as a policy maker with something he thought imaginative and
futuristic. He used his personal staff resources and advice neces¬
sary to formulate the bill, and he had a favorable colleague,
Senator Fred Harris, ready to hold hearings in the 90th Congress.
From the 91st Congress on, Mondale had his own special subcom¬
mittee for the bill.
Hubert Humphrey returned to the Senate in 1970 after four
years as Vice-President. Working in the Subcommittee on Rural
Development, Humphrey began to be concerned with the larger con¬
text of the problems of rural areas: national growth policy. His
subcommittee staff director was experienced and committed to
the idea of a more coherent national policy-making process. As
a member of the Government Operations Committee, Humphrey found
that the growth policy bill offered a significant initiative to
be taken in that committee. His bid for the presidency in 1972
led him from the Government Operations Committee to the Foreign
Relations Committee. However, this switch did not stop Humphrey's
or his staff member's efforts to formulate an SPA proposal and
then publicize the need for it in a variety of forums.
John Culver had shown a variety of policy and organizational
skills, both as chairman of the House Democratic Study Group and
in the Democratic Party's national policy committee. In the House
he was frustrated by the small amount of creative work done by
the Government Operations Committee, of which he was a member.

226
Culver had a driving concern for the problems of crisis decision
making and the outmoded habits of Congress, reinforced by his
friendship with Alvin Toffler. Culver was one of the representa¬
tives who prompted the formation of the Select Committee on Com¬
mittees to address the questions of modernizing the House. Once
the committee was formed and effectively staffed, the foresight
provision developed as a logical progression of Culver's intense
interest in the operations and choices of the Bolling committee.
SPA POLICY ATTITUDE
It was found that these attitudes were not sufficiently
related to support or opposition of the SPA proposals to allow
testing of the hypotheses across those interviewed, except for
the response on the ability of the government to anticipate
crises. Sponsors were more optimistic than others that the
emerging problems could be dealt with before the crisis stage.
For Humphrey, Mondale, and Culver a variety of perceptions
led them to advocate specific SPA reforms. What were their SPA
policy attitudes? How do their atittudes compare with the atti¬
tudes of those who were not as active in the SPA areas? And
what, if any, relation do these policy attitudes have to specific
SPA formulations? In this section the responses have been examined
to the questions on members' SPA policy attitudes. Since the
focus of this research was committee activity, questions were
asked of the members of the two Senate committees and one House

227
committee. The responses have been grouped, with distinctions made
on the basis of partisanship, ideology, and level of SPA activity
(principal sponsor or not). While the group interviewed was not
a representative sample of members of Congress, the responses are
useful for the issues they raised as well as for what is shown
about the sponsors of SPA bills.
The questions used to explore the dimensions of the SPA policy
attitude dealt with topics that are not in the normal range of
discourse for most members of Congress, and these questions were
open-ended rather than fixed response. Thus, a variety of
responses and nonresponses were received. Consequently, some
answers to these questions did not lend themselves to meaningful
categorization. Other answers were more consistent. The presen¬
tation of the responses will reflect these variations. Senator
Humphrey has been added as a sponsor although he was not a member
of either of the two Senate committees.
Taken together, the responses to questions about the search
for problems and the ability to anticipate problems provided an
interesting picture of Congress and allowed some differentiation
between those most active on SPA issues and others. Three-quarters
of those who responded were dissatisfied with the ways in which
Congress normally searches for problems. Those who were satisfied
felt that Congress was successful in dealing with all the rele¬
vant, politically important issues. The sponsors of SPA legisla¬
tion expressed dissatisfaction with congressional search procedures,

228
but they were in the minority in expressing optimism that the
government could anticipate problems before the crisis stage.
Only one-quarter of those responding thought the government
could avoid crisis decision making. Of the pessimistic majority,
one-third specifically mentioned human nature as a root cause:
". . . can't change human nature; the structure is there, it's
the political will that is missing" and "History shows that it
[crisis decision making] is part of the human beast."
Several of those both optimistic and pessimistic about antici¬
pating crises mentioned the importance of institutional arrange¬
ments for identifying problems and forcing the government to
confront emerging problems. One articulate conservative, who had
expressed his satisfaction with the search for problems by the
Congress, was pessimistic about the ability of Congress--and
democratic government generally, regardless of institutional
mechanisms--to anticipate crises:
Forcing the country to meet problems before
they reach a crisis stage necessitates a
discipline that isn't in the personal or
political lives of the people.
The people perceived energy to be a crisis
and acted in a disciplined way for a short
time; they showed self-discipline. Whether
inflation will have the same result is un¬
clear, especially if it means hurting the
pocketbook.
. . . Congress is ill equipped emotionally
to declare good policy . . . [but] there
is nothing functionally deficient with
Congress; rather the problem is that in a
democratic society the legislature cannot

229
really anticipate problems. There is a need
for a public relations effort to sell the
importance of future problems. Yet even then,
if there were a PR effort from a committee,
some public awareness might be generated, but
neither Congress nor a committee could
polarize the nation.
Another justified congressional inability to anticipate by point¬
ing out that "part of our representative system is that the
representative has a limited view." The sponsors of the three
bills were not deterred by this kind of thinking. Something should
be done to provide greater foresight, the sponsors said, and such
foresight will have an impact on the capacity of the government
to avert crises.
SPA evaluates information that will aid in searching for
emerging issues and informing current decisions of future con¬
ditions and the likely interactions between current decisions
and long-term trends and conditions. Thus it was assumed that
members who were active in the SPA area had considered the ability
to predict future trends and conditions. Many members had not,
and most members avoided discussion of specific forecasts.
Several members were familiar with economic forecasts, either
as economists or through the Joint Economic Committee. Others
noted that predictions in the social area are less developed
and more uncertain than those dealing with physical resources.
Most members were concerned with the relevance of predictions
for policy making. A member familiar with economic forecasting,

230
for example, avoided any direct comment on the accuracy of predic¬
tions in the social area, but he added that predictive ability
was not the only concern: "Given a great amount of information
and good intuition, you can predict a little, but more import¬
antly, you can provide alternative predictions." A conservative
Republican who had been involved in local planning efforts in
his district noted that "any prediction is an uncertain business,
but this is no reason not to attempt to predict. Planning is
part of rational behavior."
In discussing the ability of members to choose information
sources, Edward Schneier (1970) commented that members of Congress,
because of their profession as politicians, often excel in judg¬
ing information by its source. Several members responded, not
about the accuracy of predictions, but about the sources of pre¬
dictions, noting that most predictions (and future information
generally) are provided by lobbyists to support specific posi¬
tions. Another commented on the problems of making and using
predictions for the government: "Officials have their jobs and
positions by virtue of their relationship to the status quo or
the nature of the status quo. Predictions which might adversely
affect this are not welcome."
A partisan division among responses by Bolling committee
members to a question of government's role in directing or con¬
trolling the future was noted in Chapter 3. Interviews in the
Senate confirmed this observation. Of the nine members, including

231
sponsors, who assigned the government a positive role, eight were
moderate or liberal Democrats; the other was a liberal Republican.
Most Republicans reacted to the word control in the question (in
contrast many Democrats focused on the word direct). "I don't
like the word control," said one Republican. Another could not
"give an answer [on the general role of government]. . . .[It]
depends on the individual circumstances. We may be able to control
the future in the area of energy self-sufficiency, [but] not many
areas are like that." Another Republican was "not sure that the
authority is better as a catalyst. . . .the alternative [to con¬
trol by business] of government management is worse than any
present problems."
Few members had thought about the effect that SPA activity
would have. The only member who expressly thought it would help
liberal goals was a sponsor. Most members venturing an opinion
expected no systematic bias for liberal or conservative programs.
Some Bolling committee members thought that the futures research
and forecasting of the foresight provision would have little
impact on committee operations. Others thought that futures
analysis in general was not likely to have much impact on crisis
decision making.
Responses to the question of future-oriented information, in
terms of conditions or events, five, ten, or twenty-five years
into the future, suggested that a small number of members receive
futures information and even fewer consciously assimilate it into

232
decision making. Some mentioned specific policy areas, such as
agriculture, education, and the economy. Another mentioned the
futures information in the Club of Rome reports (Meadows et al.,
1972; Mesarovic & Pestel, 1974). As in the case of the accuracy
of predictions, members and staff often spoke of the sources of
futures information. An office which polled its staff members
on this question found relatively little futures information
that they were aware of; what the office did find was supplied
by lobby groups.
In Chapter 2 it was suggested that knowledge and use of the
emerging issues service of the Congressional Research Service
might provide an indicator of the member's search for existing
SPA resources within Congress. About half of those interviewed
were familiar with the lists prepared for the 93rd Congress, yet
the only member who had made use of them was a committee chair¬
man. The remainder were unfamiliar with this service to committee
chairman, undoubtedly because the lists are developed in consul¬
tation with chairmen and distributed at their discretion. All
of the SPA sponsors were familiar with the subject lists.
The only unanimous response was given to the question of the
role of Congress in providing a "positive, inspiring vision" for
the nation's future. All members interviewed recognized the dis¬
advantage of Congress, with "535 prima donnas" or "100 senatorial
egomaniacs," compared to the President in effectively proposing
large-scale goals. Many members said that Congress can and does

233
provide this type of leadership on some issues or in specific
areas, but not in terms of an over-all program.
What do the answers to questions on the policy attitude
toward SPA tell us? How useful were these answers in differen¬
tiating sponsors from other members, and what are their impli¬
cations? The questions on prediction, the role of Congress,
future-oriented information, and the subject lists did not sig¬
nificantly differentiate sponsors from other members. The ques¬
tions on search, the ability to anticipate, and the role of the
government in directing and controlling the future made a com¬
posite picture. The sponsors of SPA bills are dissatisfied
with the normal patterns of congressional search; they feel that
the government has a positive role in directing or controlling
the future; and, most importantly, they are optimistic about
the ability of the government, including Congress, to anticipate
and deal with problems before the crisis stage. As the case
studies showed, these elements of an SPA policy attitude had
little determinable impact on the support or opposition for SPA
measures on the part of other committee members.
SUMMARY
The three cases studied here generally confirmed the hypoth¬
esized relationships between committee factors and the successful
processing of SPA reforms. The composite picture emerged of a

234
legislatively active member of Congress who feels a need for
structural reforms and optimism that such reforms will be
effective. The successful member is accompanied by a supportive
committee chairman, expert and entrepreneurial staff, liberal
or congressional reform majorities in committee, and supportive
interest group and bureaucratic activity. The degree of input
from these various factors will depend on the amount of change
in analysis of ends and means, in cross-policy analysis, in
institutional structures, and in redistribution of power
involved in the proposed reform. These factors are important in
accomplishing the legislative tasks involved in the six stages
of a bill's processing. However, these factors operate within
committees or upon committee activity. Another set of factors
affects the viability of a bill, whether "it will fly" in the
parent chamber. In Chapter 7 the factors affecting the viability
of our SPA reforms during the 93rd Congress have been considered
along with the implications of these factors for other
congressional reform efforts.
NOTES
1. Hypotheses on committee factors were taken principally
from the works of David Price (1972) and Richard Fenno (1973)
with additions relevant to strategic policy assessment, con¬
gressional reform,or policy process.
2. The fact that the Bolling committee members were different
from most other members interviewed was quickly noticeable. The
questions dealing with "strategic policy assessment policy atti¬
tude were not within the normal range of discussion for most

235
members. Early interviewing in the Senate, particularly among mem¬
bers who were on the relevant committee but who did not have their
own proposals in this area, revealed some hesitancy in answering
the questions. Virtually all of the seven Bolling committee mem¬
bers were comfortable in answering strategic policy assessment
questions and generally discussing the conceptual nature of con¬
gressional operations. A Bolling committee member and a staffer
agreed that this conceptual orientation and institutional commit¬
ment would predispose these members toward strategic policy
assessment to a greater degree than the average member of Congress.
3. Interest group activity on the Bolling committee proposal
was primarily negative. Most interest groups, from Ralph Nader's
group and environmentalists to the Chamber of Commerce, feared
the loss of established relationships and therefore lobbied
against the major jurisdictional changes proposed by the Bolling
committee.
4. The exceptions were former Democratic officials of the
Council of Economic Advisers who "saw the light" and testified in
support of the Council of Social Advisers during the Republican
administration.
5. The requirement of separate oversight-foresight subcom¬
mittees would have affected the distribution of power within com¬
mittees in a way which some members argued would make effective
oversight difficult by isolating the overseers. The ultimate
decision was to leave the establishment of a separate oversight
subcommittee to each committee.

IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

VIABILITY:
IMPLICATIONS FOR CONGRESSIONAL REFORM
A bill's place in six stages of development reflects its
maturity; the degree of responsiveness to a bill in the parent
chamber marks its viability. A factor which augments a bill's
viability is a sense of urgency among relevant sectors of the
public and members of Congress.
The 93rd Congress produced for a variety of reforms a sense
of urgency and a sense of need affecting the processing of the
three strategic policy assessment (SPA) reforms in several ways.
President Nixon's impoundment of appropriated funds, and other
offenses to congressional prerogatives and sensibilities, suffic¬
iently enraged the Congress to compel it to action. The actions
of President Nixon and his assistants during and after the 1972
presidential campaign led to the Watergate scandal, the Watergate
committee, impeachment proceedings, and ultimately the resigna¬
tion of the President. Also, several economic and environmental
crises were felt during the period, most notably the energy crisis.
Thus, impoundment, Watergate, and the energy crisis were major
events during the 93rd Congress that might have created a sense
of urgency for congressional reform.
The impoundment controversy and crisis decision making prior
to the energy crisis contributed to an agreement within the House
over the need for reform and thus sufficient support to establish
237

238
the Bolling committee. Once established, the Bolling committee
easily worked the foresight provision into its proposal. The
viability of the foresight provision in the Hansen committee and
in the House at large was assured by its presence among the pro¬
cedural aspects of the Bolling proposal. The jurisdictional changes
recommended by the Bolling committee were not so viable. The
reform'majority crumbled when a sufficient number of members felt
that their current positions were threatened by changes in commit¬
tee jurisdictions.
During the 93rd Congress, S. 5 was affected in two specific
ways by congressional response to impoundment and Watergate. (1)
During the budget reform debates Senator Jacob Javits separated
his Title II in order to offer it as an amendment to the congres¬
sional budget proposals. This deletion left Senator Mondale with
the Council of Social Advisers proposal. (2) Congress showed a
decided lack of interest in giving a President so unreceptive to
social programs as Richard Nixon a Council of Social Advisers. As
onsstaffer put it, the "oomph" had gone out of the bill.
S. 3050 was affected to the extent that the Government Opera¬
tions Committee was busy with budget reform proposals, and its
chairman, Senator Sam Ervin, was distracted by his chairmanship
of the Watergate committee. Equally important for S. 3050, the
energy crisis and similar problems had^ no effect on responsive¬
ness within Congress to the bill, and the bill's relevance to
these issues was never effectively demonstrated.

239
IMPLICATIONS OF THIS RESEARCH
The committee focus has lead to an understanding how these
proposals did and did not move toward ultimate passage. Yet S. 5
and S. 3050 did affect strategic policy assessment activities
despite their lack of success. S. 5, during its history, influ¬
enced executive branch actions under Presidents Johnson and Ntxon
in the social reporting field. The existence of S. 5 reinforced
persons in the social indicators movement who favored greater
government use of social indicators. Title II of S. 5 became part
of the Senate's expression that a congressional budget should be
used to develop a congressional set of national priorities. Like¬
wise, the presence of S. 3050 resulted in Humphrey's persistent
attempts to have growth policy become a more explicit concern of
national decision making.
The committee focus has also allowed us to isolate key factors
and shortcomings that are relevant to future efforts at strategic
policy assessment reform in Congress. Within Congress the viability
of SPA reforms will depend on the degree to which the analysis or
its use is left to the relevant decision unit, i.e., the commit¬
tees, or is incorporated into an explicit process, particularly
if establishing the process involves a change in the current dis¬
tribution of power.
Thus the foresight provision was viable because the change it
required was minimal and because each committee would determine

240
its own level of activity on futures research and forecasting.
Because of the incipient nature of S. 3050 and S. 5, it is useful
to consider the budget reform, which included some provisions for
strategic policy assessment and did cause changes in the distri¬
bution of power, alongside the jurisdictional sections of the
Bolling committee report. The latter, while not explicitly con¬
cerned with analysis, would have accomplished the third SPA func¬
tion by forcing the conscious interrelationship of decisions
within policy areas by grouping coherent clusters of policy with¬
in the same committee. This change also would involve shifts in
the current level of power. The difference in viability between
the budget reform and the jurisdictional proposals stemmed from
the direct link between the President's challenge to Congress
and the realization of need for a congressional budget. The link
between the challenges to Congress and its committee jurisdictions
was not so obvious. The link between the energy crisis and commit¬
tee jurisdictions was obvious, yet of low impact.
A second distinction between the budget reform and the Bolling
committee proposals is to be made in the patterns of negotiation
and bargaining among affected committees. Members of the Bolling
committee solicited the opinions of colleagues and encouraged
them to testify, but no full-scale bargaining session was. held
to work out committee jurisdictional changes. The Hansen committee
was involved in some bargaining, but primarraily among opponents
to the Bolling committee plan in order to insure a sufficient

241
number of votes to amend the Bolling proposal. The budget reform
proposals, particularly in the Senate, set off a great deal of
negotiation among affected committees. One involved staffer de¬
scribed it as an example of Congress lobbying itself, as members
and committee staff set out to protect their committee's interests.
The crucial role of interest groups, particularly where SPA
reform did involve shifts in the distribution of power, has been
mentioned. To a certain extent the budget reform is an exception
to this rule, but it was prompted by a unique institutional chal¬
lenge by the President and thus did not require the momentum
normally given by interest group support. As we have seen, the
history of S. 5 was marked by the absence of widespread interest
group support that marked its historical model, the Employment
Act of 1946.
SPA reforms pose an interesting question of the extent to
which interest groups will advocate strategic policy assessment.
Lobby groups have traditionally been a source of information,
including futures information, for committees. Greater emphasis
on strategic policy assessment and a consequent clarificaton of
goals and policies in relation to likely trends and conditions
might be detrimental to the interests of particular groups.
Thus, the pattern of interest group activity on the Bolling
committee proposal may be the normal one when interest groups
are not part of the formulation process. While some "process"
or "good government" groups, such as Common Cause and the League

242
of Women Voters, supported the entire Bolling committee package,
most interest groups, whether business, labor, environmental, or
Ralph Nader organizations, were opposed out of concern for their
own positions. In the case of the Employment Act of 1946, interest
groups took part in the formulation stage--and therefore in the
mobilization efforts--suggesting that major SPA reforms should
include interest groups in the formulation stage or, for the case
of S. 3050, in modification efforts.
Beyond organized interest groups lies general public support
and, sometimes, constituent pressure. Congressional reform in¬
cluding SPA reforms are not the type that easily generate public
support. The effects of crisis decision making, such as produced
by the energy crisis, are opposed by the general public, but this
opposition is seldom transferred into support for specific mech¬
anisms to change the decision-making system. It is not likely that
support for, interest in, or attention to specifics of the policy
process will increase greatly among the general public. Thus,
great public support will probably be forthcoming only if SPA re¬
forms are linked to another concern of greater and more obvious
importance to the public.
Entrepreneurial activity was needed from SPA sponsors and
their staffs in order to link SPA reforms to problems which the
reforms might be useful in correcting; sponsors and staffs made
such efforts to an extent for S. 5 and S. 3050, but not suffic¬
iently. Even if Senator Ervin had been more supportive and had

243
allowed Senator Humphrey to use the Committee on Government Opera¬
tions to push S. 3050, this activity would have been only one
among several events on a given day. SPA sponsors would be hard
pressed to generate sufficient attention for large-scale reforms.
Thus the role of the President is crucial, particularly for SPA
reforms that are government-wide. The Employment Act of 1946 was
instigated within Congress, but during its development the Presi¬
dent gave his support to the full employment legislation and, at
appropriate times, made public statements stressing its importance
and chiding reluctant House committees (Bailey, 1950). Presidential
support and ability to focus the country's attention are necessary
for SPA reforms like S. 3050, which require important modifications
in Congress and the executive.
This research has focused on the process of congressional re¬
form in the SPA area. Implications for further research include
the evaluation of the impact of several of the reforms studied:
the House committee's foresight activities, the congressional
budget process, the long-range policy process established in the
National Forest and Rangelands Act, the futures research group
in the Congressional Research Service, and the work of the Office
of Technology Assessment and its impact on congressional committees.
The process of adopting SPA reforms should be examined through the
work of the advisory committee established at Senator Humphrey's
insistence to the National Commission on Supplies and Shortages.

244
CONCLUSION
In this study three cases of legislative initiative by members
of Congress have been examined. Although attention was concentrated
on initiatives dealing with SPA reforms, the findings essentially
concur with the conclusions about policy assertiveness drawn by
David Price in studying legislative responsibility in the Senate
(1972). Price noted a healthy assertiveness in the action of cer¬
tain senators in initiating policies, and he expressed the belief
that such creative behavior may become more prominent in the
years ahead:
. . . these initiatives provide only a hint
as to the kind of creativity and responsive¬
ness that might result if legislators began
to take full advantage of the resources and
opportunities for leadership at theirdisposal.
(Price, 1972: 333)
The present study has shown some of the kinds of creativity and
responsiveness that are open to legislators when they question
the very processes of congressional policy making. For SPA reforms
to be effective, this questioning will have to persist until the
processes, particuarly those by which Congress sets its agenda,
informs its current decisions, and consciously considers the
interrelationship of its scattered decision, are understood. This
study concurs with Price in suggesting that the three SPA initia¬
tives only hint at the possibilities for providing more effective

245
anticipatory decision making. The case studies suggest that the
greatest areas for legislative assertiveness lie beyond Congress
in informing popular opinion and organized groups of the import¬
ance of a process orientation and the value of strategic policy
assessment.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Respondent #
Date
As you know, there has been much discussion inside and outside
of Congress over such issues as the decline of Congress in re¬
lation to the executive, over what our national priorities should
be and how they should be set, and over the ongoing series of
crises which American society faces. Several changes in Congres¬
sional procedures have been proposed which relate to these prob¬
lems. The Center for Governmental Responsibility at the University
of Florida is concerned with several of these proposals. In my
current research for the Center I am concentrating on committee
activity on certain proposals which v/ould give Congress the
ability to assess long term needs and resources and use these
assessments in its current decision making. '
is one of these proposals. In my research I am trying to determine
how these proposals came to be, how they are perceived by yourself
and other committee members, and what impact they might have on
Congress as an institution if they were passed.
As I mentioned in my letter, this interview will be considered
confidential in the normal practice of this type of research; no
personal or individual attributions of statements will be made
when the results are reported.
Short summary of SPA provision(s) in the bill
I.Reconstruction of how SPA and the bill came to be
1. Are you familiar with how this (SPA
activity) came to be part of the bill?
2. In relation to the bill as a whole, who was responsible
for instigation and publicizing the fact that
(problem confronted by the SPA activity or the bill)?
(Probe as to how this was done, the role of the staff,
members, interest groups.)
3. Who formulated (SPA activity) into this
bill?
(Exclude if answered in 1)
4A. Who gathered information on the level of support and
opposition?
(Probe as to the role of the staff, CRS, OTA,
247

248
administration, interest groups, members and chair¬
man .)
4B. Who gathered information on the level of support and
opposition?
(Probe as to role of the staff, members, chairman.)
5. Whose interests or what interests does this bill and
(SPA activity) represent?
a. How did this come to be?
(Probe as to who aggregated interest for the bill,
whether interests beyond those with a professional
stake were involved; what was the pattern of response
to interest groups, the administration; were these
interests anticipated without communication or was
there some interaction?)
6. Who worked to mobilize support for this bill?
(Probe as to role of the committee chairman, sponsor(s),
proponents of amendments, staff, CRS, interest groups.)
7. What modifications were made on (SPA activ¬
ity); on the bill as a whole?
(Prove as to what effect this had on the substance of
the bill, on its passage.)
II. Member activity in relation to member goals
8.
How might
(SPA activity) affect the policies
or issues you are most
concerned with?
9.
How might
(SPA activity) affect your re-
election efforts if it
were passed?
10.
How might
(SPA activity) affect your position
within the
(House/Senate)?
III. Background and other information related to SPA
11. Some proponents of this type of activity suggest that it
would allow Congress to anticipate problems and thus
prevent the recurrent series of crises which the nation
has faced in the last few years. To what extent do you
think it is possible to anticipate major problems and to
deal with them before they reach a crisis stage?
12. The activity this bill proposes would imply that social
trends, conditions, and events can be predicted. To what
extent can social trends or activity be predicted?
(Probe, if yes, into how and what types of predictions;
if no, probe into why not.)

249
13. (SPA activity) implies that once likely
future social activity could be predicted, it could also
be changed or directed. To what extent can future condi¬
tions be directed or controlled? To what extent should
the government be involved in this?
14. Would this activity affect the types of issues or problems
which Congress normally considers?
(If yes, how and what types; if no, why?)
15. In your opinion, how adequate or inadequate are the current
ways in which Congress searches for issues or problems to
consider?
16. If this activity were adopted would it change the internal
distribution of power in Congress?
(Probe as to how; whether it would affect the power
of the committee chairman, the party, the party caucus,
the policy committees, the DSG.)
17. In expert testimony on this subject and in my own dis¬
cussions thus far with members of Congress, a recurring
question has been raised, namely, the need for a positive,
inspiring vision of the future or the direction in which
the nation should move. Admitting the problems involved in
defining what this positive vision might entail, to what
extent do you think Congress can provide this type of large
scale goal or goals?
18. Returning to the level of your own experience, what types
of future oriented information do you have access to or
use in your committee activity and floor voting? What
sources provide you with this type of information?
Since this is a new area of Congressional activity it is difficult
to be certain that I have covered all of the important aspects
related to this issue. Can you think of anything which is relevant
which we have not discussed?
Thank you very much. I appreciate the time you have given me.

250
APPENDIX 2
SHORTENED LIST OF QUESTIONS
1. In your opinion, how adequate or inadequate are the current
ways in which Congress searches for issues or problems to con¬
sider?
2. If Congress were to adopt more systematic techniques for the
assessment of the future, what affect might it have on the
issues which are considered by Congress; on the goals which
Congress chooses to pursue; or on other aspects of Congressional
decision making?
3. Some proponents of this type of activity suggest that it would
allow Congress to anticipate problems and thus prevent the re¬
current series of crises which the nation has faced in the last
few years. To what extent do you think it is possible to anti¬
cipate major problems and do deal with them before they reach
a crisis stage?
4. On a more general level, to what extent do you think that
social trends or activity can be predicted? In what areas?
5. The proposals in this area imply that future conditions can be
directed or controlled. To what extent do you think that this
is possible?
6. In expert testimony on this subject and in my own discussions
thus far with members of Congress, a recurring question has
been raised, namely, the need for a positive, inspiring vision
of the future or the direction in which the nation should move.
Admitting the problems involved in defining what this positive
vision might entail, to what extent do you think Congress can
provide this type of large scale goal or goals?
7. Returning to the level of your own experience, what types of
future oriented information do you have access to or use in
your committee activity and floor voting? What sources pro¬
vide you with this type of information?
8. What is your position on (SPA proposal) or why
do you (support or oppose! (SPA proposal)?

251
APPENDIX 3
THE FORESIGHT PROVISION OF THE HOUSE RULES
RULE 10 SECTION 2
2. (a) In order to assist the House in—
(1) its analysis, appraisal, and evaluation of (A) the appli¬
cation, administration, execution, and effectiveness of the laws
enacted by the Congress, or (B) conditions and circumstances which
may indicate the necessity or desirability of enacting new or
additional legislation, and
(2) its formulation, consideration, and enactment of such modi¬
fications of or changes in those laws, and of such additional
legislation, as may be necessary or appropriate, the various stand¬
ing committees shall have oversight responsibilities as provided
in paragraph (b).
(b) (1) Each standing committee (other than the Committee on
Appropriations and the Committee on the Budget) shall review and
study, on a continuing basis, the application, administration,
execution, and effectiveness of those laws, or parts of laws, the
subject matter of which is within the jurisdiction of that committee
and the organization and operation of the Federal agencies and
entities having responsibilities in or for the administration and
execution thereof, in order to determine whether such laws and the
programs thereunder are being implemented and carried out in accor¬
dance with the intent of the Congress and whether such programs
should be continued, curtailed, or eliminated. In addition, each
such committee shall review and study any conditions or circumstances

252
which may indicate the necessity or desirability of enacting new
or additional legislation within the jurisdiction of that committee
(whether or not any bill or resolution has been introduced with
respect thereto), and shall on a continuing basis undertake future
research and forecasting on matters within the jurisdiction of that
committee. Each such committee having more than twenty members
shall establish an oversight subcommittee, or require its sub¬
committees, if any, to conduct oversight in the area of their
respective jurisdiction, to assist in carrying out its responsi¬
bilities under this subparagraph. The establishment of oversight
subcommittees shall in no way limit the responsibility of the sub¬
committees with legislative jurisdiction from carrying out their
oversight responsibilities.

253
APPENDIX 4
THE BALANCED NATIONAL GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974 (S. 3050)
Summary
Title X: Statement of Pol icy; Findings; and Purpose - Declares
that it is the responsibility of the Federal Government, in concert
with State and local governments, to undertake the development of
a balanced national growth and development policy. Expresses the
findings of Congress and the purposes of this Act by setting out
sixteen national goals.
Title 11: Office of Balanced National Growth and Development -
Establishes in the Executive Office of the President an Office of
Balanced National Growth and Development, having in the Office a
Council on Balanced National Growth and Development. Prescribes
the membership composition of such Council.
Directs the Office to fulfill enumerated objectives, including
to provide for: (1) the policy direction and coordination of all
Federal and federally assisted programs for planning and land use
development, human resources improvement and resource and energy
allocation; (2) the preparation of an annual report, to be known
as the Annual Report on Balanced National Growth and Development,
detailing the progress made in carrying out the provisions of this
Act; (3) the assessment of national needs, goals, and priorities;
and (4) the evaluation of Federal and State tax policies upon the
private industrial mix.
Outlines the content required in the Annual Report on Balanced
National Growth and Development.
Directs the Council of Economic Advisors, the Council on
Environmental Quality, the National Citizens Council on the American
Future, and the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations
to review all policies and report their recommendations to the
Office.
Transfers all functions of the Domestic Council related to
national growth and development policy to the Office. Provides for
the consolidation of Federal comprehensive planning activities and
planning assistance programs.
Title III: Transfer of Certain Functions from Office of
Management and Budget with Respect to Review of Federal Projects
and Liaison with State and Local Governments - Transfers specified
functions of the Office of Management and Budget under the Demon¬
stration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, and'the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to the Office.
Title IV: Multi-State Regional Planning and Development
Commissions States that for purposes of this title the Nation
shall be divided into a system of not less than eight, nor more
than twelve, planning and development regions. Sets forth the

254
criteria to be taken into account by the President in establishing
such regions.
Provides that for each region, there shall be established a
multi-State regional planning and development commission. Specifies
the composition of such commissions and outlines their functions
and administrative powers.
Provides for the adjustment of boundaries of present regional
commissions established under the Public Works and Economic
Development Act.
Authorizes to be appropriated for the expenses of this title
$10,000,000 for fiscal year 1975, and $20,000,000 for each fiscal
year thereafter.
Title V: Comprehensive Planning Assistance - Directs the
President to transfer the administration of the planning assistance
program provided for in the Housing Act of 1954 from the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development to the Office. Authorizes appro¬
priations for fiscal year 1975 and each fiscal year thereafter
for specified provisions of the Housing Act of 1954.
Title VI: Uniform Planning and Requirements for Grant-in-Aid
Programs - States that it is the purpose of this title to eliminate
inconsistent and overlapping grant requirements by providing a
method of identifying development policy and by establishing a
basis for the use of common data and information.
Requires Federal departments and agencies administering grant
programs which require planning as a condition to making the grants
to require: (1) that such planning be consistent with the policies
of the Regional Planning and Development Commissions; and (2) that
such planning utilize the same geographic areas, time periods, and
base data as used by the Regional Commissions.
Title VII: National Citizens1 Council on the American Future -
Establishes a National Citizens Council on The American Future to
advise the Office and Congress in the formulation, evaluation, and
implementation of national growth policies and in carrying out its
other activities pursuant to this Act. Prescribes the rates of
compensation of Council members and the Council's administrative
powers.
Directs the Office to encourage the formation of multi state
and State citizens councils to advise Regional Planning and Develop¬
ment Commissions and governments and industry with respect to
planning and development.
Title VIII: Joint Congressional Committee on Balanced National
Growth and Development and Congressional Office On Policy and
Planning - Establishes a joint committee of the Congress to be
known as the Joint Committee on Balanced National Growth and
Development. Specifies the membership composition of such com¬
mittee and their administrative powers.

255
Creates a Congressional Office of Policy and Planning which
shall conduct a continuing, non-partisan analysis of national
goals, priorities, and urban, rural, and national growth policies
and shall provide the Congress with the information, data, and
analyses necessary for enlightened decisions with respect to such
matters.
Authorizes the Librarian of Congress to make available to the
Congressional Office such services and assistance by the Congres¬
sional Research Service as may be appropriate and feasible. Pro¬
vides for: (1) the utilization of the Foundation of the American
Future; (2) coordination with the Office of Technology Assessment;
(3) coordination with the National Science Foundation; and (4)
utilization of the General Accounting Office.
Title IX: Requirements with Respect to the Location Impact
of FederalTacilities, Activities, and Federal Procurement -
States that the Congress directs that to the fullest extent
possible: (1) the policies, regulations, and public laws of the
United States shall be interpreted and administered in accordance
with the policies set forth in this Act, and (2) all departments
and agencies of the Federal Government shall include specified
population, cost and time information in every report on proposals
significantly affecting the growth of the United States.
Sets forth Federal procurement policies to be achieved under
this Act.
Title _X: Foundation on the American Future - Establishes an
independent agency of the Federal Government to be known as the
Foundation on the American Future: (1) to conduct projects to
determine the interactions, social benefits and costs, rates of
national change, and present and likely future patterns of impor¬
tant scientific, social, and economic programs and activities;
(2) to evaluate the effects of national development policy, or
its lack, on these interactions, social benefits and costs, rates
of national change, and patterns; and (3) to determine and formulate
alternative future national growth patterns, and development of
policy recommendations which can bring them into existence.
Enumerates twelve administrative powers of the Foundation.
Calls for coordination of the Foundation's activities with the
National Science Foundation and other agencies and institutions.
Title XI: Establishment of Agency for Population and Demographic
Analysis within the Bureau of Census, Department of Commerce -
Directs the Secretary of Commerce to establish within the Bureau
of Census an Agency for Population and Demographic Analysis to be
headed by a Deputy Director for National Population and Demographic
Analysis.
States that the Agency shall include Divisions of Demographic
Analysis, Economic and Social Analysis, and Political and Fiscal
Analysis. Sets forth the functions of the Agency.

256
Title XII: Authorization for Appropriations Authorization -
States that in addition to specific authorizations in this Act,
there are authorized to be appropriated such other amounts as are
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.

257
APPENDIX 5
THE FULL OPPORTUNITY AND NATIONAL GOALS AND PRIORITIES ACT (S. 5)
TITLE I—FULL OPPORTUNITY
Declaration of Policy
SEC. 101. In order to promote the general welfare, the Congress
declares that it is the continuing policy and responsibility of
the Federal Government, consistent with the primary responsi¬
bilities of State and local governments and the private sector,
to promote and encourage such conditions as will give every American
a full opportunity to live in decency and dignity, and to provide
a clear and precise picture of whether such conditions are pro¬
moted and encouraged in such areas as health, education and train¬
ing, rehabilitation, housing, vocational opportunities, the arts
and humanities, and special assistance for the mentally ill and
retarded, the deprived, the abandoned, and the criminal, and by
measuring progress in meeting such needs.
Social Report of the President
SEC. 102. (a) The President shall transmit to the Congress not
later than February 15 of each year a report to be known as the
social report, setting forth (1) the overall progress and effect¬
iveness of Federal efforts designed to carry out the policy de¬
clared in section 101 with particular emphasis upon the manner in
which such efforts serve to meet national social needs in such
areas as health, education, and training, rehabilitation, housing,
vocational opportunities, the arts and humanities, and special
assistance for the mentally ill and retarded, the deprived, the
abandoned, and the criminal; (2) a review of State, local, and
private efforts designed to create the conditions specified in
section 101; (3) current and foreseeable needs in the areas served
by such efforts and the progress of development of plans to meet
such needs; and (4) programs and policies for carrying out the
policy declared in section 101, together with such recommendations
for legislation as he may deem necessary or desirable.
(b) The President may transmit from time to time to the Congress
reports supplementary to the social report, each of which shall
include such supplementary or revised recommendations as he may
deem necessary or desirable to achieve the policy declared in
section 101.
(c) The social report, and all supplementary reports transmitted
under subsection (b) of this section, shall, when transmitted to
Congress, be referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare

258
of the Senate and the Committees on Education and Labor and Inter¬
state and Foreign Commerce of the House of Representatives.
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit the
consideration of the report by any other committee of the Senate
or the House of Representatives with respect to any matter within
the jurisdiction of any such committee.
Council of Social Advisers to the President
SEC. 103. (a) There is created in the Executive Office of the
President a Council of Social Advisers (hereinafter called the
Council). The Council shall be composed of three members who shall
be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent
of the Senate, and each of whom shall be a person who, as a re¬
sult of his training, experience, and attainments, is exceptionally
qualified to appraise programs and activities of the Government
in the light of the policy declared in section 101, and to formu¬
late and recommend programs to carry out such policy. Each member
of the Council, other than the Chairman, shall receive compensation
at the rate prescribed for level IV of the Executive Schedule by
section 5315 of title 5 of the United States Code. The President
shall designate one of the members of the Council as Chairman who
shall receive compensation at the rate prescribed by level II
of such schedule.
(b) The Chairman of the Council is authorized to employ, and
fix the compensation of, such specialists and other experts as
may be necessary for the carrying out of its functions under this
Act, without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter
III of chapter 53 of such title 5, United States Code, governing
appointments in the competitive service, and without regard to
the provisions of relating to classification and General Schedule
pay rates, and is authorized, subject to such provisions, to em¬
ploy such other officers and employees as may be necessary for
carrying out its functions under this Act, and fix their compensa¬
tion in accordance with the provisions of such chapter 51 and sub¬
chapter III of chapter 53.
(c) It shall be the duty and function of the Council —
(1) to assist and advise the President in the preparation of
the social report;
(2) to gather timely and authoritative information and statisti¬
cal data concerning developments and programs designed to carry
out the policy declared in section 101, both current and prospec¬
tive, and to develop a series of social indicators to analyze and
interpret such information and data in the light of the policy
declared in section 101 and to compile and submit to the President
studies relating to such developments and programs;
(3) to appraise the various programs and activities of the
Federal Government in the light of the policy declared in section
101 of this Act for the purpose of determining the extent to which
such programs and activities contribute to the achievement of such
policy, and to make recommendations to the President with respect
thereto;

259
(4) to develop priorities for programs designed to carry out the
policy declared in section 101 and recommend to the President the
most efficient way to allocate Federal resources and the level of
government--Federal, State, or local--best suited to carry out
such programs;
(5) to make and furnish such studies, reports thereon, and
recommendations with respect to programs, activities, and legis¬
lation to carry out the policy declared in section 101 as the
President may request.
(6) to make and furnish such studies, reports thereon, and
recommendations with respect to programs, activities, and legis¬
lation as the President may request in appraising long-range aspects
of social policy and programing consistent with the policy declared
in section 101.
(d) Recognizing the predominance of State and local governments
in the social area, the President shall, when appropriate, provide
for the dissemination to such States and localities of information
or data developed by the Council pursuant to subsection (c) of
this section.
(e) The Council shall make an annual report to the President
in January of each year.
(f) In exercising its powers, functions, and duties under this
Act—
(1) the Council may constitute such advisory committees and may
consult with such representatives of industry, agriculture, labor,
consumers, State and local governments, and other groups, organi¬
zations and individuals as it deems advisable to insure the direct
participation in the Council's planning of such interested parties;
(2) the Council shall, to the fullest extent possible, use the
services, facilities, and information (including statistical infor¬
mation) of Federal, State, and local government agencies as well
as of private research agencies, in order that duplication of
effort and expense may be avoided;
(3) the Council shall, to the fullest extent possible, insure
that the individual's right to privacy is not infringed by its
activities; and
(4) (A) the Council may enter into essential contractual relation¬
ships with educational institutions, private research organiza¬
tions, and other organizations as needed; and
(B) any reports, studies, or analyses resulting from such con¬
tractual relationships shall be made available to any person for
purposes of study.
(g) To enable the Council to exercise its powers, functions,
and duties under this Act, there are authorized to be appropriated
(except for the salaries of the members and officers and employees
of the Council) such sums as may be necessary. For the salaries
of the members and salaries of officers and employees of the
Council, there is authorized to be appropriated not exceeding
$900,000 in the aggregate for each fiscal year.

260
TITLE II—NATIONAL GOALS AND PRIORITIES
Declaration of Purposes
SEC. 201. The Congress finds and declares that there is a need
for a more explicit and rational formulation of national goals
and priorities, and the Congress needs more detailed and current
budget data and economic analysis in order to make informed priority
decisions among alternative programs and courses of action. In
order to meet these needs and establish a framework of national
priorities within which individual decisions can be made in a con¬
sistent and considered manner, and to stimulate an informed aware¬
ness and discussion of national priorities, it is hereby declared
to be the intent of Congress to establish an office within the
Congress which will conduct a continuing analysis of national goals
and priorities and will provide the Congress with the information,
data, and analysis necessary for enlightened priority decisions.
Establishment
SEC. 202. (a) There is established an Office of Goals and
Priorities Analysis (hereafter referred to as the "Office")
which shall be within the Congress.
(b) There shall be in the Office a Director of Goals and Priorities
Analysis (hereafter referred to as the "Director") and an Assistant
Director of Goals and Priorities Analysis (hereafter referred to
as the "Assistant Director"), each of whom shall be appointed
jointly by the majority leader of the Senate and the Speaker of
the House of Representatives and confirmed by a majority vote of
each House. The Office shall be under the control and supervision
of the Director, and shall have a seal adopted by him. The Assist¬
ant Director shall perform such duties as may be assigned to him
by the Director, and, during the absence or incapacity of the
Director, or during a vacancy in the office, shall act as the
Director. The Director shall designate an employee of the Office
to act as Director during the absence or incapacity of the Director
and the Assistant Director, or during a vacancy in both of such
offices.
(c) The annual compensation of the Director shall be equal to
the annual compensation of the Comptroller General of the United
States. The annual compensation of the Assistant Director shall
be equal to that of the Assistant Comptroller General of the United
States.
(d) The terms of office of the Director and the Assistant Director
first appointed shall expire on January 31, 1977. The terms of
office of Directors and Assistant Directors subsequently appointed
shall expire on January 31 every four years thereafter. Except
in the case of his removal under the provisions of subsection (e),
a Director or Assistant Director may serve until his successor is
appointed.

261
(e) The Director or Assistant Director may be removed at any
time by a resolution of the Senate or the House of Representatives.
A vacancy occurring during the term of the Director or Assistant
Director shall be filled by appointment, as provided in this section.
(f) The professional staff members, including the Director and
Assistant Director, shall be persons selected without regard to
political affiliations who, as a result of training, experience,
and attainments, are exceptionally qualified to analyze and inter¬
pret public policies and programs.
Functions
SEC. 203. (a) The Office shall make such studies as it deems
necessary to carry out the purposes of section 201. Primary empha¬
sis shall be given to supplying such analysis as will be most use¬
ful to the Congress in voting on the measures and appropriations
which come before it, and on providing the framework and overview
of priority considerations within which a meaningful consideration
of individual measures can be undertaken.
(b) The Office shall submit to the Congress on March 1 of each
year a national goals and priorities report and copies of such
report shall be furnished to the Committee on Appropriations of
the Senate and of the House of Representatives, the Joint Economic
Committee, and other interested committees. The report shall
include, but not be limited to—
(1) an analysis, in terms of national goals and priorities of the
programs in the annual budget submitted by the President, the
Economic Report of the President, and the Social Report of the
President;
(2) an examination of resources available to the Nation, the
foreseeable costs and expected benefits of existing and proposed
Federal programs, and the resources and cost implications of
alternative sets of national priorities; and
(3) recommendations concerning spending priorities among Federal
programs and courses of action, including the identification of
those programs and courses of action which should be given greatest
priority and those which could more properly be deferred.
(c) In addition to the national goals and priorities report and
other reports and studies which the Office submits to the Congress,
the Office shall provide upon request to any Member of the Congress
further information, data, or analysis relevant to an informed
determination of national goals and priorities.
Powers of the Office
SEC. 204. (a) In the performance of its functions under this
title, the Office is authorized—
(1) to make, promulgate, issue, rescind, and amend rules and
regulations governing the manner of the operations of the Office;

262
(2) to employ and fix the compensation of such employees, and
purchase or otherwise acquire such furniture, office equipment,
books, stationery, and other supplies, as may be necessary for the
proper performance of the duties of the Office and as may be
appropriated by the Congress;
(3) to obtain the services of experts and consultants, in accor¬
dance with the provisions of section 3109 of title 5, United
States Code; and
(4) to use the United States mails in the same manner and upon
the same conditions as other departments and agencies of the
United States.
(b) (1) Each department, agency, and instrumentality of the
executive branch of the Government, including independent agencies,
is authorized and directed, to the extent permitted by law, to
furnish to the Office, upon request made by the Director, such
information as the Director considers necessary to carry out the
functions of the Office.
(2) The Comptroller General of the United States shall furnish
to the Director copies of analyses of expenditures prepared by the
General Accounting Office with respect to any department or agency
in the executive branch.
(3) The Office of Management and Budget shall furnish to the
Director copies of special analytic studies, program and financial
plans, and such other reports of a similar nature as may be re¬
quired under the planning-programing-budgeting system, or any other
law.
(c) Section 2107 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by—
(1) striking out the "and" at the end of paragraph (7);
(2) striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and inserting
in lieu thereof a semicolon and the word "and"; and
(3) adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:
"(9) the Director, Assistant Director, and employees of the
Office of Goals and Priorities Analysis."
Joint Economic Committee Hearings
SEC. 205. The Joint Economic Committee of the Congress shall
hold hearings on the national goals and priorities report and on
such other reports and duties of the Office as it deems advisable.
Payment of Expenses
SEC. 206. All expenses and salaries of the Office shall be
paid by the Secretary of the Senate from funds appropriated for
the Office upon vouchers signed by the Director or, in the event
of a vacancy in that Office, the Acting Director.

REFERENCES
Adrian, Charles R. & Charles Press (1968): "Decision Costs in
Coalition Formation." American Political Science Review
62: 556-63.
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations [ACIR] (1968):
Urban and Rural America: Policies for Future Growth.
Washington: Government Printing Office.
Allison, Graham T. (1971): Essence of Decisions. Boston: Little,
Brown.
Almond, Gabriel A. (1960): "A Functional Approach to Comparative
Politics." In Gabriel A. Almond & James S. Coleman [eds.]
The Politics of the Developing Areas. Princeton: Prince¬
ton University Press.
American Institute of Planners [AIP] (1974): National Planning
Policy of the American Institute of Planners. Washington:
AIP.
Bailey, Stephen K. (1950): Congress Makes a Law: The Story Behind
the Employment Act of 1946. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Barber, James (1965): The Lawmakers. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Bauer, Raymond [ed.] (1966): social indicators. Cambridge: MIT
Press.
Beckman, Norman (1974a): "Congressional Information Processes for
Coordinating National Policies." Congressional Research
Service, Library of Congress (March 1).
(1974b): Use of a Staff Agency by the Congress: Experi¬
ences of the Congressional Research Service under the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970." Prepared for
delivery at the 1974 Annual Meeting of the American
Political Science Association, Chicago.
263

264
Bell, Daniel (1966): "The Adequacy of Our Concepts." In Bertram
M. Gross [ed.]: a Great society? New York: Basic Books.
(1969): "The Idea of a Social Report." The Public
Interest 15: 72-84.
Benson, Robert S. & Harold Wolman [eds.] (1971): Counterbudget.
New York: Praeger.
Bezold, Clement (1974): "Strategic Policy Assessment: Activities
and Prospects." Prepared for the Commission on Critical
Choices for Americans, pp. 438-88 in Joint Committee on
Congressional Operations: Hearings, Congressional Re¬
search Support and Information Services. 93rd Congress,
1st Session. Washington: Government Printing Office.
(1975): "A Description of the Foresight Provision of
the House Rules." Gainesville, Florida: Center for
Governmental Responsbi1 ity, Spessard L. Holland Law
Center, (July) mimeo.
Bibby, John R. & Roger H. Davidson (1972): on Capitol Hill. 2nd ed.
Hinsdale, Illinois: Dryden Press.
Bolling, Richard (1965): House out of order. New York: Dutton.
(1968): Power in the House. New York: Dutton.
Bullock, Charles S. (1973): "Motivations for Congressional Commit¬
tee Preferences, Freshmen of the 92nd Congress." Pre¬
sented at the 1973 Annual Meeting of the Southwestern
Political Science Association, Dallas.
Caldwell, Catherine (1970): "Social Science as Ammunition."
Psychology Today 4: 38-41, 72-73.
Campbell, Angus & Philip Converse [eds.] (1972): The Human Meaning
of social change. New York: Basic Books.
Chamberlain, Lawrence H. (1946): The President, Congress, and
Legislation. New York: Columbia University Press.
Church, George J. (1972): "Can the World Survive Economic Growth?"
Time 100(7) (August 14): 56-57.
Clausen, Aage R. (1973): How Congressmen Decide: A Policy Focus.
New York: St. Martin's Press.

265
Coates, Joseph (1974): "Some Methods and Techniques for Compre¬
hensive Impact Assessment." Technological Forecasting
and Social Change 6: 341-57.
â–  (1975): "Technology Assessment and Public Wisdom."
Journal of the Washington Academy of Science 65: 3-12.
(forthcoming): "The Role of Formal Models in Tech¬
nology Assessment." Technological Forecasting and Social
change [7 (Spring, 1976)].
Cobb, Rogert W. & Charles D. Elder (1972): Participation in Ameri¬
can Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda Building. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Cole, H. et al. (1973): Thinking About the Future: A Critique of
The Limits to Growth. Sussex: Chatto & Hindus, Sussex
University Press.
Committee for Economic Development (1970): Making congress More
Effective. New York: Committee for Economic Development.
(1974): "Congressional Decision Making for National
Security." New York: Committee on Economic Development,
pp. 378-437 in Joint Committee on Congressional Opera¬
tions (1974): Hearings, Congressional Research Support
and information Services. 93rd Congress, 2nd Session.
Washington: Government Printing Office.
Committee on Agriculture and Forestry [CAF] (1974): "Forest and
Rangeland Environmental Management Act of 1974." Report
no. 93-686. 93rd Congress, 2nd Session, Senate. Washing¬
ton: Government Printing Office.
Committee on Banking and Currency [CBC] (1972a), Subcommittee on
Housing: Hearings, National Growth Policy. Part 1. 92nd
Congress, 2nd Session, House. Washington: Government
Printing Office.
(1972b), Subcommittee on Housing: Hearings, National
Growth Policy, Part 2. 92nd Congress, 2nd Session,
House. Washington: Government Printing Office.
(1972c), Subcommittee on Housing: "The Housing and
Urban Development Act of 1972." Report no. 92-1429.
92nd Congress, 2nd Session, House. Washington: Govern¬
ment Printing Office.
Committee on Government Operations [CGO] (1974): Legislative
History, Public Law 93-344, Congressional Budget and
impoundment Control Act of 1974. 93rd Congress, 2nd
Session, Senate. Washington: Government Printing Office.

266
Committee on Public Works [CPW] (1974a): Proceedings of the Science
Advisory Panel. Serial no. 93-36. 93rd Congress, 2nd
Session, House. Washington: Government Printing Office.
(1974b): "A National Public Works Investment Policy."
Serial no. 93-99. 93rd Congress, 2nd Session, House.
Washington: Government Printing Office.
(1974c): Hearings, A National Public Works Investment
Policy: A Strategy for Balanced Population, Growth,
and Economic Development. Serial no. 93-51. 93rd Con¬
gress, 2nd Session, House. Washington: Government Print¬
ing Office.
Congressional Research Service [CRS] (1971): "Technical Informa¬
tion for Congress." Report to the Subcommittee on Sci¬
ence, Research and Development. Serial A. rev. 92nd
Congress, 2nd Session, House. Washington: Government
Printing Office.
(1972): "Development of National Urban Growth and
Rural Development Policy: Legislative and Executive
Actions in 1970 and 1971," by Norman Beckman & Bruce
E. Langdon. Washington: Library of Congress (March 23).
(1973): "Toward a
State Developments
93rd Congress, 1st
Printing Office.
National Growth Policy: Federal and
in 1972." Senate Document no. 93-19
Session. Washington: Government
(1974): "Toward a
State Developments
93rd Congress, 2nd
Printing Office.
National Growth Policy: Federal and
in 1973." Senate Document No. 93-123.
Session. Washington: Government
(1975): "Toward a National Growth Policy: Federal and
State Developments in 1974." Report to the Joint Eco¬
nomic Committee. 94th Congress, 1st Session. Washington:
Government Printing Office.
Cornish, Sally Woodhull & Bryan Schmalz (1973): "Futurists Testify
Before U.S. Congress." The Futurist 7: 223-30.
Culver, John (1972a): "As We Move into the Future, Which Way Do
We Go?" Speech before the Council Bluffs Junior Chamber
Of Commerce (January 11). In Congressional Record,
February 15, S1947-49.

267
Culver, John (1972b): Letter to members of the House, December 29.
(1973a): Letter to Representative Richard Bolling,
February 27.
(1973b): Considerations on Establishing a Framework
for the Work of the Select Committee. Memorandum to
Representative Richard Bolling, February 27.
Davidson, Roger H. (1969): The Role of the Congressman. New York:
Pegasus.
(1974): "The Struggle for Congressional Committee
Reform." Presented at the the 1974 Annual Meeting of
the American Political Science Association, Chicago.
& Walter J. Oleszek (1975): "Adaptation and Integra¬
tion: Structural Innovation in the House of Representa¬
tives." Presented at the 1975 Annual Meeting of the
American Political Science Association, Chicago.
, David M. Kovenock & Michael K. O'Leary (1971): congress
in Crisis: Politics and Congressional Reform. Belmont,
California: Duxbury Press.
Deutsch, Karl W., John Platt & Dieter Senghaas (1971): "Conditions
Favoring Major Advances in Social Science." science 171:
450-59.
Downs, Anthony (1967): inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown.
Duncan, Otis Dudley (1969): Toward Social Reporting: Next Steps.
Social Science Frontiers Series, no. 2. New York: Rus¬
sell Sage Foundation.
(1974): "Developing Social Indicators: Social Change/
Social Accounting/Social Statistics/Social Reporting/
Social Forecasting." Presented at the Annual Meeting
of the National Academy of Sciences.
Fenno, Richard (1973): Congressmén in Committees. Boston: Little,
Brown.
Ferkiss, Victor C. (1969): Technological Man. New York: Braziller.
Flax, Michael (1971): Blacks and Whites: An Experiment in Racial
indicators. Report no. 85-136-5. Washington: Urban
Institute.

268
Flax, Michael (1972): "A Study in Comparative Urban Indicators:
Conditions in 18 Large Metropolitan Areas." Paper no.
1206-4. Washington: Urban Institute.
, Michael Springer & Jeremy B. Taylor (1974): "Social
Indicators and Society: Some Key Dimensions." In G.
Gappert & R. Rose [eds.]: The Social Economy of Cities.
Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Forrester, Jay W. (1971): world Dynamics. Cambridge: Wright-
Alien Press.
FOX, Karl A. (1974): Social Indicators and Social Theory. New
York: John Wiley.
Full Opportunity (1967); Committee on Government Operations, Sub¬
committee on Government Research: Hearings, The Full
Opportunity and Social Ccounting Act. Parts 1, 2, and
3. 90th Congress, 1st Session, Senate. Washington:
Government Printing Office.
(1970a); Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Special
Subcommittee on Evaluation and Planning of Social Pro¬
grams. Hearings, The Full Opportunity Act. 91 St Congress,
1st & 2nd Sessions, Senate. Washington: Government Print¬
ing Office.
______ (1970b); Committee on Labor and Public Welfare: "The
Full Opportunity Act." Report no. 91-998. 91st Congress,
2nd Session, Senate. Washington: Government Printing
Office.
(1971); Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Special
Subcommittee on Evaluation and planning of Social Pro¬
grams: Hearings, The Full Opportunity and National Goals
and Priorities Act. 92nd Congress, 1st Session, Senate.
Washington: Government Printing Office.
(1972); Committee on Labor and Public Welfare: "The
Full Opportunity and National Goals and Priorities Act."
Report no. 92-866. 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, Senate.
Washington: Government Printing Office.
(1973); Committee on Labor and Public Welfare: "The
Full Opportunity and National Goals and Priorities Act."
Report no. 93-324. 93rd Congress, 1st Session, Senate.
Washington: Government Printing Office.

269
Garn, Harvey A., Michael J. Flax, Michael Springer & Jeremy B.
Taylor (n.d.): "Models for Indicator Development: Tools
for Applied Social Research." Washington: Urban Institute.
Gergen, Kenneth J. (1968): "Assessing the Leverage Points in the
Process of Policy Formation." In Raymond A. Bauer &
Kenneth J. Gergen [eds.]: The Study of Policy Formula¬
tion. New York: Free Press.
Gillette, Robert (1972): "Limits to Growth: Hard Sell for a Com¬
puter View of Doomsday." science 175: 1088-92.
Goals for Americans (1960). Report of the President's Commission
on National Goals. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Goldsmith, Edward, Robert Allen, Michael Allaby, John Davoll, Sam
Lawrence (1972): "Blueprint for Survival." The Ecologist
2(1). pp. 329-73 in Growth and Its Implications (1973).
Gordon, Theodore (1974): "Current Methods of Futures Research."
In Albert Somit [ed.]: Political Science and the Study
of the Future. Hinsdale, Illinois: Dryden Press.
Graham, Otis L., Jr. (forthcoming): Toward a Planned Society:
From Roosevelt to Nixon. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Gross, Bertram (1953): The Legislative struggle. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
(1965): "The State of the Union." Transaction 3: 17-21.
(1966): The State of the Nation: Social Systems Ac-
. counting. New York: Tavistock Publications.
[ed.] (1970): "Political Intelligence for America's
Future." Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science 388.
& Michael Springer [eds.] (1967): "Social Goals and
Indicators for American Society." Annals of the Ameri¬
can Academy of Political and Social Science 371, 373.
Growth and Its Implications (1973); Committee on Merchant Marine
and Fisheries, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife
Conservation and the Environment: Hearings, Growth and
Its Implications for the Future. Part 1. Serial no.
93-7. 93rd Congress, 1st Session, Senate. Washington:
Government Printing Office.

270
Growth and Its Implications (1974a); Committee on Merchant Marine
and Fisheries, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife Con¬
servation and the Environment: Hearings, Growth and Its
Implications for the Future. Part 2. Serial no. 93-28.
93rd Congress, 2nd Session, House. Washington: Government
Printing Office.
(1974b); Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife Conservation and
the Environment: Hearings, Growth and Its Implications
for the Future. Part 3. Series no. 93-29. 93rd Congress,
2nd Session, House. Washington: Government Printing
Office.
(1975); Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife Conservation and
the Environment: Hearings, Growth and Its Implications
for the Future; Hearings, Environmental Research Centers.
Part 4. Serial no. 93-35. 93rd Congress, 2nd Session,
House. Washington: Government Printing Office.
Harman, Willis W. (1972): "Key Choices of the New Two Decades."
pp. 28-36 in White House Conference on the Industrial
World Ahead: A Look at Business in 1990. Washington:
Government Printing Office.
(1973): "General Testimony and Prepared Statement."
pp. 472-79 in SCC (1973b).
Hartley, David K., Milton Patton, Ralph R. Widner with Kenneth D.
Rainey, Lucia B. Findley, James Petersilia (1974):
"Experiments in Growth Policy: A Reconnaissance of State
and Local Approaches to the Problem of Growth." Columbus,
Ohio: Academy for Contemporary Problems, (May) mimeo.
Heilbroner, Robert L. (1972): "The Limits to Growth." Foreign
Affairs (October); pp. 213-27 in Growth and Its Impli¬
cations (1973).
Henriot, Peter J. (1970): "Political Questions about Social
Indicators." The Western Political Quarterly 22: 235-55.
Huddle, Franklin P. (1971): "The Evolution and Dynamics of National
Goals in the United States." Committee print. Serial no.
92-2. 92nd Congress, 1st Session, Senate. Washington:
Government Printing Office.

271
Humphrey, Hubert H. (1974): "Statement on S. 3050, The Balanced
Growth and Development Act of 1974." Congressional
Record, February 25, S2104-S2106.
Huntington, Samuel P. (1972): "Congressional Responses to the
Twentieth Century." In David Truman [ed.]: The Congress
and America's Future. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
(1974): "Post Industrial Politics: How Benign Will It
Be?" Comparative Politics 7: 163-91.
Jayson, Lester (1974): "Memo on the Preparation of Lists of Sub¬
jects and Policy Areas for Submission to Committees,"
July 28, 1972. pp. 89-99 in Joint Committee on Congres¬
sional Operations: Congressional Research Support and
Information Services. A Compendium of Materials. 93rd
Congress, 2nd Session. Washington: Government Printing
Office.
Jewell, Malcolm E. & Samuel C. Patterson (1973): The Legislative
Process in the united states. 2nd ed. New York: Random
House.
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy [JCAE] (1973): "National Energy
Dilemma." 93rd Congress, 1st Session. Washington: Govern¬
ment Printing Office.
Joint Economic Committee [JEC] (1970), Subcommittee on Economy in
Government: Hearings, Changing National Priorities.
91st Congress, 2nd Session. Washington: Government
Printing Office.
(1971), Subcommittee on Urban Affairs: "Restoration of
Effective Sovereignty To Solve Social Problems." 92nd
Congress, 1st Session. Washington: Government Printing
Office.
(1973), Subcommittee on Economic Progress: a Proposal
for Achieving Balanced National Growth and Development.
93rd. Congress, 1st Session. Washington: Government Print¬
ing Office.
(1974), Subcommittee on Economic Growth: Hearings, Long
Term Economic Growth. 93rd Congress, 2nd Session. Wash¬
ington: Government Printing Office.

272
Kahn, Herman & B. Bruce-Briggs (1972): Things To Come. New York:
Macmillan.
Kaysen, Carl (1972): "The Computer That Printed Out Wolf." Foreign
Affairs (Summer); pp. 185-93 in Growth and Its Implica¬
tions (1973).
Kingdon, John W. (1973): Congressmen's Voting Decisions. New York:
Harper & Row.
Klein, Rudolf (1972): "Growth and Its Enemies." commentary (June);
pp. 194-201 in Growth and Its Implications (1973).
Knezo, Genevieve J. (1973): Social Indicators: A Review of Re¬
search and Policy Issues. HN U.S. 73-39 SP. Science
Policy Research Division, Congressional Research Serv¬
ice, Library of Congress.
Kofmehl, Kenneth (1962): Professional Staffs of Congress. West
Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press.
Kraft, Joseph (1966): "A Social Accounting." Washington Post,
January 4, pp. All.
Lasswell, Harold D. (1963): "The Decision Process: Seven Cate¬
gories of Functional Analysis." In Newton W. Polsby et
al. [eds.]: Political and Social Life. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
' (1971): A Preview of Policy Sciences. New York: El Sevier
Lowi, Theodore (1969): The End of Liberalism. New York: Norton.
Maddox, John (1972): "The Doomsday Syndrome." Saturday Review of
society, October 21, pp. 31-37.
Manley, John F. (1968): "Congressional Staff and Public Policy
Making: The Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxa¬
tion." Journal of Politics 30: 1046-67.
Mayhew, David (1974): The Electoral connection. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
McGinnis, Robert (1972): "Book Review Symposium on The Limits to
Growth." Demography 10: 289-95.
Meadows, Dennis L., Donella H. Meadows, Jorgen Randers & William
W. Behrens III (1972): The Limits to Growth. New York:
Universe Books.

273
Mesarovic, Mihajlo & Eduard Pestel (1974): Mankind at the Turning
Point. New York: Dutton.
Mi shan, E. J. (1972): "Review of Limits to Growth." New Scientist
(May); pp. 211-13 in Growth and Its Implications (1973).
Mondale, Walter (1967): "Some Thoughts on 'Stumbling into the
Future.'" American Psychologist 22: 970-73.
National Academy of Sciences [NAS] (1968): "The Behavioral Sciences
and the Federal Government." NAS Pub. 1680. Washington:
Government Printing Office.
(1969a): The Behavioral and Social Sciences, Outlook
and Needs. Report of the Behavioral and Social Sciences
Survey Committee. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-
Hall.
(1969b): Resources and Man. San Francisco: Freeman.
National Committee on Urban Growth Policy (1969): The New city.
Washington: Government Printing Office.
National Science Foundation [NSF] (1969): Knowledge into Action:
Increasing the Nation's Use of the Social Sciences.
Report of the Special Committee on the Social Sciences.
Washington: Government Printing Office.
Nixon, Richard M. (1970): "Statement of the President upon Announc¬
ing the Establishment of the National Goals Research
Staff Within the White House." pp. 219-22 in Toward
Balanced Growth (1970).
Olson, Mancur (1960): "Toward a Social Report: Its Plan and Purpose.
The Public Interest 15: 85-97.
(-1973): "Evaluating Performance in the Public Sector."
In Milton MOSS [ed.]: The Measurement of Economic and
social Performance. New York: National Bureau of Economic
Research.
(n.d.): The Evaluation of Collective Performance: An
Essay on the Information Needed for Assessing and Im¬
proving the 'Quality of Life.' Unpublished manuscript.
Orfield, Gary (1975): Congressional Power: Congress and Social
change. New York: Harcourt Brace & Jovanovich.

274
Orlans, Harold (1971): "The Political Use of Social Research."
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science 394.
Ornstein, Norman J. (1973): "Causes and Consequences of Congres¬
sional Change: Subcommittee Reforms in the House of
Representatives." Presented at the 1973 Annual Meeting
of the American Political Science Association, New
Orleans.
& David H. Rohde (1974): "The Strategy of Reform:
Recorded Teller Voting in the U.S. House of Representa¬
tives." Presented at the 1974 Convention of the Midwest
Political Science Association.
Payne, James (1968): Patterns of Conflict in Colombia. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
& Oliver Woshinsky (1972): "Incentives for Political
Participation." world Politics 24: 518-46.
The People Left Behind (1968). Report of the National Advisory
Commission on Rural Poverty. Washington: Government
Printing Office.
, Polsby, Nelson W. (1969): "Policy Analysis and Congress." Public
Policy 17: 61-74.
(1971): Congress and the Presidency. 2nd ed. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Population and the American Future (1972). Commission on Population
Growth and the American Future. Washington: Government
Printing Office.
Price, David (1972): who Makes the Laws? Cambridge: Schenkman.
Putnam, Robert (1973): Beliefs of Politicians. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Ray, Robert D. (1974): "Governor's Conference on Iowa in the Year
2000." Preliminary report of the planning committee.
Ames: Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa State University.
Recent Social Trends (1933). President's Research Committee on
Social Trends. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Report on National Growth 1972. President's biennial report.
Washington: Government Printing Office.

275
Robinson, James A. (1962): Congress and Foreign Policy-Making: A
Study in Legislative Influence and Initiative. Homewood,
Illinois: Dorsey Press.
Roth, Harold H. (1959): The Executive Office of the President: A
Study of Its Development with Special Emphasis on the
Period 1939-1953. Doctoral dissertation. Washington:
American University. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.
Saloma, John S. (1969): Congress and the New Politics. Boston:
Little, Brown.
Schneier, Edward V. (1970): "The Intelligence of Congress: Informa¬
tion and Public Policy Patterns." Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science 388.
Schultze, Charles L., Edward K. Hamilton & Allen Schick (1970):
Setting National Priorities: The 1971 Budget. Washington:
Brookings Institution.
Edward R. Fried, Alice M. Rivlin & Nancy H.
Teeters (T971): Setting National Priorities: The 1972
Budget. Washington: Brookings Institution.
Schwartz, S. I. & T. C. Foin (1972): "A Critical Review of the
Social Systems Models of Jay Forrester." Human Ecology
1: 161-73.
Select Committee on Committees [SCC] (1973a): Hearings, Committee
Organization in the House. Vol. 1. 93rd Congress, 1st
Session, House. Washington: Government Printing Office.
(1973b): Panel Discussions, committee Organization in
the House. Vol. 2. 93rd Congress, 1st Session, House.
Washington: Government Printing Office.
(1973c): Hearings, Committee Organization in the House.
Vol. 3. 93rd Congress, 1st Session, House. Washington:
Government Printing Office.
(1973d): Committee Organization in the House. Index to
vois. l, 2, and 3. 93rd Congress, 1st Session, House.
Washington: Government Printing Office.
(1974a): "Working Draft." Committee print no. 1. 93rd
Congress, 2nd Session, House. Washington: Government
Printing Office.

276
Select Committee on Committees [SCC] (1974b): Open Business Meeting,
Committee Reform Amendments of 1974. 93rd Congress, 2nd
Session, House. Washington: Government Printing Office.
(1974c): Index to Markup of House Resolution. 93rd
Congress, 2nd Session, House. Washington: Government
Printi ng Office.
(1974d): "The Committee Reform Amendments of 1974." Part 1.
Report 93-916. 93rd Congress, 2nd Session, House. Washing¬
ton: Government Printing Office.
(1974e): "The Committee Reform Amendments of 1974." Part 2.
Report no. 93-916. 93rd Congress, 2nd Session, House.
Washington: Government Printing Office.
(1974f): The Congress and Information Technology. Pre¬
pared by the Science Policy Research Division, Congres¬
sional Research Service, Library of Congress (May 5).
93rd Congress,.2nd Session, House. Washington: Government
Printing Office.
______ (1974g): "Explanation of H. Res. 988 As Adopted by the
House of Representatives, October 8, 1974." 93rd Congress,
2nd Session, House. Washington: Government Printing Office.
Simon, Herbert (1966): "Political Research: The Decision-Making
Framework." In David Easton [ed.]: varieties of Political
Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
social indicators 1973. Office of Management and Budget. Executive
Office of the President. Washington: Government Printing
Office.
"Social Science and the Federal Government" (1971). Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science
Sundquist, James (1975): Dispersing Population. Washington: Brookings
Institution.
Technology and the American Economy (1966). Report Of the National
Commission on Technology, Automation, and Economic
Progress. Washington: Government Printing Office.
Terleckyj, Nestor E. (forthcoming): Estimates of Possibilities for
Improvement in the Quality of Life in the United States,
1973-1983. Washington: National Planning Association.
(1974): "Goals Accounting System." Presented at the
1974 Meeting of the American Statistical Association.

277
Toffler, Alvin (1970): Future shock. New York: Bantam.
(1975a): The Ecospasm—Report. New York: Bantam.
(1975b): "What Is Anticipatory Democracy?" The Futurist
9: 224-27.
Toward Balanced Growth: Quantity with Quality (1970). National
Goals Research Staff. Washington: Government Printing
Office.
Towards a Social Report (1969). U.S. Department of Health, Educa¬
tion and Welfare. Washington: Government Printing Office
Ulph, Owen (1973): "On the Limits to Growth, the Human Condition,
and the Meaning of Overshoot and Collapse." sierra club
Bulletin 58: 10-14, 28-29.
Uslaner, Eric M. (1974): Congressional Committee Assignments:
Alternative Models for Behavior. Sage Professional
Papers, no. 04-019. Bever.ly Hills: Sage Publications.
Wahlke, John C., Heinz Eulau, William Buchanan & Leroy C. Ferguson
(1962): The Legislative System. New York: John Wiley.
Wildavsky, Aaron (1966): "The Political Economy of Efficiency:
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Systems Analysis, and Program
Budgeting." Public Administration Review 26: 292-310.
Winter, Gibson (1968): Elements for a social Ethic. New York:
Macmillan.
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars [WWICS] (1973):
"Institutions for Strategic Policy Assessments--A
Proposal." In Congressional Record, February 25, 1975,
pp. S2116-19.
(1974): Research on Growth: An Inventory of Effects in
the united states and Elsewhere. Preliminary ed. Washing
ton: WWICS.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Clement Bezold began his observations of congressional opera¬
tions in 1968 as an elevator operator in the basement of the
Longworth House Office Building. From there the only place to go
was up.
The second of five sons of Henry and Katherine Bezold, Clement
was born and reared in Miami, Florida. He attended the Foreign
Service School at Georgetown University, Washington, D. C., earning
a B.S.F.S. degree in 1970.
His non-academic experience and activities include community
service projects in Roxbury, Massachusetts, and Medellin, Colombia.
The experience in Colombia provided on a Lisle Fellowship led to
a position as International Affairs Vice-President of the United
States Youth Council and as United Nations Representative to the
World Assembly of Youth. He was a congressional intern in the of¬
fice of Representative Dante B. Fascell of Miami, and he has been
involved in various election campaigns and voter registration ef¬
forts as well as local and state offices in Common Cause. In addi¬
tion to elevator operator and professional campaign staff, his
previous employment included free lance photography and teaching
at Immaculata LaSalle High School in Miami, Florida.
His graduate training began at the University of Florida in
1971. International relations and comparative government in Latin
278

279
America were the focus of his work for the master's degree awarded
in 1973. His doctoral work has focused on American government and
politics, particularly the operations of Congress. He received
the Graduate School Fellowship, various graduate assistantships,
and other awards from the University of Florida. A graduate fellow¬
ship from the Center for Governmental Responsibility supported
his dissertation research, during which time he participated in
the Visiting Scholars Program at the Brookings Institution.
Because of the nature of Mr. Bezold's research, he has worked
as a consultant for the Commission on Critical Choices for Ameri¬
cans, and his work has been published in congressional hearings,
The Futurist, and elsewhere.
In 1974-75 Clement Bezold became Social Science Coordinator
for the Center for Governmental Responsibility, and in 1975 he
became Assistant Director, his present position. His work involves
public interest research and education on issues of accountability
and foresight in government.

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion
it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and
is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Victor A. Thompson, Chairman
Professor of Political Science
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion
it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and
is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
yí, SF
Fitch, III
Assistant Professor of
Political Science
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion
it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and
is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
)
Associate Professor of
Political Science
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion
it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and
is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
William G. Munselle
Assistant Professor of
Political Science

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
/X*/ /Wq
á/)¿Q} n
RamonafR. Rush
Associate Professor of Journalism
and Communications
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
Eric M. Uslaner
Assistant Professor of Political
Science
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the
Department of Political Science and to the Graduate Council, and
was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
March, 1976
Dean, Graduate School

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
3 1262 07332 038 3




PAGE 1

675$7(*,& 32/,&< $66(660(17 $1' &21*5(66,21$/ 5()250 7+( )8785( ,1 &200,77(( E\ &OHPHQW %H]ROG $ 'LVVHUWDWLRQ 3UHVHQWHG WR WKH *UDGXDWH &RXQFLO RI 7KH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD ,Q 3DUWLDO )XOILOOPHQW RI WKH 5HTXLUHPHQWV IRU WKH 'HJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$

PAGE 2

&RS\ULJKW E\ &OHPHQW %H]ROG

PAGE 3

$&.12:/('*0(176 7KLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ LV WKH SURGXFW RI DVVLVWDQFH IURP D YDULHW\ RI SHUVRQV DQG LQVWLWXWLRQV ZRXOG OLNH WR DFNQRZOHGJH WKHLU FRQWULEXWLRQV DQG H[SUHVV P\ KHDUWIHOW WKDQNV 7R WKH VXSHUYLVRU\ FRPPLWWHH 9LFWRU $ 7KRPSVRQ FKDLUPDQ :LOOLDP 0XQVHOOH (ULF 0 8VODQHU .HLWK 5 /HJJ -RKQ 6 )LWFK DQG 5DPRQD 5 5XVK 7R -RQ / 0LOOV GLUHFWRU RI WKH &HQWHU IRU *RYHUQPHQWDO 5Hn VSRQVLELOLW\ IRU FRQWLQXHG LQVWLWXWLRQDO ILQDQFLDO DQG SHUVRQDO VXSSRUW 7KLV UHVHDUFK JUHZ RXW RI WKH FHQWHUnV SURMHFW RQ FRQJUHVn VLRQDO DFFRXQWDELOLW\ DQG JUHZ LQWR LWV SURMHFW RQ &RQJUHVV DQG WKH IXWXUH 7R RWKHUV RQ WKH FHQWHU VWDII IRU WKHLU VXSSRUW DQG WR :LOOLDP 0XQVHOOH ZKR SURPSWHG P\ ILUVW UHVHDUFK IRU WKH FHQWHU 7R 0LFKDHO 0F,QWRVK DQG WKH 0F,QWRVK )RXQGDWLRQ IRU IXQGLQJ SURYLGHG WR WKH FHQWHU DQG XVHG LQ WKLV UHVHDUFK 7R WKH VHQDWRUV UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV VWDII SHUVRQV RIILFLDOV DQG H[SHUWV ZKR UHVSRQGHG WR IRUPDO DQG LQIRUPDO LQWHUYLHZ TXHVn WLRQV ZKLFK SURYLGHG PRVW RI WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ IRU WKLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ 7R 5RJHU 'DYLGVRQ )UHG +ROERUQ +HUEHUW -DVSHU *HQHYLHYH .QH]R DQG -DPHV 7KRUQWRQ ZKR UHYLHZHG FKDSWHUV GHDOLQJ ZLWK FDVHV ZLWK ZKLFK WKH\ KDG EHHQ LQYROYHG DV VWDII SHUVRQV 7KHLU FRPPHQWV ZHUH WKRXJKWIXO DQG KHOSIXO IRU DFFXUDF\ RI LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG LQWHUSUHn WDWLRQ DOWKRXJK WKH UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU TXHVWLRQV RI LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ UHPDLQV P\ RZQ

PAGE 4

7R WKH *RYHUQPHQWDO 6WXGLHV 'LYLVLRQ RI WKH %URRNLQJV ,QVWLn WXWLRQ IRU JXHVW SULYLOHJHV IRU D IULHQGO\ DQG LQWHOOHFWXDO DWPRVSKHUH IRU LQFUHDVHG DFFHVV WR FRQJUHVVLRQDO RIILFHV UHVXOWn LQJ IURP DVVRFLDWLRQ ZLWK WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ DQG IRU UHJXODU YROOH\n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

PAGE 5

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n WLRQ 0RYLQJ D %LOO :LWKRXW D &RPPLWWHH 1DWLRQDO *URZWK DQG WKH %XGJHW 5HSRUW ,QWHUHVW DQG 6XSSRUW 2XWVLGH &RQJUHVV 7KH 6HQDWH *RYHUQPHQW 2SHUDWLRQV &RPPLWWHH 6HQDWRU +XPSKUH\nV *RDOV 6XPPDU\ ,QFXEDWLQJ DQ 63$ 5HIRUP 1RWHV Y

PAGE 6

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n WLRQV RI 7KLV 5HVHDUFK &RQFOXVLRQ $33(1',&(6 5()(5(1&(6 %,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ YL

PAGE 7

$%%5(9,$7,216 $&,5 $GYLVRU\ &RPPLVVLRQ RQ ,QWHUJRYHUQPHQWDO 5HODWLRQV $&3 $FDGHP\ IRU &RQWHPSRUDU\ 3UREOHPV $,3 $PHULFDQ ,QVWLWXWH RI 3ODQQHUV %R% %XUHDX RI WKH %XGJHW LQ WKH 2IILFH RI 0DQDJHPHQW DQG %XGJHWf ([HFXWLYH 2IILFH RI WKH 3UHVLGHQW &$) &RPPLWWHH RQ $JULFXOWXUH DQG )RUHVWU\ 86 6HQDWH &%& &RPPLWWHH RQ %DQNLQJ DQG &XUUHQF\ 86 +RXVH RI 5HSUHVHQWDWLYHV &($ &RXQFLO RI (FRQRPLF $GYLVHUV ([HFXWLYH 2IILFH RI WKH 3UHVLGHQW &(' &RPPLWWHH IRU (FRQRPLF 'HYHORSPHQW & &RPPLWWHH RQ /DERU DQG 3XEOLF :HOIDUH 86 6HQDWH &/3: &RPPLWWHH RQ /DERU DQG 3XEOLF :HOIDUH 86 6HQDWH &233 &RQJUHVVLRQDO 2IILFH RI 3ROLF\ DQG 3ODQQLQJ SURSRVHG LQ 6 UG &RQJUHVVf &3: &RPPLWWHH RQ 3XEOLF :RUNV 86 +RXVH &4 &RQJUHVVLRQDO 4XDUWHUO\ &5 &RQJUHVVLRQDO 5HFRUG GDLO\ HGLWLRQf &56 &RQJUHVVLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFH &6$ &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV SURSRVHG LQ 6 UG &RQJUHVVf )5 )HGHUDO 5HJLVWHU +(: 'HSDUWPHQW RI +HDOWK (GXFDWLRQ DQG :HOIDUH ,67$ ,QWHUQDWLRQDO 6RFLHW\ IRU 7HFKQRORJ\ $VVHVVPHQW -&$( -RLQW &RPPLWWHH RQ $WRPLF (QHUJ\ 86 &RQJUHVV -&&2 -RLQW &RPPLWWHH RQ &RQJUHVVLRQDO 2SHUDWLRQV 86 &RQJUHVV -&(5 -RLQW &RPPLWWHH RQ WKH (FRQRPLF 5HSRUW HVWDEOLVKHG E\ (PSOR\PHQW $FW EHFDPH -RLQW (FRQRPLF &RPPLWWHHf 86 &RQJUHVV -&65 -RLQW &RPPLWWHH RQ WKH 6RFLDO 5HSRUW SURSRVHG LQ 6 UG &RQJUHVVf -(& -RLQW (FRQRPLF &RPPLWWHH IRUPHUO\ -&(5f 86 &RQJUHVV

PAGE 8

/5$ /HJLVODWLYH 5HRUJDQL]DWLRQ $FW RI DQG f 1$6 1DWLRQDO $FDGHP\ RI 6FLHQFHV 1$6$ 1DWLRQDO $HURQDXWLFV DQG 6SDFH $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ 1*56 1DWLRQDO *RDOV 5HVHDUFK 6WDII ([HFXWLYH 2IILFH RI WKH 3UHVLGHQW 16) 1DWLRQDO 6FLHQFH )RXQGDWLRQ 2%1*' 2IILFH RI %DODQFHG 1DWLRQDO *URZWK DQG 'HYHORSPHQW SURSRVHG LQ 6 UG &RQJUHVVf ( 2IILFH RI (FRQRPLF 2SSRUWXQLW\ ([HFXWLYH 2IILFH RI WKH 3UHVLGHQW 2*3$ 2IILFH RI *RDOV DQG 3ULRULWLHV $QDO\VLV SURSRVHG LQ 6 UG &RQJUHVVf 27$ 2IILFH RI 7HFKQRORJ\ $VVHVVPHQW 86 &RQJUHVV 33%6 3ODQQLQJ SURJUDPPLQJ EXGJHWLQJ V\VWHP 5t' 5HVHDUFK DQG GHYHORSPHQW 6&& 6HOHFW &RPPLWWHH RQ &RPPLWWHHV 86 +RXVH RI 5HSUHVHQWDn WLYHV UG &RQJUHVV 63$ 6WUDWHWLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW 8$& 8UEDQ $GYLVRU\ &RPPLWWHH ([HFXWLYH 2IILFH RI WKH 3UHVLn GHQW ::,&6 :RRGURZ :LOVRQ ,QWHUQDWLRQDO &HQWHU IRU 6FKRODUV YQ

PAGE 9

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f SURPSWHG E\ 5HSUHVHQWDWLYH -RKQ & &XOYHU ,RZDf UHTXLUHV FRPPLWWHHV RI WKH +RXVH WR SHUIRUP IXWXUHV UHVHDUFK DQG IRUHFDVWLQJ 7KH )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ DQG 1DWLRQDO *RDOV DQG 3ULRULWLHV $FW 6 f VSRQVRUHG E\ 6HQDWRU :DOWHU ) 0RQGDOH 0LQQf ZRXOG HVWDEOLVK D &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV DQG D FRQJUHVVLRQDO 2IILFH RI *RDOV DQG 3ULRULWLHV $QDO\VLV 6HQDWRU +XEHUW + +XPSKUH\nV 0LQQf %DODQFHG 1DWLRQDO *URZWK DQG 'HYHORSPHQW $FW RI 6 f ZRXOG HVWDEOLVK PHFKDQLVPV WR VHW QDWLRQDO JURZWK SROLF\ 7KH WHUP VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW KDV EHHQ XVHG WR PHDQ WKH DQDO\VLV RI HPHUJLQJ WUHQGV DQG FRQGLWLRQV DQG WKH FODULILFDWLRQ ,;

PAGE 10

RI SROLF\ JRDOV DQG RSWLRQV LQ UHODWLRQ WR WKHVH WUHQGV DQG FRQGLn WLRQV 'HSHQGLQJ RQ FRQWH[W D VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW UHIRUP PD\ KDYH WKUHH HIIHFWV RQ FRQJUHVVLRQDO GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ f WR LQFUHDVH WKH DELOLW\ RI &RQJUHVV WR VHDUFK IRU HPHUJLQJ LVVXHV WKDW VKRXOG EH RQ WKH FRQJUHVVLRQDO DJHQGD f WR SURYLGH LQIRUPDWLRQ IRU FXUUHQW GHFLVLRQV RQ UHOHYDQW IXWXUH WUHQGV HYHQWV RU FRQGLn WLRQV DQG f WR IRUFH WKH FRQVFLRXV LQWHUUHODWLRQ RI GHFLVLRQV WDNHQ DW GLIIHUHQW WLPHV RU SODFHV ZLWKLQ JRYHUQPHQW +\SRWKHVHV ZHUH IRUPXODWHG UHODWLQJ FRPPLWWHH DQG PHPEHU IDFn WRUV WR WKH OHJLVODWLYH SURFHVVLQJ RI WKUHH SURSRVDOV 6WDJHV RI SURFHVVLQJ DQDO\]HG ZHUH f LQVWLJDWLQJ DQG SXEOLFL]LQJ f LQIRUPDWLRQ JDWKHULQJ f IRUPXODWLRQ f LQWHUHVW DJJUHJDWLRQ f PRELOL]DWLRQ DQG f PRGLILFDWLRQ $QDO\VHV ZHUH EDVHG RQ GRFXPHQWDU\ UHVHDUFK DQG H[WHQVLYH LQWHUYLHZV RI VSRQVRUV FRPPLWn WHH PHPEHUV VWDII DQG RWKHU RIILFLDOV DQG H[SHUWV )LQGLQJV VKRZHG WKDW VXFFHVVIXO SURFHVVLQJ UHTXLUHG D VXSn SRUWLYH FRPPLWWHH FKDLUPDQ VWDII ZLWK H[SHUWLVH LQ SROLF\ DQDO\VLV RU GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ SURFHVVHV DQG ZKHUH WKH UHIRUP LQYROYHG VLJn QLILFDQW FKDQJHV VNLOO LQ SROLWLFDO LQIRUPDWLRQ JDWKHULQJ DQG EDUJDLQLQJ LQWHUHVW JURXS VXSSRUW DQG IDYRUDEOH EXUHDXFUDWLF DFWLYLW\ ,QWHUHVW JURXS VXSSRUW ZDV JHQHUDWHG RQO\ LI WKH UHIRUP ZDV OLQNHG WR DQRWKHU PRUH LPPHGLDWHO\ UHOHYDQW LVVXH RU WR SURIHVVLRQDO EHQHILW IDYRUDEOH DFWLYLW\ IURP EXUHDXFUDWLF HQWLn WLHV RFFXUUHG ZKHQ WKH VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW UHIRUP ZRXOG EHQHILW WKH HQWLW\ %XUHDXFUDWLF RSSRVLWLRQ RFFXUUHG ZKHUH D [

PAGE 11

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

PAGE 12

&+$37(5 &21*5(66 $1' 675$7(*,& 32/,&< $66(660(17

PAGE 13

,1752'8&7,21 &DOOV IRU UHIRUP RI WKH GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ SURFHVVHV RI WKH 86 &RQJUHVV DUH QRW QHZ 1HLWKHU DUH WKH VRFLDO DQG HFRQRPLF SUREOHPV WKDW JHQHUDWH VXFK FDOOV ,Q UHFHQW \HDUV KRZHYHU WKH SUREOHPV KDYH PRUH IUHTXHQWO\ GHYHORSHG LQWR FULVHV DQG WKH FDOOV IRU UHIRUP KDYH EHFRPH QXPHURXV DQG XUJHQW 'XULQJ WKH UG &RQJUHVV D VHULRXV PRQHWDU\ FULVLV D IRRG VKRUWDJH FULVLV DQ XQHPSOR\PHQW DQG ZHOIDUH FULVLV DQG PRVW LPSRUWDQW DQ HQHUJ\ FULVLV EHVHW WKH QDWLRQ +DUPDQ ::,&6 f 7KHVH FULVHV ZHUH DFFRPSDQLHG E\ SURSRVDOV WR UHIRUP FRQJUHVVLRQDO SURFHVVHV LQ UHVSRQVH WR WKHVH FKDQJLQJ VRFLDO DQG HFRQRPLF FRQGLWLRQV DQG WKHUHE\ WR VWUHQJWKHQ WKH SROLF\PDNLQJ IXQFWLRQ RI QDWLRQDO JRYHUQPHQW 2XU UHVHDUFK KDV FRQFHUQHG WKUHH RI WKHVH HIIRUWV DW UHIRUPn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

PAGE 14

EHIRUH WKH\ UHDFK WKH FULVLV VWDJH 7KH UHIRUPV FKRVHQ IRU VWXG\ ZRXOG UHTXLUH LQFUHDVHG OHJLVODWLYH UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW LQFUHDVHG VWDIILQJ DQG QHZ FRPPLWWHHV IRU PRUH FRPSUHKHQVLYH DQDO\VLV DQG DGGLWLRQDO WHFKQLTXHV IRU DQWLFLSDWLQJ WKH IXWXUH 7KXV LQIRUPDWLRQ RI VRFLDO DQG HFRQRPLF UHDOLWLHV WKH HIIHFWV RI JRYHUQPHQWDO DFWLRQ DQG WKH LQWHUn UHODWHGQHVV RI GHFLVLRQV WDNHQ DW PDQ\ ORFDWLRQV ZLWKLQ &RQJUHVV DQG RWKHU SDUWV RI WKH JRYHUQPHQW PLJKW EH PDUVKDOHG ,Q VXFK UHn IRUPV IXWXUHV DQDO\VLV LV H[SHFWHG WR SURYLGH WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ LI QRW WKH SROLWLFDO ZLOO WR NHHS WKH LQVWLWXWLRQDO DJHQGD ZKDW &RQJUHVV LV FRQVLGHULQJf FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH V\VWHPDWLF DJHQGD LVVXHV ZLWKLQ WKH SROLW\ WKDW GHVHUYH FRQVLGHUDWLRQf )LUVW WKH VRFLHWDOLQVWLWXWLRQDO FRQWH[W RI &RQJUHVV LV H[n SODLQHG DV LW UHODWHV WR SROLF\ PDNLQJ LQFOXGLQJ WKH LQVWLWXn WLRQDO FDSDFLW\ RI &RQJUHVV DV D UHSUHVHQWDWLYH DVVHPEO\ WR DQn WLFLSDWH HPHUJLQJ SUREOHPV HIIHFWLYHO\ 7KHVH TXHVWLRQV DUH WKHQ H[DPLQHG LQ WHUPV RI SROLF\ DQDO\VLVZD\V RI NQRZLQJZLWKLQ &RQJUHVV 6WUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQWWKH DQDO\VLV RI HPHUJLQJ WUHQGV DQG FRQGLWLRQV DQG WKH FODULILFDWLRQ RI SROLF\ JRDOV DQG RSWLRQV LQ UHODWLRQ WR WKHVH FRQGLWLRQVLV WKHQ FRQVLGHUHG LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI FRQJUHVVLRQDO SROLF\ DQDO\VLV )LQDOO\ WKH KLVn WRULFDO GHYHORSPHQW RI DQDO\WLFDO IXQFWLRQV DQG UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV LQ &RQJUHVV WKURXJK PDMRU UHIRUPV RI WKH SDVW WKLUW\ \HDUV LV WUDFHG EHIRUH GHVFULELQJ WKUHH UHIRUPV RI WKH UG &RQJUHVV WKDW VXSSO\ RXU FDVH VWXGLHV RI WKH YDULHWLHV RI WKH FRQJUHVVLRQDO ZLOO WR UHIRUP LQ WKLV DQDO\WLFDO DUHD

PAGE 15

&21*5(66,21$/ 32/,&< 0$.,1* 7KH EDVHV RI QDWLRQDO SROLF\ PDNLQJ LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV KDYH SUHFOXGHG WUHDWPHQW RI EDVLF RU FKURQLF SUREOHPV :RUNLQJ LQ D FRQWH[W RI VRFLDO DQG OHJLVODWLYH SOXUDOLVP ERWK &RQJUHVV DQG WKH 3UHVLGHQW GHDO ZLWK SUREOHPV LPPHGLDWHO\ WKUXVW RQ WKHP E\ SUHVVXUHV RI WKH FDOHQGDU SUREOHPV WKDW FDQ EH KDQGOHG TXLFNO\ DQG SUREOHPV LQ DQ DFXWH RU FULVLV VWDJH 3ROVE\ f 7KLV WHQGHQF\ LV DFFHQWXDWHG LQ &RQJUHVV E\ WKH UHFRJQL]HG DQG OHJLWLPDWH SOXUDOLVP RI JRDOV ZKLFK DFFRPSDQLHV WKH PHPEHUV RI WKLV UHSUHVHQWDWLYH DVVHPEO\ /DFN RI IRFXV FKDUDFWHUL]HV FRQJUHVVLRQDO SROLF\ PDNLQJ EHFDXVH RI WKH SOXUDOLVP RI JRDOV WKH WHQGHQF\ WR SD\ DWWHQWLRQ WR RUJDQL]HG LQWHUHVWV WKH DEVHQFH RI HIIHFWLYH SROLF\ OHDGHUVKLS FRXSOHG ZLWK VFDWWHUDWLRQ RI UHn VSRQVLELOLW\ DV FRPPLWWHHV DQG VXEFRPPLWWHHV EHFRPH SULQFLSDO VRXUFHV RI SROLF\ IRUPXODWLRQ $ FRXQW PDGH GXULQJ WKH UG &RQJUHVV VKRZHG VWDQGLQJ DQG VSHFLDO FRPPLWWHHVD WRWDO RI ZRUN XQLWV IRU PHPEHUV 'DYLGVRQ f 7KLV IUDJPHQWDWLRQ RI OHJLVODWLYH ZRUN XQLWV FRQWULEXWHG WR IUDJPHQWHG SROLF\ &RPPLWWHHV DQG VXEFRPPLWWHHV UDUHO\ FRQVXOW RU FRRSHUDWH DPRQJ WKHPVHOYHV RQ PDWWHUV RI PXWXDO FRQFHUQ 7KXV WKHUH LV UDUHO\ DQ RSSRUWXQLW\ WR H[DPLQH FRPSUHKHQVLYH DSSURDFKHV WR QDWLRQDO SUREOHPV PXFK OHVV WKH FXPXODWLYH HIIHFWV RI SLHFHPHDO DS SURDFKHV 'DYLGVRQ f

PAGE 16

,Q DGGLWLRQ WKH PXOWLSOLFLW\ RI FRPPLWWHHV RIIHUV PDQ\ RSSRUn WXQLWLHV IRU GHOD\V LQ FRPPLWWHH ZRUN LQ IORRU DPHQGPHQWV DQG YRWHV LQ FRQIHUHQFH FRPPLWWHH DFWLRQ /DFN RI SROLWLFDO IRFXV VWUXFWXUDO IUDJPHQWDWLRQ DQG SURn FHGXUDO FRPSOH[LW\ WHQG WR VORZ WKH SURJUHVV RI &RQJUHVV WKURXJK WKH LQVWLWXWLRQDO DJHQGD DQG WR UHGXFH WKH QXPEHU RI QHZ LVVXHV WKDW PD\ EH DGGHG WR LW 7KH FURZGHG FRQJUHVVLRQDO DJHQGD LV VHW E\ FXUUHQW DQG SDVW LVVXHV UHIOHFWHG LQ H[LVWLQJ OHJLVODWLRQ &REE t (OGHU f 7KH DJHQGDEXLOGLQJ SURFHVV LV UHLQIRUFHG E\ FRQJUHVVLRQDO SURFHGXUHV H[HFXWLYH EUDQFK VWUXFWXUHV DQG LQWHUHVW JURXS FRQILJXUDWLRQV *LYHQ VXFK D VHWWLQJ &RQJUHVV DQG LWV FRPPLWWHHV VHOGRP PRQLWRU FKDQJLQJ FRQGLWLRQV ,I FKDQJLQJ FRQGLWLRQV JHQHUDWH D SUREOHP IRU D SROLWLFDOO\ UHOHYDQW JURXS LI D SUREOHP LV VHYHUH HQRXJK WR JHQHUDWH FRQVWLWXHQW GHn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

PAGE 17

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n WLRQV 7KLV UHTXLUHV D GLVFLSOLQH WKDW LVQnW LQ WKH SHUVRQDO RU SROLWLFDO OLYHV RI WKH SHRSOHA 7KLV ODFN RI GLVFLSOLQH SRVHV D SUREOHP IRU OHJLVODWRUV $V DQRWKHU PHPEHU RI &RQJUHVV SXW LW 7KHUH LV D SUREOHP ZLWK OHJLVODWLQJ LQ DGn YDQFH SURJUDPV FRVW PRQH\ 7KH SXEOLF GRHV QRW ZDQW VRPHWKLQJ WKH\ GRQnW WKLQN WKH\ QHHG DQG WKH\ GRQnW VHH WKH FXUUHQW QHHG IRU DQWLFLSDWHG SUREOHPV &RQn JUHVV KDV D UHSUHVHQWDWLYH IXQFWLRQ 7KH SXEOLF ZKLFK LV UHSUHVHQWHG LV QRW LQWHUn HVWHG LQ WKH IXWXUH LQ DQ\ VSHFLILF WHUPV ,Q HIIHFW D PHPEHU KDV WR EHFRPH D VDOHVn PDQ IRU WKH SUREOHP D FULVLV KHOSV VHOO WKH XUJHQF\ RI WKH QHHG WR GHDO ZLWK WKH SUREOHP 7KH UROH RI &RQJUHVV UDWKHU WKDQ WKH H[HFXWLYH LQ DQWLFLn SDWLQJ SUREOHPV KDV DOVR EHHQ TXHVWLRQHG &RQJUHVV KDV EDUHO\ UHVSRQGHG WR WKH WZHQWLHWK FHQWXU\ LW KDV EHHQ VXJJHVWHG DQG LWV GHFOLQH YLVDYLV WKH H[HFXWLYH ZLOO FRQWLQXH +XQWLQJWRQ f &RQJUHVV KDV GLVSHUVHG SRZHU WR FRPPLWWHHV GXULQJ WKLV FHQWXU\ DQG KDV JUDGXDOO\ LQVXODWHG LWVHOI IURP QHZ SROLWLFDO

PAGE 18

IRUFHV WKDW VRFLDO FKDQJH KDV JHQHUDWHG 6LPXOWDQHRXVO\ OHJLVn ODWLRQ KDV EHFRPH PXFK WRR FRPSOH[ SROLWLFDOO\ WR EH HIIHFWLYHO\ KDQGOHG E\ D UHSUHVHQWDWLYH DVVHPEO\ +XQWLQJWRQ f ,Q WKH YLHZ RI VXFK FRPPHQWDWRUV &RQJUHVV PD\ WDNH WKH LQLWLDWLYH RQO\ WR REVWUXFW H[HFXWLYH SURSRVDOV DQG PXVW EH UHOHJDWHG WR DQ LQn FUHDVLQJO\ PDUJLQDO UROH LQ QDWLRQDO SROLF\PDNLQJ %XW IHZ PHPEHUV RI WKH UG &RQJUHVV ZKRVH SUHURJDWLYHV DQG FRQVWLWXWLRQDO SRZHUV ZHUH VHYHUHO\ WKUHDWHQHG E\ D KRVWLOH 5Hn SXEOLFDQ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ ZHUH UHDG\ WR DFFHSW VR PDUJLQDO D UROH 5HFRJQL]LQJ DW OHDVW VRPH RI WKH SUREOHPV RI D UHSUHVHQWDWLYH DVVHPEO\ PRVW PHPEHUV RI &RQJUHVV ZHUH UHDG\ WR PHHW WKH FKDOOHQJH SUHVHQWHG WR WKH &RQJUHVV E\ WKH 1L[RQ LPSRXQGPHQWV 6HYHUDO PHPn EHUV ZHUH UHDG\ WR SURSRVH FKDQJHV WR UHPHG\ FRQJUHVVLRQDO GLVn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

PAGE 19

3ROLF\ DQDO\VLV LV WKH JDWKHULQJ DQG SURFHVVLQJ RI LQIRUPDWLRQ DFFRUGLQJ WR ZHOONQRZQ FULWHULD DQG WKH PDWFKLQJ RI WKLV LQIRUn PDWLRQ DJDLQVW FHUWDLQ JRDOV 3ROVE\ f &RQJUHVV KDV QRW EHHQ UHQRZQHG IRU V\VWHPDWLF SROLF\ DQDO\VLV 6RPH FRPPLWWHHV SDUWLFXODUO\ WKH -RLQW (FRQRPLF &RPPLWWHH DQG WKH -RLQW &RPPLWWHH RQ ,QWHUQDO 5HYHQXH DQG 7D[DWLRQ DUH NQRZQ IRU WKRURXJK DQDO\VLV 0DQOH\ f EXW DOO NQRZOHGJH RQ D SDUn WLFXODU WRSLF LV UDUHO\ FROOHFWHG LQ D VLQJOH VSRW RU V\VWHPn DWLFDOO\ PDUVKDOOHG 3ROVE\ f (YHQ OHVV FRPPRQO\ PDGH DUH DWWHPSWV WR FROOHFW RU V\QWKHVL]H LQIRUPDWLRQ V\VWHPDWLFDOO\ DFURVV VHYHUDO SROLF\ DUHDV 2QH UHDVRQ IRU WKH UHODWLYH DEVHQFH RI WKRURXJK SROLF\ DQDO\VLV LV WKDW PHPEHUV RI &RQJUHVV KDYH WUDGLWLRQDOO\ VHHQ WKHPVHOYHV DV VHOIVXIILFLHQW OHJLVODWRUV $V ZH VKDOO VHH WKH VXJJHVWLRQ WKDW &RQJUHVV VKRXOG DGG PRUH VWDII IRU SROLF\ DQDO\VLV ZDV WKRXJKW XQWLO UHFHQWO\ WR EH D VOXU RQ WKH FDSDFLW\ RI PHPn EHUV IRU FRPSHWHQW GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ $ PRUH IXQGDPHQWDO UHDVRQ KRZHYHU OLHV LQ WKH SOXUDOLVP RI JRDOV DQG EDUJDLQLQJ SURFHVVHV 0XFK FRQJUHVVLRQDO SROLF\ DQDO\VLV WDNHV SODFH XQGHU DGYHUVDU\ FLUFXPVWDQFHV 7KXV FRQJUHVVLRQDO GHFLVLRQPDNHUV RUGLQDULO\ FDQQRW HQMR\ WKH OX[XU\ RI H[DPLQLQJ DOn WHUQDWLYH PHDQV WR VWLSXODWHG HQGV ,Q DQ DGYHUVDU\ SURFHVV HQGV DUH QRW VWLSXn ODWHG EXW FRQWHVWHG $JUHHPHQW RQ PHDQV LV RIWHQ VRXJKW DV D VXEVWLWXWH IRU DJUHHPHQW RQ HQGV (QGV DUH VFDOHG GRZQ SXOOHG RXW RI VKDSH RU RWKHUZLVH WUDQV IUPHGf 3ROVE\ f

PAGE 20

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f 6WUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW LV D W\SH RI SROLF\ DQDO\VLV ZKLFK LV FRQFHUQHG ZLWK WKH FRQGLWLRQV XQGHUO\LQJ SROLF\ FKRLFHV DQG ZLWK FODULI\LQJ SROLF\ JRDOV DQG RSWLRQV LQ UHODWLRQ WR WKHVH FRQGLn WLRQV VWUDWHJLF LQ WKLV FRQWH[W UHIHUV WR PDMRU RU IXQGDPHQWDO SROLF\ TXHVWLRQVWKRVH ZKLFK DUH RIWHQ REVFXUHG E\ WKH FRQWLQXDO PL[LQJ RI HQGV DQG PHDQV 32/,&< $1$/<6,6 $1' 675$7(*,& 32/,&< $66(660(17 7KH PL[LQJ RI HQGV DQG PHDQV LV LPSRUWDQW IRU FRQJUHVVLRQDO SROLF\ PDNLQJ LQ WKDW LW DGGV WR WKH SUREOHP RI FULVLV GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ $V ZH VKDOO VHH WKLV PL[LQJ RI HQGV DQG PHDQV DIIHFWV FRQJUHVVLRQDO UHIRUP HIIRUWV ZLWKRXW VWRSSLQJ DWWHPSWV WR SURn YLGH PRUH HIIHFWLYH PHDQV RI DQDO\]LQJ HPHUJLQJ FRQGLWLRQV DQG

PAGE 21

GHDOLQJ ZLWK SUREOHPV EHIRUH WKH FULVLV VWDJH 2QH JURXS FRQFHUQHG ZLWK LQFUHDVLQJ WKH DQWLFLSDWRU\ FDSDFLW\ RI &RQJUHVV FRLQHG WKH WHUP VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW 2IILFLDOV RI WKH H[HFXWLYH EUDQFK VHYHUDO PHPEHUV RI &RQ JUHVV DQG VWDII DQG RXWVLGH H[SHUWV PHW LQ XQGHU WKH DXVn SLFHV RI WKH :RRGURZ :LOVRQ ,QWHUQDWLRQDO &HQWHU IRU 6FKRODUV ::,&6f 7KH\ UHFRPPHQGHG WKDW VSHFLILF PHFKDQLVPV EH HVWDEOLVKHG WR SHUIRUP VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW LQ ERWK WKH H[HFXWLYH DQG OHJLVODWLYH EUDQFKHV 1R RQH IURP &RQJUHVV EHORQJHG WR WKH VXEn JURXS WKDW GUDIWHG WKH ::,&6 SURSRVDO DQG LW ZDV QRW WXUQHG LQWR D VSHFLILF OHJLVODWLYH SURSRVDOLW KDG QR SROLF\ HQWUHSUHQHXU ZLWKLQ &RQJUHVV +RZHYHU SDUWLFLSDWLQJ PHPEHUV RI &RQJUHVV KDG EHHQ DFWLYHO\ LQWHUHVWHG LQ SROLF\PDNLQJ UHIRUP DQG DV ZH VKDOO VHH VRPH KDG DOUHDG\ EHFRPH HQWUHSUHQHXUV IRU WKHLU RZQ SURSRVDOV )RU RXU SXUSRVHV VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW HQWDLOV WKH DQDO\VLV RI HPHUJLQJ WUHQGV DQG FRQGLWLRQV DQG WKH FODULILFDWLRQ RI SROLF\ JRDOV DQG RSWLRQV LQ UHODWLRQ WR WKHVH FRQGLWLRQV 7KH ::,&6 JURXS GLG QRW GHYHORS D ULJRURXV FRQFHSWXDO RU RSHUDWLRQDO GHILQLWLRQ RI WKLV WHUP -XVWLI\LQJ WKH QHHG IRU VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW LQ WHUPV RI WKH FULVLV PDQDJHPHQW V\QGURPH WKH JURXS IRUPXODWHG WKLV VWDWHPHQW >6XFK DVVHVVPHQWV@ HQGHDYRU WR LGHQWLI\ HPHUJLQJ ORQJWHUP WUHQGV DQG SUREOHPV IRUPXODWH DQG HYDOXDWH DOWHUQDWLYH FRXUVHV RI DFWLRQ WR GHDO ZLWK WKHP DQG HYDOXDWH WKH HIIHFWV RI DFWLRQV WKDW KDYH EHHQ SXW LQ WUDLQ 7KLV REMHFWLYH SUHVXSSRVHV D FRQWLQXHG DVVHVVPHQW RI VRFLDO YDOXHV DQG SUHIHUHQFHV ::,&6 6f

PAGE 22

,I JRYHUQPHQWDO PHFKDQLVPV DUH WR HQKDQFH WKH FDSDELOLW\ IRU VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW WKH\ PXVW GLUHFW DWWHQWLRQ DQG JHQHUDWH DOWHUQDWLYHV 6LPRQ f GXULQJ WKH LQWHOOLJHQFH VWDJH RI WKH GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ SURFHVV /DVVZHOO f 6WUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW PD\ DOVR EH D FRPSRQHQW RI ZKDW DJHQGDEXLOGLQJ WKHRULHV FDOO WKH SUHGHFLVLRQDO RU SUHSROLWLFDO SURFHVV GHn WHUPLQLQJ WKH LVVXHV DQG DOWHUQDWLYHV FRQVLGHUHG DQG LQIOXHQFLQJ WKH FKRLFHV PDGH &REE t (OGHU f 5HFRJQL]LQJ WKH VLPLODULW\ EHWZHHQ SODQQLQJ DQG WKH DFWLYLW\ EHLQJ DGYRFDWHG WKH ::,&6 JURXS GLIIHUHQWLDWHG EHWZHHQ VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW DQG FHQWUDOL]HG HFRQRPLF SODQQLQJ :KDW LV FRQFHLYHG RI KHUH LV QRW WKH GHYHORSn PHQW RI GHWDLOHG WDFWLFV DQG FORVHO\ DGKHUHG WR WDUJHWV ZKLFK RIWHQ DFFRPSDQ\ SODQV EXW UDWKHU D PRUH DQDO\WLFDO DQG FRQFHSWXDO SURn FHVV RI LGHQWLI\LQJ DQG DVVHVVLQJ RSWLRQV DYDLODEOH IURP D ORQJUDQJH SHUVSHFWLYH ::,&6 6f :KLOH D IXOO GHILQLWLRQ RI VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW PXVW LQn FOXGH LWV UHODWLRQ WR SODQQLQJ DQG WR DQ DGHTXDWH WD[RQRP\ RI IHGHUDO SROLFLHV DQG SURJUDPV LQ WHUPV RI WKH HQGVPHDQV FKDLQ DV ZHOO DV WKH GHFLVLRQ SURFHVV RXU GHILQLWLRQ ZLOO VXIILFH IRU DQ H[SORUDWLRQ RI FRQJUHVVLRQDO UHIRUP HIIRUWV UHODWHG WR VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW 6WUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW 63$f GHSHQGLQJ RQ WKH SDUWLFXODU UHn IRUP ZKHUHE\ LW LV DGRSWHG PD\ SURYLGH WKUHH IXQFWLRQV IRU FRQn JUHVVLRQDO SROLF\ PDNLQJ f WR VHDUFK IRU HPHUJLQJ LVVXHV

PAGE 23

f WR LQIRUP FXUUHQW GHFLVLRQV ZLWK UHOHYDQW IXWXUHV DQDO\VLV f WR IRUFH WKH FRQVFLRXV LQWHUUHODWLRQVKLS RI GHFLVLRQV PDGH DW GLIIHUHQW ORFDWLRQV LQ &RQJUHVV RU WKH JRYHUQPHQW 7KH 6HDUFK IRU HPHUJLQJ LVVXHVD FUXFLDO HDUO\ZDUQLQJ IXQFWLRQ IRU DQ\ RUJDQL]DWLRQ 'RZQV fFRQFHUQV DGGLWLRQV WKDW VKRXOG EH PDGH WR WKH LQVWLWXWLRQDO DJHQGD &XUUHQW GHFLVLRQV DUH LQn IRUPHG E\ NQRZOHGJH RI OLNHO\ IXWXUH WUHQGV HYHQWV RU FRQGLn WLRQV WKDW PD\ DIIHFW WKH JRDOV VRXJKW E\ GHFLVLRQ PDNHUV DQG WKH SRWHQWLDO LPSDFW RI D GHFLVLRQ RQ LWV SROLF\ HQYLURQPHQW %RWK WKHVH IXQFWLRQV DUH DQDO\WLF DQG DQDO\VLV PD\ RU PD\ QRW EH XVHG WR PDNH D VSHFLILF GHFLVLRQ 6WUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW WKURXJK WKH XVH RI IXWXUHV DQDO\VLV WR VHDUFK IRU HPHUJLQJ LVVXHV DQG LQn IRUP FXUUHQW GHFLVLRQV ZRXOG WHQG WR HQFRXUDJH D V\VWHPDWLF FRQn VLGHUDWLRQ RI WKH UDQJH RI LVVXHV RQ WKH DJHQGD DW D JLYHQ WLPH DQG WR IRUFH WKH LQWHUUHODWLRQVKLS RI LQGLYLGXDO GHFLVLRQV 7KH FRQVFLRXV LQWHUUHODWLRQVKLS RI GHFLVLRQV LV IRUFHG ZKHQ WKH GHFLn VLRQ SURFHVV LV VR VWUXFWXUHG WKDW DQDO\WLF IXQFWLRQV PXVW EH SHUIRUPHG $ IRXUWK IXQFWLRQ RQH EH\RQG WKH UHDOP RI 63$ LV WR SURYLGH WKH SROLWLFDO ZLOO ZKHWKHU H[SUHVVHG LQ SRSXODU VXSSRUW RU SROLWLFDO OHDGHUVKLS QHFHVVDU\ IRU DQWLFLSDWLQJ SUREOHPV :H DUH FRQFHUQHG ZLWK UHIRUPV DIIHFWLQJ DQDO\VLV UDWKHU WKDQ WKH H[HUFLVH RI SROLWLFDO ZLOO RU OHDGHUVKLS VXFK DV VWUHQJWKHQLQJ WKH SDUWLHV RU OHDGHUVKLS ZLWKLQ &RQJUHVV

PAGE 24

7KH DQDO\WLFDO WHFKQLTXHV IRU DFTXLULQJ DQG SURFHVVLQJ LQIRUn PDWLRQ HVVHQWLDO WR VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW PD\ EH VXPPDUL]HG E\ WKH WHUP IXWXUHV DQDO\VLV )XWXUHV DQDO\VLV PD\ LQFOXGH VXFK DFWLYLWLHV DV IXWXUHV UHVHDUFK IRUHFDVWLQJ DQG WHFKQRORJ\ DVVHVVPHQW $OO WKHVH DFWLYLWLHV DUH DLPHG DW H[SORULQJ WKH XQn FHUWDLQWLHV RI ZKDW LV WR FRPH DQG VRPH RI WKHP ZHUH VSHFLILFDOO\ PHQWLRQHG LQ FRQJUHVVLRQDO UHIRUP SURSRVDOV 7KH IXWXUH LV FRPn SRVHG RI D ODUJH VHW RI DOWHUQDWLYHV )XWXUHV UHVHDUFK DQG IRUHn FDVWLQJ WKHQ DUH PHDQV RI GLVFRYHULQJ DQG DUWLFXODWLQJ WKH PRUH LPSRUWDQW RI WKH DOWHUQDWLYH IXWXUHV DQG HVWLPDWLQJ WKH WUDMHFWRU\ OLNHO\ WR EH SURGXFHG E\ FRQWHPSODWHG SROLFLHV *RUn GRQ f $PRQJ IXWXUHV WHFKQLTXHV DUH JHQLXV IRUHFDVWLQJ WUHQG H[WUDSRODWLRQ FRQVHQVXV RU 'HOSKL PHWKRGV VLPXODWLRQ FURVVLPSDFW DQDO\VLV VFHQDULR JHQHUDWLRQ GHFLVLRQ WUHHV DQG HFRQRPHWULF IRUHFDVWLQJ *RUGRQ f $V D SURFHVV RI RUGHULQJ FHUWDLQWLHV DQG XQFHUWDLQWLHV DQG WKHLU LPSOLFDWLRQV ZLWK UHJDUG WR SXEOLF SROLF\ GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ WHFKQRORJ\ DVVHVVPHQW LV WKH QDPH IRU D FODVV RI SROLF\ VWXGLHV ZKLFK DWWHPSW WR ORRN DW WKH ZLGHVW SRVVLEOH VFRSH RI LPSDFWV LQ VRFLHW\ RI WKH LQWURGXFWLRQ RI D QHZ WHFKQRORJ\ RU WKH H[WHQVLRQ RI DQ HVWDEOLVKHG WHFKQRORJ\ LQ QHZ DQG GLIIHUHQW ZD\V ,WV JRDO LV WR LQIRUP WKH SROLF\ SURn FHVV E\ SXWWLQJ EHIRUH WKH GHFLVLRQ PDNHU DQ DQDO\]HG VHW RI RSWLRQV DOWHUQDWLYHV DQG FRQVHTXHQFHV &RDWH6L IRUWKFRQOLQJf

PAGE 25

7KXV WHFKQRORJ\ DVVHVVPHQW LV D PRVW JHQHUDO DQG LPSRUWDQW IRUP RI DSSOLHG IXWXUHV UHVHDUFK &RDWHV IRUWKFRPLQJfA +DYLQJ GHILQHG WKH LPSRUWDQW WHUPV RI RXU GLVFXVVLRQ DQG GHVFULEHG WKH RSHUDWLYH SURFHVVHV RI LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG DQDO\VLV LQ GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ OHW XV FRQVLGHU UHIRUPV WKDW KDYH LPSURYHG FRQn JUHVVLRQDO SROLF\PDNLQJ DELOLW\ E\ SURYLGLQJ LQFUHDVHG VWDIILQJ FKDQJHV LQ FRPPLWWHH VWUXFWXUH DQG QHZ UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV IRU DQDO\]LQJ FXUUHQW DQG IXWXUH FRQGLWLRQV &21*5(66,21$/ 5()250 5HIRUPV VWUHQJWKHQLQJ WKH VHDUFK GHFLVLRQLQIRUPLQJ DQG GHFLVLRQLQWHUUHODWLQJ IXQFWLRQV RI WKH OHJLVODWLYH SURFHVV KDYH EHHQ SURSRVHG LQ WKH SDVW DQG VRPH KDYH EHHQ HQDFWHG 7KHVH UHn IRUPV KDYH EHHQ FUXFLDO WR WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH SROLF\ DQDO\VLV FDSDELOLW\ LQ &RQJUHVV DQG RXU GLVFXVVLRQ VXSSOLHV WKH EDFNJURXQG SUHOLPLQDU\ WR FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI IRXU LPSRUWDQW UHIRUPV RI UHFHQW GDWH $PRQJ KLVWRULFDO UHIRUPV DIIHFWLQJ WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG DQDO\VLV FDSDELOLW\ KDYH EHHQ WKH HVWDEOLVKPHQW RI WKH VWDQGLQJ FRPPLWWHH V\VWHP LQ SHULRGLF UHIRUP RI WKH +RXVH DQG 6HQDWH UXOHV WR H[SHGLWH OHJLVODWLYH EXVLQHVV DQG WKH ILVn FDO UHIRUPV IROORZLQJ :RUOG :DU WKDW XQLILHG WKH $SSURSULDWLRQV &RPPLWWHHV DQG HVWDEOLVKHG WKH *HQHUDO $FFRXQWLQJ IILFHf 6DORPD f

PAGE 26

$GGLQJ WR LWV LQIRUPDWLRQ UHVRXUFHV WKH &RQJUHVV HVWDEOLVKHG WKH /HJLVODWLYH 5HIHUHQFH 6HUYLFH LQ SURYLGLQJ D FHQWUDO VWDII IRU VRPH DQDO\WLFDO IXQFWLRQV 7KH 2IILFH RI /HJLVODWLYH &RXQVHO ZDV VHW XS LQ WR LQVXUH WKH FRQVLVWHQF\ RI OHJLVODWLYH SURn SRVDOV ZLWK H[LVWLQJ ODZ $ PRUH WHFKQLFDO SROLF\UHOHYDQW VWDII ZDV DGGHG ZLWK WKH -RLQW &RPPLWWHH RQ ,QWHUQDO 5HYHQXH 7D[DWLRQ LQ 7KLV VWDII KDV HDUQHG D UHSXWDWLRQ IRU FRPSHWHQW DQDO\VLV RI WD[ SROLF\ PDWWHUV LQ WKH VHUYLFH RI WKH +RXVH :D\V DQG 0HDQV DQG 6HQDWH )LQDQFH &RPPLWWHHV 0DQOH\ f ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR VXFK DQDO\VLV UHIRUPV RWKHU UHIRUPV KDYH DIIHFWHG WKH LQWHUUHODWLQJ IXQFWLRQ 7KH PRVW LPSRUWDQW UDWLRQDOL]DWLRQ >LQWHUn UHODWLRQVKLS RI GHFLVLRQV@ LQ FRQJUHVn VLRQDO RUJDQL]DWLRQ DQG SURFHGXUH VLQFH KDV EHHQ WKH LQGLUHFW GLVFLSOLQH LQ WKH OHJLVODWLYH DQG DGPLQLVWUDWLYH SURn FHVVHV LQWURGXFHG E\ H[HFXWLYH UHIRUP VXFK DV WKH H[HFXWLYH EXGJHW DQG OHJLVn ODWLYH FOHDUDQFH F LQLUL 6DORPD f $QDO\VLV FDSDFLW\ SHU VH KDV QRW EHHQ D PDMRU FRQFHUQ ZLWKLQ &RQJUHVV )RU PRVW RI LWV KLVWRU\ &RQJUHVV ZRUNHG LQ WKH WUDGLWLRQ WKDW HDFK PHPEHU RI &RQJUHVV ZDV D VWDWHVPDQ FDSDEOH RI KDQGOLQJ DOO OHJLVODWLYH SUREOHPV KLPVHOI *URVV f 7KXV SURn SRVDOV WR DGG SURIHVVLRQDO VWDII ZHUH WDNHQ DV D VOXU RQ WKH FDSDFLWLHV RI PHPEHUV WKHPVHOYHV \HW WKH LQFUHDVLQJ DFWLYLW\ RI WKH IHGHUDO JRYHUQPHQW UHTXLUHG LQFUHDVLQJ OHJLVODWLYH DQDO\VLV &RPPLWWHHV IUHTXHQWO\ ERUURZHG RIILFLDOV RI WKH H[HFXWLYH EUDQFK

PAGE 27

VRPHWLPHV IRU OHQJWK\ SHULRGV DQG SDUWLFXODUO\ ZKHQ RQH SDUW\ FRQWUROOHG &RQJUHVV DQG WKH :KLWH +RXVH .RIPHKO *URVV f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f RI DOORZHG HDFK FRPPLWWHH IRXU SURIHVVLRQDO VWDII PHPn EHUV XQGHU WKH GLUHFWLRQ RI WKH FKDLUPDQ DQG WKH UDQNLQJ PLQRULW\ PHPEHU DQG H[SDQGHG WKH LQIRUPDWLRQDO VHUYLFHV WKDW WKH /HJLVODn WLYH 5HIHUHQFH 6HUYLFH DQG WKH *HQHUDO $FFRXQWLQJ 2IILFH *$2f PLJKW SURYLGH &RQJUHVV %XW WKHVH SURYLVLRQV DPRXQWHG WR RQO\ D IHZ DPRQJ WKLUW\HLJKW SURYLVLRQV LQFOXGLQJ SD\ UDLVHV DQG D UHn WLUHPHQW V\VWHP IRU PHPEHUV RI &RQJUHVV 7KH FRPPPLWWHH VWDIILQJ SURYLVLRQ UHVXOWHG QRW RQO\ IURP WKH UHDOL]DWLRQ RI QHHG EXW DOVR

PAGE 28

IURP D FRQVHUYDWLYH 5HSXEOLFDQ HIIRUW WR SURKLELW WKH IRUPDO DVVLJQPHQW RI H[HFXWLYH SHUVRQQHO WR FRPPLWWHHV ZLWKRXW WKH SHUn PLVVLRQ RI WKH 6HQDWH 5XOHV DQG $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ RU +RXVH $GPLQLVn WUDWLRQ &RPPLWWHHV *URVV f 7KH PRVW LPSRUWDQW UHQRYDWLRQ ZDV WKH UDWLRQDOL]DWLRQ RI FRPPLWWHH MXULVGLFWLRQV WR PDNH WKHP SDUDOOHO WR H[HFXWLYH GHn SDUWPHQWV DQG WR UHGXFH WKH QXPEHU RI FRPPLWWHHV IURP WKLUW\WKUHH WR ILIWHHQ LQ WKH 6HQDWH DQG IURP IRUW\HLJKW WR QLQHWHHQ LQ WKH +RXVH 7KH QXPEHU RI VXEFRPPLWWHHV KRZHYHU ZDV OLWWOH FKDQJHG %HIRUH WKH SDVVDJH RI WKH DFW WKHUH ZHUH VXEFRPPLWWHHV DIWHUn ZDUG DQG GHSHQGLQJ RQ WKH FRXQW *URVV f 7KH FKDQJH EXULHG LQ D ODUJH OHJLVODWLYH SDFNDJH ZDV QRW VR VHYHUH DV LW PLJKW KDYH EHHQ ,W KDV EHHQ VWDWHG WKDW WKHVH FKDQJHV GLG OLWWOH WR PRGHUQL]H MXULVGLFWLRQDO FDWHJRULHV DQG WKDW WKH DFW KDG XQDQWLFLSDWHG FRQVHTXHQFHV VWUHQJWKHQLQJ WKH VHQLRULW\ V\VWHP UHLQIRUFLQJ FRPPLWWHH DXWRQRP\ DQG LQKLELWLQJ WKH DELOLW\ RI &RQJUHVV WR DGDSW WR FKDQJLQJ FRQILJXUDWLRQV RI SXEOLF LVVXHV 'DYLGVRQ f 7+( (03/2<0(17 $&7 2) $QRWKHU OHJLVODWLYH LQLWLDWLYH UHOHYDQW WR SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW FRQFHUQV ZDV SDVVHG LQ WKH (PSOR\PHQW $FW RI 3/ WK &RQJUHVVf %H\RQG VHWWLQJ PD[LPXP HPSOR\PHQW DV D JRDO RI WKH IHGHUDO JRYHUQPHQW WKH DFW ZDV D FRQJUHVVLRQDOO\ LQLWLDWHG

PAGE 29

FKDQJH LQ WKH QDWLRQDO GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ SURFHVV 7ZR RI LWV IRXU SXUSRVHV DUH RI SDUDPRXQW FRQFHUQ 6HFRQG WR SODFH WKH UHVSRQVLELOLW\ RQ WKH 3UHVLGHQW IRU VHHLQJ WR LW WKDW WKH HFRQRP\ ZDV SXUSRVLYHO\ DQDO\]HG DW UHJXODU LQWHUn YDOV DQG WKDW WKH &RQJUHVV ZDV LQIRUPHG RI HFRQRPLF WUHQGV DQG RI WKH 3UHVLGHQWnV SURJUDP WR PHHW WKH FKDOOHQJH RI WKRVH WUHQGV $QG ILQDOO\ >IRXUWK@ WR HVWDEOLVK D PHFKDQLVP LQ &RQJUHVV ZKLFK ZRXOG IDFLOLWDWH OHJLVODWLYH DQDO\VLV DQG DFWLRQ DQG IL[ OHJLVODWLYH UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU WKH FDUU\LQJ RXW RI D IXOO HPSOR\PHQW SROOF\f %DLOH\ f 7KLV DFW DGGHG WR WKH IHGHUDO JRYHUQPHQWnV VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVn PHQW IXQFWLRQV EXW SULQFLSDOO\ WKURXJK WKH H[HFXWLYH EUDQFK WKH UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU HFRQRPLF DQDO\VLV DQG SODQQLQJ LQLWLDWLYH IRU IXOO HPSOR\PHQW SURJUDPV UHVWHG ZLWK WKH 3UHVLGHQW 7KH RULJLQDO LQWHQW RI WKH DFWnV VSRQVRUV ZDV WR XVH WKH EXGn JHW SURFHVV WR DFKLHYH IXOO HPSOR\PHQW EXW WKLV LQWHQW ZDV ZHDNHQHG GXULQJ LWV SDVVDJH ,Q HDUOLHU YHUVLRQV WKH %XUHDX RI WKH %XGJHW %R%f ZDV WR SUHSDUH D QDWLRQDO SURGXFWLRQ DQG HPSOR\n PHQW EXGJHW EDVHG RQ HFRQRPLF SODQQLQJ ZLWKLQ WKH %R% %DLOH\ f 7KLV EXGJHW ZDV WR EH FRQVLGHUHG E\ D MRLQW FRQn JUHVVLRQDO FRPPLWWHH RQ WKH EXGJHW 3URSRQHQWV RI WKLV YHUVLRQ VDZ LW DV DQ H[WHQVLRQ RI UHVSRQVLELOLW\ LQ WKH ILHOG RI HFRQRPLF SODQQLQJ DQG SROLF\ LQWHJUDWLRQ >DQG@ DV LQn VWUXPHQWV RI SRWHQWLDO UHIRUP ZKLFK PLJKW

PAGE 30

UDPLI\ LQWR WKH HQWLUH SDWWHUQ RI JRYHUQn PHQWDO RSHUDWLRQV LQFUHDVLQJ HIILFLHQF\ DQG FODULI\LQJ SROLWLFDO UHVSRQVLELOLW\ DQG DFFRXQWDELOLW\ $FU FR? %DLOH\ f %XVLQHVV DQG RWKHU FRQVHUYDWLYH JURXSV VDZ DFFRXQWDELOLW\ RWKHUn ZLVH 3DUWO\ EHFDXVH RI WKHLU SUHVVXUH IRU DQ LGHQWLILDEOH JURXS ZKRVH DSSRLQWPHQW &RQJUHVV ZRXOG KDYH WR DSSURYH %DLOH\ f D &RXQFLO RI (FRQRPLF $GYLVHUV DVVXPHG WKH IXQFWLRQV FRQWHPSODWHG IRU WKH %R% 7R DLG WKH 3UHVLGHQW LQ SUHSDUDWLRQ RI WKH DQQXDO HFRQRPLF UHSRUW WR JDWKHU DQG DQDO\]H RQ FXUUHQW DQG SURVSHFWLYH WUHQGV DQG WKHLU HIIHFW RQ WKH DFKLHYHPHQW RI IXOO HPSOR\PHQW WR DSSUDLVH IHGHUDO SURn JUDPV LQ WHUPV RI WKHLU FRQWULEXWLRQ WR IXOO HPSOR\PHQW WR GHYHORS DQG UHFRPPHQG SROLFLHV WR DFKLHYH WKH VWDWHG SROLF\ 3/ WK &RQJUHVV 6HF Ff 7KH VHFRQG IXQFWLRQ H[SOLFLWO\ UHTXLUHV WKH JRYHUQPHQW WR UHFRJn QL]H DQG DQDO\]H ORQJWHUP WUHQGV DQG HPHUJLQJ LVVXHV DQG WKHUHE\ FRPPLWV WKH &RQJUHVV WR UHFHLYH WKLV DQDO\VLV +RZHYHU ZKHQ HFRQRPLF DQDO\VLV ZDV VKLIWHG WR WKH &($ IURP WKH %R% D FRUUHVn SRQGLQJ VKLIW ZDV PDGH LQ WKH SHUWLQHQW FRQJUHVVLRQDO FRPPLWWHH FKDQJLQJ WKH SURSRVHG EXGJHW FRPPLWWHH WR WKH -RLQW &RPPLWWHH RQ WKH (FRQRPLF 5HSRUW -&(5f 7KXV WKH DQDO\WLFDO IXQFWLRQV ZHUH LVRODWHG IURP WKH EXGJHWPDNLQJ SURFHVV 7KH -&(5 ZDV WR LQFUHDVH WKH DQDO\WLFDO FDSDFLW\ RI &RQJUHVV E\ H[DPLQLQJ WKH DQQXDO HFRQRPLF UHSRUW LVVXHG E\ WKH 3UHVLGHQW

PAGE 31

LQ 'HFHPEHU DQG E\ UHSRUWLQJ WR RWKHU FRPPLWWHHV RI &RQJUHVV E\ 0D\ ,WV UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV ZHUH WR JXLGH FRQJUHVVLRQDO FRPPLWWHHV GHDOLQJ ZLWK OHJLVODWLRQ DIIHFWLQJ HPSOR\PHQW SURGXFWLRQ DQG SXUFKDVLQJ SRZHU 7KH MRLQW FRPPLWWHH ZDV DOVR WR VWXG\ PHDQV RI FRRUGLQDWLQJ SURJUDPV LQ RUGHU WR IXUWKHU WKH SROLF\ RI WKLV DFW ,Q LWV HDUO\ \HDUV KRZHYHU WKH -RLQW &RPPLWWHH RQ WKH (FRQRPLF 5HSRUW GLG QRW WDNH WKH DVVHUWLYH UROH PDQGDWHG E\ WKH (PSOR\PHQW $FW RI *URVV fA ,W GLG QRW IRUFH WKH FRQVFLRXV LQWHUUHODWLRQVKLS RI GHFLVLRQV DFURVV FRPPLWWHHV LW GLG QRW SHUIRUP WKLV DVVHVVPHQWUHODWHG IXQFWLRQ 7KH HVWDEOLVKn PHQW LQ &RQJUHVV RI GHFLVLRQIRUFLQJ PHFKDQLVPV LQ WKH EXGJHW SURn FHVV ZDLWHG XQWLO WKH UG &RQJUHVV 7+( /(*,6/$7,9( 5(25*$1,=$7,21 $&7 2) 7KH /HJLVODWLYH 5HRUJDQL]DWLRQ $FW RI /5$f 3/ f ZDV WKH SURGXFW RI VL[ \HDUV RI GHYHORSPHQW IROORZLQJ KHDULQJV DQG DFWLYLWLHV SURPSWHG E\ 6HQDWRU 0LNH 0RQURQH\ 2NODf D VSRQVRU RI WKH /5$ 0RVW RI WKLV DFWLYLW\ WRRN SODFH LQ WKH SULYDF\ RI &RQJUHVV ,QFOXVLRQ RI DQWLVHFUHF\ DPHQGPHQWV DWWUDFWHG VRPH PHGLD DWWHQWLRQ EXW RWKHUZLVH SUHVV FRYHUDJH ZDV YLUWXDOO\ QRQH[LVWHQW GHPRQVWUDWLQJ LQ WKH ZRUGV RI IRUPHU 5HSUHVHQWDWLYH 'RQDOG 5XPVIHOG 5 ,OOf WKDW &RQJUHVVLRQDO UHIRUP LV DQ LVVXH ZLWKRXW D FRQVWLWXHQF\ %LEE\ t 'DYLGVRQ f 7KH DFW DGGHG SHUVRQQHO WR WKH VWDIIV RI FRPPLWWHHV DQG WKH GDWD UHVRXUFHV RI &RQJUHVV ZHUH LQFUHDVHG LQFOXGLQJ DFFHVV WR

PAGE 32

LQIRUPDWLRQ IURP WKH H[HFXWLYH EUDQFK &RPPLWWHHV ZHUH HQFRXUDJHG WR PDNH WKHLU UXOHV H[SOLFLW &RQJUHVVLRQDO UHVSRQVLELOLW\ WR RYHUVHH WKH H[HFXWLYH EUDQFK DGGHG DV DQ H[SOLFLW IXQFWLRQ LQ ZDV UHLWHUDWHG LQ WKH /5$ $OWKRXJK VWDII UHVRXUFHV ZHUH LQFUHDVHG LQ WKH &RQJUHVVLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFH &56f DV ZHOO DV LQ FRPPLWWHH QR PHQWLRQ ZDV PDGH RI WKH W\SH RI SROLF\ DQDO\VLV WKDW FRQJUHVVLRQDO FRPPLWWHH VWDII VKRXOG SHUIRUP +RZn HYHU WKH &56 ZDV JLYHQ H[SDQGHG UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU SROLF\ DQDO\VLV IRU FRPPLWWHHV %HFNPDQ Ef 7KH &56 EHFDPH UHn VSRQVLEOH IRU DQ LQKRXVH VHDUFK IRU HPHUJLQJ LVVXHV WKDW SURn GXFHV VXEMHFW OLVWV RI LVVXHV DQG SROLF\ DUHDV PHULWLQJ &56 DQDO\VLV DQG FRPPLWWHH DWWHQWLRQ &RPPLWWHH UHVSRQVH WR WKLV LQn FUHDVHG FDSDELOLW\ ZDV PL[HG GXULQJ WKH UG &RQJUHVV 0DQ\ FRPn PLWWHHV ZHUH QRW LQWHUHVWHG LQ &RQJUHVVLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFH VXJJHVWLRQV RWKHUV UHTXHVWHG LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ D ODUJH QXPEHU RI LVVXHV DQG DFWHG RQ WKHP %H]ROG f 7+( 7(&+12/2*< $66(660(17 $&7 2) 7KH 2IILFH RI 7HFKQRORJ\ $VVHVVPHQW 27$f ZDV HVWDEOLVKHG E\ WKH 7HFKQRORJ\ $VVHVVPHQW $FW RI 3/ f 7KH SURGXFW RI HIIRUWV LQ WKH +RXVH 6FLHQFH DQG $VWURQDXWLFV &RPPLWWHH SDUn WLFXODUO\ E\ 5HSUHVHQWDWLYH (PLOLR 'DGGDULR &RQQf FKDLUn PDQ RI WKH 6XEFRPPLWWHH RQ 6FLHQFH 5HVHDUFK DQG 'HYHORSPHQW 27$nV SXUSRVH ZDV WR SURYLGH LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ WKH SK\VLFDO ELRn ORJLFDO HFRQRPLF VRFLDO DQG SROLWLFDO HIIHFWV RI WHFKQRORJLFDO

PAGE 33

DSSOLFDWLRQV 27$ LV GLUHFWHG E\ D 7HFKQRORJ\ $VVHVVPHQW %RDUG HVVHQWLDOO\ D MRLQW FRQJUHVVLRQDO FRPPLWWHH FRPSRVHG RI ILYH UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV DQG ILYH VHQDWRUV 7KLV WHFKQRORJ\ DVVHVVPHQW DFWLYLW\ ZDV SODFHG LQ D FRQn JUHVVLRQDO VXSSRUW RUJDQL]DWLRQ SULPDULO\ EHFDXVH WKH 3UHVLGHQW VHHPHG XQLQWHUHVWHG LQ LVVXHV RI VFLHQFH DQG WHFKQRORJ\ 'XULQJ WKH 1L[RQ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ WKH 2IILFH RI 6FLHQFH DQG 7HFKQRORJ\ LQ WKH ([HFXWLYH 2IILFH RI WKH 3UHVLGHQW KDG EHHQ DEROLVKHG DQG WKH IXQFWLRQ RI DGYLVLQJ WKH 3UHVLGHQW RQ VFLHQWLILF PDWWHUV ZDV WUDQVIHUUHG WR WKH KHDG RI WKH 1DWLRQDO 6FLHQFH )RXQGDWLRQ 16)f 7KLV GHFUHDVH LQ SUHVLGHQWLDO LQWHUHVW LQ VFLHQFH FRLQFLGHG ZLWK SRSXODU LQWHUHVW SDUWLFXODUO\ DPRQJ HQYLURQPHQWDOLVWV LQ H[n DPLQLQJ WKH OLNHO\ FRQVHTXHQFHV RI D QHZ VFLHQWLILF RU WHFKQRn ORJLFDO DSSOLFDWLRQ OLNH WKH VXSHUVRQLF WUDQVSRUW SODQH WKH 667 27$ KDG MXVW EHJXQ RSHUDWLRQ LQ GXULQJ WKH UG &RQJUHVV KDYLQJ FKRVHQ VL[ LQLWLDO DVVHVVPHQWV RU UHSRUWV WR EH PDGH 'LVFXVVLRQ ZLWKLQ 27$ VXJJHVWHG WKDW WKH DJHQF\ SHUIRUP DQ HDUO\ ZDUQLQJ IXQFWLRQ IRU &RQJUHVV DQG WKH ::,&6 SURSRVDO OLVWHG 27$ DV D OLNHO\ SODFH WR HVWDEOLVK WKH SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW DFWLYLWLHV SURSRVHGA ,W LV VWLOO WRR VRRQ WR HYDOXDWH 27$nV FRQWULEXWLRQ EXW WKLV RIILFH PD\ SOD\ DQ LPSRUWDQW UROH LQ 63$ LQ &RQJUHVV 63$ 5()2506 ,1 7+( 5' &21*5(66 ,Q RUGHU WR XQGHUVWDQG WKH SURFHVV RI FRQJUHVVLRQDO UHIRUP LQ UHODWLRQ WR VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW RXU GLVFXVVLRQ ZLOO IRFXV

PAGE 34

RQ WKUHH OHJLVODWLYHO\ LQLWLDWHG SURSRVDOV GXULQJ WKH UG &RQn JUHVV 7KH ELOOV FKRVHQ UHSUHVHQW D FURVVVHFWLRQ RI FRQJUHVn VLRQDO DSSURDFKHV WR 63$ WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ RI +RXVH 5HVRn OXWLRQ WKH &RPPLWWHH 5HIRUP $PHQGPHQWV RI f 6HQDWH ELOO WKH )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ DQG 1DWLRQDO *RDOV DQG 3ULRULWLHV $FWf DQG 6HQDWH ELOO WKH %DODQFHG 1DWLRQDO *URZWK DQG 'Hn YHORSPHQW $FW RI f 7KH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ RI WKH &RPPLWWHH 5HIRUP $PHQGPHQWV RI + 5HV f ZDV SURSRVHG GXULQJ WKH UG &RQJUHVV E\ WKH +RXVH 6HOHFW &RPPLWWHH RQ &RPPLWWHHV WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHHf DORQJ ZLWK VHYHUDO RWKHU UHIRUPV EHDULQJ RQ 63$ IXQFWLRQV LQ WKH +RXVH %HFDXVH RI WKH HIIRUWV RI 5HSUHVHQWDWLYH -RKQ & &XOYHU ,RZDf D IRUHVLJKW UHVSRQVLELOLW\ ZDV LQFOXGHG IRU FRPn PLWWHHV RI WKH +RXVH ZKHUHE\ WKH\ ZRXOG UHYLHZ DQG VWXG\ DQ\ FRQGLWLRQV RU FLUn FXPVWDQFHV ZKLFK PD\ LQGLFDWH WKH QHFHVVLW\ RU GHVLUDELOLW\ RI HQDFWLQJ QHZ RU DGGLn WLRQDO OHJLVODWLRQ ZLWKLQ WKH MXULVGLFWLRQ RI WKDW FRPPLWWHH ZKHWKHU RU QRW DQ\ ELOO RU UHVROXWLRQ KDV EHHQ LQWURGXFHG ZLWK UHn VSHFW WKHUHWRf DQG VKDOO RQ D FRQWLQXLQJ EDVLV XQGHUWDNH IXWXUHV UHVHDUFK DQG IRUHn FDVWLQJ RQ PDWWHUV ZLWKLQ WKH MXULVGLFWLRQ RI WKDW FRPPLWWHH 6&& H f 7KH )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ DQG 1DWLRQDO *RDOV DQG 3ULRULWLHV $FW 6 f ZDV SURSRVHG E\ 6HQDWRU :DOWHU ) 0QGDOH 0LQQf DQG IDYRUDEO\ UHSRUWHG E\ WKH 6HQDWH /DERU DQG 3XEOLF :HOIDUH &RPn PLWWHH &/3:f$ &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV &6$f ZDV WR EH

PAGE 35

HVWDEOLVKHG WR JDWKHU LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG DQDO\]H VRFLDO FRQGLWLRQV WUHQGV DQG SURJUDPV LQ D IDVKLRQ VLPLODU WR WKDW RI WKH &RXQFLO RI (FRQRPLF $GYLVHUV $ FRQJUHVVLRQDO 2IILFH RI *RDOV DQG 3ULRULWLHV $QDO\VLV 2*3$f ZDV WR H[DPLQH QDWLRQDO SULRULW\ MXGJPHQWV IRXQG LQ WKH 3UHVLGHQWnV SURSRVHG EXGJHW DQG WR IRUPXn ODWH UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV IRU FRQJUHVVLRQDO JRDOV DQG SULRULWLHV $V SURSRVHG E\ 6HQDWRU +XEHUW + +XPSKUH\ 0LQQf DQG UHn IHUUHG WR WKH 6HQDWH *RYHUQPHQW 2SHUDWLRQV &RPPLWWHH &*2f WKH %DODQFHG 1DWLRQDO *URZWK DQG 'HYHORSPHQW $FW RI 6 f ZRXOG HVWDEOLVK DQ RIILFH ZLWKLQ WKH ([HFXWLYH 2IILFH RI WKH 3UHVLn GHQW WR DVVHVV QDWLRQDO QHHGV JRDOV DQG SULRULWLHV DQG WR SUHn SDUH DQ DQQXDO UHSRUW RQ QDWLRQDO JURZWK DQG GHYHORSPHQW SROLF\ 7KH DQQXDO UHSRUW ZRXOG LQFOXGH DSSURSULDWH SURMHFWLRQV DQG IRUHn FDVWV UHJDUGLQJ IXWXUH VRFLDO HFRQRPLF HQYLURQPHQWDO DQG VFLHQWLILF GHYHORSPHQWV DIIHFWLQJ WKH JURZWK RI WKH 1DWLRQ VWDWHG LQ ILYH WHQ DQG WZHQW\ILYH\HDU WLPH IUDPHV 6 f 7KH SURSRVHG H[HFXWLYH RIILFH ZRXOG DOVR IRUFH SROLF\ FRRUGLQDWLRQ DPRQJ YDULRXV GHSDUWPHQWV E\ FRQWULEXWLQJ GLUHFWO\ WR WKH IRUPXODn WLRQ RI WKH SUHVLGHQWLDO EXGJHW :LWKLQ &RQJUHVV DQ 2IILFH RI 3ROLF\ DQG 3ODQQLQJ ZRXOG FRQGXFW D FRQWLQXLQJ QRQSDUWLVDQ DQDO\VLV RI QDWLRQDO JRDOV SULRULWLHV DQG XUEDQ DQG UXUDO JURZWK SROLFLHV 7KLV RIILFH ZDV WR SURYLGH &RQJUHVV ZLWK WKH GDWD DQG DQDO\VHV QHFHVVDU\ IRU HQOLJKWHQHG GHFLVLRQV ZLWK UHVSHFW WR VXFK PDWWHUV )XUWKHU WKH RIILFH ZDV WR UHFRPPHQG LQWHUUHODWHG SROLFLHV DQG SURJUDPV WR WKH &RQJUHVV 7KH ELOO DOVR SURSRVHG DQ LQGHSHQGHQW

PAGE 36

)RXQGDWLRQ IRU $PHULFDnV )XWXUH DQG D QDWLRQDO FLWL]HQVn DGYLVRU\ QHWZRUN WR SURYLGH LQGHSHQGHQW UHVHDUFK DQG FLWL]HQ LQSXW IRU QDWLRQDO JURZWK SROLF\ 7KH WKUHH ELOOV FKRVHQ IRU VWXG\ EHDU RQ GLIIHUHQW DVSHFWV RI VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW IXQFWLRQV 7KH\ UHSUHVHQW D GLn YHUVLW\ RI FRQJUHVVLRQDO DSSURDFKHV WR WKH SUREOHP RI FUHDWLQJ DQG UHFRQFLOLQJ SROLF\ OHJLVODWLYHO\ 7KH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ RI + 5HV ZDV DLPHG DW VHDUFKLQJ IRU HPHUJLQJ SUREOHPV DQG LQn IRUPLQJ FXUUHQW GHFLVLRQV ZLWKLQ WKH MXULVGLFWLRQ RI LQGLYLGXDO FRQPLWWHHV 7KH 0RQGDOH ELOO 6 f ZDV DLPHG DW IRUFLQJ DQDO\VLV DFURVV WKH ILHOG RI VRFLDO SROLF\ DQG WR D OLPLWHG H[WHQW IRUFLQJ WKH FRQVFLRXV LQWHUUHODWLRQVKLS RI GHFLVLRQV ZLWKLQ WKH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV DQG LQ DQ 2IILFH RI *RDOV DQG 3ULRULWLHV $QDO\VLV ZLWKLQ &RQJUHVV 7KH +XPSKUH\ SURSRVDO 6 f ZRXOG DXJPHQW WKH VHDUFK IRU HPHUJLQJ LVVXHV LQIRUP FXUUHQW GHFLVLRQV UHJDUGLQJ IXWXUH GHYHORSPHQWV DQG IRUFH WKH FRQVFLRXV LQWHUUHODn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

PAGE 37

HYDOXDWH FRPSDUDWLYH OHJLVODWLYH UHVSRQVLELOLW\ LQ WKH GHYHORSn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n WLDO LQWHUYLHZV ZLWK PHPEHUV RI &RQJUHVV FRQJUHVVLRQDO DQG H[HFXWLYH VWDII PHPEHUV RXWVLGH H[SHUWV DQG SXEOLF DQG SULYDWH LQWHUHVWJURXS UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV 5HSV -RKQ 'LQJHOO 0LFKf *X\ 9DQGHU 7DJW 5 0LFKf $ODQ 6WHHOPDQ 5 7H[f 6HQDWRUV 3KLOLS $ +DUW 0LFKf -DPHV / %XFNOH\ 5 1
PAGE 38

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f 7KH -RLQW &RPPLWWHH RQ WKH (FRQRPLF 5HSRUW EHFDPH WKH -RLQW (FRQRPLF &RPPLWWHH ,WV VWDII KDV D UHSXWDWLRQ DV RQH RI WKH EHVW DQDO\WLFDO VWDIIV RI DQ\ FRQJUHVVLRQDO FRPPLWWHH )RU DQ HYDOXDWLRQ RI 27$nV RSHUDWLRQV GXULQJ WKH UG &RQn JUHVV VHH &UDLJ 'HFNHUnV DWWHPSW WR DVVHVV WKH DVVHVVRUV 'HFNHU f

PAGE 39

&+$37(5 675$7(*,& 32/,&< $66(660(17 352326$/6 385326,9( %(+$9,25 $7 7+( &200,77(( /(9(/

PAGE 40

,1752'8&7,21 2XU H[DPLQDWLRQ RI WKUHH OHJLVODWLYH LQLWLDWLYHV KDV EHHQ VWUXFWXUHG LQ RUGHU WR XQGHUVWDQG VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW UHIRUPV LQ &RQJUHVV WKDW ZHUH DLPHG DW PDNLQJ JRYHUQPHQW EHWWHU DEOH WR FRSH ZLWK WKH IXWXUH 7KH OHJLVODWLYH LQLWLDWLYHV H[DPLQHG DUH WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ RI WKH &RPPLWWHH 5HIRUP $PHQGPHQWV RI + 5HV f WKH )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ DQG 1DWLRQDO *RDOV DQG 3ULRULWLHV $FW 6 f DQG WKH %DODQFHG 1DWLRQDO *URZWK DQG 'HYHORSPHQW $FW RI 6 f $W WKH OHYHO RI WKH PDMRU RSHUDWLQJ JURXS ZLWKLQ &RQJUHVV WKH FRPPLWn WHHV FHUWDLQ NH\ UHVRXUFHV RU IDFWRUV KDYH EHHQ VHOHFWHG IRU FRQVLGHUDWLRQ 7KHVH NH\ IDFWRUV DW WKH FRPPLWWHH OHYHO KDYH EHHQ FKRVHQ LQ RUGHU WR DOORZ DQ LGHQWLILFDWLRQ RI ZKR ZDV UHVSRQVLEOH IRU D ELOOnV HQDFWPHQW 7KH UHVHDUFK RQ &RQJUHVV PRVW UHOHYDQW WR RXU SXUSRVHV H[DPLQHG WKLUWHHQ ELOOV KDQGOHG E\ WKUHH 6HQDWH FRPPLWWHHV LQ RUGHU WR DVFHUWDLQ ZKDW DVSHFWV RI FRPPLWWHH OLIH EHVW KHOS XV XQGHUVWDQG WKH FKDUDFWHULVWLF SDWWHUQV RI OHJLVODWLYH DFWLRQ DQG LQDFWLRQ LQLWLDWLYH DQG GHIHUHQFH 3ULFH [f 7KH LVVXHV DGGUHVV ZHUH WKH GHFOLQH RI SDUOLDPHQWV LQ WKH IDFH RI DVFHQn GDQW H[HFXWLYHV DQG WKH VRXUFHV DQG FRQGLWLRQV RI OHJLVODWLYH

PAGE 41

LQGHSHQGHQFH DQG FUHDWLYLW\ LQ WKH 86 &RQJUHVV ,Q RWKHU UHOHYDQW UHVHDUFK WKH IXQFWLRQLQJ RI VL[ +RXVH FRPPLWWHHV IURP WR ZDV H[DPLQHG LQ RUGHU WR GHVFULEH DQG JHQHUDOL]H DERXW FRPPLWWHH VLPLODULWLHV DQG GLIIHUHQFHV )HQQR f 7KH IROORZLQJ SUHOLPLQDU\ TXHVWLRQV GHULYHG IURP WKH ZRUN RI 3ULFH DQG )HQQR KDYH JXLGHG WKLV UHVHDUFK f ZKDW DUH WKH GHWHUPLQDQWV RI DFWLYLW\ E\ DQ LQGLYLGXDO PHPEHU RI &RQJUHVV RQ VSD SURSRVDOV" 7KH PHPEHUnV SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKH QHHG WR DQWLFLSDWH SUREOHPV DQG KLV SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKH UHODWLRQ RI VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW WR WKLV QHHG ZDV H[DPLQHG 3HUVRQDO EDFNJURXQG IDFWRUV DQG FRPPLWWHH LQFHQWLYHV ZHUH LGHQWLILHG WKDW ZRXOG OHDG D PHPEHU WR WDNH DQ LQLWLDWLYH DQG VR EHFRPH D SROLF\ HQWUHSUHQHXU LQ WKLV DUHD :H DVNHG KRZ VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW ZRXOG DIIHFW WKH PHPEHUnV LQVWLWXWLRQDO SRVLWLRQ DQG KRZ KH WKRXJKW VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW ZRXOG FKDQJH SDWWHUQV RI FRQJUHVVLRQDO GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ RU WKH GLVWULEXWLRQ RI SRZHU ZLWKLQ &RQJUHVV f ZKDW IDFWRUV FRQGLWLRQ VXFFHVVIXO DFWLYLW\ E\ D FRPPLWWHH RQ &RQJUHVV RQ WKH VSD SURYLVLRQV" 7KH LPSDFW RI GLIIHUHQW OHJLVODWLYH SDFNn DJHV LQ ZKLFK VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW KDV EHHQ SURSRVHG ZDV VWXGLHG DV ZHOO DV WKH GLIIHUHQFHV LQ FRPPLWWHH KDQGOLQJ RI WKHVH SDFNDJHV )DFWRUV ZHUH VRXJKW WR H[SODLQ WKHVH GLIIHUHQFHV )LQDOO\ ZH VRXJKW WR LGHQWLI\ WKH W\SHV RI LQWHUHVW JURXS DQG DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ DFWLYLW\ WKDW DFFRPSDQLHG WKHVH SURSRVDOV RU ZHUH JHQHUDWHG E\ WKHP 7KH PHWKRGV XVHG WR JDWKHU LQIRUPDWLRQ WR DQVZHU WKHVH TXHVWLRQV DUH GLVFXVVHG EHORZ

PAGE 42

67$*(6 2) 68&&(66)8/ $&7,9,7< 21 $ %,// :KLOH WKHVH TXHVWLRQV GHDO ZLWK PHPEHU DQG FRPPLWWHH IDFWRUV DW WKH FRPPLWWHH OHYHO RI DQDO\VLV LW LV QHFHVVDU\ WR FRQVLGHU WKH PHDQLQJ RI VXFFHVVIXO FRPPLWWHH DFWLRQ IRU RXU XQLW RI DQDO\VLV QDPHO\ OHJLVODWLYH LQLWLDWLYHV 6XFFHVVIXO FRPPLWWHH DFWLRQ RQ D ELOO KDV EHHQ FRQVLGHUHG LQ WHUPV RI WKH GHJUHH RI GHYHORSPHQW RI VL[ VWDJHV LQYROYHG LQ SURFHVVLQJ DQ\ ELOO WKRVH VXJJHVWHG E\ 3ULFH 6HYHUDO DWWHPSWV KDYH EHHQ PDGH WR GHILQH WKH VWDJHV RI GHFLn VLRQ PDNLQJ RU SROLF\ PDNLQJ WKDW D ELOO RUGLQDULO\ JRHV WKURXJK /DVVZHOO 5RELQVRQ *HUJHQ $OPRQG f ,Q VXUYH\LQJ WKHVH VWDJHV 'DYLG 3ULFH UHMHFWHG D UDWLRQDO DFWRU DSSURDFK WR SROLF\ PDNLQJ VHH $OOLVRQ f 7KH LQWURGXFWLRQ SXEOLFL]LQJ OHJLWLPL]LQJ DQG SURFHVVLQJ RI D SLHFH RI OHJLVODWLRQ LQn YROYHV D JUHDW GHDO PRUH WKDQ WKH JHQWOH UDWLRQDOLVWLF SUREOHPVROYLQJ SURFHVV RI LQWHOOLJHQFH UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ DQG SUHVFULSn WLRQ 7KH SURFHVV HQWDLOV JDWKHULQJ LQn WHOOLJHQFH DQG UHVSRQGLQJ WR DUWLFXODWHG QHHGV DQG VHQWLPHQWV EXW LW DOVR UHTXLUHV VWLPXODWLQJ WKRVH VHQWLPHQWV DFWLYDWLQJ DQG PROOLI\LQJ JURXSV DQG SUHFLSLWDWLQJ DQG SDUWLFLSDWLQJ LQ FRQIOLFWV 3ULFH f 3ULFH SRVWXODWHG VL[ VWDJHV RU IXQFWLRQV LQ WKH SURFHVVLQJ RI D SLHFH RI OHJLVODWLRQ

PAGE 43

,QVWLJDWLRQ DQG SXEOLFL]LQJ 7KH SXEOLF 7 SULn YDWH DGYRFDF\ RI DQ LVVXH DV RQH ZRUWK\ RI DWWHQWLRQ DQG DPHOLRUDWLYH DFWLRQ 7\SLFDO LQVWLJDWRUV LQFOXGH WKH VWDII PDQ RU ORZHUOHYHO EXUHDXFUDW ZKR FDOOV D SUREOHP WR KLV VXSHULRUnV DWWHQWLRQ WKH &RQJUHVVPDQ ZKR KLJKOLJKWV DQ LVVXH WKURXJK LQYHVWLJDWLYH KHDUn LQJV RU WKH DXWKRU ZKR GRFXPHQWV DQG GUDPDWL]HV D VRFLDO QHHG )RUPXODWLRQ 'HYLVLQJ DQG DGYRFDWLQJ D VSHFLILF OHJLVODWLYH UHPHG\ IRU D VXSSRVHG QHHG 7KH IRUPXODWRU GUDZV ERXQGDULHV DURXQG DQ LVVXH DQG HVWDEOLVKHV D IRFDO SRLQW IRU LWV IXUWKHU FRQVLGHUDWLRQ LQIRUPDWLRQ JDWKHULQJ &ROOHFWLQJ GDWD RQ WKH QDWXUH RI KD]DUGV DQG DEXVHV WKH DOWHUQDWLYH VFKHPHV IRU VROYLQJ SUREOHPV DQG WKHLU FRVWV EHQHILWV DQG LQKHUHQW GLIILFXOWLHV WKH OLNHO\ SROLWLFDO LPSDFW RI HDFK VFKHPH DQG WKH IHDVLELOLW\ RI YDULRXV FRPn SURPLVHV ,QIRUPDWLRQ JDWKHULQJ LV FUXFLDO WR HDFK RI WKH RWKHU IXQFWLRQVWR GHYLVLQJ D ZRUNDEOH SURn SRVDO DV ZHOO DV WR SORWWLQJ LWV SROLWLFDO FRXUVH DQG EXLOGLQJ D VHQVH RI QHHG DQG OHJLWLPDF\ LQWHUHVW DJJUHJDWLRQ 5HVSRQGLQJ WR WKH QHHGV DQG ZLVKHV RI LQGLYLGXDOV RU JURXSV DIIHFWHG E\ D JLYHQ SURSRVDO ,Q RQH LQVWDQFH LW PLJKW PHDQ WKH FKDPSLRQLQJ RI RQH JURXS RYHU RU DJDLQVW RWKHUV LQ DQRWKHU WKH DVVXPSWLRQ RI D PHGLDWLQJ EDODQFLQJ UROH LQ \HW DQRWKHU WKH VWLPXODWLQJ RI ODWHQW JURXS VHQWLPHQWV 6XFK DFWLYLWLHV PD\ ERWK UHVROYH DQG H[DFHUEDWH FRQIOLFW WKH\ PD\ RQ WKH RQH KDQG FRQn WULEXWH WR WKH LQVWLJDWLRQ DQG PRELOL]DWLRQ HIIRUW RU RQ WKH RWKHU JLYH ULVH WR DWWHPSWV DW PRGLILFDWLRQ RU REVWUXFWLRQ 0RELOL]DWLRQ 7KH H[HUWLRQ RI SUHVVXUH SHUVXDn VLRQ RU FRQWURO RQ EHKDOI RI D PHDVXUH E\ RQH ZKR LV DEOH RIWHQ E\ YLUWXH RI KLV LQVWLWXWLRQDO SRVLn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

PAGE 44

0RGLILFDWLRQ 7KH PDUJLQDO DOWHUDWLRQ RI D SURn SRVDO VRPHWLPHV VWUHQJWKHQLQJ LW VRPHWLPHV JUDQWLQJ FHUWDLQ FRQFHVVLRQV WR LWV RSSRQHQWV LQ RUn GHU WR IDFLOLWDWH ILQDO SDVVDJH 0RGLILFDWLRQ PD\ RU PD\ QRW FRPSOHPHQW DFWLRQV WDNHQ DW HDUOLHU SRLQWV EXW LQ DQ\ FDVH WKH PRGLILHU VKDUHV UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU D ELOOnV ILQDO IRUP 3ULFH J Bf $ ELOOnV SDVVDJH LQ 3ULFHnV VFKHPD ZLOO GHSHQG RQ LWV PDWXULW\ DQG YLDELOLW\ $ ELOOnV PDWXULW\ FRUUHVSRQGV WR LWV SURJUHVV WKURXJK WKHVH VWDJHV 7KH YLDELOLW\ RI D ELOO ZKHWKHU RU QRW LW ZLOO IO\f GHSHQGV RQ WKH GHJUHH RI UHVSRQVLYHQHVV DQG VXSSRUW IRU WKH ELOO LQ WKH SDUHQW ERG\ 3ULFH f 7KH WKUHH ELOOV FKRVHQ UHDFKHG D YDULHW\ RI OHYHOV RI PDWXULW\ DQG YLDELOLW\ 7KH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ ZDV DGRSWHG E\ WKH +RXVH WKH IXOO RSSRUWXQLW\ SURSRVDO SDVVHG WKH 6HQDWH /DERU DQG 3XEOLF :HOIDUH &RPPLWWHH LW KDG SDVVHG WKLV FRPPLWWHH DQG WKH 6HQDWH LQ WZR SUHYLRXV FRQJUHVVHVf WKH +XPSKUH\ SURSRVDO ZDV QRW HYHQ FRQn VLGHUHG E\ WKH 6HQDWH *RYHUQPHQW 2SHUDWLRQV &RPPLWWHH ,Q WKLV UHVHDUFK ZH H[SORUHG IDFWRUV DIIHFWLQJ WKH GHYHORSPHQWDO SURFHVV IRU WKUHH OHJLVODWLYH LQLWLDWLYHV DQG WKH FRQWH[W WKDW FRQGLn WLRQHG WKHLU YLDELOLW\ RU QRQYLDELOLW\ 2QH FRQWH[WXDO IDFWRU WKDW FRQGLWLRQV D ELOOnV YLDELOLW\ LQ WKH +RXVH RU 6HQDWH 3ULFH QRWHG LV WKH SUHVHQFH RI D FULVLV RU VHQVH RI QHHG LQ D UHOHYDQW VHFWRU $ YDULHW\ RI FULVHV PRVW QRWDEO\ WKH HQHUJ\ FULVLV GHPDQGHG QRWLFH LQ WKH UG &RQJUHVV 6&& E ::,&6 f 7KH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK HYHQWV VXFK DV WKH HQHUJ\ FULVLV ZHUH WUDQVODWHG LQWR D VHQVH RI QHHG IRU

PAGE 45

FKDQJHV WKURXJK VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW UHIRUPV LQ WKH GHFLVLRQn PDNLQJ V\VWHP KDV EHHQ H[DPLQHG LQ RXU UHVHDUFK 7KH PHPEHU DQG FRPPLWWHH IDFWRUV WKDW PD\ KDYH DIIHFWHG WKH PDWXULW\ RI WKHVH 63$ SURSRVDOV PXVW ILUVW EH LGHQWLILHG VSHFLILFDOO\ 7KHQ ZH PD\ K\n SRWKHVL]H WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI WKHVH IDFWRUV WR WKH SURFHVVLQJ RI WKUHH SURSRVDOV 0(0%(5 )$&7256 *2$/6 7KH YLDELOLW\ RI D SURSRVDO LV GHWHUPLQHG E\ WKH OHYHO RI VXSSRUW LW UHFHLYHV LQ WKH SDUHQW FKDPEHU DQG E\ RWKHU HQDEOLQJ FRQGLWLRQV EXW WKH ELUWK DQG JURZWK RI D ELOOLWV PDWXULW\ LQ WHUPV RI 3ULFHnV VL[ VWDJHVGHSHQGV RQ WKH LUUHGXFLELOLW\ RI OHJLVODWLYH LQLWLDWLYHWKH QHHG IRU D SROLF\ HQWUHSUHQHXU 3ULFH f 7KHQ ZKDW GHWHUPLQHV D SROLWLFLDQnV DFWLRQV DV D VSRQVRU D VXSSRUWHU RU DQ RSSRQHQW RI OHJLVODWLRQ" 5HVHDUFK RQ WKH JHQHUDO GHWHUPLQDQWV RI SROLWLFDO DFWLYLW\ KDYH IRFXVHG RQ WKH SUHGLVSRVLWLRQV SHUFHSWLRQV UROHV DQG PRWLYDWLRQV RI SROLn WLFLDQV %DUEHU 3D\QH 'DYLGVRQ :DKONH (XODX %XFKDQDQ t )HUJXVRQ 3XWQDP f $ UHFHQW DSSURDFK E\ 5LFKDUG )HQQR UHVROYHG VRPH RI WKH GLIILFXOW\ RI OLQNLQJ VXFK JHQHUDO IDFWRUV WR OHJLVODWLYH DFWLYLW\ 7KHUH DUH FHUWDLQ EDVLF JRDOV SXUVXHG E\ FRQJUHVVPHQ )HQQR f VXJJHVWHG f UHHOHFWLRQ f JRRG SXEOLF SROLF\ f SRZHU LQ WKH +RXVH f D FDUHHU EH\RQG WKH +RXVH DQG f SULYDWH JDLQ

PAGE 46

)HQQR VKRZHG WKDW PHPEHUVKLS RQ GLIIHUHQW FRPPLWWHHV HQKDQFHV VRPH JRDOV PRUH WKDQ RWKHUV )HQQR f 5HVHDUFK RQ IUHVKPDQ UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV LQ WKH QG &RQJUHVV \LHOGHG VLPLODU UHVXOWV %XOORFN f 2XU UHVHDUFK ZDV FRQFHUQHG ZLWK WKH TXHVWLRQ KRZ 63$ UHIRUP ZDV UHODWHG WR PHPEHU JRDOV 7KHVH JRDOV DUH QRW ILQHO\ VRUWHG LQ WKH GDLO\ DFWLYLW\ RI &RQJUHVVPHQ $ PHPEHUnV DFWLRQV PXVW UHDFK D WKUHVKROG EHIRUH KH ZLOO UHODWH KLV DFWLYLW\ WR D SHUVRQDO YHUVLRQ RI WKHVH ILYH JRDOV 0RUH WKDQ D PHPEHU ZKR PHUHO\ YRWHV \HV RU QR WKH VSRQVRUV RI ELOOV ZHUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR EH DEOH WR H[SUHVV KRZ WKH YDULRXV DVSHFWV RI WKHLU ZRUN RQ ELOOV UHODWHG WR WKHLU JRDOV *22' 32/,&< $1' $ 32/,&< $77,78'( 72:$5' 63$ 3UHYLRXV UHVHDUFK KDV QRW HOLPLQDWHG WKH GLIILFXOW\ RI GHWHUn PLQLQJ ZKDW FRQVWLWXWHV WKH SXUVXLW RI JRRG SROLF\ %HLQJ FRQn FHUQHG ZLWK WKH UHODWLYH LPSRUWDQFH RI SROLF\ JRDOV DJDLQVW UH HOHFWLRQ SRZHU LQ WKH FKDPEHU HWF )HQQR DQG %XOORFN GLG QRW SURYLGH D VHW RI GLPHQVLRQV IRU JRRG SROLF\ )DFHG ZLWK WKLV VXEVWDQWLYH TXHVWLRQ ZH KDYH VSHFLILHG ZKDW PD\ EH LQYROYHG LQ D &RQJUHVVPDQnV SROLF\ DWWLWXGH DV -RKQ .LQJGRQ FDOOHG WKH EDFNJURXQG DWWLWXGHV ZKLFK LQIRUP D PHPEHUnV DFWLYLW\ DSDUW IURP RWKHU H[WHUQDO VRXUFHV VXFK DV FRQVWLWXHQWV SDUW\ OHDGHUV HWF .LQJGRQ f $ VHW RI IDFWRUV UHOHYDQW WR D SROLF\ DWWLWXGH WRZDUG 63$ KDV EHHQ GHYHORSHG EDVHG RQ SUHOLPLQDU\ UHVHDUFK DQG FRQJUHVVLRQDO WHVWLPRQ\ DQG GLVFXVVLRQ LQ WKLV DUHD 7KH HOHPHQWV RI D SROLF\ DWWLWXGH LQFOXGH

PAGE 47

6DWLVIDFWLRQ RU GLVVDWLVIDFWLRQ ZLWK WKH ZD\V LQ ZKLFK &RQJUHVV QRUPDOO\ VHDUFKHV IRU SUREOHPV WR FRQVLGHU -XGJPHQWV RI WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK PDMRU SUREOHPV FDQ EH DQWLFLSDWHG 2SLQLRQV RQ WKH DELOLW\ WR SUHGLFW VRFLDO WUHQGV RU DFWLYLW\ -XGJPHQWV RI WKH DELOLW\ WR GLUHFW RU FRQWURO IXWXUH FRQGLWLRQV -XGJPHQWV RI WKH UROH RI &RQJUHVV LQ SURYLGLQJ D SRVLWLYH LQVSLULQJ YLVLRQ RI WKH IXWXUH )DPLOLDULW\ ZLWK IXWXUHRULHQWHG LQIRUPDWLRQ HJ ILYH WHQ DQG WZHQW\ILYH\HDU IRUHFDVWVf LQ OHJLVODWLYH ZRUN 7KHVH HOHPHQWV UHIOHFW WKH IDFW WKDW 63$ LV D PHWDLVVXH ,W GHDOV ZLWK WKH SROLF\ SURFHVV ZLWK WKH DQDO\VLV RI FRQGLWLRQV JRDOV DQG PHDQV LQYROYHG LQ VXEVWDQWLYH SROLF\ LVVXHV VXFK DV KHDOWK RU WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ :KLOH D PHPEHUnV JRRG SROLF\ JRDO PD\ PRYH KLP WR VWDQG IRU RU DJDLQVW D SDUWLFXODU 63$ UHIRUP D KLJK OHYHO RI DFWLYLW\ ZLOO SUREDEO\ HQDEOH WKH PHPEHU WR DUWLFXODWH WKH EDFNJURXQG HOHPHQWV RI KLV SROLF\ DWWLWXGH 7KH VLJQLILFDQFH RI HDFK RI WKHVH HOHPHQWV DQG WKH H[SHFWHG SRVLWLRQ RI WKRVH VXSSRUWLQJ 63$ UHIRUPV KDYH \HW WR EH FRQVLGHUHG 72 6($5&+ )25 352%/(06 7KH ZD\V LQ ZKLFK &RQJUHVV QRUPDOO\ VHDUFKHV IRU SUREOHPV KDYH EHHQ GHVFULEHG DV VXIILFLHQW WR LQFOXGH DOO SROLWLFDOO\ UHOHYDQW LVVXHV 6FKQHLHU f DQG ZLGH UDQJLQJ LI QRW V\VWHPDWLF %HFNPDQ Df 3ROLWLFDO LQ WKLV FRQWH[W PHDQV WKDW LI DQ HPHUJLQJ LVVXH KDV VXIILFLHQW LPSRUWDQFH EHFDXVH RI LQWHUHVW JURXS RU FRQVWLWXWHQW VXSSRUW LW LV SXW RQ WKH DJHQGD
PAGE 48

LV RQH RI WKH FDXVHV RI UHFXUUHQW FULVLV 3UHVXPDEO\ D PHPEHU DFWLYH RQ EHKDOI RI 63$ UHIRUPV ZLOO EH GLVVDWLVILHG ZLWK WKH QRUn PDO ZD\V LQ ZKLFK &RQJUHVV VHDUFKHV IRU SUREOHPV 7KLV GLVVDWLVn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n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n PLWPHQW E\ WKH JRYHUQPHQW WR PDNH D PRUH HIIHFWLYH DQG FRQVFLRXV

PAGE 49

LPSDFW RQ WKH IXWXUH 3UHVXPDEO\ WKRVH LQ IDYRU RI 63$ UHIRUPV HVSHFLDOO\ UHIRUPV ZKLFK ZRXOG IRUFH GHFLVLRQV ZLOO IDYRU JUHDWHU JRYHUQPHQWDO DFWLYLW\ WR GLUHFW RU FRQWURO WKH IXWXUH 7KLV DWWLWXGH LQYROYHV DQ LPSOLFLW RU H[SOLFLW UHVSRQVH WR WKH LGHRn ORJLFDO LPSOLFDWLRQV RI JRYHUQPHQW DFWLYLW\ LQ D IUHH LH XQFRQWUROOHG VRFLHW\ $ 326,7,9( ,163,5,1* 9,6,21 3UHOLPLQDU\ LQWHUYLHZV ZLWK VWDII DQG PHPEHUV RI &RQJUHVV DQG WHVWLPRQ\ RQ 63$ LVVXHV EURXJKW RFFDVLRQDO UHIHUHQFHV WR WKH QHHG IRU WKH JRYHUQPHQW WR SURYLGH D SRVLWLYH LQVSLULQJ YLVLRQ IRU WKH FRXQWU\ 6&& E +DUPDQ f 7KH VSHFLILF SROLF\ GLPHQVLRQV RI D SDUn WLFXODU PHPEHUnV YLVLRQ DUH EH\RQG WKLV UHVHDUFK \HW PHPEHUV FRQFHUQHG ZLWK 63$ PD\ UHDOL]H WKDW ZLWK PHPEHUV DQG ZRUN JURXSV 'DYLGVRQ f &RQJUHVV LV DW D FRPSDUDWLYH GLVDGn YDQWDJH WR WKH 3UHVLGHQW LQ HQXQFLDWLQJ ODUJHVFDOH FRPSUHKHQVLYH JRDOV )8785(6 ,1)250$7,21 7ZR DVSHFWV RI FRQJUHVVLRQDO LQIRUPDn WLRQ VRXUFHV PD\ KHOS XV XQGHUVWDQG D PHPEHUnV SROLF\ DWWLWXGH LQ UHODWLRQ WR 63$ )LUVW LV DQ DZDUHQHVV RI IXWXUHRULHQWHG LQIRUPDn WLRQ LQ WHUPV RI WUHQGV RU FRQGLWLRQV ILYH WHQ RU WZHQW\ILYH \HDUV LQ WKH IXWXUH IRU XVH LQ GD\WRGD\ OHJLVODWLYH DFWLYLWLHV 0HPEHUV SURSRVLQJ 63$ UHIRUPV ZLOO OLNHO\ EH FRQVFLRXV RI RU VHHN RXW WKLV W\SH RI LQIRUPDWLRQ 6HFRQG LV DQ DZDUHQHVV RI WKH H[LVWHQFH RI WKH VXEMHFW OLVWV RI HPHUJLQJ LVVXHV SURGXFHG E\ WKH &RQJUHVVLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFH

PAGE 50

IRU HDFK FRQJUHVVLRQDO FRPPLWWHH :KLOH GLVWULEXWLRQ RI WKHVH OLVWV LV PDGH E\ FRPPLWWHH FKDLUPHQ DQG WKHUHIRUH PD\ EH VRPHZKDW VNHZHG PHPEHUV VXSSRUWLQJ 63$ UHIRUPV DUH OLNH WR NQRZ DQG PDNH XVH RI WKHVH OLVWV 6HYHUDO FDWHJRULHV KDYH EHHQ XVHG WR H[SORUH ZKDW PD\ EH FDOOHG WKH PHPEHUVn SROLF\ DWWLWXGH WRZDUG VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVn PHQW 5HJDUGOHVV RI WKH H[DFW FRPSRVLWLRQ RI JRRG SROLF\ LW LV OLNHO\ WR EH D GRPLQDQW JRDO IRU PHPEHUV DFWLYHO\ SXUVXLQJ 63$ UHIRUPV *RRG SROLF\ DV D JRDO PXVW EH SRVLWHG WR H[SODLQ WKHLU DFWLYLW\ JLYHQ WKH FRPSOH[LW\ RI WKH LVVXH WKH ODFN RI FRQVWLWXn HQW DWWHQWLRQ DQG WKH DEVHQFH RI VLJQLILFDQW LQWHUHVW JURXS SUHVVXUH 7+( ,167,787,21$/ 32:(5 *2$/ 3RZHU LQ WKH FKDPEHU LV LPSRUWDQW DV D JRDO RI UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV 7KLV JRDO DIIHFWV WKH RSHUDWLRQ RI FHUWDLQ FRPPLWWHHV DQG WKHLU GHVLUDELOLW\ SDUWLFXODUO\ WKH WD[LQJ DQG VSHQGLQJ FRPPLWWHHV :KHWKHU WKH JRDO RI LQVWLWXWLRQDO SRZHU PRYHV D UHSUHVHQWDWLYH RU D VHQDWRU WR VXSSRUW 63$ UHIRUPV ZLOO GHSHQG RQ WKH PHPEHUnV HVWLPDWLRQ RI WKH UHIRUPnV LPSDFW RQ KLV SRVLWLRQ ,I IRU LQVWDQFH D UHIRUP ELOO FUHDWHV D QHZ FRPPLWWHH DQG WKH VSRQVRU PD\ EHFRPH FKDLUPDQ RI LW WKLV JRDO PLJKW FRPH LQWR SOD\ $OWKRXJK WKH +XPSKUH\ 6 f DQG 0QGDOH 6 f ELOOV PRUH DSSURSULDWHO\ 6HQDWRU -DFRE -DYLWVn DPHQGPHQWf ZRXOG HVWDEOLVK QHZ FRPPLWWHHV JLYHQ WKH GRXEWIXOQHVV RI WKHLU SDVVDJH WKH LQVWLWXWLRQDO SRZHU JRDO KDUGO\ H[SODLQV WKH DFWLRQV RI WKH VSRQVRUV 6LPLODUO\ WKH

PAGE 51

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n JUHVV 7KH +XPSKUH\ SURSRVDO PLJKW VHULRXVO\ DIIHFW WKH SRZHU RI WKH VWDQGLQJ FRPPLWWHHV WKURXJK WKH IRUPDWLRQ RI WKH -RLQW &RPn PLWWHH RQ 1DWLRQDO *URZWK DQG 'HYHORSPHQW EDVLFDOO\ D OHDGHUVKLS FRPPLWWHH IRU ERWK KRXVHV DQG WKXV LW ZRXOG WHQG WR JHQHUDWH RSSRVLWLRQ IURP FRPPLWWHH PHPEHUV ZKRVH SRZHU ZDV WKUHDWHQHG 0RQGDOHnV 7LWOH ZRXOG VHW XS D VRFLDO UHSRUWLQJ V\VWHP ZLWKRXW DQ\ FKDQJH LQ WKH FRPPLWWHH VWUXFWXUH ZKLOH 6HQDWRU -DYLWVn 7LWOH ,, ZRXOG FUHDWH DQ 2IILFH RI *RDOV DQG 3ULRULWLHV $QDO\VLV 7KLV RIILFH ZRXOG DQDO\]H IHGHUDO SURJUDPV DQG SULRULWLHV EXW LW ZRXOG KDYH QR SRZHU WR FKDQJH FRPPLWWHH DFWLYLWLHV 7KH IXWXUHV UHVHDUFK DQG IRUHFDVWLQJ UHTXLUHG E\ WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLn VLRQ FRXOG QRW DIIHFW WKH GLVWULEXWLRQ RI SRZHU ZLWKLQ FRPPLWWHHV XQOHVV LW RFFXUUHG LQ FRQMXQFWLRQ ZLWK VKLIWV FDXVHG E\ WKH H[LVWHQFH RI DQ RYHUVLJKW VXEFRPPLWWHH

PAGE 52

7+( *2$/ 2) 5((/(&7,21 5HFHQW ZRUN RQ &RQJUHVV KDV VWUHVVHG WKH UHHOHFWLRQ JRDO LQ PRWLYDWLQJ PHPEHUVn EHKDYLRU WKDW UHVXOWV LQ SDWWHUQV RI FRQ JUHVVLRQDO RSHUDWLRQ 0D\KHZ f
PAGE 53

SURYLVLRQ SUREDEO\ KDG OLWWOH LI DQ\ HIIHFW RQ KLV UDFH +RZHYHU ERWK 6HQDWRU 0RQGDOH DQG 6HQDWRU +XPSKUH\ ZHUH SUHVLGHQWLDO DVn SLUDQWV GXULQJ WKH UG &RQJUHVV +XPSKUH\ XQYHLOHG WKH RXWOLQHV RI KLV JURZWK SROLF\ SURSRVDO LQ WKH SUHVLGHQWLDO SULPDU\ FDPn SDLJQ LQ &DOLIRUQLD LQ %RWK WKH 0RQGDOH DQG WKH +XPSKUH\ SURn SRVDOV ZHUH RI WKH W\SH ZKLFK PLJKW LQWHUHVW D QDWLRQDO FRQVWLn WXHQF\ DQG WKHUHIRUH WKH FDUHHUEH\RQGWKHFKDPEHU JRDO PD\ KDYH KDG VRPH LPSDFW RQ WKHLU DGYRFDF\ RI 63$ UHIRUP 35,9$7( *$,1 *LYHQ WKH LQFLSLHQW QDWXUH RI WKHVH UHIRUPV DQG WKH ODFN RI LQWHUHVW JURXS LQYROYHPHQW WKHUH ZDV SUREDEO\ OLWWOH RSSRUWXQLW\ IRU SULYDWH JDLQ 7KHUHIRUH WKLV JRDODOVR DEVHQW LQ RWKHU UHn VHDUFK RQ PHPEHU JRDOV )HQQR %XOORFN fSUREDEO\ KDG D QHJOLJLEOH HIIHFW RQ WKH DFWLRQV RI VXSSRUWHUV DQG RSSRQHQWV %HFDXVH RI WKH DZNZDUGQHVVDQG VOLJKW FKDQFH RI DQ DIILUPDWLYH DQVZHURI DVNLQJ D PHPEHU LI KH H[SHFWHG DQ\ SULYDWH JDLQ QR VXFK TXHVWLRQV ZHUH DVNHG GXULQJ RXU LQWHUYLHZV 2WKHU PHPEHU IDFWRUV SULQFLSDOO\ YDULRXV UHVRXUFHV DQG FRVWV VHH :LOGDYVN\ $GULDQ t 3UHVV f DUH LQYROYHG LQ D PHPEHUnV DFWLRQV DQG WKHVH IDFWRUV KDYH EHHQ QRWHG LQ GHVFULELQJ PHPEHUnV JRDO SXUVXLWV DQG WKH FRQWH[W RI WKH FRPPLWWHH IDFWRUV

PAGE 54

&200,77(( )$&7256 7KLV UHVHDUFK OLNH WKDW RI 3ULFH FRQFHUQV WKH DFWLYLW\ RI FHUWDLQ FRPPLWWHHV RQ VSHFLILF SURSRVDOV )HQQR FRQFHQWUDWHG RQ JHQHUDO FRPPLWWHH EHKDYLRU ,Q WKHLU ZRUN WKH IROORZLQJ PDMRU FRPPLWWHH IDFWRUV DIIHFWHG WKH SURFHVVLQJ RI D ELOO 7KH UROH RI WKH FRPPLWWHH DQG VXEFRPPLWWHH FKDLUPHQ 7KH H[SHULHQFH DQG RULHQWDWLRQ RI WKH VWDII 7KH PHPEHUVKLS RI WKH FRPPLWWHH LQ WHUPV RI SDUWLVDQ RU LGHRORJLFDO FRPSRVLWLRQ 7KH OREE\LQJ DQG LQIOXHQFH RI H[HFXWLYH DQG FRQn JUHVVLRQDO EXUHDXFUDWV DQG LQWHUHVW JURXSV 7KH UHVXOWDQW SDWWHUQV RI FRQIOLFW $ IDYRUDEOH FRPPLWWHH FKDLUPDQ LV HVVHQWLDO WR WKH H[SHGLn WLRXV SURFHVVLQJ RI D ELOO 7KLV IDFWRU SUREDEO\ ZDV LQYROYHG LQ WKH FDVH RI WKH 0RQGDOH ELOO 6 f LQ WKH /DERU DQG 3XEOLF :HOn IDUH &RPPLWWHH ZKHUH 6HQDWRU +DUULVRQ $ :LOOLDPV -U 1-f ZDV FKDLUPDQ DQG IRU WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ DOWKRXJK 5HSUHVHQn WDWLYH 5LFKDUG %ROOLQJnV 0Rf VHOHFW FRPPLWWHH RSHUDWHG PRUH FROOHJLDOO\ WKDQ PRVW VWDQGLQJ FRPPLWWHHV 7KH RSSRVLWLRQ RI 6HQDWRU 6DP (UYLQ -U 1&f FKDLUPDQ RI WKH *RYHUQPHQW 2SHUDWLRQV &RPPLWWHH ZDV SUREDEO\ D PDMRU UHDVRQ ZK\ 6HQDWRU +XPSKUH\nV ELOO ZDV QRW FRQVLGHUHG LQ WKLV FRPPLWWHH 6XEFRPPLWWHH FKDLUPHQ DUH SDUWLFXODUO\ LPSRUWDQW LQ WKH 6HQDWH 3ULFH QRWHG EHFDXVH RI WKH GHFHQWUDOL]DWLRQ RI SRZHU WKHUH 6HQDWRU 0RQGDOHnV SURSRVDO ZDV XQGRXEWHGO\ DLGHG E\ WKH IDFW WKDW LQ SUHYLRXV &RQn JUHVVHV LW KDG EHHQ KDQGOHG E\ KLV VSHFLDO VXEFRPPLWWHH

PAGE 55

6WDII DFWLYLW\ LV HVVHQWLDO LQ IRUPXODWLQJ SURSRVDOV DQG JDWKHULQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ RU RYHUVHHLQJ WKHVH SURFHVVHV 7KH HDUOLHU UHIRUPV SDUWLFXODUO\ WKH (PSOR\PHQW $FW RI %DLOH\ f DQG WKH /HJLVODWLYH 5HRUJDQL]DWLRQ $FW RI %LEE\ t 'DYLGn VRQ f HQMR\HG D YDULHW\ RI FUXFLDO VWDII LQSXW WKURXJKRXW WKH VL[ VWDJHV RI SURFHVVLQJ $PRQJ WKH GHWHUPLQDQWV RI D ELOOnV PDWXULW\ 3ULFH QRWHG WKH DFFHVVLELOLW\ TXDOLW\ DQG UROHV DQG RULHQWDWLRQV RI WKH VWDII PHPEHUV SHUIRUPLQJ WKH LQIRUPDWLRQn JDWKHULQJ IXQFWLRQ HVSHFLDOO\ IRU D WHFKQLFDO SURFHGXUDO LVVXH *LYHQ WKH QDWXUH RI 63$ UHIRUPV LW LV OLNHO\ WKDW EDFNJURXQG H[SHULHQFH RU LQWHUHVW LQ 63$UHODWHG PDWWHUV RU WHFKQLTXHV ZLOO EH HVVHQWLDO IRU HIIHFWLYH IRUPXODWLRQ DQG LQIRUPDWLRQ JDWKHULQJ (TXDOO\ LPSRUWDQW LI D ELOO LV WR PRYH EH\RQG WKH HDUO\ VWDJHV RI PDWXULW\ ZLOO EH WKH SROLWLFDO LQIRUPDWLRQJDWKHULQJ DQG EDUn JDLQLQJ VNLOOV RI WKH VWDII 7KXV WKH H[SHULHQFH DV ZHOO DV WKH DPRXQW RI SROLF\ HQWUHSUHQHXUVKLS RI WKH VWDII VKRXOG EH LPSRUn WDQW IRU WKH PDWXULW\ RI WKHVH WKUHH UHIRUPV 7KH EXUHDXFUDWLF DQG LQWHUHVW JURXS DFWLYLW\ GLUHFWHG DW D FRPPLWWHH FRQVLGHULQJ D ELOO LV JHQHUDOO\ LPSRUWDQW $ ELOO WKDW SRWHQWLDOO\ LQIULQJHV RQ EXUHDXFUDWLF VWUXFWXUHV RIWHQ EULQJV RXW SRZHUIXO JRYHUQPHQW OREE\LQJ 3ULFH f $OVR EXUHDXFUDWLF VWUXFWXUHV PD\ DQWLFLSDWH WKH ELOOnV LPSRUWDQFH WR WKHLU RSHUDn WLRQV DQG DFWXDOO\ SOD\ DQ LPSRUWDQW SDUW LQ LWV GUDIWLQJ 6LQFH WKH PDMRU IRFXV RI WKLV UHVHDUFK LV FRQJUHVVLRQDO UHIRUP D PDMRU FRQFHUQ LV KRZ WKHVH 63$ UHIRUPV ZRXOG DIIHFW WKH FRQJUHVVLRQDO

PAGE 56

EXUHDXFUDF\ DQG WKLV FRQFHUQ UHTXLUHV DQ H[DPLQDWLRQ RI WKH UROH LI DQ\ RI WKH FRPPLWWHH VWDII WKH &RQJUHVVLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 6HUn YLFH WKH *HQHUDO $FFRXQWLQJ 2IILFH DQG WKH 2IILFH RI 7HFKQRORJ\ $VVHVVPHQW 7KH VXFFHVVIXO SURFHVVLQJ RI D ELOO UHTXLUHV HIIHFWLYH LQWHUHVW DJJUHJDWLRQ DQG PRELOL]DWLRQ RI VXSSRUW %HFDXVH 63$ LV D FRPSOH[ LVVXH ZKRVH HIIHFWV DUH LQGLUHFW RU XQFHUWDLQ WKHVH SURSRVDOV KDYH QRW JHQHUDWHG ZLGHVSUHDG VXSSRUW RU RSSRVLWLRQ -XVW DV FRQn VWLWXHQW DWWHQWLRQ WR FRQJUHVVLRQDO UHIRUPV LV VOLJKW VR WRR LV LQWHUHVW JURXS DFWLYLW\ 2QH H[FHSWLRQ RFFXUUHG DPRQJ WKRVH DFDn GHPLF DQG SURIHVVLRQDO JURXSV ZKRVH PHPEHUV ZRXOG EHQHILW IURP JUHDWHU XVH RI SDUWLFXODU WHFKQLTXHV DQG DQ LPSOLHG LQFUHDVH LQ HPSOR\PHQW IRU WKH JURXS ,W LV OLNHO\ WKDW 63$ SURSRVDOV SDUn WLFXODUO\ ZKHUH WKH\ SRUWHQG FRQIOLFW LQ IRUFLQJ GHFLVLRQV ZLOO QRW PDWXUH LI LQWHUHVWJURXS VXSSRUW LV OLPLWHG WR DFDGHPLF DQG SURIHVVLRQDO JURXSV $ ELOO LV QRW OLNHO\ WR PDWXUH LI LQWHUHVW JURXSV RSSRVH LW RXW RI IHDU RI DGYHUVH HIIHFWV JLYHQ WKH XQFHUn WDLQW\ RI WKH LPSDFW RI WKHVH UHIRUPV RQ VWDEOLVKHG FRQWDFWV DQG UHODWLRQVKLSV ZLWK &RQJUHVV DV ZHOO DV RQ SROLF\ TXHVWLRQV 7KLV SURSRVLWLRQ VKRXOG KROG WUXH HVSHFLDOO\ ZKHUH WKH GHFLVLRQn IRUFLQJ IXQFWLRQ LV LQYROYHG 7KH KLVWRU\ RI WKH (PSOR\PHQW $FW VXJJHVWV WKDW PDMRU LQWHUHVW JURXSV ZLOO HQWHU WKH SURFHVV LI D VLJQLILFDQW 63$ UHIRUP LV VHULRXVO\ FRQVLGHUHG 7KH LPSDFW RI WKH LGHRORJLFDO DQG SDUWLVDQ FRPSRVLWLRQ RI D FRPPLWWHH ZLOO EH VKRZQ GHSHQGLQJ RQ WKH W\SH RI ELOO 3DUWLVDQ YRWLQJ

PAGE 57

LV RIWHQ PRVW SURQRXQFHG ZKHQ WKH YRWH GHDOV ZLWK LQWHUQDO SURn FHGXUDO PDWWHUV LQ WKH +RXVH RU 6HQDWH 7R WKH H[WHQW WKDW 63$ LV OLNHO\ WR DIIHFW WKH UHODWLYH SRVLWLRQV RI WKH PDMRULW\ DQG PLQRULW\ SDUWLHV WKLV LPSDFW ZLOO EH UHIOHFWHG LQ WKH YRWLQJ /LNHZLVH YRWHV RQ 'HPRFUDWLF SURSRVDOV WR PDNH FKDQJHV LQ DQ XQn ZLOOLQJ 5HSXEOLFDQ H[HFXWLYH ZLOO VKRZ SDUWLVDQ GLYLVLRQ DV WKH YRWH VKRZHG LQ WKH FDVH RI WKH 0RQGDOH ELOO 6 f ,GHRORJLFDO IDFWRUV DQG SDWWHUQV RI FRQIOLFW RQ 63$ UHIRUPV PD\ QRW EH GLUHFWHG DW WKH 63$ SURYLVLRQV SDUWLFXODUO\ LI WKH 63$ SURYLVLRQV DUH D UHODWLYHO\ VPDOO SDUW RI D ODUJHU OHJLVODn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nV SURJUDPV &RQJUHVV GLG QRW DSSUHFLDWH JRDOV EHLQJ HQXQFLDWHG E\ 3UHVLGHQWLDO EXUHDXFUDWV &RQJUHVV ZDV SDUn WLFXODUO\ XQKDSS\ ZLWK WKH ERDUGnV QHZ ELOO RI ULJKWV DQG LWV VRFLDO ZHOIDUH LPSOLFDWLRQV 5RWK %DLOH\ f 3DUWO\ IRU WKLV UHDVRQ WKH &RXQFLO RI (FRQRPLF $GYLVHUV ZDV HVWDEOLVKHG WR DGYLVH UDWKHU WKDQ SODQ 3UHVLGHQW 1L[RQ IRUPHG

PAGE 58

D 1DWLRQDO *RDOV 5HVHDUFK 6WDII EXW WKLV VWDII ZDV QHYHU DOORZHG WR KDYH DQ\ LPSDFW VRPHZKDW EHFDXVH RI WKH LVVXHV LW ZDV H[SHFWHG WR UDLVH )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ %H]ROG f 6HQDWRU 0RQGDOHnV SURSRVDO RI WKH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV DQG 6HQDWRU +XPSKUH\nV 2IILFH RI %DODQFHG *URZWK DQG 'HYHORSPHQW PD\ KDYH EHHQ YLHZHG LQ WKHVH WHUPV E\ FRPPLWWHH PHPEHUV ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR WKH LPSDFW RI KLVWRULFDO DQDORJXHV WKH FRPn PLWWHH WKDW KDQGOHV D SURSRVDO PD\ KDYH DQ LPSDFW RQ WKH LVVXH SRWHQWLDO RI DQ 63$ SURYLVLRQ LQ LWV ODUJHU OHJLVODWLYH SDFNDJH &HUWDLQ FRPPLWWHHV SURPRWH WKH DFWLYH DQG SDUWLVDQ SXUVXLW RI JRRG SROLF\ )HQQR f DQG PRVW RI WKH ELOOV RI WKHVH FRPn PLWWHHV UHIOHFW ZKDW $DJH &ODXVHQ ZRXOG FDOO WKH VRFLDO ZHOIDUH YRWLQJ SDWWHUQ )HQQR &ODXVHQ f 6HQDWRU 0RQGDOHnV SURSRVDO ZDV SURGXFHG LQ WKH /DERU DQG 3XEOLF :HOIDUH &RPPLWWHH D PDMRU VRXUFH RI VRFLDO ZHOIDUH YRWHV LQ WKH 6HQDWH ,Q WKLV VHQVH DFWLYLW\ E\ RWKHU PHPEHUV IRU RU DJDLQVW WKH ELOO PD\ EH FRQGLWLRQHG E\ LWV FRPPLWWHHnV DQG LWV VSRQVRUnVf UHSXWDWLRQ LQ WKLV FDVH IRU OLEHUDO ZHOIDUHRULHQWHG SURSRVDOV &RQIOLFW LQ &RQJUHVV JHQHUDOO\ GHDOV ZLWK PHDQV DQG LW LV UHVROYHG E\ DJUHHPHQW RQ VSHFLILF SURJUDPV :LOGDYVN\ 3ROVE\ f 63$ UHIRUPV ZKLFK UDLVH WKH FRQIOLFW WR KLJKHU OHYHOV RQ WKH HQGVPHDQV FKDLQ WR ODUJHU JRDOV PD\ EH VHHQ DV VKLIWLQJ WKH SROLF\ EDWWOHJURXQG RQWR XQNQRZQ WHUULWRU\ 7KXV WKH JUHDWHU WKH SRWHQWLDO LPSDFW RI 63$ RQ WKH W\SHV RI FRQIOLFWV ZLWKLQ &RQJUHVV WKH PRUH RSSRVLWLRQ PD\ EH H[SHFWHG ,Q WHUPV

PAGE 59

RI WKH HQGVPHDQV FKDLQ WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ SURPLVHG WKH OHDVW FKDQJH DQG KHQFH JHQHUDWHG WKH OHDVW RSSRVLWLRQ 7KH 2IILFH RI *RDOV DQG 3ULRULWLHV $QDO\VLV LQ WKH 0RQGDOH SURSRVDO 6 f DQG WKH 2IILFH RI 3ROLF\ DQG 3ODQQLQJ LQ WKH +XPSKUH\ SURSRVDO 6 f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nV SURFHVVLQJ SHUKDSV EHFDXVH RI WKH SRWHQWLDO LPSDFW RI DQ RYHUVLJKW VXEFRPPLWWHH RQ D IXOO FRPPLWWHHnV RSHUDWLRQV DQG GLVWULEXWLRQ RI SRZHU +<327+(6(6 7KH IDFWRUV DIIHFWLQJ WKH SURFHVVLQJ RI D ELOO FDQ EH WKRXJKW RI LQ WHUPV RI PHPEHU IDFWRUVJRDOV DQG DWWLWXGHVDQG FRPPLWWHH IDFWRUVSHUVRQDO SROLWLFDO DQG LQIRUPDWLRQDO UHVRXUFHV IRFXVHG DW WKH FRPPLWWHH OHYHO ,Q WKH FDVH VWXGLHV LQ &KDSWHUV DQG ZH KDYH H[DPLQHG VRPH K\SRWKHWLFDO UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ WKHVH IDFWRUV

PAGE 60

0(0%(5 )$&7256 $FWLRQ LQ VSRQVRULQJ 63$ OHJLVODWLRQ ZLOO EH GLUHFWO\ UHn ODWHG WR WKH SUHGRPLQDQFH RI WKH JRRG SROLF\ JRDO RYHU UHHOHFn WLRQ SRZHU LQ WKH FKDPEHU RU D FDUHHU EH\RQG WKH FKDPEHU )DYRUDEOH DFWLYLW\ RQ EHKDOI RI 63$ OHJLVODWLRQ E\ VSRQVRUV DQG VXSSRUWHUV ZLOO EH DFFRPSDQLHG E\ WKH IROORZLQJ EHOLHIV RU MXGJn PHQWV DV HOHPHQWV RI WKH 63$ SROLF\ DWWLWXGH 7KDW WKH ZD\V LQ ZKLFK &RQJUHVV VHDUFKHV IRU SUREn OHPV WR FRQVLGHU DUH LQDGHTXDWH 7KDW HPHUJLQJ SUREOHPV FDQ EH DQWLFLSDWHG EHIRUH WKH\ UHDFK D FULVLV VWDJH 7KDW VRFLDO HYHQWV DQG FRQGLWLRQV FDQ EH SUHGLFWHG RU WKDW WKH FDSDELOLW\ WR GR VR VKRXOG EH GHYHORSHG 7KDW WKH JRYHUQPHQW VKRXOG DWWHPSW WR GLUHFW RU FRQWURO IXWXUH GHYHORSPHQWV 7KDW &RQJUHVV LV DW D FRPSDUDWLYH GLVDGYDQWDJH WR WKH 3UHVLGHQW LQ SURYLGLQJ D ODUJHVFDOH SRVLWLYH LQVSLULQJ YLVLRQ IRU WKH QDWLRQ 7KDW LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ OLNHO\ IXWXUH FRQGLWLRQV LQn FOXGLQJ &RQJUHVVLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFH OLVWV RI HPHUJLQJ LVVXHV LV DYDLODEOH &200,77(( )$&7256 )DYRUDEOH FRPPLWWHH DFWLRQ ZLOO EH GLUHFWO\ UHODWHG WR WKH IROORZLQJ IDFWRUV $ VXSSRUWLYH FRPPLWWHH RU VXEFRPPLWWHH FKDLUPDQ 6WDII LQWHUHVW RU H[SHULHQFH ZLWK 63$UHODWHG DFWLYLWLHV DV ZHOO DV SROLWLFDO LQIRUPDWLRQJDWKHULQJ DQG EDUJDLQLQJ VNLOOV $Q LGHRORJLFDOO\ OLEHUDO RU 'HPRFUDWLF PDMRULW\ ZKLFK SHUFHLYHV WKDW 63$ ZLOO UDLVH VRFLDO ZHOIDUH RU

PAGE 61

JRYHUQPHQW PDQDJHPHQW LVVXHV RU D FRQJUHVVLRQDO UHn IRUP PDMRULW\ ZKLFK SHUFHLYHV WKDW LWV LQVWLWXWLRQDO SRVLWLRQ ZLOO EH KHOSHG RU DW OHDVW QRW KXUW E\ FRQn JUHVVLRQDO DGRSWLRQ RI 63$ WHFKQLTXHV &RQVWLWXHQWRULHQWHG DQGRU EURDGO\ EDVHG LQWHUHVW JURXS VXSSRUW DQG VXSSRUW IURP WKRVH JURXSV ZLWK D SURIHVVLRQDO VWDNH LQ 63$UHODWHG DFWLYLW\ 3RVLWLYH DFWLYLW\ IURP EXUHDXFUDWLF VWUXFWXUHV H[HFXWLYH DJHQFLHV DQG FRQJUHVVLRQDO VXSSRUW RUJDQLn ]DWLRQVf EDVHG RQ SRWHQWLDO EHQHILW IURP FRQGXFWLQJ 63$ DFWLYLW\ RU IURP LWV SROLF\ LPSOLFDWLRQV 7KH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK WKH 63$ SURSRVDO DIIHFWV ORZHU OHYHOV RI WKH HQGVPHDQV FKDLQ GRHV QRW DWWHPSW WR DQDO\]H DQG IRUFH GHFLVLRQV DFURVV SROLF\ DUHDV XVHV WKH H[LVWLQJ FRPPLWWHH VWUXFWXUH ZLWKRXW FKDQJHV DQG RIIHUV QR VLJQLILFDQW WKUHDW WR WKH SUHYDLOLQJ GLVn WULEXWLRQ RI SRZHU DPRQJ PHPEHUV )DYRUDEOH DFWLRQ E\ WKH SDUHQW FKDPEHU ZLOO GHSHQG RQ VLPLODU IDFWRUV 0(7+2'2/2*< ,Q RUGHU WR H[DPLQH RXU K\SRWKHVHV WKURXJK FDVH VWXGLHV RI 63$UHODWHG SURSRVDOV LQIRUPDWLRQ ZDV JDWKHUHG WKURXJK GRFXPHQn WDU\ UHVHDUFK DQG SHUVRQDO LQWHUYLHZV 7KH LQWHUYLHZV ZHUH FRQGXFWHG ZLWK PHPEHUV RI &RQJUHVV SHUn VRQDO DQG FRPPLWWHH VWDIIV DQG SHUVRQV LQ FRQJUHVVLRQDO VXSSRUW RUJDQL]DWLRQV DQG H[HFXWLYH DJHQFLHV DV ZHOO DV SHUVRQV LQ UHVHDUFK LQVWLWXWHV XQLYHUVLWLHV DQG HOVHZKHUH ZKR ZHUH LQYROYHG ZLWK WKH WKUHH ELOOV RU JHQHUDO 63$ DUHDV 7KH LQWHUYLHZLQJ DSSURDFK DQG WHFKQLTXHV RZH PXFK WR 'DYLG 3ULFH f 7KDW LV LQWHUYLHZLQJ ZDV FRPPLWWHH IRFXVHG ZLWK VWUXFWXUHG TXHVWLRQV IRU FRPPLWWHH

PAGE 62

PHPEHUV DQG OHVV VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZV IRU VWDII PHPEHUV DQG RWKHUV 7R WKLV EDVLF IRUPDW ZHUH DGGHG TXHVWLRQV RQ WKH PHPEHUnV JRDOV DQG KLV SROLF\ DWWLWXGH ,Q DUUDQJLQJ LQWHUYLHZV LI WKH PHPEHU ZDV XQDYDLODEOH WKH TXHVWLRQV ZHUH DVNHG RI D UHOHYDQW VWDII SHUVRQ 7KXV FRPPLWWHHIRFXVHG LQWHUYLHZLQJ VRXJKW WKUHH W\SHV RI LQIRUPDWLRQ f 'HWDLOV RI WKH RULJLQ DQG SURFHVVLQJ RI WKH WKUHH ELOOV ZHUH JDWKHUHG LQ WHUPV RI VL[ VWDJHV LQVWLJDWLRQ DQG SXEOLFL]LQJ IRUPXODWLRQ LQIRUPDWLRQ JDWKHULQJ LQWHUHVW DJJUHn JDWLRQ PRELOL]DWLRQ DQG PRGLILFDWLRQ f ,QIRUPDWLRQ ZDV VRXJKW RQ PHPEHU JRDOV RI JRRG SROLF\ SRZHU LQ WKH FKDPEHU DQG UHHOHFWLRQ DQG WKH UHODWLRQ RI JRDOV WR DFWLYLW\ IRU RU DJDLQVW WKH 63$ ELOOV $ KLJK OHYHO RI DFWLYLW\ RQ WKH SDUW RI WKH PHPEHU ZDV UHn TXLUHG IRU WKLV LQIRUPDWLRQ f *HQHUDO TXHVWLRQV ZHUH XVHG WR H[SORUH WKH EDFNJURXQG GLPHQVLRQV RI WKH PHPEHUnV SROLF\ DWWLWXGH WRZDUG 63$ 2ULJLQDOO\ RQH TXHVWLRQQDLUH ZDV GHYHORSHG ZKLFK FRQWDLQHG DOO WKUHH FDWHJRULHV RI TXHVWLRQV VHH $SSHQGL[ f EXW SUHOLPLQDU\ WHVWLQJ VKRZHG WKDW PHPEHUV ZKR KDG QRW DFWLYHO\ VXSSRUWHG RU RSSRVHG WKH ELOOV FRXOG QRW DQVZHU TXHVWLRQV DERXW WKH ELOOVn SURFHVVLQJ RU DERXW WKHLU JRDOV LQ UHODWLRQ WR WKH ELOO 7KHUHn IRUH D VKRUWHU VHW RI TXHVWLRQV ZDV WDNHQ IURP WKH ILUVW TXHVWLRQQDLUH VHH $SSHQGL[ f 7KHVH TXHVWLRQV ZHUH XVHG WR JDWKHU LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ WKH PHPEHUnV SROLF\ DWWLWXGH DQG SRVLWLRQ WRZDUG WKH UHOHYDQW ELOOV 7KH ILUVW TXHVWLRQQDLUH ZDV XVHG IRU

PAGE 63

PRVW RI WKH LQWHUYLHZLQJ RI %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH PHPEHUV 7KH VKRUWHU VHW RI TXHVWLRQV ZDV XVHG LQ PRVW RI WKH 6HQDWH LQWHUYLHZV 7KH VKRUWHQHG LQWHUYLHZV WRRN IURP WHQ PLQXWHV WR KDOI DQ KRXU LQWHUYLHZV IURP WKH RULJLQDO IRUP WRRN IURP WZHQW\ PLQXWHV WR RQH KRXU 7KH WLPH LQYROYHG LQ DUUDQJLQJ WKH LQWHUYLHZ SUHn SDULQJ DQ\ DGGLWLRQDO VSHFLILF TXHVWLRQV FRQGXFWLQJ WKH LQWHUn YLHZ DQG ZULWLQJ LW XS YDULHG IURP DSSUR[LPDWHO\ RQH WR IRXU KRXUV 6HYHUDO VWDII SHUVRQV ZHUH LQWHUYLHZHG RQ PXOWLSOH RFFDVLRQV $ OHWWHU ZDV VHQW WR HDFK FRPPLWWHH PHPEHU VWDWLQJ WKH SXUn SRVH RI WKH UHVHDUFK DVNLQJ IRU DQ LQWHUYLHZ DQG VWDWLQJ WKDW LI WKH PHPEHU ZHUH XQDYDLODEOH WKH UHOHYDQW VWDII PHPEHU ZRXOG GR IRU WKH SXUSRVH ,QWHUYLHZLQJ D VWDII VXUURJDWH DERXW PHPEHU JRDOV ZDV IRXQG PRUH HIIHFWLYH WKDQ LQWHUYLHZLQJ WKH PHPEHU KLPn VHOI EHFDXVH WKH VWDII ZDV PRUH DFFHVVLEOH XVXDOO\ JDYH PRUH WLPH DQG LQ VRPH FDVHV ZHUH PRUH IUDQN %XOORFN f 7KH LQWHUYLHZV KHOG GXULQJ WKH PRQWKV RI -XQH -XO\ $XJXVW 6HSWHPn EHU DQG 'HFHPEHU RI FRQILUPHG %XOORFNnV REVHUYDWLRQV DOn WKRXJK VRPH VHQDWRUV DQG UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV SURYHG WR EH ERWK DFFHVVLEOH DQG IUDQN $FFHVV WR PHPEHUV DQG VWDII IRU WKH LQWHUYLHZV YDULHG ZLGHO\ 2Q WKH 6HQDWH VLGH WKH KLJKHU LQ VHQLRULW\ RU WKH PRUH RSSRVHG WR WKH ELOOV WKH PRUH GLIILFXOW LW ZDV WR DUUDQJH DQ LQWHUYLHZ 3DUWLFXODUO\ IRU NH\ PHPEHUV UHSHDWHG FDOOV ZHUH QHFHVVDU\ WR DUUDQJH WKH LQWHUYLHZV $FFHVV WR VRPH RIILFHV ZDV DLGHG E\ RXU DVVRFLDWLRQ ZLWK WKH %URRNLQJV ,QVWLWXWLRQ WKURXJK LWV YLVLWLQJ

PAGE 64

VFKRODUV SURJUDP 0RVW LQWHUYLHZV ZHUH ORFDWHG LQ PHPEHUVn RIILFHV EXW PDQ\ WRRN SODFH LQ FRPPLWWHH DQG FRQJUHVVLRQDO VXSSRUW RUJDQL]DWLRQ RIILFHV URRPV RII WKH +RXVH DQG 6HQDWH IORRU &DSLWRO +LOO UHVWDXUDQWV HWF &RPPLWWHHIRFXVHG LQWHUYLHZV SURGXFHG VHYHQ LQWHUYLHZV ZLWK %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH PHPEHUV 'HPRFUDWV 5HSXEOLFDQVf QLQH LQn WHUYLHZV ZLWK 6HQDWH /DERU DQG 3XEOLF :HOIDUH &RPPLWWHH PHPEHUV 'HPRFUDWV 5HSXEOLFDQVf DQG QLQH ZLWK 6HQDWH *RYHUQPHQW 2SHUDWLRQV &RPPLWWHH PHPEHUV 'HPRFUDWV 5HSXEOLFDQVf ,Q DGGLWLRQ PHPEHU LQWHUYLHZV ZHUH FRQGXFWHG IRU WKH +DQVHQ FRPn PLWWHH ZKLFK SURYLGHG WKH PDMRU DPHQGPHQW LQ WKH IRUP RI D VXEn VWLWXWH WR WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH SURGXFW )LIW\ XQVWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZV PDQ\ RI H[WHQVLYH OHQJWK ZHUH XVHG WR JDWKHU LQIRUPDWLRQ IURP WKH VWDIIV RI HDFK RI WKH FRPn PLWWHHV IURP FRQJUHVVLRQDO VXSSRUW RUJDQL]DWLRQV SDUWLFXODUO\ &56 IURP WKH H[HFXWLYH EUDQFK IURP H[SHUWV RXWVLGH &RQJUHVV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK VRFLDO LQGLFDWRUV WKH IXWXULVW PRYHPHQW DQG WHFKQRORJ\ DVVHVVPHQW DV ZHOO DV IURP SHUVRQV LQYROYHG ZLWK VXFK JURXSV DV WKH 1DWLRQDO *RDOV 5HVHDUFK 6WDII WKH &RPPLVVLRQ RQ &ULWLFDO &KRLFHV IRU $PHULFDQV DQG WKH :RRGURZ :LOVRQ ,QWHUQDn WLRQDO &HQWHU IRU 6FKRODUV 'RFXPHQWDU\ UHVHDUFK PDGH XVH RI WKH SXEOLFO\ DYDLODEOH KHDUn LQJV DQG RWKHU UHOHYDQW GRFXPHQWV DV ZHOO DV RI XQSXEOLVKHG PDn WHULDOV LQ WKH ILOHV RI VSRQVRUV DQG PRVW DFWLYH VXSSRUWHUV RI WKH WKUHH ELOOV

PAGE 65

7KH LQWHUYLHZV ZHUH DQQRXQFHG DV FRQILGHQWLDO DQG VWDWHPHQWV TXRWHG LQ WKH WH[W ZLOO QRW EH DWWULEXWHG ZKHQ WDNHQ IURP LQWHUn YLHZV ([FHSWLRQV WR FRQILGHQWLDOLW\ ZHUH PDGH IRU UHVSRQVHV E\ VSRQVRUV RI 63$ SURSRVDOV UHJDUGLQJ WKHLU SROLF\ DWWLWXGHV 'XULQJ WKH LQWHUYLHZ NH\ ZRUGV RU SKUDVHV LQ HDFK UHVSRQVH ZHUH UHFRUGHG RQ WKH LQWHUYLHZ IRUP $V VRRQ DV SRVVLEOH DIWHU WKH LQWHUYLHZ WKHVH QRWHV ZHUH H[SDQGHG WR WKHLU RULJLQDO IRUP ,Q &KDSWHUV DQG WKH UHVXOWV RI WKLV LQWHUYLHZLQJ DQG GRFXPHQWDU\ UHVHDUFK KDYH EHHQ GHVFULEHG LQ RUGHU WR LOOXPLQDWH WKH SURFHVVLQJ RI HDFK 63$ SURSRVDO WKURXJK WKH VWDJHV RI PDWXUDn WLRQ ,Q &KDSWHU WKH WKUHH FDVHV DUH FRPSDUHG LQ UHODWLRQ WR WKH K\SRWKHVHV VWDWHG DERYH ,Q &KDSWHU WKH FRQFOXVLRQV RI WKH UHVHDUFK DQG LWV LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU FRQJUHVVLRQDO UHIRUP DUH FRQn VLGHUHG 127(6 3ULFH VDLG RI UHVSRQVLELOLW\ 7KH XVH RI WKH FRQFHSW RI UHVSRQVLELOLW\ LV DOVR DSSURn SULDWH LQ OLJKW RI WKH FRQQRWDWLRQV LW KDV LQ PRGHUQ HWKLFV 7KH WHUP FDPH LQWR SURPLQHQFH LQ WKH QLQHWHHQWK FHQWXU\ ZLWK WKH FROODSVH RI WKH FRVPLF RU QDWXUDO VWUXFWXUHV RI REOLJDWLRQ 5HVSRQVLn ELOLW\ ZDV LQ WKLV VHQVH WKH HWKLFDO FRUROODU\ RI PDQ DV WKH PDNHU RI KLVWRU\ SODFHG LQ D ZRUOG ZKHUH KH KDG WR IDVKLRQ KLV IXWXUH PDQ LGHQWLILHG KLPVHOI DV RQH ZKR ZDV DQVZHUDEOH IRU WKDW IXWXUH :LQWHU f 7KH WHUP WKXV VHHPV SDUWLFXODUO\ DSSURn SULDWH WR GHQRWH LQQRYDWLYH RU DVVHUWLYH SROLWLFDO DFWQ 3ULFH f

PAGE 66

$QWKRQ\ 'RZQV KDV VXJJHVWHG WKDW SDWWHUQV RI RUJDQL]Dn WLRQDO LQQRYDWLRQ DQG FKDQJH ZLOO EH KLJKO\ GHSHQGHQW RQ WKH SHUVSHFWLYHV RI WKRVH UHVSRQVLEOH IRU WKH VHDUFK IXQFWLRQ f ,Q &RQJUHVV UHVHDUFK RQ PHPEHUnV YRWLQJ GHFLVLRQV VXJJHVWV WKDW &RQJUHVVPHQ UDUHO\ VHHN RXW QHZ LQIRUPDWLRQ VRXUFHV \HW WKRVH ZKR GR KDYH D GLVSURSRUWLRQDWH LQIOXHQFH RQ &RQJUHVVLRQDO RXWFRPHV .LQJGRQ f 0D\KHZnV PRQRJRDO GHVFULSWLRQ RI PHPEHUV RI &RQJUHVV SUHRFFXSLHG DOPRVW H[FOXVLYHO\ ZLWK UHHOHFWLRQ LV DQ LPDJLQDWLYH WUHDWPHQW DQG H[SODLQV WKH V\PEROLF QDWXUH RI PXFK EHKDYLRU +RZn HYHU 0D\KHZnV WUHDWPHQW LV RI OLWWOH YDOXH LQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ KRZ RU ZK\ PDQ\ PHPEHUV RI &RQJUHVV EHFRPH GHHSO\ LQYROYHG LQ WKH SROLF\ TXHVWLRQV WKH\ GHDO ZLWK DSSDUHQWO\ LUUHVSHFWLYH RI WKHLU UHHOHFWLRQ YDOXH 7KLV TXHVWLRQ LV SDUWLFXODUO\ LQWHUHVWLQJ IRU 63$ LVVXHV ZKLFK DV \HW KDYH OLWWOH UHHOHFWLRQ YDOXH

PAGE 67

7+( )25(6,*+7 3529,6,21 2) 7+( &200,77(( 5()250 $0(1'0(176 2)

PAGE 68

%8,/',1* 675$7(*,& 32/,&< $66(660(17 ,172 7+( +286( &200,77(( 6<67(0 7KXV IDU VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW KDV EHHQ FRQFHSWXDOL]HG LQ WHUPV RI WKUHH IXQFWLRQV RI SROLF\ PDNLQJ f WR VHDUFK RXW HPHUJLQJ LVVXHV DQG WR SXW VXFK LVVXHV RQ WKH DJHQGD f WR SURYLGH IXWXUHV LQIRUPDWLRQ IRU FXUUHQW GHFLVLRQV f WR IRUFH GHFLVLRQV RU FRQVFLRXV LQWHUUHODWLRQVKLS RI YDULRXV GHFLVLRQV 7KH ILUVW WZR IXQFWLRQV LQ &RQJUHVV VKRXOG EH HQKDQFHG E\ WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ RI WKH &RPPLWWHH 5HIRUP $PHQGPHQWV RI + 5HV f 7KH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ LV DQ H[SOLFLW VWDWHPHQW WKDW +RXVH &RPPLWWHHV PXVW PRQLWRU FRQGLWLRQV LQ WKHLU SROLF\ DUHDV DQG XQGHUWDNH IXWXUHV UHVHDUFK DQG IRUHFDVWLQJ 7KLV FKDSn WHU H[DPLQHV WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH WKH VWDJHV RI WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQnV HVWDEOLVKPHQW DQG PHPEHU JRDOV DQG DWWLWXGHV 7KH GLVFXVVLRQ LQFOXGHV WKH YDULHW\ RI RSWLRQV FRQVLGHUHG E\ WKH FRPPLWWHH DQG LWV VWDII 7+( %2//,1* &200,77(( 7KH 6HOHFW &RPPLWWHH RQ &RPPLWWHHV 6&&f RI WKH +RXVH JHQHUDOO\ FDOOHG WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH DIWHU LWV FKDLUPDQ 5LFKDUG %ROOLQJ 0Rf ZDV DQ LQWHQVLYH ELSDUWLVDQ HIIRUW WR PRGHUQL]H WKH +RXVH FRPPLWWHH V\VWHP 7KH HVWDEOLVKPHQW RI WKH FRPPLWWHH ZDV

PAGE 69

SUHFHGHG E\ VHQWLPHQW YDULRXVO\ ORFDWHG ZLWKLQ WKH +RXVH LQ IDYRU RI FRQJUHVVLRQDO UHIRUP DQG WKH LGHD RI WKH FRPPLWWHH RULJLQDWHG LQ WDONV DPRQJ &DUO $OEHUW WKH 6SHDNHU *HUDOG )RUG WKH PLQRULW\ OHDGHU DQG 5LFKDUG %ROOLQJ 'DYLGVRQ 6&& D f (YHQ DW WKH EHJLQQLQJ WKH %ROOLQJ &RPPLWWHHnV PDQGDWH VWLUUHG FRQWURYHUV\ 'XULQJ IORRU GHEDWH TXHVWLRQV ZHUH UDLVHG DERXW WKH FRVW DV ZHOO DV WKH QHHG IRU D VHOHFW FRPPLWWHH ZKHQ D -RLQW &RPPLWWHH RQ &RQJUHVVLRQDO 2SHUDWLRQV ZDV DOUHDG\ LQ H[LVWHQFH &5 6f +RZHYHU + 5HV HVWDEOLVKLQJ WKH FRPPLWWHH ZDV SDVVHG RQ -DQXDU\ LQ WKH UG &RQJUHVV 7KLV UHVROXWLRQ JDYH WKH FRPPLWWHH WKH WDVN RI D WKRURXJK DQG FRPSOHWH VWXG\ RI +RXVH 5XOHV ; DQG ;, HVWDEOLVKLQJ WKH FRPPLWn WHH V\VWHP GHILQLQJ MXULVGLFWLRQV DQG UHJXODWLQJ SURFHGXUHV 7KH ILYH 'HPRFUDWV DQG ILYH 5HSXEOLFDQV FKRVHQ IRU WKH VHOHFW FRPPLWWHH ZHUH D UHODWLYHO\ DFFXUDWH UHIOHFWLRQ RI WKH LGHRORJLn FDO FRPSRVLWLRQ RI WKH +RXVH EXW WKH\ ZHUH GLVWLQJXLVKHG E\ WKHLU FRPPLWPHQW WR &RQJUHVV DV DQ LQVWLWXWLRQA 7KH VHYHQ %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH PHPEHUV LQWHUYLHZHG UHVSRQGHG HDVLO\ WR TXHVWLRQV RQ 63$ 6HQDWRUV RQ WKH *RYHUQPHQWDO 2SHUDWLRQV &RPPLWWHH DQG WKRVH RQ WKH /DERU DQG 3XEOLF :HOIDUH &RPPLWWHH ZHUH JHQHUDOO\ QRW DEOH WR UHSO\ DV HDVLO\ $ %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH PHPEHU DQG VWDII SHUVRQ DWn WULEXWHG WKLV IDFLOLW\ WR WKH WKLQNLQJ WKDW PHPEHUV KDG GRQH DV D UHVXOW RI WKHLU DWWDFKPHQW WR &RQJUHVV DV DQ LQVWLWXWLRQ DQG RI WKHLU ZRUN RQ WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH

PAGE 70

$ GLYHUVLILHG FRPPLWWHH VWDII ZDV UHFUXLWHG IURP FRQJUHVVLRQDO FRPPLWWHHV UHSUHVHQWDWLYHVn RIILFHV WKH &RQJUHVVLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFH &56f H[HFXWLYH DJHQFLHV DQG XQLYHUVLWLHV ,WV GLUHFWRU ZDV &KDUOHV 6KHOGRQ ZKR KDG EHHQ GLUHFWRU RI WKH VFLHQFH SROLF\ GLYLVLRQ RI &56 :DOWHU 2OHV]HN KDG WDNHQ OHDYH IURP WKH JRYHUQn PHQW GLYLVLRQ RI &56 WR ZRUN IRU WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH 7ZR ODZ\HUV RQ WKH VWDII EURXJKW H[SHULHQFH DV OHJLVODWLYH DLGHV /LQGD .DPP DQG 5REHUW .HWFKXP 7ZR SROLWLFDO VFLHQWLVWV 5RJHU 'DYLGVRQ DQG 7HUU\ )LQQ DOVR KDG SUHYLRXV OHJLVODWLYH RU FDPn SDLJQ VWDII H[SHULHQFH DQG 'DYLGVRQ KDG ZULWWHQ H[WHQVLYHO\ RQ &RQJUHVV 'DYLGVRQ 'DYLGVRQ .RYHQRFN t 2n/HDU\ %LEE\ t 'DYLGVRQ f )URP WKH H[HFXWLYH FDPH 6SHQFHU %HUHVIRUG DQ DWWRUQH\ ZLWK WKH 1DWLRQDO $HURQDXWLFV DQG 6SDFH $GPLQLVWUDn WLRQ 7KLV VWDII SURYLGHG VLJQLILFDQW LQSXW WR WKH %ROOLQJ FRPn PLWWHHnV HIIRUWV DW FRQJUHVVLRQDO UHIRUP 352326$/6 ,1 7+( %2//,1* &200,77(( 7KH 6HOHFW &RPPLWWHH RQ &RPPLWWHHV FRQVLGHUHG VHYHUDO SRVVLn ELOLWLHV IRU FHQWUDOL]LQJ HLWKHU WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ JDWKHULQJ DQG DQDO\VLV RU WKH GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ RI &RQJUHVV $ FHQWUDO JRDOV RU SODQQLQJ FRPPLWWHH ZDV UHMHFWHG IRU UHDVRQV WR EH GLVFXVVHG ,QVWHDG WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH JDYH HDFK FRPPLWWHH D IRUHVLJKW UHVSRQVLELOLW\ DV LW ZDV WHUPHG 6&& H f 6LJQLILFDQWO\ WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ PDGH RQH RI WKH ILUVW H[SOLFLW VWDWHn PHQWV WKDW FRQJUHVVLRQDO FRPPLWWHHV LQ SROLF\ PDNLQJ PXVW VKRZ D

PAGE 71

V\VWHPDWLF FRQFHUQ IRU OLNHO\ IXWXUH FRQGLWLRQV ZH KDYH VDLG DUH WKH SULQFLSDO FHQWHUV RI SROLF\ WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ SODFHG WKH UHVSRQVLELOLW\ DQWLFLSDWLRQ DW WKDW OHYHO 6SHFLILFDOO\ LW ZDV SURSRVHG &RPPLWWHHV DV PDNLQJ LQ &RQJUHVV IRU OHJLVODWLYH (DFK FRPPLWWHH >RWKHU WKDQ %XGJHW DQG $SSURn SULDWLRQV@ VKDOO UHYLHZ DQG VWXG\ DQ\ FRQGLn WLRQV RU FLUFXPVWDQFHV ZKLFK PD\ LQGLFDWH WKH QHFHVVLW\ RU GHVLUDELOLW\ RI HQDFWLQJ DQ\ QHZ RU DGGLWLRQDO OHJLVODWLRQ ZLWKLQ WKH MXULVGLFWLRQ RI WKDW FRPPLWWHH >:KHWKHU RU QRW DQ\ ELOO RU UHVROXWLRQ KDV EHHQ LQWURn GXFHG ZLWK UHVSHFW WKHUHWR@ DQG VKDOO RQ D FRQWLQXLQJ EDVLV XQGHUWDNH IXWXUHV UHVHDUFK DQG IRUHFDVWLQJ RQ PDWWHUV ZLWKLQ WKH MXULVn GLFWLRQ RI WKDW FRPPLWWHH 6&& H f ,Q UHSRUWLQJ RQ WKLV VHFWLRQ WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH VWDWHG WKDW IRUHVLJKW DFWLYLWLHV ZRXOG XVH IRUHFDVWV WR DQWLFLSDWH HPHUJn LQJ LVVXHV DQG IXWXUHV UHVHDUFK WR LGHQWLI\ IXWXUH RSWLRQV DQG DVVHVV WKH FRVWV EHQHILWV DQG HIIHFWV RI YDULRXV RSWLRQV 6&& H f 2WKHU RI WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHHnV UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV ZRXOG LQIOXn HQFH WKH VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW IXQFWLRQV DOWKRXJK WKHVH UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV ZHUH QRW DLPHG GLUHFWO\ DW V\VWHPDWLF DVVHVVPHQW RI IXWXUH QHHGV DQG DOWHUQDWLYHV 3URFHGXUDO UHIRUPV ZHUH UHFRPn PHQGHG VXFK DV WKH MRLQW DQG VHTXHQWLDO UHIHUUDO RI ELOOV WR GLIn IHUHQW FRPPLWWHHV WKH SHULRGLF UHYLHZ RI WKH +RXVH FRPPLWWHH VWUXFWXUH DQG PRVW LPSRUWDQW WKH MXULVGLFWLRQDO FKDQJHV SURn SRVHG LQ WKH FRPPLWWHH V\VWHP

PAGE 72

7KH LPSOLFDWLRQV RI WKHVH UHIRUPV IRU 63$ FRQFHUQV DUH H[DPLQHG IROORZLQJ H[DPLQDWLRQ RI WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQnV GHYHORSPHQW WKURXJK WKH VL[ VWDJHV f LQVWLJDWLRQ DQG SXEOLFL]LQJ f LQIRUn PDWLRQ JDWKHULQJ f IRUPXODWLRQ f LQWHUHVW DJJUHJDWLRQ f PRELOL]DWLRQ DQG f PRGLILFDWLRQ )LQDOO\ PHPEHU JRDOV DQG 63$ SROLF\ DWWLWXGHV KDYH EHHQ FRQVLGHUHG LQ UHODWLRQ WR WKH IRUHn VLJKW SURYLVLRQ 67$*( ,167,*$7,21 $1' 38%/,&,=,1* ,QVWLJDWLRQ DQG SXEOLFL]LQJ LQYROYHV WKH SXEOLF DQG SULYDWH DGYRFDF\ RI DQ LVVXH DV ZRUWK\ RI DWWHQWLRQ DQG DPHOLRUDWLYH DFWLRQ 3ULFH f 7\SLFDO LQVWLJDWRUV LQFOXGH PHPEHUV RI &RQJUHVV VWDII PHPEHUV RU EXUHDXFUDWV DQG ZULWHUV DQG WKHVH LQVWLJDWRUV ZHUH DFWLYH LQ SXEOLFL]LQJ WKH W\SHV RI FRQFHUQV WKDW OHG WR WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ :ULWHUV PD\ SHUIRUP WKH UROH RI GHVFULELQJ LQ WHUPV WR FDWFK WKH SRSXODU LPDJLQDWLRQ WKH SUREDEOH QDWXUH RI WKH IXWXUH 'XULQJ WKH SHULRG YDULRXV ZRUNV ZHUH SXEOLVKHG WKDW EURXJKW WKH IXWXUH LQWR WKH QHZV WKH &OXE RI 5RPHnV 7KH /LPLWV WR *URZWK 0HDGRZV 0HDGRZV 5DQGHUV t %HKUHQV f WKH ZRUN RI +HUPDQ .DKQ .DKQ t %UXFH%ULJJV f DQG $OYLQ 7RIIOHUnV )XWXUH VKRFN 7KH PRVW GLUHFW UHOHYDQFH RI WKHVH DXWKRUV WR WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLn VLRQ LV $OYLQ 7RIIOHUnV IULHQGVKLS ZLWK 5HSUHVHQWDWLYH -RKQ & &XOYHU ,RZDf &XOYHU DQG 7RIIOHU PHW VKRUWO\ DIWHU )XWXUH VKRFN ZDV SXEOLVKHG DQG IRXQG WKDW WKH\ VKDUHG VLPLODU FRQFHUQV DQG WKH\

PAGE 73

KDYH PDLQWDLQHG DQ RQJRLQJ GLVFXVVLRQ RI WKH SROLWLFDO LPSOLFDWLRQV RI 7RIIOHUnV ZRUN DQG WKH PHDQLQJ RI DQWLFLSDWRU\ GHPRFUDF\ $PRQJ PHPEHUV RI &RQJUHVV 5HSUHVHQWDWLYH &XOYHU ZDV WKH LPSRUWDQW ILJXUH LQ SXEOLFL]LQJ 63$ FRQFHUQV LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI WKH +RXVH FRPPLWWHH UHIRUPV DV LQWHUYLHZV VKRZHG &XOYHU VDZ WKH VWUXFWXULQJ RI FRPPLWWHHV DV D PDMRU KLQGUDQFH WR FRQJUHVn VLRQDO DELOLW\ WR FRQIURQW WKH IXWXUH ,Q 'HFHPEHU KH ZURWH WR PHPEHUV RI WKH +RXVH XUJLQJ WKH IRUPDWLRQ RI D VHOHFW FRPPLWWHH WR ORRN DW WKLV TXHVWLRQ ,Q D 'HDU &ROOHDJXH OHWWHU KH QRWHG WKDW WKH WZHQW\ILYH \HDUV VLQFH WKH /HJLVODWLYH 5HRUJDQLn ]DWLRQ $FW KDYH VHHQ D UHYROXWLRQ LQ WKH DUHDV RI SXEOLF SROLF\ DQG FRQFHUQ DQG KDYH DGGHG GLPHQVLRQV WR FRQJUHVVLRQDO UHVSRQVLn ELOLW\ ZKLFK ZHUH QRWDQG LQ PDQ\ LQVWDQFHV FRXOG QRWEH IRUHVHHQ LQ &XOYHU Ef 7KXV &XOYHU ZDV LPSRUWDQW LQ LQVWLJDWLQJ WKH ODUJHU FRQJUHVVLRQDO UHIRUP HIIRUWV DV ZHOO DV LWV 63$ DVSHFWV 2QFH RQ WKH %ROOLQJ &RPPLWWHH KH VXJJHVWHG WR KLV IHOORZ FRPPLWWHH PHPEHUV WKDW WKHLU ZRUN VKRXOG SURYLGH D V\VWHPDWLF EDVLV RI SROLF\ IRUPXODWLRQ LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI DQ DQWLFLSDWLRQ RI IXWXUH DV ZHOO DV UHDFWLYH WLPH IUDPH 7KH FRPPLWWHH PXVW EH DEOH WR FDVW WKH DQDO\VLV LQWR D FRQWH[W WKDW HQYLVLRQV VRFLHW\ DV LW PD\ HPHUJH E\ VD\ &XOYHU Ef 2WKHU SHUVRQV LQYROYHG LQ LQVWLJDWLQJ DQG SXEOLFL]LQJ IRU WKH IRUHVLJKW UHVSRQVLELOLW\ ZHUH FRPPLWWHH VWDII PHPEHUV DQG FHUWDLQ FRQJUHVVLRQDO EXUHDXFUDWV ,Q WKH FRQJUHVVLRQDO EXUHDXn FUDF\ WKH XQLW PRVW LQYROYHG ZLWK IXWXUHV DQDO\VLV JURXSV DQG

PAGE 74

ZLWK W\SHV RI 63$ SUREOHPV EHIRUH WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH ZDV WKH 6FLHQFH 3ROLF\ 5HVHDUFK 'LYLVLRQ RI WKH &RQJUHVVLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFH 7KH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHHnV VWDII GLUHFWRU &KDUOHV 6KHOGRQ KDG OHIW WKH VWDII RI WKH +RXVH 6FLHQFH DQG $VWURQDXWLFV &RPPLWWHH WR EHFRPH WKH GLYLVLRQnV GLUHFWRU :DOWHU +DKQ IRUPHUO\ RQ WKH VWDII RI 3UHVLGHQW 1L[RQnV VKRUWOLYHG 1DWLRQDO *RDOV 5HVHDUFK 6WDII KDG MRLQHG WKH VFLHQFH SROLF\ GLYLVLRQ DV DFWLQJ GLUHFWRU 0HPEHUV RI WKH GLYLVLRQ KDG EHHQ LQYROYHG LQ D YDULHW\ RI HIIRUWV WR H[DPLQH WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ QHHGV RI &RQJUHVV &56 6&& If DQG QDWLRQDO JRDOV +XGGOH f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n PHQW UHSUHVHQWHG DQ DWWHPSW WR HVWLPDWH OLNHO\ VHFRQG DQG WKLUG RUGHU FRQVHTXHQFHV RI WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ RI D WHFKQRORJ\ &RDWHV f $ SURIHVVLRQDO VRFLHW\ WKH ,QWHUQDWLRQDO 6RFLHW\ IRU 7HFKQRORJ\ $VVHVVPHQW KDG EHHQ IRXQGHG E\ :DOWHU +DKQ DQG RWKHUV LQ DQG VHYHUDO MRXUQDOV VXFK DV 7HFKQRORJ\ $VVHVVPHQW DQG )XWXUHV VXSSRUWHG WKH DGYDQFHPHQW RI WKH PHWKRGRORJ\ 2Q D PRUH SRSXODU

PAGE 75

OHYHO WKH SUREOHPV RI FRQIURQWLQJ WKH IXWXUH ZHUH GLVFXVVHG E\ PHPEHUV RI WKH :RUOG )XWXUH 6RFLHW\ DQG LQ LWV SXEOLFDWLRQ 7KH )XWXULVW 67$*( ,1)250$7,21 *$7+(5,1* ,QIRUPDWLRQ JDWKHULQJ ZDV D PDVVLYH XQGHUWDNLQJ IRU WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH &RPPLWWHH PHPEHUV DQG VWDII LQWHUYLHZHG RWKHU UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV DQG FRPPLWWHH VWDII DQG KHOG KHDULQJV WKH WUDGLn WLRQDO IRUP RI LQIRUPDWLRQ JDWKHULQJ LQ FRPPLWWHHV (DFK PHPEHU RI WKH +RXVH UHFHLYHG D OHWWHU RI LQYLWDWLRQ DQG JUHDW SDLQV ZHUH WDNHQ WR DFFRPPRGDWH 0HPEHUV LQ VFKHGXOLQJ WHVWLPRQ\ )LIW\WZR 0HPEHUV LQFOXGLQJ FRPPLWWHH FKDLUPHQf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f ,Q DGGLWLRQ VWDII DQG FRQVXOWDQW VWXGLHV RI VSHFLILF WRSLFV ZHUH FRPPLVVLRQHG LQFOXGLQJ VHYHQ FRPPLWWHH SODQV EDVHG RQ YDULRXV DVVXPSWLRQV ,Q WKH FRXUVH RI DOO WKLV WHVWLPRQ\ DQG VWXG\ VHYHUDO SUREOHPV UHOHYDQW WR VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW ZHUH UDLVHG DQG D IHZ

PAGE 76

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f SRLQWHG RXW WKDW D PDMRU LQIRUPDWLRQ SUREOHP LV WKH IDLOXUH WR SURYLGH WKH V\QWKHVLV QHHGHG WR RYHUFRPH FRPPLWWHH IUDJPHQWDWLRQ 6&& D f 'DQWH % )DVFHOO )ODf VWUHVVHG WKH IDFW WKDW WKH ‘FRPPLWWHHVn PDLQ UHVSRQVLELOLW\ LV WR PHHW QHZ QHHGV 7R GR VR HIIHFWLYHO\ OHJLVODWLYH FRPPLWWHHV PXVW GHYHORS WKH UHVRXUFHV WR DQWLFLSDWH WKH OHJLVODWLYH QHHGV RI WKH IXWXUH 6&& D f )RUWQH\ + 6WDUN &DOLIf VXJJHVWHG WKDW &RQJUHVV XVH IRUHVLJKW QRW KLQGVLJKW LQ LWV SROLF\ PDNLQJ 6WDUNnV PDMRU VXJJHVWLRQ ZDV WR UHVWUXFWXUH FRPPLWWHH MXULVGLFWLRQV 6&& F f &KHW +ROILHOG &DOLIf SURYLGHG D VSHFLILF \HW SURYLQFLDO XVH RI IRUHFDVWV LQ D SUHVHQWDWLRQ RQ WKH QDWLRQDO HQHUJ\ GLOHPPD +LV SXUSRVH ZDV WR VXJJHVW WKDW WKH -RLQW &RPPLWWHH

PAGE 77

RQ $WRPLF (QHUJ\ ZKLFK KDG SUHSDUHG WKH IRUHFDVWV WDNH MXULVn GLFWLRQ RYHU HQHUJ\ UHVHDUFK DQG GHYHORSPHQW 6HULRXV DQG DUWLFXODWH WHVWLPRQ\ RIIHULQJ VSHFLILF UHPHGLHV FDPH IURP -RKQ : 'DYLV *Df WKHQ FKDLUPDQ RI WKH 6XEFRPPLWWHH RQ 5HVHDUFK DQG 'HYHORSPHQW RI WKH 6SDFH DQG $VWURQDXWLFV &RPPLWWHH 'DYLV VWUHVVHG WKH QHHG WR YLHZ &RQJUHVV DV D V\VWHP &RQJUHVV VKRXOG VHHN RXW DQG EH PRUH UHVSRQVLEOH WR WKH QHHGV RI WKH 1DWLRQ 7KH &RQJUHVVLRQDO nV\VWHPn QHHGV PRUH VRFDOOHG IHHGEDFN VXJJHVWLQJ PRUH LQKRXVH H[SHUWLVH DQG PRUH UHVSRQVLYH VWUXFWXUH LQ WHUPV RI FRPPLWWHH MXULVGLFWLRQV +H QRWHG WKDW D UHVSRQVLYH &RQJUHVV DQ\ UHVSRQVLYH RUJDQL]DWLRQPXVW DSSURDFK WKH IXWXUH DV DQ HQYLURQn PHQWDO XQNQRZQ WKDW QHHGV V\VWHPDWLF HYDOXDWLRQ 6&& D f 2Q WKH VHDUFK IRU SUREOHPV KH FRPPHQWHG WKDW LI WKH +RXVH FRXOG GHYHORS DQG LQVWLWXWLRQDOL]H D PHWKRG RI HYDOXDWLQJ SRVVLEOH IXWXUH GHYHORSPHQWV PRUH V\VWHPDWLFDOO\ DQG WKRURXJKO\ WKDQ KDV EHHQ WKH FDVH WR GDWH OHJLVODWLRQ PLJKW SHUKDSV EH PRUH SUHYHQWLYH WKDQ FXUDWLYH 6&& D f 'DYLV HYHQ UDLVHG WKH TXHVWLRQ RI FRQWURO RI WKH IXWXUH 7KH IXWXUH ZLOO QHYHU EH FRPSOHWHO\ GHWHUn PLQDEOH %XW LI ZH EHFRPH PRUH IDPLOLDU ZLWK WKH SUREDELOLW\ ZH FDQ SHUKDSV GR D EHWWHU MRE RI VKDSLQJ LW WKH ZD\ ZH WKLQN LW VKRXOG EH ,QGHHG LW LV LQFXPEHQW XSRQ XV WR GR VR LI ZH GR QRW ZLVK WR EHVWRZ D GHWHULRUDWLQJ ZRUOG RQ SRVWHULW\ 6&& D f 'DYLV VSHFLILFDOO\ VXJJHVWHG WKDW WKH HPHUJLQJ LVVXHV VHUYLFH VHH &KDSWHU f RI WKH &RQJUHVVLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFH EH H[SDQGHG WR SURYLGH PRUH FRPSUHKHQVLYH LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ IXQGDPHQWDO WUHQGV

PAGE 78

DQG OLNHO\ GHFLVLRQ SRLQWV LQ HFRQRPLF VRFLDO HQYLURQPHQWDO VFLHQWLILF WHFKQRORJLFDO DQG RWKHU DUHDV RI FRQFHUQ 6&& D f 'DYLVn WHVWLPRQ\ JHQHUDWHG OLWWOH UHDFWLRQ IURP WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH PHPEHUV SUHVHQW DW WKH WLPH KH WHVWLILHG &XOYHU DQG %ROOLQJ ZKR ZHUH PRVW LQWHUHVWHG LQ 'DYLVn WRSLF ZHUH DEVHQW 7+( (;3(576 63($. 7HVWLPRQ\ FRQWULEXWLQJ PRVW GLUHFWO\ WR WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLn VLRQ FDPH IURP SDQHO GLVFXVVLRQV ZLWK H[SHUWV 6&& E Ff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f 7R VXSSO\ WKLV FRQVLGHUDWLRQ IXWXULVWV ZHUH HPSDQHOHG WR WHVWLI\ RQ FRQJUHVVLRQDO UHIRUP IRU WKH ILUVW WLPH DV IXWXULVWV &RUQLVK t 6FKPDO] f 9LFWRU )HUNLVV SURIHVVRU RI JRYHUQPHQW DW *HRUJHWRZQ 8QLYHUVLW\ DQG DXWKRU RI 7HFKQRORJLFDO 0DQ f QRWHG WUHQGV LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV WRZDUG VFDUFLW\ LQ DQ DEVROXWH DQG D UHODWLYH VHQVH

PAGE 79

SDUWLFXODUO\ LQ IRRG DQG HQHUJ\ 3UREOHPV WKH JRYHUQPHQW PXVW FRQIURQW KH WHVWLILHG LQFOXGH GHDOLQJ ZLWK VFDUFLW\ DQG DOORFDn WLRQ SULRULWLHV WKH LPSDFW RI VFLHQFH DQG WHFKQRORJ\ HQYLURQPHQWDO SUREOHPV DQG WKH LQFUHDVLQJO\ FORVH LQWHUUHODWLRQ RI GRPHVWLF DQG LQWHUQDWLRQDO DIIDLUV )HUNLVV UHFRPPHQGHG WKDW WKH +RXVH EHFRPH PRUH IOH[LEOH LQ LWV FRPPLWWHH MXULVGLFWLRQV XVLQJ EURDGHU JDXJHG DG KRF FRPPLWWHHV DQG WKDW LW FRQIURQW WKH SUREOHP RI QDWLRQDO GHYHORSPHQW SROLF\ ,W VHHPV WR PH ZH KDYH WR JHW LQWR WKH DUHD RI ORQJUDQJH HFRQRPLF SODQQLQJ QRW MXVW ILVFDO SODQQLQJ RU SODQQLQJ LQ WHUPV RI ZDJHV DQG SULFHV EXW SODQQLQJ LQ WHUPV RI UHVRXUFH DOORFDWLRQ 6&& E f $QRWKHU IXWXULVW :LOOLV +DUPDQ RI WKH 6WDQIRUG 5HVHDUFK ,QVWLWXWH VXJJHVWHG WKDW &RQJUHVV KDYH PRUH FURVVFXWWLQJ RU KRUL]RQWDO FRPPLWWHHV SHUKDSV D FRPPLWWHH RQ WKH QDWLRQnV IXWXUH DQG WKH IRUPDWLRQ RI D QHWZRUN W\SH RI UHODWLRQVKLS WR DOORZ D ORRVH EXW HIIHFWLYH FRRUGLQDWLRQ RI WKH DFWLYLWLHV RI D ODUJH QXPEHU RI DXWRQRPRXV DJHQFLHV SXEOLF DQG SULYDWHf 0RVW QHHGHG LQ WKH VL[ WR HLJKW \HDUV WR FRPH +DUPDQ QRWHG LV D SRVLWLYH LQVSLULQJ YLVLRQ RI ZKHUH WKLV 1DWLRQ ZKHUH WKLV VRFLHW\ ZKHUH WKH ZRUOG FDQ JR 6&& E f &KDUOHV :LOOLDPV LQ WKH 9LUJLQLD RIILFH RI WKH 6WDQIRUG 5HVHDUFK ,QVWLWXWH IRUPHUO\ VWDII GLUHFWRU RI WKH 1DWLRQDO *RDOV 5HVHDUFK 6WDII PDGH VLPLODU VWDWHPHQWV DQG LQ SDUWLFXODU UHn LWHUDWHG WKH QRWLRQ WKDW WKH XWPRVW SULRULW\ RI QDWLRQDO OHDGHUn VKLS LV D YLVLRQ RI D ZRUNDEOH IXWXUH +LV UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV

PAGE 80

IRU WKH FRPPLWWHH V\VWHP ZHUH WR OLVW HPHUJLQJ SUREOHPV DQG WR PDWFK WKH FRPPLWWHH VWUXFWXUH WR WKHVH SUREOHPV WR OLVW WKH RSSRUWXQLWLHV LQKHUHQW LQ D KLJK TXDOLW\ IXWXUH GHILQHG E\ WKH EHOLHYDEOH YLVLRQ KH FDOOHG IRU DQG WR VWUXFWXUH WKH FRPPLWn WHHV WR RSWLPL]H WKH OLNHOLKRRG RI EULQJLQJ WKDW YLVLRQ LQWR EHLQJ 6&& E f 7KH UHDFWLRQ RI FRPPLWWHH PHPEHUV DQG VWDIIHUV ZDV PL[HG 6RPH ZHUH HQWKXVLDVWLF RWKHUV LQWHUHVWHG EXW XQVDWLVILHG DQG RQH PHPEHU DQG WZR VWDIIHUV LQWHUYLHZHG H[SUHVVHG GLVVDWLVIDFn WLRQ ZLWK WKH IXWXULVW SDQHO -RKQ &XOYHU WKRXJKW WKH IXWXULVW SDQHO SURYRFDWLYH DQG FKDOOHQJLQJ 7KH\ UDLVHG &XOYHU EHOLHYHG WKH PRVW GLIILFXOW DVSHFW RI WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHHnV UHVSRQVLELOLW\ WKDW LV WR JLYH FRQVLGHUDWLRQ VWUXFn WXUDOO\ KHUH LQ WKH &RQJUHVV DV WR KRZ ZH HTXLS RXUVHOYHV EHWWHU WR DQWLFLSDWH WKH SUREOHPV WKDW RXU FRXQWU\ DQG WKH ZRUOG DUH JRLQJ WR EH IRUFHG QHFHVVDULO\ WR GHDO ZL WK 6&& E f 7KH IXWXULVW SDQHO &XOYHU ZHQW RQ IRUFHG D FRQIURQWDWLRQ EHn WZHHQ UDWKHU EDVLF MXGJPHQWV DERXW ZKHWKHU ZH ZDQW WR EH DEOH WR VKDSH DQG LQIOXHQFH YDULRXV WUHQGV LQ VRFLHW\ &XOYHU VWUHVVHG WKDW IXWXULVP VKRXOG EH LQVWLOOHG DV D UHVSRQVLELOLW\ ZLWKLQ DQ\ FRPPLWWHH MXULVGLFWLRQDO LQTXLU\ 2WKHUZLVH ZLWK IXWXULVP LVRODWHG LQ RQH FRPPLWWHH LW UHGXFHV LWVHOI DOO WRR HDVLO\ LQWR HVRWHULF LUUHOHYDQFH 6&& E f

PAGE 81

7KH ODFN RI SUHGLFWLRQ RI SROLWLFDO DFWLYLW\ LQ WKH IXWXULVWVn WHVWLPRQ\ ZDV QRWHG E\ 3DXO 6 6DUEDQHV 0Gf HVSHFLDOO\ LQ UHODWLRQ WR WKHLU VRFLDO DQG HFRQRPLF SUHGLFWLRQV +H WULHG WKUHH WLPHV XQVXFFHVVIXOO\ WR JHW WKH IXWXULVWV WR UHODWH WKHVH WUHQGV WR WKH NLQGV RI SUHVVXUHV RU VWUDLQV WKDW PD\ DSSHDU LQ RXU SROLWLFDO OLIH 6&& E f 7+( %8'*(7 352&(66 3$1(/6 7KH SDQHOV RQ WKH EXGJHW SURFHVV UDLVHG VRPH LVVXHV RI IRUFLQJ WKH FRQVFLRXV LQWHUUHODWLRQVKLS RI GHFLVLRQV E\ XVLQJ WKH EXGJHW WR VHW QDWLRQDO SULRULWLHV $OLFH 5LYOLQ RI WKH %URRNLQJV ,QVWLWXWLRQ VXJJHVWHG WKDW IRUFLQJ FRXOG RFFXU LQ WHUPV RI WKUHH\HDU EXGJHWV WKDW WKLV \HDUnV YRWHV RQ WKH WKLUG \HDU WR FRPH ZRXOG IRFXV WKH DWWHQWLRQ RI &RQJUHVV WKH H[HFXWLYH DQG WKH SXEOLF RQ WKH ELJ GHFLVLRQV WKDW PXVW EH PDGH QRZ LI WKH EXGJHW SULRULWLHV DUH WR EH DOWHUHG WZR RU WKUHH \HDUV LQ WKH IXWXUH 6&& E f 'XULQJ WKHVH SDQHOV VFDWWHUHG PHQWLRQ ZDV PDGH RI RWKHU 63$ IXQFWLRQV EXW WKHVH ZHUH QRW SXUVXHG )RU H[DPSOH %ROOLQJ KDG EHHQ LQIOXHQFHG ZKLOH RQ WKH -RLQW (FRQRPLF &RPPLWWHH E\ KLV FKDLUPDQVKLS RI D VXEFRPPLWWHH FRQFHUQHG ZLWK PDFUR HFRQRPLF DQDO\VLV DQG E\ KLV SDUW LQ WKH MRLQW FRPPLWWHHnV DFWLYLW\ RQ WKH UHVWRUDWLRQ RI VRYHUHLJQW\ WR VROYH VRFLDO SUREOHPV ZKLFK KDG SURSRVHG D QDWLRQDO SODQQLQJ V\VWHP -(& f DQG VR KH UDLVHG WKH TXHVWLRQ RI WKH QHHG IRU QDWLRQDO SODQQLQJ ,W VHHPV WR PH WKDW ZH DUH JRLQJ WR KDYH WR LQVLVW RQ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI QDWLRQDO SODQQLQJ IRU SROLF\ 7KH

PAGE 82

JUHDW JDS LQ JRYHUQPHQWDO LQVWLWXWLRQV LV WKDW ZH VLPSO\ GRQnW HYHU WDNH WKH WURXEOH WR ORRN DKHDG DQG VHH ZKDW NLQG RI WURXEOH ZH DUH JRLQJ WR EH LQ RQ HQHUJ\ RU HGXFDWLRQ XQWLO DIWHU ZH KDYH KDG WKH FULVLV DP QRW WU\LQJ WR FXW RII GLVFXVVLRQ >RI EXGJHW WD[ H[SHQGLWXUHV DQG WKH DSSURSULDWLRQV SURFHVV@ EXW ZH DUH UHDOO\ WDONLQJ LQ D YDFXXP :H DUH WU\LQJ WR GHDO ZLWK D SLHFH RI WKH SUREOHP 6&& E f 1R RQH RQ WKH EXGJHW SDQHO UHVSRQGHG WR KLV LQTXLU\ DQG WKH GLVFXVVLRQ UHWXUQHG WR WKH VXEMHFW RI WD[ H[SHQGLWXUHV 6&& E f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n WRULQJ DQG VXUYHLOODQFH IXQFWLRQV GLVFKDUJHG E\ YDULRXV FRPPLWWHHV ,W ZRXOG JR EH\RQG

PAGE 83

WKDW E\ WU\LQJ WR KHOS WR NHHS WKH YDULRXV PHPEHUV RI &RQJUHVV DKHDG RI WKH JDPH $ OLWWOH DGYDQFH LQWHOOLJHQFH ZKLFK JRHV EH\RQG ORRNLQJ DW WKH SDVW DQG WKH ELOOV DKHDG RI \RX WKDW NLQG RI LQWHOOLn JHQFH LV SHUIHFWO\ IHDVLEOH LQ SURSHUO\ VWDIIHG VXEFRPPLWWHHV DQG FRPPLWWHHV 6&& E f 7KURXJK IXWXUHV DQDO\VHV RU VFHQDULR JHQHUDWLRQ RU JRDO SURMHFn WLRQV *URVV VXJJHVWHG WKDW FRPPLWWHHV ZRXOG EXLOG D IUDPHZRUN IRU ORRNLQJ DW PHDVXUHV WKDW ZRXOG RU VKRXOG FRPH EHIRUH WKHP 6&& E f ,Q WHVWLPRQ\ FORVH WR WKH WHUPV DFWXDOO\ XVHG LQ WKH IRUHn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n DV WHFKQRORJ\ IRUHFDVWLQJ DGGUHVVHV WKH TXHVWLRQ RI ZKHUH DUH ZH OLNHO\ WR JR DQG HPSKDVL]HV WKH WHFKQRORJLFDO HOHPHQW +DKQ QRWHG IXWXUHV UHVHDUFK WDONV PRUH DERXW ZKHUH ZH FDQ JR DQG LW GHDOV PRUH ZLWK VRFLDO DVSHFWV RI WKH VLWXDWLRQ DQG WKH ODUJHU FRQFHSW LQ ZKLFK ZH DUH VHHLQJ WKH HYHQWV WKDW DUH JRLQJ RQ 6&& E f +DKQ KDG QRWHG WKDW QRZKHUH LQ &RQJUHVV ZHUH WHFKQRORJLFDO

PAGE 84

IRUHFDVWV V\QWKHVL]HG DQG DVVHVVHG IRU SRWHQWLDO OHJLVODWLYH LPSDFWA 7KH SDQHO RQ LQIRUPDWLRQ VRXUFHV SURGXFHG VRPH LQWHUHVWLQJ VWDWHPHQWV RQ &RQJUHVV DQG LWV LQIRUPDWLRQ QHHGV SURPSWLQJ 5HSUHn VHQWDWLYH :LOOLDP $ 6WHLJHU 5 :LVf WR UHPDUN WKDW WKH LQIRUn PDWLRQ V\VWHPV RI &RQJUHVV PLJKW EH OHVV DW IDXOW WKDQ LQFXULRXV PHPEHUV 3HUKDSV ZKDW ERWKHUV PH DERXW WKLV SDQHO LV WKDW LW GRHVQnW DQVZHU WKH VLJQLILFDQW TXHVn WLRQ RI ZKHWKHU RU QRW &RQJUHVV GRHVQnW DOn UHDG\ KDYH DOO WKH UHVRXUFHV DYDLODEOH WR LW GHSHQGHQW RQ RQH IDFW WKH LQLWLDWLYH RI WKH 0HPEHU WR VHDUFK RXW DQG ILQG SHRSOH JURXSV LQGLYLGXDOV ZKR FDQ KHOS JXLGH DQG GLUHFW KLP RU KHU LQ GRLQJ WKLV ZRUN 6&& E f 6SHDNLQJ RI WKH JHQHUDOLVW UROH RI PHPEHUV RI &RQJUHVV %HUWUDP *URVV FDXWLRQHG DJDLQVW UHIRUPV WKDW ZRXOG FRQYHUW &RQJUHVV LQWR D EXUHDXFUDF\ DQG GHVWUR\ WKH JHQHUDOLVW IXQFWLRQ EXW WKH UHDO DQVZHU WR \RXU TXHVWLRQ *URVV UHSOLHG KDV WR JR LQWR WKH PRUH GLIILFXOW DUHD RI YDOXHV DQG LQWHUHVW 2QFH D FRQJUHVVPDQnV YDOXHV DQG LQWHUHVWV DUH NQRZQ WKH TXHVWLRQ EHFRPHV KRZ KH PD\ HVFDSH EHLQJ IORRGHG E\ LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG PLVLQIRUPDWLRQ DQG RXWn ULJKW GHFHSWLRQ DQG XQLQWHQGHG GHFHSWLRQ RQ DOO VRUWV RI YHU\ FULWLFDO LVVXHV 6&& E f :DOWHU +DKQ DQVZHUHG FRPPHQW E\ VD\LQJ WKDW &RQJUHVV ZRXOG SURILW IURP EHWWHU V\QWKHVLV DQG SDFNDJLQJ RI WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ DYDLODEOH WR LW VR WKDW WKLV LQIRUn PDWLRQ ZRXOG EH PRUH HDVLO\ JUDVSHG DQG PRUH SXUSRVHIXOO\ XVHG

PAGE 85

6&& E f (GZDUG 6FKQHLHU SROLWLFDO VFLHQWLVW DQG IRUPHU 6HQDWH VWDIIHU DQVZHUHG LQ WHUPV RI WKH LPSDFW RI LQIRUPDWLRQ V\VWHPV RQ FRQJUHVVLRQDO XVH RI WLPH 7KH ODUJHU WKH QXPEHU RI FULWLFDO DQG ZHOONQRZQ LVVXHV WKH OHVV WLPH &RQJUHVV KDV IRU nWUHDWLYH LQWHOOLJHQFH +H DGYLVHG WKDW &RQJUHVV VKRXOG NHHS LWV LQIRUPDWLRQ VRXUFHV SOXUDOLVWLF DQG GLYHUVH QRW GHILQLQJ KRZ WR VSHQG WLPH EHFDXVH RI DQ RYHUGHILQHG V\VWHP RI LQIRUPDWLRQ UHVRXUFHV 6&& E f 7+( 67$7( /(*,6/$7,9( &200,77(( 3$1(/ 7KH SDQHO RQ VWDWH OHJLVODWLYH FRPPLWWHHV PDGH XVHIXO VXJJHVWLRQV IRU WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ 7KH SDQHOLVWV DJUHHG WKDW WKUHH IXQFWLRQV GHVHUYHG VSHFLDO DWWHQWLRQ EXGJHWLQJ RYHUVLJKW DQG IRUHVLJKW RU SROLF\ SODQQLQJ EXW WKH\ GLVDJUHHG ZKHWKHU WR PDNH WKHVH IXQFWLRQV PDQGDWRU\ LQ HDFK FRPPLWWHH RU LQ VHSDUDWH FRPPLWWHHV VHW XS IRU WKH SXUSRVH /DUU\ 0DUJROLV RI WKH &LWL]HQV &RQIHUHQFH RQ 6WDWH /HJLVODn WXUHV VXJJHVWHG D WDVN IRUFH RQ SROLF\ SODQQLQJ ZLWKLQ VXEVWDQn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f

PAGE 86

$ODQ 5RVHQWKDO D SROLWLFDO VFLHQWLVW DW 5XWJHUV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH (DJOHWRQ ,QVWLWXWH RI 3ROLWLFV ZRXOG KDYH D VHSDUDWH IXQFWLRQDO FRPPLWWHH IRU SROLF\ SODQQLQJ 7KH IDFW WKDW VWDQGLQJ FRPPLWWHHV KDYH QRW GRQH SROLF\ SODQQLQJ PD\ PHDQ WKDW WKH\ ZRQnW WKHUH LV QR ZD\ WR MD]] XS WKH SUHVHQW VWUXFWXUH /HW WKH FRPPLWWHHV GR ZKDW WKH\ ZDQW WR GR DQG FUHDWH RWKHU FRPPLWWHHV WR GR ZKDW VKRXOG EH GRQH 6&& E f 2YHUVLJKW VKRXOG KDYH D VHSDUDWH FRPPLWWHH EHFDXVH RYHUVLJKW JHWV ORVW LQ WKH KXUO\EXUO\ RI PDQXIDFWXULQJ ELOOV DQG UDLVLQJ EDWWLQJ DYHUDJHV DQG EHFDXVH \RX FDQnW UHDOO\ H[SHFW FRQJUHVVPHQ ZKR GHYLVHG D SURJUDP DQG HQDFWHG LW WR ORRN DW WKDW DQG VD\ nLW LV ORXV\n 6&& E f 5HSUHVHQWDWLYH &XOYHU UHVSRQGHG LQ D PDQQHU LQGLFDWLYH RI WKLQJV WR FRPH RQ WKH LGHD RI IXWXUHV FRPPLWWHHV RU DQWLFLSDWRU\ SODQQLQJ (YHU\ FRPPLWWHH VKRXOG EH DQWLFLSDWLQJ LPSDFW DQG DOn WHUQDWLYH SROLF\ FKRLFHV :H VKRXOG WU\ WR GHYHORS WKDW W\SH RI ULJRU DV SDUW DQG SDUFHO RI WKH RSHUDWLRQ RI HDFK RI WKHVH FRPn PLWWHHV &XOYHU QRWHG 6&& E f 7+( (;(&87,9( 25*$1,=$7,21 3$1(/ 7KH SDQHO RQ H[HFXWLYH RUJDQLn ]DWLRQ EURXJKW OLYHO\ DQG WKRXJKWIXO GLVFXVVLRQ RI VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW LVVXHV EXW RIWHQ OHIW TXHVWLRQV RI 63$ LQ &RQn JUHVV XQDQVZHUHG )RU LQVWDQFH 5HSUHVHQWDWLYH 6DUEDQHV DVNHG ZKHWKHU &RQJUHVV VKRXOG KDYH DQ LQVWLWXWLRQ VXFK DV WKH 2IILFH RI 0DQDJHPHQW DQG %XGJHW WR GHYHORS SROLF\ DQWLFLSDWH SROLF\ MXGJn PHQWV DQG FRRUGLQDWH SROLF\ EXW WKH VXEMHFW ZDV TXLFNO\ FKDQJHG

PAGE 87

6&& E f /LNHZLVH LQ UHVSRQVH WR WHVWLPRQ\ IDYRULQJ D QDWLRQDO JRDOV DQG SROLFLHV FRPPLWWHH IRU HDFK KRXVH &XOYHU DVNHG KRZ ZH PD\ UHTXLUH WKLV W\SH RI V\VWHPDWLF DWWHQWLRQ WR IXWXUH UHTXLUHPHQWV DQG QHHGV LQ DOO RI WKH YDULRXV DUHDV RI SXEOLF SROLF\ XQGHU >WKH FRPPLWWHHnV@ FRQVLGHUDWLRQ 6&& E f 5REHUW 6HDPDQV SUHVLGHQW RI WKH 1DWLRQDO $FDGHP\ RI (QJLQHHUn LQJ UHSOLHG WKDW UHVHDUFK DQG GHYHORSPHQW VKRXOG EH FRQVLGHUHG SODQQLQJ IRU WKH IXWXUH EXW KH ZDV QRW DEOH WR EH PRUH VSHFLILF DERXW ZKDW FRPPLWWHHV VKRXOG GR 6&& E f ,Q WKH IDOO KHDULQJV ZHUH DJDLQ KHOG WKLV WLPH IRU UHSUHVHQWDn WLYHV RI FLWL]HQ LQWHUHVW JURXSV DQG PHPEHUV RI WKH +RXVH ZKR KDG QRW WHVWLILHG LQ WKH VSULQJ 7KH PDMRU H[FKDQJH UHOHYDQW WR WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHHn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nV ZRUN 6RPH LQIRUPDWLRQ UHOHYDQW WR VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW KDG EHHQ JDWKHUHG EXW DW WKH ZURQJ WLPH DV ZLWK 5HSUHVHQWDWLYH -RKQ

PAGE 88

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n VXO WDQWVSULRU WR WKH 6DUEDQHV6WHLJHU GUDIW SUHSDUHG IRU WKH FRPPLWWHH PDUNXS VHVVLRQV

PAGE 89

7+( %2// ,1*6+(/'21 3/$1 7KH ILUVW SODQ ZDV LQWURGXFHG IRU WKH UHFRUG E\ 5LFKDUG %ROOLQJ RQ -XQH GXULQJ WKH IXWXULVW WHVWLPRQ\ WKH ODVW VXPPHU SDQHO 63$ DFWLYLWLHV ILJXUHG SURPLn QHQWO\ LQ WKLV GRFXPHQW $ +RXVH FHQWUDO SROLF\ FRPPLWWHH EDn VLFDOO\ D OHDGHUVKLS FRPPLWWHH ZRXOG VHW RYHUDOO UHYHQXH DQG EXGJHW JRDOV WR GHDO ZLWK EURDG LVVXHV RI SROLF\ H[WHQGLQJ EH\RQG DQ\ VLPSOH JURXSLQJ RI FRPPLWWHHV ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKH SODQ SURYLGHG IRU D EXGJHW FRPPLWWHH DQG D QDWLRQDO SROLF\ SODQQLQJ FRPPLWWHH 7KH ODWWHU ZRXOG KDYH D PDMRU UROH LQ VXSSRUWLQJ WKH ZRUN RI WKH +RXVH &HQWUDO 3ROLF\ &RPPLWWHH E\ LGHQWLn I\LQJ QDWLRQDO JRDOV HPHUJLQJ IURP WKH ZRUN RI WKHLU FRPPLWWHHV DQG RWKHU VRXUFHV E\ SURYLGLQJ HDUO\ ZDUQLQJ RQ HPHUJLQJ LVVXHV DQG WUHQGV E\ SURYLGLQJ RYHUVLJKW DQG SURn JUDP DQDO\VLV ,Q DGGLWLRQ LW ZRXOG EH UHn VSRQVLEOH IRU PRVW PDWWHUV LQYROYLQJ DGYDQFHG WHFKQRORJ\ DQG IXWXUHV ZRUN +HQFH LWV FRQn FHUQ ZLWK WHFKQRORJ\ DVVHVVPHQW LWV VXSSRUW RI EDVLF VFLHQFH LWV UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU WKH VSDFH SURJUDP 6&& E HPSKDVLV DGGHGf 7KH ILUVW SODQ ZRXOG FUHDWH IRXU SULPDULO\ VXEVWDQWLYH DQG IRXU SULPDULO\ IXQFWLRQDO FRPPLWWHHV SUHVLGHG RYHU E\ WKH +RXVH FHQWUDO SROLF\ FRPPLWWHH +RXVH &HQWUDO 3RQH\ &RPPLWWHH 3ULPDULO\ 6XEVWDQWLYH (FRQRPLFV FRPPLWWHH +XPDQ UHVRXUFHV FRPPLWWHH 1DWLRQDO UHVRXUFHV DQG HQYLURQPHQWDO FRPPLWWHH ,QWHUQDWLRQDO DIIDLUV DQG GHIHQVH FRPPLWWHH 3ULPDULO\ )XQFWLRQDO %XGJHW FRPPLWWHH 1DWLRQDO SROLF\ SODQQLQJ FRPPLWWHH ,QWHUJRYHUQPHQWDO DIIDLUV FRPPLWWHH /HJLVODWLYH EUDQFK SROLF\ DQG PDQDJHPHQW FRPPLWWHH

PAGE 90

7KLV ILUVW SODQ JUHZ RXW RI LQIRUPDO GLVFXVVLRQV EHWZHHQ FKDLUPDQ 5LFKDUG %ROOLQJ DQG FKLHI RI VWDII &KDUOHV 6KHOGRQ ZKR ZURWH WKH SODQ 6&& E f DQG LW UHIOHFWV 6KHOGRQnV VFLHQFH SROLF\ EDFNJURXQG D UDWLRQDOLVWLF SUREOHPVROYLQJ DSSURDFK 7+( $8*867 678'< 7+( 67$)) *$0( 7KH VWDII VLPXODWHG WKH ZRUN RI WKH DFWXDO FRPPLWWHH E\ GHEDWLQJ DQG IRUPXODWLQJ WKHLU RZQ SROLFLHV DQG SODQV ,Q WKH PDMRU VWDII SODQ 63$ FRQFHUQV ZHUH VKRZQ LQ WKH IRUPDWLRQ RI D EXGJHW FRPPLWWHH EXW D SURSRVHG ORQJUDQJH VWXG\ FRPPLWWHH ZDV YRWHG GRZQ WR ZLWK WZR DEVWHQn WLRQV ,Q WHUPV RI DFWLYLW\ ZLWKLQ FRPPLWWHHV WKH VWDII UHFRPn PHQGHG WKDW HDFK VXEFRPPLWWHH KDYH DQ RYHUVLJKW VXEFRPPLWWHH D EXGJHW VXEFRPPLWWHH DQG QR PRUH WKDQ WKUHH VXEFRPPLWWHHV 6&& F f 1R IRUHVLJKW DFWLYLWLHV ZHUH PHQWLRQHG IRU WKH FRPPLWWHHV :LWKLQ WKH VWDII ZDV D URXJK GLYLVLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH ODZ\HUV RU SROLWLFDO W\SHV /LQGD .DPP DQG 5REHUW .HWFKXP WKH SROLWLFDO VFLHQWLVWV 5RJHU 'DYLGVRQ DQG 7HUU\ )LQQ DQG WKH VFLHQFH SROLF\ RU KDUG VFLHQFH W\SHV 6SHQFHU %HUHVIRUG DQG &KDUOHV 6KHOGRQ :KLOH DOO KDG YDULRXV NLQGV RI RSHUDWLRQDO H[SHULHQFH ZLWK OHJLVn ODWXUHV WKH\ FDPH ZLWK GLYHUVH EDFNJURXQGV DQG RULHQWDWLRQV %HUHVIRUG MRLQHG E\ *HUDOG *UDG\ DQG &KDUOHV 6KHOGRQ ZDV SXVKLQJ QDWLRQDO JRDOV RU JURZWK SROLF\ DFWLYLWLHV E\ D FHQWUDO FRPPLWWHH ZLWK PRUH HQWKXVLDVP WKDQ ZDV VKRZQ IRU IRUHVLJKW E\ HDFK FRPPLWWHH 7KH SROLWLFDO W\SHV VDZ OLWWOH YDOXH LQ IXWXUHV UHVHDUFK DQG IRUHFDVWLQJ DFWLYLWLHV LQ HLWKHU DSSURDFK $V RQH

PAGE 91

VWDII PHPEHU SXW LW WKLV YLHZ UHVXOWHG IURP WKH SUREOHP RI OLQNLQJ JHQHUDO JRDOV WR WKH VSHFLILFV RI LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ 7KLV SUREOHP WKH VWDIIHU QRWHG H[LVWV ZLWKLQ SODQQLQJ JURXSV 3ODQQLQJ WKDW LV GRQH E\ QRQRSHUDWLRQDO W\SHV RIWHQ LV ORRNHG RQ DV SLRXV KRSHV DQG WKRXJKWV QRW UHODWHG WR QHHGV RU GD\WRGD\ DFWLYLWLHV ,Q PDNLQJ DGGLWLRQDO FRPPHQWV RQ WKH VWDII UHSRUW 6SHQFHU %HUHVIRUG DQG *HUDOG *UDG\ XUJHG WKDW WKH ORQJUDQJH VWXG\ FRPn PLWWHH EH UHFRQVLGHUHG 7KH SURSRVHG FRPPLWWHH ZRXOG SURYLGH D PHFKDQLVP IRU FRRUGLQDWLQJ WKH ZRUN RI WKH VWDQGLQJ FRPPLWWHHV VR DV WR GHYHORS FRKHUn HQW DQG FRPSUHKHQVLYH +RXVH SRVLWLRQV DQG SROLFLHV ,W ZRXOG QRW KDYH OHJLVODWLYH DXWKRULW\ ,WV UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV ZRXOG LQn FOXGH IXWXUH OHJLVODWLYH SUREOHPV DQG RSWLRQV ORQJUDQJH SODQQLQJ DQG HYDOXDWLRQ RI PDMRU IHGHUDO DFWLYLWLHV LQ WHUPV RI WKHLU ORQJUDQJH HIIHFWLYHQHVV DQG FRVW 6&& F f %HUHVIRUG QRWHG WKDW WKLV W\SH RI DFWLYLW\ ZDV SHUIRUPHG LQ YDULRXV SODFHV ZLWKLQ &RQJUHVV EXW ZDV QDUURZO\ IRFXVHG DQG RFFXUUHG SULQFLSDOO\ LQ UHVSRQVH WR UHTXHVWV DQG LQTXLULHV UDWKHU WKDQ WR PHHW UHFRJQL]HG QHHGV *HUDOG *UDG\ ZKR ZDV IDPLOLDU ZLWK WKH 63$ SURSRVDO RI WKH :RRGURZ :LOVRQ ,QWHUQDWLRQDO &HQWHU IRU 6FKRODUV ::,&6f DJUHHG ZLWK %HUHVIRUG DQG XVHG D GHVFULSWLRQ VLPLODU WR WKDW SURYLGHG E\ ::,&6 WKH JRYHUQPHQWDO XQLWV VKRXOG DQDO\]H PRUH WKRURXJKO\ DQG V\VWHPDWLFDOO\ ORQJWHUP WUHQGV

PAGE 92

DQG SUREOHPV WR LGHQWLI\ WKH NH\ LVVXHV WR IRUPXODWH DQG HYDOXDWH SROLF\ FKRLFHV DQG FRXUVHV RI DFWLRQ DQG WR HYDOXDWH WKH HIIHFWV RI DFWLRQV WKDW KDYH EHHQ WDNHQ 6&& F f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n FRPPLWWHH RU FRPPLWWHH LW GLG DWWHPSW WR IRUFH WKH FRQVFLRXV LQWHUUHODWLRQVKLS RI GHFLVLRQV E\ HVWDEOLVKLQJ D VPDOO QXPEHU RI PXOWLLQWHUHVW FRPPLWWHHV DQG VWUHQJWKHQLQJ WKH 2IILFH RI WKH 6SHDNHU DV D FRRUGLQDWLQJ PHFKDQLVP 'DYLGVRQ DQG )LQQ DV RQH VWDIIHU SXW LW ZHUH LQWULJXHG ZLWK WKH SRVVLELOLWLHV WR DFKLHYH SROLWLFDOO\ ZKDW %HUHVIRUG DQG WR VRPH H[WHQW *UDG\ SURSRVHG GRLQJ ZLWK D VSHFLDO ERG\ ,Q WKDW VHQVH >'DYLGVRQ t )LQQ@ IHOO EHWZHHQ WKH SROLWLFRV .DPP DQG .HWFKXP DQG WKH VFLHQFH W\SHV %HUHVIRUG DQG 6KHOGRQ 7+( 3/$1 )25 $ /$5*( 180%(5 2) &200,77((6 7KH SODQ EDVHG RQ D ODUJH QXPEHU RI FRPPLWWHHV FRQWDLQHG WKLUW\VL[ FRPPLWWHHV DQG VL[ VHOHFW FRPPLWWHHV ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR WKH EXGJHW FRPPLWWHH LW ZRXOG HVWDEOLVK D QDWLRQDO JRDOV DQG JURZWK SROLFLHV FRPPLWWHH

PAGE 93

7KLV QHZ FRPPLWWHH ZKLFK ZRXOG QRW KDYH OHJLVODWLYH DXWKRULW\ ZRXOG EH UHVSRQVLEOH IRU ORQJUDQJH VWXGLHV DQG SODQV RI DOWHUn QDWLYH QDWLRQDO JRDOV DQG JURZWK SROLFLHV ,W ZRXOG DQDO\]H ORQJWHUP WUHQGV SUREOHPV DQG HYDOXDWH WKH PDMRU )HGHUDO DFWLYLWLHV LQ WHUPV RI WKHLU ORQJUDQJH HIIHFWLYHQHVV FRVW DQG LPSDFW RQ QDWLRQDO JURZWK 6&& F f 7+( 0,1,0$/ &+$1*( 3/$1 7KH SODQ DVVXPLQJ PLQLPDO FKDQJH IURP WKH H[LVWLQJ VLWXDWLRQ PDGH QR FRPPLWWHH RU VXEFRPPLWWHH FKDQJHV UHOHYDQW WR 63$ DOWKRXJK LW GLG VXJJHVW WKDW JURZWK SROLF\ FRXOG EH DGGHG E\ OHDGHUVKLS MRLQW RU VHOHFW FRPPLWWHH RU E\ DQ LQGHSHQGHQW RIILFH VLPLODU WR WKH 2IILFH RI 7HFKQRORJ\ $VVHVVPHQW ,Q D SDSHU DSSHQGHG WR WKLV SODQ 6SHQFHU %HUHVIRUG GHVFULEHG WKLV RSWLRQ LQ VRPH GHWDLO 1RWLQJ WKDW WKH SUHVHQW FRQJUHVVLRQDO DSSURDFK WR QDWLRQDO SUREOHPV ZDV W\SLFDOO\ VKRUWn VLJKWHG DQG IUDJPHQWHG WKDW &RQJUHVV DV DQ LQVWLWXWLRQ VHHPHG UHOXFWDQW WR PDNH RIWHQ HYHQ WR UHFRJQL]H KDUG FKRLFHV %HUHVIRUG GHVFULEHG ZKDW LV QHHGHG DQ DUUDQJHPHQW IRU WKH V\VWHPDWLF ORQJUDQJH LQWHJUDWHG VWXG\ RI RXU SULQFLn SDO IXWXUH QDWLRQDO SUREOHPV 6XFK VWXGLHV FRXOG LGHQWLI\ DQG DQDO\]H WKHVH SUREOHPV RQ D WLPH VFDOH RI ILYH WR ILIWHHQ \HDUV RU ORQJHU IRUPXODWH DOWHUQDWLYH FRXUVHV RI DFWLRQ IRU GHDOLQJ ZLWK WKHP DQG FRQVLGHU WKH SUREDEOH HIIHFWV RI VXFK DOWHUQDWLYHV DQG RI DQ\ UHOHYDQW SURJUDPV DQG RWKHU DFWLRQV WKDW DUH DOUHDG\ XQGHUZD\ 6&& F f

PAGE 94

7+( ',&. 3/$1 7KH QH[W FRPPLWWHH SODQ ZDV VXJJHVWHG E\ %HVV ( 'LFN IRUPHU VWDII GLUHFWRU RI WKH -XGLFLDU\ &RPPLWWHH ZDWFKLQJ WKH +RXVH RI 5HSUHVHQWDWLYHV LQ DFWLRQ RQH ZRXOG DOPRVW FRQFOXGH WKDW 0RWKHU &KDRV ZDV PDUULHG WR )DWKHU 7LPH 7KH +RXVH RI 5HSUHVHQWDWLYHV ORRNV DW ZKDW LV EHIRUH LW DQG EHKLQG LW ,W GRHV QRW ORRN DKHDG LW UHVSRQGV WR FULVHV EXW GRHV QRW IRUHVHH WKHP ,W ODFNV WKH VWUHQJWK RI VLPn SOLFLW\ DQG LW ODFNV GLUHFWLRQ 6&& F f 'LFN FDOOHG IRU PRUH DFWLYH SDUWLVDQ OHDGHUVKLS WKDW ZRXOG EH DFFRPSOLVKHG E\ D FRQJUHVVLRQDO SROLF\ FRPPLWWHH PDQQHG HQWLUHO\ E\ WKH PDMRULW\ SDUW\ ,W ZRXOG VHW FRQJUHVVLRQDO SULRULWLHV DQG GUDZ D GLUHFW OLQH IURP WKH OHDGHUVKLS WR WKH FRPPLWWHHV 7+( +8''/( 3/$1 7KH ODVW SODQ LQ WKH LQIRUPDWLRQJDWKHULQJ HIIRUWV RI WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH ZDV DFFRUGLQJ WR D VWDII PHPEHU WKH PRVW WKHRUHWLFDO WKH PRVW IXWXULVW DQG WKH OHDVW DWWHQGHG WR :DOWHU +XGGOH VHQLRU VSHFLDOLVW LQ WKH VFLHQFH SROLF\ GLYLn VLRQ RI WKH &RQJUHVVLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFH WULHG WR GHYHORS WKHRUHWLFDOO\ D V\VWHP WKDW ZRXOG RUJDQL]H FRPPLWWHHV DURXQG IXQFWLRQ UDWKHU WKDQ VXEVWDQWLYH FDWHJRULHV ,Q LQWURGXFLQJ WKH SODQ /HVWHU -D\VRQ GLUHFWRU RI WKH &RQJUHVVLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 6HUn YLFH QRWHG WKDW WKH GLVWLQFWLRQ EHWZHHQ IXQFWLRQDO DQG VXEVWDQn WLYH RUJDQL]DWLRQ LV WKDW IXQFWLRQDO UHTXLUHPHQWV GR QRW VHHP WR FKDQJH DV UDSLGO\ RU UDGLFDOO\ DV VXEVWDQWLYH UHTXLUHPHQWV $ OHDGHUVKLS FRPPLWWHH ZDV DOVR VXJJHVWHG E\ WKH SODQ SUHVXPDEO\ WR IRUFH FRRUGLQDWLRQ DPRQJ GHFLVLRQV

PAGE 95

7KH +XGGOH SODQ -D\VRQ QRWHG ZDV EDVHG RQ WKH DVVXPSWLRQ WKDW WKH VXEVWDQWLYH SUREOHPV IDFLQJ WKH &RQJUHVV ZRXOG EH VXEMHFW WR UDGLFDO DQG LQFUHDVLQJ UDWHV RI FKDQJH JLYHQ WKLV DVVXPSWLRQ LW ZDV WKHQ SURSRVHG WKDW D WDUJHW FRQFHSW RI RUJDQLn ]DWLRQ SHUKDSV WRZDUG WKH \HDU f PLJKW KHOS WR SURYLGH VRPH LQVLJKWV DV WR WKH JHQHUDO DQG LQFUHPHQWDO FKDQJHV LQ D FRKHUHQW ZD\ 6&& F f ,Q GLVFXVVLQJ WKH QHHG IRU WKLV DSSURDFK +XGGOH UDLVHG WKH SUREOHP RI FRQVWLWXHQW DWWLWXGH :KDWHYHU WKH PHFKDQLVP WKDW GHWHUPLQHV KRZ ORQJWHUP WKH IXWXUH RXWORRN RI WKH &RQJUHVV WKH SRLQW FDQ EH RIIHUHG WKDW WKHUH LV D WHQGHQF\ IRU WKH SXEOLF DW ODUJH WR EH FRQn FHUQHG ZLWK VKRUWUDQJH SUREOHPV QHHGV DQG JRDOV 7KH SUREOHP IDFLQJ WKH +RXVH WKHQ LV WR VWULNH D SURSHU EDODQFH LQ OHJLVODWLYH DFWLRQV EHWZHHQ VKRUWUDQJH DQG ORQJUDQJH HIIHFWV 7R GR WKLV UHTXLUHV LQ WXUQ WKH LGHQWLILFDWLRQ RI ERWK VKRUW DQG ORQJUDQJH FRQFHUQV HYHQ WKRXJK WKH SXEOLF DWWHQGV PDLQO\ WR WKH IRUPHU 6&& F f +XGGOH 6SRNH RI WKH JRDO RI FRQWLQXRXV SODQQLQJ IRU WKH +RXVH DQG LWV RUJDQL]DWLRQDO UHTXLUHPHQWV 7KH IXQFWLRQ RI DQWLFLSDWLQJ WKH IXWXUH DQG SURYLGLQJ IRU LW FDQQRW EH VDIHO\ QHJOHFWHG LQ D PRGHUQ DQG UDSLGO\ FKDQJLQJ ZRUOG 7ZR HOHPHQWV DUH LQGLVSHQVDEOH IRU WKLV SXUSRVH f DQ LQVWLWXWLRQ FKDUJHG ZLWK ORRNLQJ DKHDG GHILQLQJ IXWXUH SUREOHPV HVWLPDWLQJ WKHLU SUREDELOLW\ DQG H[SORULQJ WKH ZD\V RI FRSLQJ ZLWK WKHP DQG f DQ RUJDQL]DWLRQ WKDW LV IOH[LEOH DQG DGDSWDEOH HQRXJK WR WDNH XS WKHVH IXWXUH SUREOHPV OHJLVODWLYHO\ EHIRUH WKH\ WXUQ LQWR FDWDVWURSKLF FHUWDLQWLHV 6&& F f

PAGE 96

+XGGOHnV ILUVW HOHPHQW HQWDLOV WKH 63$ IXQFWLRQ RI VHDUFKLQJ IRU HPHUJLQJ SUREOHPV +LV VHFRQG HOHPHQW LPSOLFLWO\ LQFOXGHV LQIRUPn LQJ FXUUHQW GHFLVLRQV DQG IRUFLQJ WKHLU FRQVFLRXV LQWHUUHODWLRQVKLS :KDW SLFWXUHV HPHUJH IURP WKHVH VHYHQ FRPPLWWHH SODQV UHJDUGn LQJ WKH WUHDWPHQW RI VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW LQ WKLV DVSHFW RI WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHHnV LQIRUPDWLRQ JDWKHULQJ" 7KRVH SODQV IRUPXODWHG LQ ZKROH +XGGOHf RU LQ ODUJH SDUW 6KHOGRQf E\ &56 VFLHQFH SROLF\ SHUVRQQHO LQFOXGHG H[SOLFLW PHQWLRQ RI WKH 63$ IXQFWLRQV +RZHYHU LQ ERWK FDVHV WKHUH ZDV D GHWDFKHG TXDOLW\ DERXW WKH DQDO\VLV 6KHOGRQnV SODQ ZRXOG SODFH WKH QDWLRQDO JRDOV IXQFWLRQ LQ D FHQWUDO FRPPLWWHH WKDW GLG QRW KDYH WKH SRZHU WR DFW RQ WKRVH JRDOV +XGGOHnV V\VWHPV DQDO\VLV DSSURDFK WR WKH +RXVH WHQGHG WR LJQRUH WKH OHJLWLPDWH FODVK RI YDOXHV DQG WKH QHHG WR VWUXFWXUH WKLV FRQIOLFW UDWKHU LW ZRXOG VLPSO\ VROYH SUREOHPV 7KH SODQ IRU D VPDOO QXPEHU RI FRPPLWWHHV WULHG WR IRUFH GHFLVLRQV E\ DJJUHJDWLQJ MXULVGLFWLRQV DQG WKH SODQ IRU D ODUJH QXPEHU LQFOXGHG D EXGJHW FRPPLWWHH DQG D QDWLRQDO JRDOV DQG JURZWK SROLF\ FRPPLWWHH 6SHQFHU %HUHVIRUGnV VXJJHVWLRQV IRU WKH 63$ IXQFWLRQV ZHUH DSSHQGHG WR WKH RWKHU WZR VWDII SODQV 7KH SODQ E\ %HVV 'LFN ZDV FRQFHUQHG ZLWK 63$ RQO\ IURP WKH SHUVSHFWLYH RI VWURQJHU SDUW\ OHDGHUVKLS +RZ PXFK DQG ZKDW SDUWV RI WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ JDWKHUHG E\ WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH WKURXJK KHDULQJV SDQHO GLVFXVVLRQV DQG FRPn PLWWHH SODQV ZHUH DFWXDOO\ XVHG" 2Q ZKDW EDVLV ZHUH WKH RSWLRQV FKRVHQ" 7KH DQVZHUV WR WKHVH TXHVWLRQV ZHUH IRXQG LQ WKH IRUPXODn WLRQ VWDJH RI +RXVH 5HVROXWLRQ

PAGE 97

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nV KRPH 6HFRQG 3DXO 6DUEDQHV '0Gf DQG :LOOLDP 6WHLJHU 5:LVf ZHUH GHOHJDWHG WR ZRUN ZLWK WKH VWDII RQ D GUDIW UHSRUW WR VHUYH DV D EDVLV IRU GLVFXVVLRQ 7KH IXOO &RPPLWWHH WKHQ UHILQHG WKLV GUDIW LQ D VHULHV RI LQIRUPDO VHVVLRQV UHOHDVLQJ WKH MXVW EHIRUH OHJLVODWRUV &KULVWPDV UHFHVV SUHOLPLQDU\ SURSRVDO VFDWWHUHG IRU WKH 'DYLGVRQ f ,Q )HEUXDU\ DQG 0DUFK RSHQ PDUNXS VHVVLRQV 6&& Ef ZHUH KHOG WR ZRUN RQ DGMXVWPHQWV WR WKH 6WHLJHU6DUEDQHV GUDIW 6&& Df 7+( &(175$/ &200,77(( 48(67,21 7KH IRUPXODWLRQ RI WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ FDQ EH VHHQ LQ WZR VWDJHV f WKH GHFLVLRQ DJDLQVW DQ\ FHQWUDO SODQQLQJ JRDOV RU IXWXUHV FRPPLWWHH DQG f WKH GHFLVLRQ WR DGG IRUHVLJKW WR HDFK FRPPLWWHHnV RYHUVLJKW UHVSRQVLELOLW\ E\ UHTXLULQJ IXWXUHV UHVHDUFK DQG IRUHFDVWLQJ

PAGE 98

5HSUHVHQWDWLYH &XOYHU ZDV LQWHUHVWHG LQ WKH FHQWUDO DSSURDFK HDUO\ LQ WKH ZRUN RI WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH \HW WKH SUREOHP RI OHDGHUVKLS ZDV RIWHQ UDLVHG $V D VWDII PHPEHU SXW LW
PAGE 99

RI WKH QDWLRQDO JRDOV DSSURDFK LQ WKH EXGJHW UHIRUP IRU WKH 6HQDWH ZDV PXFK PRUH FRQFHUQHG WR XVH WKH EXGJHW WR VHW QDWLRQDO JRDOV DQG SULRULWLHV WKDQ WKH +RXVH 7+( )25(6,*+7 3529,6,21 7+( '(&(175$/,=(' $3352$&+ 7ZR PDMRU FRPSRQHQWV RI WKH GHFLVLRQ WR GHFHQWUDOL]H IXWXUHV FRQFHUQ ZHUH f PDNLQJ LW SDUW RI WKH RYHUVLJKW UHVSRQVLELOLW\ RI FRPPLWWHHV DQG f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t 2OHV]HN f 7KLV MXULVGLFWLRQDO LVVXH ZRXOG SURYH PRVW LQIOXHQWLDO IRU WKH FRXUVH DQG XOWLPDWH SURGXFW RI WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH $QRWKHU EDFNJURXQG IDFWRU ZDV WKH JHQHUDOO\ VWURQJ LQWHUHVW LQ RYHUVLJKW DPRQJ FRPPLWWHH PHPEHUV 0XFK GLVFXVVLRQ WKURXJKRXW WKH FRXUVH RI KHDULQJV DQG SDQHOV KDG FHQWHUHG RQ KRZ WR PDNH FRPPLWWHHV PRUH HIIHFWLYH LQ RYHUVHHLQJ SURJUDPV DQG SROLFLHV

PAGE 100

$PRQJ VHYHUDO DSSURDFKHV WR RYHUVLJKW PRVW PHPEHUV DJUHHG ZLWK /DUU\ 0DUJROLV WKDW HDFK FRPPLWWHH VKRXOG EH JLYHQ DQ H[SOLFLW RYHUVLJKW UHVSRQVLELOLW\ 7KH\ ZHUH RSSRVHG WR OHDYLQJ RYHUVLJKW DV VROHO\ WKH UHVSRQVLELOLW\ RI WKH &RPPLWWHH RQ *RYHUQPHQW 2SHUDn WLRQV 7KLV DFWLYLW\ VKRXOG EH WDNHQ PRUH VHULRXVO\ E\ WKH DXWKRUn L]LQJ FRPPLWWHHV WKH\ DJUHHG EXW D GLVSXWH RFFXUUHG RYHU WKH HVWDEOLVKPHQW RI VHSDUDWH RYHUVLJKW VXEFRPPLWWHHV 6RPH SDUn WLFXODUO\ :LOOLDP 6WHLJHU IHOW WKDW VRPH FRPPLWWHH PHPEHUV VKRXOG QRW EH LVRODWHG LQ DQ RYHUVLJKW VXEFRPPLWWHH WR ZDWFKGRJ WKH SURGn XFWV RI RWKHU FRPPLWWHH PHPEHUV +RZHYHU WKH PDMRULW\ RI WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH IDYRUHG VHSDUDWH RYHUVLJKW VXEFRPPLWWHHV $ SUREOHP ZLWK WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ ZDV WKDW LW FDOOHG IRU DQDO\VLV QRW GLUHFWO\ UHODWHG WR WKH GD\WR GD\ FRPPLWWHH DFWLYLW\ RI FRQVLGHULQJ VSHFLILF ELOOV 2YHUVLJKW VXIIHUHG IURP D VLPLODU SUREOHP 7KH LPPHGLDWH LQFHQWLYHV LQ &RQJUHVV DUH IRU SURFHVVLQJ ELOOVUDLVLQJ RQHnV EDWWLQJ DYHUDJH WR SDUDSKUDVH 5RVHQWKDO 6&& E f $OWKRXJK RYHUVLJKW DQG IRUHVLJKW PD\ EH YLHZHG DV VHSDUDWH RSHUDWLRQV JLYHQ WKH SROLWLFDO VXSSRUW IRU RYHUVLJKW LW PDGH VHQVH WR DWWDFK IRUHVLJKW WR LW &XOYHU DQG 'DYLG 0DUWLQ ZHUH WKH OHDGLQJ DGYRFDWHV RI JUHDWHU RYHUVLJKW 'DYLGVRQ t 2OHV]HN f DQG &XOYHU SHUVXDGHG 0DUWLQ WKDW IRUHVLJKW VKRXOG EH SDUW RI WKH VHSDUDWH RYHUVLJKW VXEFRPPLWWHHnV UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV )8785(6 5(6($5&+ $1' )25(&$67,1* 7KH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ FRXOG EH KHDUG LQ DPRUSKRXV IRUP LQ -RKQ &XOYHUnV FRPPHQWV DQG TXHVWLRQV WKURXJKRXW WKH KHDULQJV DQG SDQHO GLVFXVVLRQV 7KH

PAGE 101

FRPPLWWHHV &XOYHU WKRXJKW VKRXOG EH DQWLFLSDWLQJ LPSDFW DQG DOWHUQDWLYH SROLF\ FKRLFHV DQG GRLQJ DQWLFLSDWRU\ SODQQLQJ &XOYHUnV FRQFHUQV WRRN VSHFLILF IRUP XQGHU WKH KDQG RI 6SHQFHU %HUHVIRUG ZLWK WKH DLG RI &KDUOHV 6KHOGRQ DQG :DOWHU +DKQ 7KH ODQJXDJH RI WKH 6WHLJHU6DUEDQHV GUDIW DQG +RXVH 5HVROXWLRQ DGGHG WR FRPPLWWHH GXWLHV D UHYLHZ RI WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ DGPLQLVn WUDWLRQ H[HFXWLRQ DQG HIIHFWLYHQHVV RI WKH ODZV ZLWKLQ WKH FRPn PLWWHHnV MXULVGLFWLRQ DQG DQ REOLJDWLRQ WR UHYLHZ DQG VWXG\ DQ\ FRQGLWLRQV RU FLUFXPVWDQFHV ZKLFK PD\ LQGLFDWH WKH QHFHVVLW\ RU GHVLUDELOLW\ RI HQDFWLQJ QHZ RU DGGLWLRQDO OHJLVODWLRQ ZLWKLQ WKH MXULVGLFWLRQ RI WKDW FRPPLWWHH 6&& H f 7KXV FRPPLWWHHV RU VXEFRPPLWWHHV ZRXOG JDLQ WKH UHVSRQVLELOLW\ WR VHDUFK IRU HPHUJLQJ LVVXHV 7KH VHFRQG SDUW RI WKDW OHQJWK\ VHQn WHQFH VHH $SSHQGL[ f UHTXLUHG WKDW HDFK FRPPLWWHH VKDOO RQ D FRQWLQXLQJ EDVLV XQGHUWDNH IXWXUHV UHVHDUFK DQG IRUHFDVWLQJ RQ PDWWHUV ZLWKLQ WKH MXULVGLFWLRQ RI WKDW FRPPLWWHH 6&& H f )XWXUHV UHVHDUFK DQG IRUHFDVWLQJ ZHUH FKRVHQ DV WKH WHUPV RI DUW PHDQLQJIXO WR H[SHUWV LQ WKDW ILHOG DQG WKXV JLYLQJ D PRUH H[SOLFLW VWDWHPHQW RI ZKDW ZDV H[SHFWHG RI FRPPLWWHHV 'XULQJ WKH )HEUXDU\ DQG 0DUFK PDUNXS VHVVLRQV WKHUH ZDV H[n WHQVLYH GLVFXVVLRQ RQ KRZ RYHUVLJKW ZRXOG EH FRQGXFWHG IXQGHG DQG VWUXFWXUHG LQWR WKH FRPPLWWHH V\VWHP 7KH IRUHVLJKW VHFWLRQ ZDV VHOGRP PHQWLRQHG $V RQH PHPEHU VDLG 7KH\ KDG RYHUNLOO RQ RYHUVLJKW DQG QHJOHFWHG IRUHVLJKW 2Q 7KXUVGD\ )HEUXDU\ WKH FRPPLWWHH YRWHG WR KDYH FRPPLWWHHV HVWDEOLVK RYHUVLJKW VXEFRPn PLWWHHV $IWHU WKH YRWH KDG EHHQ WDNHQ &XOYHU VWDWHG

PAGE 102

$W WKDW SRLQW LQ WKH UHFRUG FRXOG LW DOVR EH FOHDU WKDW ZH DUH RI FRXUVH LQFRUSRUDWn LQJ WKH IXWXUH >VLF@ UHVHDUFK DQG IRUHFDVWn LQJ UHVSRQVLELOLW\ DV SDUW RI WKDW" JDWKHU WKDW LV LQFOXGHG LQ WKH ODQJXDJH &KDLUPDQ %ROOLQJ ,W LV KHUH 6&& E f ,Q WKH UHSRUW DFFRPSDQ\LQJ +RXVH 5HVROXWLRQ %HUHVIRUG SUHSDUHG D GHVFULSWLRQ RI WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ WR FODULI\ LWV PHDQLQJ +H FDOOHG LW D IRUHVLJKW UHVSRQVLELOLW\ DQG VWDWHG WKDW LW VKRXOG DLG WKH +RXVH LQ EHFRPLQJ PRUH UHVSRQVLEOH WR QDWLRQDO QHHGV DQWLFLSDWLQJ SUREOHPV EHIRUH WKH\ EHFRPH FULVHV 7KH SURSRVHG nIRUHVLJKWn IXQFWLRQ VKRXOG SURYLGH D EHWWHU EDVLV IRU VXEVWDQWLYH OHJLVODWLRQ DV ZHOO DV RYHUVLJKW ,W VKRXOG DOVR DVVLVW LQ VHWWLQJ QDWLRQDO SULRULWLHV DQG PDNLQJ EXGJHW DOORFDn WLRQV 6&& H f 7KH UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ RI WKH VHOHFW FRPPLWWHH DOVR LQFOXGHV D IRUHVLJKW UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU HDFK VWDQGLQJ FRPPLWWHH ZKLFK ZLOO SUREDEO\ EH DVVLJQHG WR WKH RYHUVLJKW VXEn FRPPLWWHHV 7KDW LV WKHVH OHJLVODWLYH XQLWV ZRXOG KDYH WKH DGGLWLRQDO UHVSRQVLn ELOLW\ RI LGHQWLI\LQJ DQG DVVHVVLQJ FRQGLn WLRQV DQG WUHQGV WKDW PLJKW UHTXLUH IXWXUH OHJLVODWLYH DFWLRQ 0RUH VSHFLILFDOO\ WKLV ZRXOG SURYLGH D ORFXV IRU WKH V\VWHPDWLF ORQJUDQJH DQG LQWHJUDWHG VWXG\ RI RXU SULQn FLSDO IXWXUH QDWLRQDO SUREOHPV 6XFK VWXGLHV ZRXOG LQFOXGH IRUHFDVWLQJ VR WKDW WR VRPH GHJUHH UHOHYDQW FLUFXPVWDQFHV FRXOG EH IRUHVHHQ DQG WKH UHOHYDQW GHFLVLRQV DQWLFLn SDWHG 7KH\ ZRXOG DOVR PDNH SUREDELOLVWLF HVWLPDWHV WKDW FHUWDLQ HYHQWV ZRXOG RFFXU E\ FHUWDLQ WLPHV RU ZLWKLQ VSHFLILF WLPH SHULRGV ,Q DGGLWLRQ E\ PHDQV RI IXWXUHV UHVHDUFK IXWXUH RSWLRQV DQG WLPHV FRXOG EH LGHQWLILHG DQG WKH FRVWV EHQHILWV DQG HIIHFWV RI WKH YDULRXV RSWLRQV LQFOXGLQJ SUHVHQW SURJUDPV FRXOG EH DVVHVVHG DQG FRPSDUHG 6&& H f

PAGE 103

7KXV WKH WHUP IRUHVLJKW DSSHDUHG LQ WKH UHSRUW EXW QRW LQ WKH ODQJXDJH RI WKH UHVROXWLRQ :KLOH D PHFKDQLVP ZDV HVWDEOLVKHG WR FRRUGLQDWH FRPPLWWHH RYHUVLJKW QR VXFK GHYLFH ZDV FUHDWHG IRU IRUHVLJKW DFWLYLWLHV (DFK FRPPLWWHH LV UHTXLUHG WR VXEPLW DQ RYHUVLJKW UHSRUW RQ LWV SODQV IRU WKDW &RQJUHVV E\ $SULO 1R FRXQWHUSDUW IRUHVLJKW UHSRUW ZDV HVWDEOLVKHG 7KH IRUHVLJKW ODQJXDJH ZDV PDGH WKH VHFRQG KDOI RI WKH RYHUVLJKW SDUDJUDSK 5XOH ; 6HF Ef 7KLV VHFWLRQ UHTXLUHV DOO VWDQGLQJ FRPPLWWHHV RWKHU WKDQ WKH &RPPLWWHH RQ $SSURSULDWLRQVf WR GR RYHUVLJKW DQG IRUHVLJKW $SSURSULDWLRQV ZDV H[FOXGHG EHFDXVH WKDW &RPPLWWHHnV VXEFRPPLWWHHV DOUHDG\ IXQFWLRQ WR UHYLHZ DQG H[DPLQH DJHQF\ UHn TXHVWV IRU IXQGV 6&& H f RQH RI WKH PRVW HIIHFWLYH IRUPV RI RYHUVLJKW &200,77(( -85,6',&7,216 %HFDXVH RI WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKH FRPPLWWHHnV GHFLVLRQ RQ WKH MXULVGLFWLRQDO TXHVWLRQ IRU WKH ODWHU WUHDWPHQW RI LWV UHSRUW DQG LWV DSSURDFK WR IRUFLQJ WKH FRQVFLRXV LQWHUUHODWLRQVKLS RI GHFLVLRQ WKH MXULVGLFWLRQDO GHFLVLRQ LV KHUH EULHIO\ VWDWHG $FFRUGLQJ WR D VWDIIHU WKH FRPPLWWHH UHDVRQHG WKDW HYHU\ WRSLF LV LQWHUUHODWHG DQG WKHVH UHODWLRQVKLSVQRW WR PHQWLRQ SULRUL WLHVDUH FRQVWDQWO\ FKDQJLQJ 7KXV ZH FDQnW UDWLRQDOL]H D GLVWULEXWLRQ RI ZRUNn ORDG WKDW ZLOO EH YDOLG IRU DOO WLPH 7KXV ZH ZLOO Df IRFXV RQ D PDQDJHDEOH QXPEHU RI FXUUHQWO\ KRW LVVXHV DQG WU\ WR UDWLRQDOL]H WKH VWUXFWXUH DURXQG WKHP OHWWLQJ RWKHU WKLQJV IDOO LQWR SODFH DV

PAGE 104

EHVW ZH FDQ DQG Ef ZH ZLOO EXLOG LQ VRPH EDVLF IOH[LELOLW\ VR WKDW IXWXUH &RQJUHVVHV PDLQO\ WKH 6SHDNHUV DQG WKHLU DGYLVHUVf ZRQnW KDYH WR JR WKURXJK WKLV NLQG RI WUDXPD LQ VKLIWLQJ WKH VWUXFWXUH WR PHHW QHZ FRQJHULHV RI SUREOHPV 7KH PDMRU SUREOHP DUHDV ZKLFK WKLV UHRUJDQL]DWLRQ WULHG WR FRQn IURQW ZHUH HQHUJ\ WKH HQYLURQPHQW WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ KHDOWK DQG LQWHUQDWLRQDO HFRQRPLF DIIDLUV )RFXVLQJ RQ WKHVH SUHVVLQJ SUREn OHPV OHG WKH FRPPLWWHH WR VXJJHVW WKH IROORZLQJ FKDQJHV LQ MXULV GLFWLRQV (QHUJ\ DQG HQYLURQPHQWDO FRQFHUQV ZRXOG EH FRQVROLGDWHG LQ D FRPPLWWHH EXLOW IURP WKH H[LVWLQJ ,QWHULRU &RPPLWWHH ZLWK UHVHDUFK DQG GHYHORSPHQW EURXJKW WRJHWKHU LQ WKH 6FLHQFH DQG 7HFKQRORJ\ &RPPLWWHH 7UDQVSRUWDn WLRQ ZRXOG EH WKH YRUWH[ RI DQ H[SDQGHG 3XEOLF :RUNV &RPPLWWHH ZLWK NH\ VHJPHQWV WUDQVIHUUHG IURP &RPPHUFH VXUIDFH WUDQVn SRUWDWLRQ DQG DYLDWLRQf DQG %DQNLQJ DQG &XUn UHQF\ PDVV WUDQVLWf 7KH &RPPHUFH &RPPLWn WHH ZRXOG JDLQ D VWURQJHU JUDVS RQ KHDOWK SUREOHPV ZLWK QHZ UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV LQFOXGLQJ WKH QRQWD[ DVSHFWV RI PHGLFDUH IURP :D\V DQG 0HDQVf ,QWHUQDWLRQDO HFRQRPLF DIIDLUV ZRXOG EH SULPDULO\ WKH SURYLQFH RI WKH )RUHLJQ $IIDLUV &RPPLWWHH ZKLFK ZRXOG JDLQ MXULVGLFWLRQ IURP %DQNLQJ H[SRUW FRQWUROV DQG WUDGHf DQG :D\V DQG 0HDQV WDULIIVf ,Q PRVW DUHDV WKH 6HOHFW &RPPLWWHH FRQWHQWHG LWVHOI ZLWK FRUUHFWLQJ WKH PRVW JODULQJ DQDFKURQLVPV ZKLFK KDG FUHSW LQWR MXULVGLFn WLRQDO DOLJQPHQWV 'DYLGVRQ t 2OHV]HN f 7KH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH UHFRPPHQGHG ILIWHHQ FRPPLWWHHV ZKRVH MXULV GLFWLRQV ZHUH UHODWLYHO\ EURDG DQG HTXDO WR WKRVH RI RWKHU

PAGE 105

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n VLJQHG WR IRVWHU JUHDWHU FRQVLVWHQF\ LQ SXEOLF SROLF\ E\ IRUFLQJ WUDGHRIIV DPRQJ FRQWHQGLQJ LQWHUHVWV WR EH PDGH GLUHFWO\ DV D UHVXOW RI FRPPLWWHH GHOLEHUDWLRQ DQG EDUJDLQLQJ 'DYLGVRQ t 2OHV]HN f 7KH UHPDLQGHU RI WKH +RXVH ZDV QRW DV FRQFHUQHG DERXW WKLV QRWLRQ RI SROLF\ FRKHUHQFH ,17(5(67 $**5(*$7,21 7KH QDWXUH RI LQWHUHVW DJJUHJDWLRQ RQ FRQJUHVVLRQDO UHIRUP LVVXHV LV GLVWLQFWLYH IURP RWKHU W\SHV RI FRQIOLFW RI ZKLFK PRUH ZLOO EH VDLG ODWHU 6XIILFH LW KHUH WR VD\ WKDW WKH SULPDU\

PAGE 106

FRQVWLWXHQFLHV IRU WKHVH ELOOV ZHUH QRW SXEOLF DQG SULYDWH LQn WHUHVW JURXSV RXWVLGH &RQJUHVV DOWKRXJK WKHVH JURXSV ZHUH LQn YROYHG EXW UDWKHU FRPPLWWHHV PHPEHUV DQG JURXSV ZLWKLQ &RQJUHVV 2Q WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ OLWWOH LQWHUHVW DJJUHJDWLRQ ZDV QHFHVVDU\ -RKQ &XOYHU KDG 'DYLG 0DUWLQ DJUHH WR LQFOXGH WKH IRUHVLJKW ODQJXDJH LQ WKH RYHUVLJKW VHFWLRQ 0DUWLQ ZDV WKH OHDGn LQJ DGYRFDWH RI D VHSDUDWH RYHUVLJKW FRPPLWWHH DQG &XOYHUnV VXSSRUW IRU WKH VHSDUDWH VXEFRPPLWWHH LQ H[FKDQJH IRU 0DUWLQnV LQFOXVLRQ RI WKH IRUHVLJKW ODQJXDJH DJJUHJDWHG WKH PRVW LPSRUWDQW LQWHUHVWV DW WKLV SRLQW &XOYHUnV DQG 0DUWLQnV 2WKHU %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH PHPEHUV HLWKHU VXSSRUWHG &XOYHU RU ZHUH LQGLIIHUHQW 2QH PHPEHU H[SUHVVHG KLV VXSSRUW DQG H[SODLQHG KLV ODFN RI GLUHFW LQYROYHPHQW E\ VD\LQJ 7KH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ FDPH DERXW EHFDXVH &XOYHA ZDQWHG LW LQWHQVHO\ 0DUWLQ ZDQWHG WKH RYHUVLJKW VXEFRPPLWWHHV DQG GLGQnW PLQG SXWWLQJ LW >IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ@ ZLWK KLV SURSRVDO >IRU DQ RYHUVLJKW VXEFRPPLWWHH@ IRU WKH VXSSRUW ZDV IRU LW EXW NQHZ WKDW LW GLG QRW QHHG DQ\ PRUH ZRUN 2WKHU FRPn PLWWHH PHPEHUV GLG QRW UHDOO\ RSSRVH LW EHFDXVH RI &XOYHUnV LQWHQVLW\ EULOOLDQFH HORTXHQFH DQG EXOOKHDGHG VWXEERUQQHVV 7KH RWKHU LQWHUHVW WKDW HIIHFWLYHO\ DJJUHJDWHG LWVHOI ZDV WKH &RQJUHVVLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFH RU PRUH VSHFLILFDOO\ WKH VFLHQFH SROLF\ GLYLVLRQ 7R WKH H[WHQW WKDW WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLn VLRQ GHDOW ZLWK WKHLU DUHD RI WHFKQLFDO H[SHUWLVH WKH\ ZHUH YHU\ FRQFHUQHG WKDW VRPHWKLQJ EH LQFOXGHG $V ZH KDYH QRWHG WKH

PAGE 107

ODQJXDJH XOWLPDWHO\ XVHG ZDV IRUPXODWHG E\ %HUHVIRUG LQ FRQMXQFn WLRQ ZLWK 6KHOGRQ DQG +DKQ DQG LW LV YHU\ VLPLODU WR ODQJXDJH LQ +DKQnV WHVWLPRQ\ $V DQRWKHU VWDII PHPEHU SXW LW WKHUH ZDV DQ XQGHUFXUUHQW RI SXVKLQJ IRU IRUHVLJKW E\ WKH ELJ VFLHQFH W\SHV %HUHVIRUG DQG 6KHOGRQ 6KHOGRQ UHFRJQL]HG WKH SRWHQWLDO EHQHILW LW ZRXOG KDYH IRU WKH VFLHQFH SDUW RI &56 &XOYHU DQG WKH RWKHU PHPEHUV ZHUHQnW DZDUH RU GLG QRW FDUH DERXW WKLV 02%,/,=$7,21 7KH HQWLUH %ROOLQJ SDFNDJH PRELOL]HG PXFK RSSRVLWLRQ DQG VRPH VXSSRUW 7KH SDWWHUQV RI PRELOL]DWLRQ DUH LQWHUHVWLQJ EHFDXVH RI ZKDW WKH\ VKRZ DERXW FRQJUHVVLRQDO UHIRUP LVVXHV 2SSRQHQWV ZHUH f PHPEHUV RI &RQJUHVV ZKR ZRXOG ORVH SRZHU RU ZKR IHDUHG WKH SRVVLELOLW\ RI ORVLQJ LW LI WKH MXULVGLFWLRQDO FKDQJHV ZHUH PDGH f VWDII PHPEHUV ZKR IHDUHG MRE ORVVHV DQG f LQWHUHVW JURXSV ZKR IHDUHG ORVV RI HVWDEOLVKHG DQG NQRZQ OLQHV RI FRQWDFW 'DYLGn VRQ QRWHG WKH HVVHQWLDO GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ PRELOL]DWLRQ RQ WKLV ELOO DQG RQ RWKHU W\SHV RI LVVXHV ,QGLYLGXDO OHJLVODWRUV DQG VWDII DLGHV ORVW OLWWOH WLPH LQ FRPPXQLFDWLQJ WKHLU FRQFHUQV WR WKRVH RUJDQL]DWLRQV DQG JURXSV RXWVLGH &RQJUHVV ZLWK ZKLFK WKH\ GHDO +HUH LW ZDV D FDVH RI OREE\LVWV EHLQJ OREELHG E\ &DSLWRO +LOO SHUVRQQHO 'DYLGVRQ HPSKDVLV DGGHGf

PAGE 108

7KLV RSSRVLWLRQ ZDV PDQLIHVWHG LQ WKH 'HPRFUDWLF FDXFXV D PDMRULW\ RI ZKRVH PHPEHUV LQ WKH UG &RQJUHVV ZHUH FRPPLWWHH DQG VXEFRPPLWWHH FKDLUPHQ 'DYLGVRQ f 2Q 0D\ WK WKH FDXFXV GHFLGHG E\ D QDUURZ PDUJLQ WR UHIHU WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH ELOO WR LWV &RPPLWWHH RQ 2UJDQL]DWLRQ 6WXG\ DQG 5HYLHZ JHQHUDOO\ FDOOHG WKH +DQVHQ FRPPLWWHH DIWHU LWV FKDLUPDQ -XOLD %XWOHU +DQVHQ :DVKf 0HPEHUV RI WKH +DQVHQ FRPPLWWHH LQFOXGHG 3KLOLS %XUWRQ &DOLIf D PHPEHU RI WKH &RPPLWWHHV RQ (GXFDn WLRQ DQG /DERU DQG RQ ,QWHULRU DQG ,QVXODU $IIDLUV -DPHV 2n+DUD 0LFKf D IULHQG RI ODERU DQG FKDLUPDQ RI WKH (GXFDn WLRQ 6XEFRPPLWWHH DQG )UDQN 7KRPSVRQ 1-f FKDLUPDQ RI WKH /DERU 6XEFRPPLWWHH $ PDMRU SRLQW RI RSSRVLWLRQ WR + 5HV ZDV WKH VHSDUDWLRQ RI WKH (GXFDWLRQ DQG /DERU &RPPLWWHH LQWR WZR GLIIHUHQW FRPPLWWHHV $QRWKHU ZDV WKH HOLPLQDWLRQ RI WKH 0HUFKDQW 0DULQH DQG )LVKHULHV &RPPLWWHH 7KXV WKH +DQVHQ FRPn PLWWHH ZDV OLNHO\ IURP WKH EHJLQQLQJ WR ORRN FULWLFDOO\ DW WKH MXULVGLFWLRQDO FKDQJHV LQ WKH %ROOLQJ UHSRUW 02',),&$7,21 7KH PDMRU PRGLILFDWLRQ WR + 5HV ZDV WKH DPHQGPHQW RIIHUHG DV D VXEVWLWXWH DQG SURGXFHG E\ WKH +DQVHQ FRPPLWWHH + 5HV + 5HV DQG WKH DFFRPSDQ\LQJ UHSRUW KDG EHHQ SURGXFHG E\ D WHQSHUVRQ FRPPLWWHH ZLWK D VL[WHHQSHUVRQ VWDII DQ H[SHQGLWXUH RI PRUH WKDQ PLOOLRQ DQG PRUH WKDQ D \HDU RI ZRUN 7KH +DQVHQ UHSRUW ZDV EDVHG RQ WKH ZRUN RI DQ HOHYHQSHUVRQ

PAGE 109

FRPPLWWHH ZLWK WZR SDUWWLPH VWDII PHPEHUV -RH &DUWHU RI 5HSUHn VHQWDWLYH +DQVHQnV RIILFH DQG %LOO &DEOH RI WKH VWDII RI WKH (GXFDWLRQ DQG /DERU &RPPLWWHH 6LQFH WKH\ FRXOG QRW GXSOLFDWH WKH HIIRUW RI WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH WKH +DQVHQ FRPPLWWHH DQG WKHVH VWDIIHUV FRQFHQWUDWHG RQ WKH VHFWLRQV WR ZKLFK WKHUH ZDV VRPH REMHFWLRQ $V D UHVXOW PRVW RI WKHLU DWWHQWLRQ ZDV JLYHQ WR MXULVGLFWLRQDO GLVSXWHV ,Q WKH SURFHGXUDO DUHD VRPH FKDQJHV ZHUH PDGH HQRXJK LQ IDFW WR HDUQ 5HSUHVHQWDWLYH %ROOLQJnV IDYRUDEOH FRPPHQWV &5 (f
PAGE 110

WLPH RI WKH IRUPXODWLRQ RI + 5HV EXW KDG EHHQ E\ WKH WLPH LW ZDV FRQVLGHUHG RQ WKH IORRU 2Q WKH IORRU 5HSUHVHQWDWLYH 1HDO 6PLWK ,RZDf RIIHUHG VHYHUDO WHFKQLFDO DPHQGPHQWV GHDOn LQJ ZLWK WKH %XGJHW &RPPLWWHH 7KHVH DPHQGPHQWV KDQGOHG WKH RYHUn VLJKW TXHVWLRQ LQ WKH VDPH IDVKLRQ DV WKH $SSURSULDWLRQV &RPPLWWHH &5 +,f 7KXV WKH +RXVH RYHUVLJKWIRUHVLJKW UXOH DSSOLHV WR HDFK VWDQGLQJ FRPPLWWHH RWKHU WKDQ WKH &RPPLWWHH RQ $SSURSULDWLRQV DQG WKH &RPPLWWHH RQ WKH %XGJHWf 0RGLILFDWLRQ RI WKH MXULVGLFWLRQDO SURYLVLRQV ZDV PRUH VHYHUH (GXFDWLRQ DQG /DERU ZDV NHSW LQWDFW 3RVW 2IILFH DQG &LYLO 6HUYLFH ZDV UHWDLQHG DQG 0HUFKDQW 0DULQH DQG )LVKHULHV VWUHQJWKHQHG UDWKHU WKDQ HPDVFXODWHGD SDFNDJH GHVLJQHG WR DSSHDVH NH\ ODERU XQLRQV :D\V DQG 0HDQV ORVW YHU\ OLWWOH RI LWV YDVW DXWKRULW\ &RPPLWWHHV ZKLFK WKH %ROOLQJ SODQ VRXJKW WR VWUHQJWKHQPDLQO\ )RUHLJQ $In IDLUV 3XEOLF :RUNV 6FLHQFH DQG $VWURn QDXWLFV DQG *RYHUQPHQW 2SHUDWLRQVJDLQHG FHUWDLQ QHZ GXWLHV EXW IHZHU WKDQ XQGHU WKH HDUOLHU VFKHPH 'DYLGVRQ t 2OHV]HN f 0(0%(56 *2$/6 $1' 32/,&< $77,78'(6 :KDW ZDV WKH UHOHYDQFH WR WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ RI WKH JRDOV DQG SROLF\ DWWLWXGHV RI WKH PHPEHUV RI WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH" ,Qn WHUYLHZV ZLWK PHPEHUV VKRZHG WKDW TXHVWLRQV DERXW JRDOV ZHUH PHDQLQJIXO RQO\ ZKHQ WKH PHPEHU KDG H[FHHGHG D FHUWDLQ WKUHVKROG OHYHO RI DFWLYLW\ 7KXV PHPEHUV EHORZ WKLV WKUHVKROG FRXOG QRW

PAGE 111

DQVZHU TXHVWLRQV RQ KRZ WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ UHODWHG WR WKHLU JRDOV +RZHYHU WKHVH PHPEHUV FRXOG H[SUHVV VRPH RI WKH SROLF\ DWWLWXGHV ZKLFK LW ZDV VXJJHVWHG LQ &KDSWHU PD\ XQGHUOLH WKH JRRG SROLF\ JRDO UHODWLYH WR VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW 7KHUHn IRUH LQ WKLV VHFWLRQ WKH JRDOV RI 5HSUHVHQWDWLYH &XOYHU WKH RQO\ PHPEHU ZKR FURVVHG WKH DFWLYLW\ WKUHVKROG DUH H[DPLQHG DV ZHOO DV VRPH DWWLWXGHV H[SUHVVHG E\ RWKHU PHPEHUV RI WKH FRPPLWWHH 7+( *2$/6 2) -2+1 & &8/9(5 7KHUH ZDV XQDQLPRXV DJUHHPHQW DPRQJ PHPEHUV RI WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH LQWHUYLHZHG WKDW -RKQ &XOYHU ZDV WKH SHUVRQ UHVSRQVLEOH IRU WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ :KDW ZHUH &XOYHUnV JRDOV LQ UHODWLRQ WR KLV DGYRFDF\ RI WKH SURYLVLRQ" 7KH SXUVXLW RI JRRG SROLF\ RU PRUH DSSURSULDWHO\ WKH SXUVXLW RI EHWWHU SROLF\PDNLQJ VWUXFWXUHV DQG SURFHGXUHV ZDV FOHDUO\ &XOYHUnV PDMRU JRDO LQ HVWDEOLVKLQJ WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ &XOYHUnV DWWLWXGHV LQFOXGHG D GLVVDWLVn IDFWLRQ ZLWK DQWLTXDWHG FRQJUHVVLRQDO PHWKRGV RI VHDUFKLQJ IRU SUREOHPV FRQILGHQFH WKDW JLYHQ EHWWHU PHWKRGV RI UDLVLQJ LVVXHV WKH JRYHUQPHQW FRXOG DQWLFLSDWH SUREOHPV PRUH HIIHFWLYHO\ DQG WKH EHOLHI WKDW WKH JRYHUQPHQW VKRXOG EH UHDG\ WR H[HUW SRVLWLYH LQIOXHQFH RU GLUHFWLRQ ZKHUH LW LV XVHIXO WR DFKLHYH QDWLRQDO JRDOV RU REMHFWLYHV ,W VKRXOG EH UHFDOOHG WKDW PXFK RI &XOYHUnV WLPH LQ ZDV VSHQW SXUVXLQJ D FDUHHU EH\RQG WKH +RXVH QDPHO\ WKH ,RZD 6HQDWH VHDW RI UHWLULQJ +DUROG +XJKHV 7KXV &XOYHUnV ZRUN RQ WKH %ROOLQJ

PAGE 112

&RPPLWWHH RFFXUUHG LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI RWKHU DFWLYLWLHV DQG RWKHU JRDOV ,Q ZKHQ &XOYHU FRQVLGHUHG UXQQLQJ IRU WKH 6HQDWH KLV VSHHFKHV PHQWLRQHG FRQJUHVVLRQDO FRPPLWWHH UHIRUP DV ZHOO DV VWDWHOHYHO FLWL]HQRULHQWHG 63$ DFWLYLWLHV ,Q D VSHHFK HQWLWOHG $V :H 0RYH LQWR WKH )XWXUH :KLFK :D\ 'R :H *R" Df &XOYHU SURSRVHG WKDW D FRQIHUHQFH EH VSRQVRUHG E\ WKH *RYHUQRU RI ,RZD RQ WKH IXWXUH RI WKH VWDWH /DWHU LQ &XOYHU GHFLGHG DJDLQVW WKH 6HQDWH UDFH \HW WKH VWDWH FRQIHUHQFH LGHD GLG QRW PRYH WKDW \HDU EHFDXVH RI LWV FRQQHFWLRQ ZLWK KLV LQFLSLHQW FDQGLGDF\ +RZn HYHU &XOYHU NHSW XS WKH SUHVVXUH WKLV WLPH WR QR DSSDUHQW HOHFn WRUDO DGYDQWDJH DQG LQ 5HSXEOLFDQ *RYHUQRU 5REHUW 5D\ GLG VSRQVRU DQ ,RZD SURMHFW 5D\ f ,Q &XOYHU UDQ IRU WKH 6HQDWH DQG ZRQ ,Q WKLV UDFH &XOYHU GLG QRW XVH WKH QHHG IRU EHWWHU PHFKDQLVPV IRU FRQIURQWLQJ WKH IXWXUH DV D FDPSDLJQ LVVXH DOWKRXJK KLV RSSRQHQW GLG DQ HFKR HIIHFW DFFRUGLQJ WR D &XOYHU VWDII PHPEHU 7KXV LW DSSHDUV WKDW &XOYHU ZRXOG XVH 63$ FRQFHUQV WR KLV HOHFWRUDO DGYDQWDJH ZKHQ SRVVLEOH EXW LQIUHTXHQWO\ DQG WKLV JRDO ZDV QRW VLJQLILFDQW LQ GHWHUPLQLQJ ZKHWKHU RU QRW &XOYHU SXUVXHG 63$ LVVXHV 27+(5 0(0%(56n $77,78'(6 7KH SROLF\ DWWLWXGHV RI WKH RWKHU FRPPLWWHH PHPEHUV ZHUH JHQHUDOO\ IDYRUDEOH WRZDUG VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW 9LUWXDOO\ DOO H[SUHVVHG GLVVDWLVIDFWLRQ ZLWK WKH ZD\V LQ ZKLFK &RQJUHVV QRUPDOO\ VHDUFKHV IRU SUREOHPV &RQJUHVV GRHVQnW VHDUFK PXFK

PAGE 113

XQWLO SUREOHPV EHFRPH DFXWH RQH PHPEHU VWDWHG %HFDXVH RI WKLV IDLOXUH DQRWKHU PHPEHU SDUDSKUDVLQJ (PHUVRQ QRWHG WKDW HYHQWV DUH LQ WKH VDGGOH DQG ULGLQJ PDQNLQG $PRQJ WKH GLVVDWLVILHG PRVW PHQWLRQHG WKDW VRPH FRPPLWWHHV ZHUH EHWWHU WKDQ RWKHUV LQ VHDUFKLQJ RXW HPHUJLQJ LVVXHV 7KH RQH PHPEHU ZKR ZDV QRW XQKDSS\ ZLWK FRQJUHVVLRQDO VHDUFK IRU SUREOHPV EHOLHYHG WKDW ZKLOH &RQn JUHVV FRXOG GR PRUH FRQJUHVVLRQDO DFWLYLW\ ILW LQ ZLWK LWV UROH DV D UHSUHVHQWDWLYH OHJLVODWXUH 7KH DELOLW\ RI WKH JRYHUQPHQW WR DQWLFLSDWH DQG GHDO ZLWK SUREOHPV EHIRUH WKH FULVLV VWDJH ZDV TXHVWLRQHG E\ PDQ\ PHPEHUV 7KHLU FRPPHQWV UDLVHG VRPH IXQGDPHQWDO SUREOHPV IRU WKH DQWLFLn SDWRU\ UROH RI OHJLVODWXUHV 0RUH LQIRUPDWLRQ RI D W\SH WKDW VSHFLILHV HPHUJLQJ SUREOHPV PD\ EH HQRXJK IRU D ILUVW VWHS EXW LW GHSHQGV RQ ZKDW WKH PHPEHUV DQG FRPPLWWHHV ZDQW RQH PHPEHU SRLQWHG RXW $QRWKHU VWDWHG WKDW FKDQJH LQ WKH VHQVH RI XVLQJ IXWXUHRULHQWHG LQIRUPDWLRQ WR SUHYHQW FULVLV ZLOO RQO\ FRPH ZKHQ SUHVHQW LQVWLWXWLRQV DUH FKDQJHG &ULVHV DUH RIWHQ QHFHVVDU\ WR JHW VRPHWKLQJ GRQH $ WKLUG PHPEHU VXJJHVWHG WKDW &RQJUHVV LV LOO HTXLSSHG WR DQWLFLSDWH SUREOHPV EHFDXVH RI WKH ODFN RI SROLn WLFDO DQG SHUVRQDO GLVFLSOLQH RQ WKH SDUW RI WKH SHRSOH DQG WKHLU UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV $QRWKHU MXVWLILHG FRQJUHVVLRQDO LQDELOLW\ WR DQWLFLSDWH E\ SRLQWLQJ RXW WKDW SDUW RI RXU UHSUHVHQWDWLYH V\Vn WHP LV WKDW WKH UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV KDYH D OLPLWHG YLHZ 7KXV &XOn YHUnV RSWLPLVP IRU WKH DQWLFLSDWRU\ FDSDFLW\ RI &RQJUHVV ZDV QRW ZLGHVSUHDG DPRQJ KLV FROOHDJXHV RQ WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH

PAGE 114

0HPEHUVn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n WLYH SUHGLFWLRQV $ JHQHUDOO\ FRQVHUYDWLYH PHPEHU OLQNHG DWWHPSWV DW SUHGLFWLRQ WR SODQQLQJ DQG VWDWHG WKDW DQ\ SUHGLFWLRQ LV DQ XQFHUWDLQ EXVLQHVV EXW WKLV LV QR UHDVRQ QRW WR DWWHPSW WR SUHn GLFW 3ODQQLQJ LV SDUW RI UDWLRQDO EHKDYLRU $QRWKHU UDLVHG WKH SUREOHP WKDW DW WLPHV WKH JRYHUQPHQW FDQQRW PDNH DFFXUDWH SUHGLFn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

PAGE 115

DSSURDFK UDWKHU SODQQLQJ VKRXOG EH VHHQ DV D FRQWLQXDO DGMXVWn PHQW RI JRDOV LQ UHODWLRQ WR DVVHVVPHQWV RI FXUUHQW DQG IXWXUH FRQGLWLRQV $ IRXUWK ZHQW RQ WR VSHFLI\ WKDW LI WKH IXWXUH LV WR EH FRQWUROOHG RU GLUHFWHG WKHUH PXVW EH SROLWLFDO OHDGHUVKLS >DQG@ WKH SHRSOHnV IDLWK PXVW EH UHVWRUHG LQ WKH SURFHVV 7KH 5HSXEOLFDQV ZHUH OHVV DFFHSWLQJ GRQn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nV DFWLYLW\ UHJDUGLQJ WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ" 7KH LQWHUYLHZV VXJn JHVWHG WKDW RWKHU PHPEHUV ZHUH JHQHUDOO\ OHVV RSWLPLVWLF WKDQ &XOYHU DERXW WKH JRYHUQPHQWnV DQWLFLSDWRU\ FDSDFLW\ SDUWLFXODUO\ WKDW RI &RQJUHVV $PRQJ PHPEHUV OHDVW LQWHUHVWHG LQ WKH IRUHn VLJKW SURYLVLRQ ZDV WKH OHDVW RSWLPLVP IRXQG \HW WKHVH DWWLWXGHV GLG QRW SURPSW WKHP WR RSSRVH WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ )DYRUDEOH DWWLWXGHV KRZHYHU OHG VRPH PHPEHUV WR VXSSRUW WKH FHQWUDO JRDOV LQLWLDWLYHV WKDW &XOYHU PDGH XQWLO WKH 2FWREHU YRWH DW 5HSUHVHQWDWLYH %ROOLQJnV KRPH DQG WR VXSSRUW WKH GHFHQWUDOL]HG DSSURDFK WKDW EHFDPH WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ &XOYHUnV SUHHPLQHQW

PAGE 116

UROH PDGH DFWLRQ RWKHU WKDQ WDFL W VXSSRUW IRU WKH IRUHVLJKW SURn YLVLRQ XQQHFHVVDU\ &21&/86,21 +RXVH 5HVROXWLRQ HVWDEOLVKHG WKH IRUHVLJKW UHVSRQVLELOLW\ RI +RXVH FRPPLWWHHV WKHUHE\ UHTXLULQJ D GHFHQWUDOL]HG IRUP RI VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW ZKLFK ZRXOG LQYROYH DQ LQFUHDVHG VHDUFK IRU HPHUJLQJ LVVXHV DQG PRUH IXWXUHV LQIRUPDWLRQ IRU FXUUHQW GHFLVLRQV WKURXJK IXWXUHV UHVHDUFK DQG IRUHFDVWLQJ $OWKRXJK WKH\ PD\ PDNH FRPPLWWHHV PRUH DZDUH RI WKH LQWHUUHODWLRQn VKLS EHWZHHQ WKHLU GHFLVLRQV DQG WKRVH RI RWKHU FRPPLWWHHV WKH IRUHVLJKW DFWLYLWLHV ZLOO QRW IRUFH WKH FRQVFLRXV LQWHUUHODWLRQn VKLS RI GHFLVLRQV DFURVV FRPPLWWHHV 7KH SDVVDJH RI WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ FRQIRUPHG WR RQH SDWn WHUQ RI IDFWRUV VXJJHVWHG E\ WKH K\SRWKHVHV LQ &KDSWHU 7KH EDVLF QHHG IRU D SROLF\ HQWUHSUHQHXU ZDV PHW LQ -RKQ &XOYHU ZKRVH LQWHQVLW\ EULOOLDQFH HORTXHQFH DQG EXOOKHDGHG VWXEERUQn QHVV DVVXUHG WKH SURYLVLRQnV H[LVWHQFH +LV EDVLF JRDO LQ WKH SURFHVV ZDV JRRG SROLF\ 7KH FRPPLWWHH FKDLUPDQ 5LFKDUG %ROOLQJ ZDV IDYRUDEOH WR WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ 7KH VWDII LQ WKLV FDVH 6SHQFHU %HUHV IRUG DQG &KDUOHV 6KHOGRQ KDG EDFNJURXQG DQG H[SHUWLVH LQ WKH IRUHFDVWLQJ DQG IXWXUHV UHVHDUFK DUHD 7KH PDMRU EXUHDXFUDWLF HQWLW\ LQYROYHG ZDV WKH VFLHQFH SROLF\ GLYLVLRQ RI WKH &RQJUHVn VLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFH :DOWHU +DKQ DFWLQJ DV GLUHFWRU ZKLOH

PAGE 117

6KHOGRQ ZRUNHG DV VWDII GLUHFWRU RI WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH FRQn WULEXWHG WKURXJK WHVWLPRQ\ DQG FRPPHQWV WR WKH VSHFLILF ODQJXDJH XVHG -XVW DV D PHPEHU ZDQWLQJ WR SDVV OHJLVODWLRQ LQ D JLYHQ DUHD EXW XQIDPLOLDU ZLWK VSHFLILF SURJUDPPDWLF RU VXEVWDQWLYH GHWDLOV ZLOO RIWHQ WXUQ WR WKH H[HFXWLYH DJHQF\ UHVSRQVLEOH IRU nLI U LPSOHPHQWLQJ WKH OHJLVODWLRQ &RQJUHVV WXUQHG IRU LQIRUPDWLRQ WR D EXUHDXFUDWLF DJHQF\ RI LWV RZQ WKH &RQJUHVVLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFH $FWLYH OREE\LQJ RQ WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ E\ RWKHU LQWHUHVWV ZDV ODFNLQJ -RKQ *DUGQHU RI &RPPRQ &DXVH VXSSRUWHG WKH SULQFLSOH RI WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ GXULQJ &XOYHUnV TXHVWLRQLQJ 9DULRXV H[SHUWV VXJJHVWHG VLPLODU DFWLYLWLHV \HW LQWHUHVW JURXS VXSSRUW DQG RSSRVLWLRQ ZDV GLUHFWHG DW RWKHU VHFWLRQV RI +RXVH 5HVROXWLRQ 7KH FRPPLWWHHn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n YLVLRQ UHDFKHG WKH 6WHLJHU6DUEDQHV GUDIW LW UHPDLQHG XQFKDQJHG H[FHSW IRU WKH UHTXLUHPHQW RI D VHSDUDWH RYHUVLJKW FRPPLWWHH ZKLFK ZDV ODWHU PDGH RSWLRQDO IRU UHDVRQV QRW LQYROYLQJ WKH IRUHVLJKW

PAGE 118

SURYLVLRQ 2QFH WKH SURYLVLRQ ZDV WKXV SDFNDJHG LW UHFHLYHG OLWWOH DWWHQWLRQ EHFDXVH LW ZRXOG QRW IRUFH GHFLVLRQV DFURVV FRPPLWWHH ERXQGDULHV LW ZRXOG EH XVHG E\ H[LVWLQJ FRPPLWWHHV DQG LW ZRXOG SRVH QR WKUHDW WR WKH GLVWULEXWLRQ RI SRZHU ZLWKLQ FRPPLWWHHV 7KXV WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ VSUDQJ IURP &XOYHUnV LQWHQVH DGYRFDF\ ZDV IRUPXODWHG E\ WKH VFLHQFH SROLF\ W\SHV SODFHG LQ WKH ODUJHU OHJLVODWLYH SDFNDJH DQG OHIW XQFKDQJHG :KDW PD\ EH D YHU\ VLJQLILFDQW UHIRUP IRU WKH DQWLFLSDWRU\ FDSDFLW\ RI WKH +RXVH ZDV JLYHQ D TXLHW ELUWK 127(6 7KH 'HPRFUDWV ZHUH 5LFKDUG %ROOLQJ 0Rf 5REHUW & 6WHSKHQV -U *D f -RKQ & &XOYHU ,RZDf /OR\G 0HHGV :DVKf DQG 3DXO 6 6DUEDQHV 0Gf 7KH 5HSXEOLFDQV ZHUH 'DYLG 7 0DUWLQ 1HEf 3HWHU + % )UH LQJKX\VHQ 1-f &KDUOHV ( :LJJLQV &DOLIf :LOOLDP 6WHUJK :LVf DQG & : %LOO
PAGE 119

0RUH UHFHQWO\ 7RIIOHU KDV VWDWHG WKDW WKH QHHG IRU DQWLFLSDn WRU\ GHPRFUDF\ VWHPV IURP WZR FUXFLDO SUREOHPV )LUVW ODFN RI IXWXUH FRQVFLRXVQHVV ,QVWHDG RI DQWLFLSDWLQJ WKH SUREOHPV DQG RSSRUWXQLWLHV RI WKH IXWXUH ZH OXUFK IURP FULVLV WR FULVLV 2XU SROLWLFDO V\VWHP LV IXWXUH EOLQG 6HFRQG ODFN RI SDUWLFLSDWLRQ 2XU JRYHUQPHQW DQG RWKHU LQn VWLWXWLRQV KDYH JURZQ VR ODUJH DQG FRPSOLFDWHG WKDW PRVW SHRSOH IHHO SRZHUOHVV 7KH\ FRPSODLQHG RI EHLQJ SODQQHG XSRQ E f +H ZHQW RQ WR OLVW VHYHUDO VSHFLILF DFWLYLWLHV WKDW PLJKW EH XVHn IXO EXW QRWHG WKDW 7KHUH LV QR VLQJOH RU PDJLFDO ZD\ WR EXLOG D WUXO\ DQWLFLSDWRU\ GHPRFUDF\ ,Q JHQHUDO ZH QHHG WR VXSSRUW DQ\ SURJUDP WKDW LQFUHDVHV IXWXUH DZDUHQHVV LQ WKH VRFLHW\ ZKLOH VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ FUHDWLQJ QHZ FKDQQHOV IRU JHQXLQH EURDGEDVHG FLWL]HQ SDUWLFLSDWLRQ E f ,Q UHVSRQVH WR LQWHUHVW LQ &RQJUHVV SDUWLFXODUO\ WR WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ &56 HVWDEOLVKHG D IXWXUHV UHVHDUFK JURXS ZLWKLQ &56 SDUWO\ WR IXOILOO WKLV IXQFWLRQ RI V\QWKHVL]LQJ IRUHn FDVWV -D\VRQ f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nORQJUDQJH VWXGLHVn PD\ EH IRXQG 7KH :RRGURZ :LOVRQ &HQWHU UHIHUV WR WKH VDPH IXQFWLRQ DV nVWUDWHJLF DVVHVVPHQWn $ QXPEHU RI RWKHU QDPHV KDYH EHHQ VXJJHVWHG UDQJLQJ IURP nWKH &RPPLWWHH RQ /HJLVODWLYH &RRUGLQDWLRQn WR nWKH &RPPLWWHH RQ 1DWLRQDO ,VVXHVn DQG nWKH &RPPLWWHH RQ WKH )XWXUHn 6&& F f 7KH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ QH[W JDLQHG DWWHQWLRQ QHDU WKH HQG RI WKH PDUNXS SURFHVV ZKHQ 5HSUHVHQWDWLYH )UHOLQJKX\VHQ RQH RI WKH OHDVW DFWLYH PHPEHUV RI WKH FRPPLWWHH VKRZHG D ODFN RI IDPLOLDULW\ 0U )5(/,1*+8<6(1 2Q 3DJH QRWLFH WKHUH LV D W\SR RQ /LQH ,W VD\V )XWXUHV 5HVHDUFK &KDLUPDQ %2//,1* 1RW IXWXUH UHVHDUFK ,W LV )XWXUHV 5HVHDUFK 0U 6+(/'21 ,W LV H[SODLQHG LQ WKH UHSRUW

PAGE 120

0U )5(/,1*+8<6(1 &RPPRGLW\ IXWXUHV" 0U 6+(/'21 1R LW LV D VWXG\ RI DOWHUQDWH IXWXUHV 2QH FDQ KDYH WKH RSWLRQ RI JRLQJ GRZQ RQH SDWK RI SODQQLQJ DQG SURJUDP RQ >VLF@ DQRWKHU SDWK 7KHVH DUH DOWHUQDWLYH IXWXUHV DPRQJ ZKLFK RQH FDQ VHOHFW 0U )5(/,1*+8<6(1 7KDW VRXQGV OLNH SDLQIXO MDUJRQ &KDLUPDQ %2//,1* ,W LV SUHWW\ ZHOO DFFHSWHG MDUJRQ 6&& E f

PAGE 121

&+$37(5 7+( %$/$1&(' 1$7,21$/ *52:7+ $1' '(9(/230(17 $&7 2)

PAGE 122

,1752'8&7,21 7KH %DODQFHG 1DWLRQDO *URZWK DQG 'HYHORSPHQW $FW RI 6 f ZDV LQWURGXFHG E\ 6HQDWRU +XEHUW + +XPSKUH\ 0LQQf GXULQJ WKH VHFRQG VHVVLRQ RI WKH UG &RQJUHVV 7KLV PDMRU UHIRUP ELOO SURYLGHG IRU HDFK RI WKH WKUHH VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW IXQFWLRQV f WR VHDUFK IRU HPHUJLQJ SUREOHPV f WR LQIRUP FXUUHQW GHFLVLRQV RQ OLNHO\ GHYHORSPHQWV DQG f WR IRUFH FRQn VFLRXV LQWHUUHODWLRQVKLS RI GHFLVLRQV ,Q WHUPV RI WKH ODVW VHW RI IDFWRUV DIIHFWLQJ FRPPLWWHH WUHDWPHQW VHH &KDSWHU f WKLV ELOO ZRXOG DIIHFW KLJKHU DQG ORZHU OHYHOV RI WKH HQGVPHDQV FKDLQ LW ZRXOG DGMXVW WKH H[LVWLQJ FRPPLWWHH VWUXFWXUHV DQG FRXOG VHULRXVO\ DIIHFW WKH GLVWULEXWLRQ RI SRZHU DPRQJ PHPEHUV RI &RQn JUHVV ,Q WHUPV RI FRQJUHVVLRQDO UHIRUP WKLV ELOO ZRXOG EULQJ DERXW GHFLVLRQ IRUFLQJ QRW LQ WHUPV RI WKH EXGJHW DV WKURXJK WKH EXGJHW UHIRUP EXW LQ WHUPV RI VSHFLILF JURZWK DQG GHn YHORSPHQW SROLF\ JRDOV UDWKHU WKDQ WKURXJK EXGJHW WRWDOV SHU VH %HFDXVH IRUPDO KHDULQJV ZHUH QRW KHOG RQ WKH ELOO QRU ZDV LW FRQVLGHUHG RQ WKH 6HQDWH IORRU 6HQDWRU +XPSKUH\ XVHG D YDULHW\ RI RWKHU PHDQV WR DGYRFDWH WKH ELOO RU LWV FRQFHSWV 7KH RUJDQLn ]DWLRQ RI WKLV FKDSWHU UHIOHFWV WKH LQFLSLHQW QDWXUH RI WKH ELOOnV SURFHVVLQJVXJJHVWHG E\ WKHVH QRQFRPPLWWHH DFWLYLWLHV ,OO

PAGE 123

6 GHFODUHG VL[WHHQ QDWLRQDO JRDOV LQ LWV VWDWHPHQW RI SXUSRVH DPRQJ WKHP WKH H[SDQVLRQ RI WKH (PSOR\PHQW $FW RI WR LQFOXGH LQFRPH GLVWULEXWLRQ WKDW ZRXOG DVVXUH IRU DOO WKH QDWLRQnV SHRSOH LQFRPH IRU DGHTXDWH OHYHOV RI QXWULWLRQ KHDOWK HGXFDWLRQ KRXVLQJ DQG FXOWXUDO RSSRUWXQLW\
PAGE 124

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nV DGYRFDF\ RI WKH ELOO ZLWKRXW WKH EHQHILW RI QRUPDO FRPPLWWHH UHVRXUFHV UHTXLUHG D YDULHW\ RI DFWLYLWLHV DPHQGPHQWV WR WKH EXGJHW UHIRUP ELOO DQG

PAGE 125

WR D ELOO HVWDEOLVKLQJ D FRPPLVVLRQ RQ VXSSOLHV DQG VKRUWDJHV LQWURGXFWLRQ RI WKH ELOO LQ WKH +RXVH FRPPHQWV RQ WKH 3UHVLGHQWnV ELHQQLDO JURZWK UHSRUW DQG KHDULQJV RQ UHODWHG PDWWHUV LQ RWKHU FRQJUHVVLRQDO FRPPLWWHHV 7KHVH DFWLYLWLHV DUH EULHIO\ H[DPLQHG 7KH VXSSRUW RXWVLGH &RQJUHVV IRU WKH ELOO DQG +XPSKUH\nV JRDOV DQG FRPPLWWHH PHPEHU DWWLWXGHV DUH FRQVLGHUHG )LQDOO\ WKH VL[ VWDJHV RI WKH ELOOn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f GHVFULEHG WKH ILUVW UHTXLUHPHQW RI D JURZWK SROLF\ DV WKH SURYLVLRQ RI SURFHGXUHV DQG KRUL]RQWDO RUJDQL]DWLRQ QHFHVVDU\ WR RUFKHVWUDWH WKH DFWLYLWLHV RI YHUWLFDOO\ VWUXFWXUHG VSHFLDOL]HG DJHQFLHV VR WKDW VHSDUDWH SURn JUDPV SURMHFWV DQG SROLFLHV DUH KDUn PRQL]HG WR DFKLHYH WKH ODUJHU HQGV RI SROLFLHV RQ JURZWK DQG GHYHORSPHQW +DUWOH\ 3DWWRQ :LGQHU 5DLQH\ )LQGOH\ t 3HWHUVLOLD f

PAGE 126

7KH DFDGHP\ JURXS OLNHQHG JURZWK SROLF\ WR D WKUHHOHJJHG VWRRO VWDQGLQJ RQ VRFLDO HQYLURQPHQWDO DQG HFRQRPLF SROLF\ OHJV VHH )LJXUH 7f 7KHVH EURDG FDWHJRULHV ZHUH UHILQHG LQWR IRXU VXEn VWDQWLYH HOHPHQWV ZLWKLQ JURZWK SROLF\ f D SRSXODWLRQ SROLF\ LQWHQGHG WR LQIOXHQFH WKH GHPRJUDSKLF JURZWK RI D UHJLRQ f D SROLF\ RQ WHFKQRORJ\ LQWHQGHG WR LQIOXHQFH WKH ZD\ WHFKQRORJLHV DUH LQWURGXFHG LQWR WKH VRFLDO DQG SK\VLFDO HQYLURQPHQW f UHn VRXUFH DQG HQYLURQPHQWDO SROLFLHV LQWHQGHG WR LQIOXHQFH WKH ZD\ WKH SRSXODWLRQ XWLOL]HV ODQG DLU ZDWHU DQG RWKHU QDWXUDO UHn VRXUFHV WKURXJK WHFKQRORJ\ DQG f GHYHORSPHQW SROLFLHV LQWHQGHG WR LQIOXHQFH WKH JHRJUDSKLF GLVWULEXWLRQ RI SRSXODWLRQ HFRQRPLF DFWLYLW\ VHUYLFHV DQG VRFLDO ZHOOEHLQJ +DUWOH\ HW DL f *URZWK SROLF\ VR GHILQHG LQFOXGHV DOO PDMRU DVSHFWV RI GRn PHVWLF SROLF\ DQG SUHVXPHV D IRUFLQJ RI WKH FRQVFLRXV LQWHUUHODn WLRQVKLS RI GHFLVLRQV ,167,*$7,1* $1' 38%/,&,=,1* )25 *52:7+ 32/,&< $ PDMRU VRXUFH RI SXEOLFLW\ IRU JURZWK SROLF\ TXHVWLRQV RQ D QDWLRQDO DQG LQWHUQDWLRQDO VFDOH ZDV 7KH /LPLWV WR *URZWK 0HDGRZV 0HDGRZV 5DQGHUV t %HKUHQV f D ZRUN VSRQVRUHG E\ WKH &OXE RI 5RPH VHYHQW\ILYH VFLHQWLVWV LQGXVWULDOLVWV HFRQRPLVWV DQG HGXFDWRUV ZKRVH SXUSRVH LV WR VSXU DFWLRQ RQ PDMRU ZRUOG SUREOHPV WKURXJK UHVHDUFK SURMHFWV 7KH ILUVW UHSRUW ZDV SUHSDUHG E\ D WHDP RI FRPSXWHU V\VWHPV H[SHUWV ZKR XVHG D VLPXODWLRQ PRGHO )RUUHVWHU f WR H[DPLQH WKH OLNHO\ WUDMHFWRU\ RI ZRUOG

PAGE 127

)LJXUH 7KH 6WUXFWXUH RI *URZWK 3ROLF\ 6285&( 'DYLG +DUWOH\ HW DO ([n SHULPHQWV LQ *URZWK 3ROLF\ 0LPHR &ROXPEXV 2KLR $FDGHP\ IRU &RQn WHPSRUDU\ 3UREOHPV 0D\ f

PAGE 129

JURZWK 7KH UHVXOWV EDVHG ODUJHO\ RQ WKH DVVXPSWLRQ RI FRQWLQXHG H[SRQHQWLDO JURZWK LQGLFDWHG D PDMRU FROODSVH RI WKH ZRUOG V\VWHP SUHFHGHG E\ D SUHFLSLWRXV GHFOLQH LQ SRSXODWLRQ GXULQJ WKH QH[W FHQWXU\ 0HDGRZV HW DL f 7KH /LPLWV WR *URZWK ZDV UHOHDVHG ZLWK PXFK IDQIDUH DQG OLWWOH SUHOLPLQDU\ DUJXPHQW RYHU PHWKRGV ,W SURPSWHG VLJQLILFDQW H[FKDQJHV DQG FRPPHQWV DPRQJ H[SHUWV LQ YDULRXV ILHOGV .D\VHQ +HLOEURQHU 0LVKDQ 6FKZDUW] t )RLQ f 7KH GHEDWH ZDV FDUULHG RYHU LQWR WKH SRSXODU SUHVV &KXUFK .OHLQ f DQG ZDV XVHG DV DQ DUJXPHQW IRU JUHDWHU FRQFHUQ IRU WKH HQYLURQPHQW 8OSK f 'XULQJ WKH UG &RQJUHVV DQRWKHU UHSRUW VSRQVRUHG E\ WKH &OXE RI 5RPH ZDV SXEOLVKHG 0DQNLQG DW WKH 7XUQLQJ 3RLQW 0HVDURYLF t 3HVWHO f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t 3HVWHO f

PAGE 130

7KHVH &OXE RI 5RPH UHSRUWV IRXQG WKHLU ZD\ LQWR WKH DFWLYLWLHV RI WKH UG &RQJUHVV RQ VHYHUDO SDWKV 2QH ZDV WKH SURMHFW RQ VXVWDLQDEOH JURZWK RI WKH :RRGURZ :LOVRQ &HQWHU IRU 6FKRODUV ::,&6 f 7KH ::,&6 SURMHFW XQGHU WKH GLUHFWLRQ RI &KHVWHU &RRSHU D IHOORZ GXULQJ DQG KHOG VHYHUDO PHHWLQJV IRU JRYHUQPHQW RIILFLDOV DQG DFDGHPLFV 7KH SURMHFW SURGXFHG D GLUHFWRU\ RI QDWLRQDO DQG LQWHUQDWLRQDO UHVHDUFK HIIRUWV ::,&6 f DQG SUHSDUHG D 3URSRVDO IRU 'HYHORSLQJ &DSDFLWLHV DW WKH 1DWLRQDO /HYHO IRU 6WUDWHJLF 3ROLF\ $VVHVVPHQWV ::,&6 f 7KH SURMHFW PDGH RIILFLDOV LQ &RQJUHVV DQG WKH H[HFXWLYH EUDQFK} DV ZHOO DV UHVHDUFKHUV DZDUH RI YDULRXV HIIRUWV LQ WKH JURZWK SROLF\ DUHD DQG UHLQIRUFHG PDQ\ RI WKHVH HIIRUWV +XPSKUH\ SUDLVHG WKH ZRUN RI WKH ::,&6 JURXS DQG LQFOXGHG WKHLU SURSRVDO ZLWK 6 LQ WKH &RQJUHVVLRQDO 5HFRUG &5 6f§f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

PAGE 131

7KH LQFLGHQW WKDW MRLQHG VXFK FRQFHUQ IRU XUEDQ DQG UXUDO JURZWK DFFRUGLQJ WR -DPHV 6XQGTXLVW ZDV WKH :DWWV ULRW LQ 0RUH DQG PRUH WKH\ >SROLWLFLDQV@ FDPH WR WDON RI QDWLRQDO JURZWK SROLF\ DV WKH FRQWH[W LQ ZKLFK DOO RI WKH PRUH OLPLWHG SROLFLHV ZRXOG EH UDWLRQDOL]HG 6XQGTXLVW f 3UHVLGHQW 1L[RQ UHn IHUUHG WR XUEDQ DQG UXUDO SUREOHPV LQ WKH 6WDWH RI WKH 8QLRQ PHVVDJH DQG LQ RWKHU VSHHFKHV DQG PHVVDJHV RI DQG 6XQGTXLVW f \HW KH GLG OLWWOH EH\RQG VSHDNLQJ 'HVSLWH WKH UHDOL]DWLRQ RI FRPPRQ LQWHUHVWV WKH SULQFLSDO LQLWLDWLYHV WRZDUG JURZWK SROLF\ KDYH FRPH IURP FRPPLWWHHV GHDOLQJ ZLWK KRXVLQJ DQG XUEDQ JURZWK RU ZLWK DJULFXOWXUDO DQG UXUDO GHYHORSn PHQW 0DMRU DGYDQFHV ZDLWHG XQWLO DQG WKH\ ZHUH PDGH LQ &RQJUHVV ,Q 7LWOH ,; RI WKH $JULFXOWXUDO $FW RI &RQJUHVV GHFODUHG LWV FRPPLWPHQW WR D VRXQG EDODQFH EHWZHHQ XUEDQ DQG UXUDO $PHULFD DQG XUJHG WKH KLJKHVW SULRULW\ IRU UHYLWDOL]DWLRQ DQG GHYHORSPHQW RI UXUDO DUHDV 3/ 6HF Df ,Q WKH 8UEDQ *URZWK DQG 1HZ &RPPXQLW\ 'HYHORSPHQW VHFWLRQ RI WKH +RXVLQJ DQG 8UEDQ 'HYHORSPHQW $FW RI 3/ 6HF f &RQJUHVV GHFODUHG D FRPPLWPHQW WR QDWLRQDO JURZWK SROLF\ ,W GHFODUHG WKDW WKH IHGHUDO JRYHUQPHQW PXVW DVVXPH UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU WKH GHYHORSn PHQW RI D QDWLRQDO XUEDQ JURZWK SROLF\ WKDW ZRXOG KHOS UHYHUVH WUHQGV LQ PLJUDWLRQ DQG SK\VLFDO JURZWK ZKLFK UHLQn IRUFH GLVSDULWLHV DPRQJ VWDWHV UHJLRQV DQG FLWLHV 7KH SROLF\ ZRXOG DV D JXLGH LQ PDNLQJ VSHFLILF GHFLVLRQV DW WKH

PAGE 132

QDWLRQDO OHYHO SURYLGH D IUDPHZRUN IRU GHYHORSPHQW RI LQWHUVWDWH VWDWH DQG ORFDO JURZWK DQG VWDELOL]DWLRQ SROLF\ 6XQGTXLVW f 7LWOH 9,, RI WKLV DFW DOVR FDOOHG IRU WKH 3UHVLGHQW WR LVVXH D ELHQQLDO 5HSRUW RQ 1DWLRQDO *URZWK 7KHVH SUHVLGHQWLDO JURZWK UHSRUWV EHFDPH D IRFXV IRU LQVWLn JDWLQJ DQG SXEOLFL]LQJ WKH QHHG IRU QDWLRQDO JURZWK SROLFLHV 7KH ILUVW UHSRUW 5HSRUW RQ 1DWLRQDO *URZWK f FDXVHG 5HSUHn VHQWDWLYH 7KRPDV / $VKOH\ 2KLRf WKH SULQFLSDO DXWKRU RI 7LWOH 9,, WR KROG KHDULQJV LQ WKH &RPPLWWHH RQ %DQNLQJ DQG &XUUHQF\ &%&f WR DWWUDFW FRPPHQWV RQ WKH UHSRUW DQG WR FRQVLGHU ZKDW IHGHUDO DFWLRQ VKRXOG EH WDNHQ RQ JURZWK SROLF\ 0RVW WHVWLPRQ\ LQ WKHVH KHDULQJV ZDV FULWLFDO RI WKH ILUVW UHSRUW )RU H[DPSOH 5HSRUW RQ 1DWLRQDO *URZWK LV QR PRUH WKDQ D VXUYH\ RI SUREOHPV DQG D FRPPLWPHQW WR WZR REYLRXV JRDOV RI JURZWK SROLF\ ILUVW WR WKH LGHD RI EDODQFH EHWZHHQ WKH QDWLRQnV XUEDQ DQG UXUDO HQYLURQPHQWV DQG VHFRQG WR WKH LGHD RI RUGHUO\ FRUUHFn WLRQ RI H[LVWLQJ SUREOHPV 7KH UHSRUW KRZn HYHU IDLOV WR H[DPLQH WKH LPSOLFDWLRQV RI WKH JLYLQJ XS RI IHGHUDO FDWHJRULFDO SURn JUDPV LQ IDYRU RI VWDWH DQG ORFDO SULRULWLHV DQG SURFHGXUHV IDLOV WR H[SODLQ KRZ DIILUPDn WLYH IHGHUDO SROLFLHV ZLOO EH PDGH WR ZRUN IDLOV WR VWDWH ZKDW UHVRXUFHV ZLOO EH PDGH DYDLODEOH DQG ZKHWKHU VXFK UHVRXUFHV ZLOO EH DGHTXDWH IRU WKH VWDWHG SXUSRVHV LW DOVR IDLOV WR HVWDEOLVK PHFKDQLVPV E\ ZKLFK FLWL]HQV RI WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV FDQ EHFRPH LQ YROYHG LQ WKH SURFHVV &%&L D f

PAGE 133

$VKOH\ IROORZHG XS WKHVH KHDULQJV ZLWK WKH +RXVLQJ DQG 8UEDQ 'HYHORSPHQW $FW RI ,Q UHSRUWLQJ RQ WKLV ELOO WKH +RXVH &RPPLWWHH RQ %DQNLQJ DQG &XUUHQF\ FRQFOXGHG WKDW WKHUH ZDV QR DOn WHUQDWLYH WR FRQWLQXHG FRQJUHVVLRQDO OHDGHUVKLS LQ WKH JURZWK SROLF\ DUHD 7KH FRPPLWWHH VHW RXW WKUHH WDVNV IRU LWVHOI LQ GHYHORSLQJ WKLV JURZWK SROLF\ f WR GHILQH VSHFLILF GHYHORSPHQW JRDOV IRU WKH QDWLRQ f WR UHFRPPHQG SURJUDPV DQG WHFKQLTXHV WR DFKLHYH WKHVH JRDOV DQG f WR FRQVWUXFW GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ DQG LPSOHPHQWLQJ PHFKDQLVPV WR GHILQH DQG FDUU\ RXW WKH QDWLRQnV JURZWK SROLF\ RQ D FRQWLQXLQJ EDVLV &%& F f 6 ZDV WR WDNH RQ WKH WKLUG WDVN +XPSKUH\ DQG 7KRUQWRQ ZHUH DZDUH RI $VKOH\nV ZRUN SDUWLFXODUO\ LQ FULWLFL]LQJ WKH 3UHVLGHQWnV JURZWK UHSRUWV
PAGE 134

WKH &RQJUHVV EXW ZLWK QR LPPHGLDWH OHJLVODWLYH SXUSRVH 'LQJHOO EHJDQ KHDULQJV RQ JURZWK DQG LWV LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU WKH IXWXUH *URZWK DQG ,WV ,PSOLFDWLRQV D Ef 7KH WKUHH YROXPHV SURGXFHG E\ 'LQJHOOnV VXEFRPPLWWHH FDWDORJXHG PDQ\ RI WKH PDMRU VRXUFHV RI WKH JURZWK GHEDWH WKH EXON RI WKH YROXPHV LV LQ WKH DSSHQGLFHV +HDULQJV RQ JURZWK DQG LWV LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU WKH IXWXUH KDYH EHFRPH DQ RQJRLQJ IHDWXUH RI WKH VXEFRPPLWWHH 5HSUHVHQWDWLYH 'LQJHOO DOVR LQWURGXFHG GXULQJ WKH UG &RQJUHVV D SURSRVDO +5 f IRU WKH HVWDEOLVKPHQW RI D 1DWLRQDO (Qn YLURQPHQWDO 3ROLF\ ,QVWLWXWH WR GR VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DQDO\VLV RQ HQYLURQPHQWDO SUREOHPV ,Q -XQH 'LQJHOO KHOG PRUH KHDULQJV RQ JURZWK SROLF\ DQG LQ -XO\ D URXQG RI KHDULQJV RQ KLV SURSRVDOV +5 DQG +5 f IRU HQYLURQPHQWDO UHVHDUFK FHQWHUV *URZWK DQG ,WV ,PSOLFDWLRQV f 'LQJHOOnV ZRUN DLGHG 6 DV 5HSUHVHQWDWLYH $VKOH\nV KHDULQJV KDG GRQH E\ SXEOLFL]LQJ WKH QHHG 'LQJHOO DOVR ZDV QRW LQWHUHVWHG LQ EHFRPLQJ WKH +RXVH VSRQVRU RI WKH +XPSKUH\ SURSRVDO $QRWKHU DSSURDFK WR QDWLRQDO JURZWK SROLF\ FDPH IURP WKH -RLQW (FRQRPLF &RPPLWWHH -(&f 6HQDWRU /OR\G %HQWVHQ 7H[f KDG XUJHG WKH HVWDEOLVKPHQW RI WKH 6XEFRPPLWWHH RQ (FRQRPLF *URZWK EHFDXVH D IDLOXUH RI WKH JRYHUQPHQW WR ORRN DKHDG DQG WR HTXLS LWVHOI WR GHDO ZLWK HPHUJLQJ SUREOHPV KDG DVVXPHG WKH SURSRUWLRQV RI DQ DFXWH FULVLV RI SXEOLF SROLF\ -(& f $V FKDLUPDQ RI WKLV VXEFRPPLWWHH %HQWVHQ SURFHHGHG WR KROG KHDULQJV RQ ORQJn WHUP HFRQRPLF JURZWK 6WLOO DQRWKHU DSSURDFK WR H[DPLQLQJ QDWLRQDO

PAGE 135

JURZWK TXHVWLRQV ZLWKLQ &RQJUHVV RFFXUUHG LQ WKH IRUPDWLRQ RI D VFLHQFH DGYLVRU\ SDQHO E\ WKH +RXVH &RPPLWWHH RQ 3XEOLF :RUNV &3:f WR H[DPLQH WKH UHOHYDQFH RI LVVXHV UDLVHG ZLWKLQ WKH QDWLRQDO JURZWK TXHVWLRQ WR D QDWLRQDO SXEOLF ZRUNV LQYHVWPHQW SROLF\ &3: D E Ff +XPSKUH\ ZDV PRUH LQYROYHG LQ WKH %HQWVHQ DQG +RXVH 3XEOLF :RUNV &RPPLWWHH KHDULQJV +H WHVWLILHG RQ 6 GXULQJ ERWK VHWV RI KHDULQJV 6HQ +XPSKUH\ KDG DOVR EHHQ SDUW RI DQ HDUOLHU HIIRUW E\ WKH -(& 6XEFRPPLWWHH RQ 8UEDQ $IIDLUV WR FRQVLGHU WKH UHVWRUDWLRQ RI VRYHUHLJQW\ WR VROYH VRFLDO SUREOHPV -(& f 7KLV VXEFRPPLWWHH SURGXFHG VHYHUDO SURSRVDOV LQFOXGLQJ RQH IRU D QDWLRQDO SODQQLQJ V\VWHP $QRWKHU PHPEHU RI WKH VXEFRPPLWWHH VXJJHVWHG WKDW DOWKRXJK +XPSKUH\ GLG QRW LQLWLDWH WKLV DVSHFW RI WKH ELOO KLV H[SRVXUH WR LW PDGH KLV VSRQVRUVKLS RI WKH VLPLODU JURZWK ELOO PRUH OLNHO\ 7KHVH LQVWLJDWLRQ DQG SXEOLFL]LQJ DFWLYLWLHV ZHUH UHOHYDQW IRU 6 LQ VHYHUDO ZD\V f $FWLYLWLHV VXFK DV WKH OLPLWV WR JURZWK GHEDWH UDLVHG SXEOLF DZDUHQHVV RI WKH JURZWK SUREOHP f $ ORRVH QHWZRUN RI JRYHUQPHQW RIILFLDOV DFDGHPLFV UHVHDUFK LQVWLWXWH SHUVRQQHO DQG RWKHUV IDPLOLDU ZLWK WKH SUREOHPV DQG ZLWK HDFK RWKHUnV DFWLYLWLHV ZDV FUHDWHG f 6HQDWRU +XPSKUH\ ZDV PDGH PRUH DZDUH RI WKH SUREOHP DQG PRUH UHDG\ WR SURSRVH VSHFLILF DQG UHPHGLDO VWUXFWXUDO FKDQJHV f 7KHVH DFWLYLWLHV UHLQIRUFHG WKH ZRUN RI WKH FRQJUHVVLRQDO VWDII SHUVRQ PRVW LQYROYHG LQ IRUPXODWLQJ 6

PAGE 136

)2508/$7,21 -DPHV ( 7KRUQWRQnV ZRUN LQ IRUPXODWLQJ 6 ZDV WKH FXOn PLQDWLRQ RI \HDUV RI LQWHUHVW LQ JURZWK SROLF\ DQG WKH SROLF\ SURFHVV JHQHUDOO\ :KHQ 7KRUQWRQ KDG ZRUNHG IRU 2UYLOOH )UHHPDQ 6HFUHWDU\ RI $JULFXOWXUH LQ WKH -RKQVRQ $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ KH KDG EHHQ LQYROYHG LQ WKH SURPRWLRQ RI WKH FRQFHSW RI UXUDOXUEDQ EDODQFH DUWLFXODWHG E\ )UHHPDQ 7KRUQWRQ ZDV DOVR LQYROYHG LQ IRUPXODWLQJ SODQV IRU WKH V\PSRVLXP &RPPXQLWLHV RI 7RPRUURZ 1DWLRQDO *URZWK DQG ,WV 'LVWULEXWLRQ KHOG LQ :DVKLQJWRQ '& LQ XQGHU WKH VSRQVRUVKLS RI VL[ PHPEHUV RI 3UHVLGHQW -RKQVRQnV FDELQHW DQG DWWHQGHG E\ +XPSKUH\ 7KXV 7KRUQWRQ ZDV SDUW\ WR HDUO\ DQG PDMRU DWWHPSWV WR UDLVH WKH TXHVWLRQ RI QDWLRQDO JURZWK SROLF\ :KLOH LQ SULYDWH EXVLQHVV GXULQJ 7KURQWRQ ZDV LQYROYHG LQ GUDIWLQJ ZKDW EHFDPH 7LWOH ,; RI WKH $JULFXOWXUH $FW RI RQH RI WZR PDMRU VWDWHPHQWV RQ JURZWK SROLF\ WKDW \HDU ,Q 7KRUQWRQ FDPH WR WKH +LOO DV VWDII GLUHFWRU RI WKH 5XUDO 'HYHORSPHQW 6XEFRPPLWWHH RI WKH 6HQDWH &RPn PLWWHH RQ $JULFXOWXUH DQG )RUHVWU\ +XEHUW +XPSKUH\ KDG SOHGJHG KLPVHOI WR VHHN DSSRLQWPHQW WR WKLV FRPPLWWHH ZKLOH FDPSDLJQLQJ IRU D UHWXUQ WR WKH 6HQDWH LQ 2QFH RQ WKH FRPPLWWHH 6HQDWRU +XPSKUH\ UHTXHVWHG DQG UHFHLYHG WKH FKDLUPDQVKLS RI WKH 6XEFRPPLWWHH RQ 5XUDO 'HYHORSPHQW -DPHV ( 7KRUQWRQ EHOLHYHG DQG SHUVXDGHG +XPSKUH\ WKDW GHVSLWH JURZLQJ SXEOLF GLVFXVVLRQ RI XUEDQ DQG QDWLRQDO JURZWK SROLF\ WKHUH KDG EHHQ OLWWOH VHULRXV ZRUN WR GHILQH VSHFLILF PHFKDQLVPV QHFHVVDU\ WR IRUPXODWH QDWLRQDO

PAGE 137

JURZWK SROLF\ 6LQFH VXFK DQ DWWHPSW GLG QRW ILW GLUHFWO\ LQWR WKH VXEFRPPLWWHHnV MXULVGLFWLRQ 7KRUQWRQ VSHQW PXFK RI KLV RZQ WLPH GXULQJ DQG GUDIWLQJ D SURSRVDO WKDW ZRXOG EHFRPH 6 LQ 7KH PDMRU FRQFHUQ LQ SXWWLQJ 6 WRJHWKHU ZDV WR PDNH H[SOLFLW WKH SURFHVV E\ ZKLFK QDWLRQDO JURZWK SROLF\ ZRXOG EH IRUPXODWHG 5DWKHU WKDQ IRFXV RQ QDWLRQDO JURZWK SROLF\ SHU VH WKH ELOO ZDV WR VHW RXW D SURFHVV HQFRPSDVVLQJ UHOHYDQW LQVWLn WXWLRQDO IDFWRUV DQG DFWRUV E\ ZKLFK SROLF\ ZRXOG EH HVWDEOLVKHG 7KRUQWRQ IRFXVHG RQ FKDQJHV LQ WKH H[HFXWLYH LQ &RQJUHVV DPRQJ LQGHSHQGHQW UHVHDUFK DJHQFLHV DQG LQ VWDWH DQG PXOWL VWDWH UHJLRQDO FRXQFLOV RI JRYHUQPHQW 7KRUQWRQ PRGHOHG SDUWV RI WKH +XPSKUH\ ELOO DIWHU VLPLODU SURSRVDOV DOUHDG\ EHIRUH &RQJUHVV 6 nV FRQFHUQ IRU SULRULW\ VHWWLQJ LQ &RQJUHVV SDUDOOHOHG WKDW RI SURSRVDOV IRU D FRQJUHVVLRQDO EXGJHW DV ZHOO DV 6HQDWRU -DYLWVn SURSRVDO IRU D FRQJUHVVLRQDO RIILFH RI *RDOV DQG 3ULRULWLHV $QDO\VLV 7LWOH ,, RI 6 6HH &KDSWHU f DOWKRXJK SULRULW\ VHWWLQJ ZRXOG PDNH XVH RI JURZWK DQG GHYHORSPHQW JRDOV WR HYDOXDWH EXGJHW ILJXUHV 7KRUQWRQ KDG ZRUNHG RQ WKH SURSRVDO IRU VHYHUDO PRQWKV ZKHQ +XPSKUH\ ILUVW DQQRXQFHG KLV LQWHQWLRQ WR LQWURGXFH WKH ELOO GXULQJ KLV SUHVLGHQWLDO FDPSDLJQ LQ WKH &DOLIRUQLD SULPDU\ $IWHU ORVLQJ KLV ELG IRU WKH 'HPRFUDWLF QRPLQDWLRQ +XPSKUH\ XVHG WKH LGHD RI 6 LQ D VSHHFK WR WKH $PHULFDQ ,QVWLWXWH RI 3ODQQHUV $,3f D SRWHQWLDOO\ VXSSRUWLYH LQWHUHVW JURXS LQ

PAGE 138

2FWREHU %\ )HEUXDU\ VRPH IRXU KXQGUHG FRSLHV RI WKH ELOO KDG EHHQ GLVWULEXWHG WR WKH $,3 PHPEHUV 8OWLPDWHO\ WKH $,3 PDGH D VWDWHPHQW RQ QDWLRQDO SODQQLQJ ZKLFK VXSSRUWHG WKH PDMRU FRQFHSWV RI 6 $V LW ZDV SXEOLVKHG LQ WKH ELOO ZRXOG SURYLGH D PRUH H[SOLFLW DQG UDWLRQDO IRUPXODWLRQ RI JRDOV DQG SULRULWLHV &RQn JUHVV QHHGV PRUH GHWDLOHG HFRQRPLF VRFLDO HQYLURQPHQWDO DQG SURJUDP DQDO\VLV LQ RUGHU WR PDNH PRUH LQIRUPHG SULRULW\ GHFLn VLRQV DPRQJ DOWHUQDWLYH SURJUDPV DQG FRXUVHV RI DFWLRQ WR IRUPXn ODWH SROLFLHV &5 6f 6SHFLILF ILQGLQJV RI QHHG IRU WKH OHJLVODWLRQ LQFOXGHGf WKH GHFOLQH LQ OLIH TXDOLW\ VWDQGDUGV DQG UHVRXUFH PDQDJHPHQW EHFDXVH RI D ODFN RI FRRUGLQDWHG SROLFLHV IRU IHGHUDO SURJUDPV DQG RI LQFHQWLYHV WR IRVWHU EDODQFHG JURZWK LQ SULYDWH HQWHUSULVH f WKH LPEDODQFH LQ QHHGV DQG UHVRXUFHV EDVHG RQ UDSLG XUEDQ JURZWK DW WKH H[SHQVH RI UXUDO DUHDV f XQVRXQG ODQG XVH SROLFLHV EDVHG RQ H[SHGLHQF\ WUDGLWLRQ VKRUWn WHUP SUDFWLFHV DQG f WKH QHHG IRU FRRUGLQDWHG SROLFLHV GHDOLQJ ZLWK WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ SXEOLF VHUYLFHV DQG IDFLOLWLHV HQHUJ\ KRXVLQJ IRRG DQG ILEHU KHDOWK VHUYLFHV VHZDJH DQG VROLG ZDVWH GLVSRVDO SXEOLF HGXFDWLRQ FULPH SRYHUW\ UDFLDO LQHTXLW\ ILVFDO DQG PRQHWDU\ SROLFLHV DQG FDSLWDO DQG FUHGLW DYDLODELOLW\ &5 6f 7R RYHUFRPH WKHVH VKRUWFRPLQJV D SURFHVV ZDV IRUPXODWHG ZKLFK ZRXOG VLJQLILFDQWO\ DGMXVW SROLF\ PDNLQJ LQ WKH H[HFXWLYH EUDQFK DQG LQ &RQJUHVV ,Q WKH H[HFXWLYH EUDQFK DQ 2IILFH RI %DODQFHG

PAGE 139

1DWLRQDO *URZWK DQG 'HYHORSPHQW 2%1*'f ZRXOG DVVXPH DQDO\WLFDO IXQFWLRQV DQDORJRXV WR WKRVH RI WKH &RXQFLO RI (FRQRPLF $GYLVHUV DQG VRPH SROLF\ UHYLHZ DQG EXGJHW SUHSDUDWLRQ IXQFWLRQV RI WKH 2IILFH RI 0DQDJHPHQW DQG %XGJHW )XQFWLRQV RI WKH 2%1*' ZHUH WR EH FDUULHG RXW E\ D GLUHFWRU XQGHU WKH VXSHUYLVLRQ RI WKH 3UHVLn GHQW DQG ZLWK WKH DGYLFH RI WKH &RXQFLO RI %DODQFHG 1DWLRQDO *URZWK DQG 'HYHORSPHQW ZKLFK ZDV WR EH D VXSHUFDELQHW 7KH 2IILFH ZRXOG SURYLGH SROLF\ GLUHFWLRQ DQG FRRUGLQDWLRQ RI DOO )HGHUDO DQG )HGHUDOO\ DVVLVWHG SURJUDPV IRU SODQQLQJ DQG ODQG XVH GHYHORSPHQW SURJUDPV GHVLJQHG WR LPSURYH KXPDQ UHVRXUFHV DQG SURJUDPV GHVLJQHG WR DOORFDWH UHVRXUFHV DQG SURJUDPV GHVLJQHG WR GHYHORS DOORFDWH RU FRQVHUYH HQHUJ\ UHn VRXUFHV E\ DJHQFLHV GHVLJQDWHG E\ WKH 3UHVLGHQW 6! M HF! Dff 7R GR VR WKH RIILFH ZDV PDQGDWHG WR HVWDEOLVK QDWLRQDO JURZWK SROLFLHV 7KH RIILFH ZDV WR EH UHVSRQVLEOH IRU HVWDEOLVKLQJ QDWLRQDO JURZWK SROLFLHV DSSURYHG E\ WKH 3UHVLGHQW ZKLFK ZRXOG UHTXLUH WKH RIILFH WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ WKH UHYLHZ RI DJHQF\ DQG GHSDUWPHQWDO EXGJHWV DIWHU WKH\ DUH VXEPLWWHG WR WKH 3UHVLGHQW RU WKH 2IILFH RI 0DQDJHPHQW DQG %XGJHW EXW EHIRUH WKH\ DUH VXEPLWWHG WR &RQn JUHVV 6 6HF Df 7KH RIILFH ZDV DOVR JLYHQ WKH WDVN RI HVWDEOLVKLQJ D QDWLRQDOO\ FRRUGLQDWHG PXOWL MXULVGLFWLRQDO FRPSUHKHQVLYH SODQQLQJ SURFHVV LQFOXGLQJ WKH IRUPDWLRQ RI D V\Vn WHP RI PXOWL VWDWH UHJLRQDO FRPPLVVLRQV WR UHYLHZ SODQQLQJ UHTXLUHn PHQWV IRU DOO H[LVWLQJ DQG SURSRVHG IHGHUDO SURJUDPV

PAGE 140

7KH PDMRU YHKLFOH RI SXEOLFLW\ DQG HYDOXDWLRQ RI QDWLRQDO JURZWK SROLF\ ZDV WR EH WKH RIILFHn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n PLWWHHV RQ *RYHUQPHQWDO 2SHUDWLRQV DQG $SSURSULDWLRQV RI HDFK KRXVH DV ZHOO DV VXFK RWKHU VWDQGLQJ FRPPLWWHHV DV WKH SUHVLGLQJ RIILFHU RI HDFK KRXVH PLJKW GHVLJQDWH 6 6HF Ef 6 JDYH WKH %1*' D GLUHFW OLQH WR WKH EXGJHW SURFHVV $ FRUUHVSRQGLQJ SKHQRPHQRQ LV YLVLEOH LQ WKH FKDQJHV SURSRVHG IRU &RQJUHVV E\ 6 7KH &RQJUHVVLRQDO 2IILFH RI 3ROLF\ DQG 3ODQQLQJ &33f ZDV WR SURYLGH WKH DQDO\VLV DQG RYHUYLHZ RI SULRULW\ DQG JURZWK SROLF\ FRQVLGHUDWLRQV ZLWKLQ ZKLFK PHDQLQJIXO FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI LQGLYLGXDO PHDVXUHV FRXOG RFFXU 7KH &33 ZDV WR LVVXH D UHSRUW 7KH %DODQFHG 1DWLRQDO *RDOV 3ULRULWLHV DQG *URZWK 3ROLF\ 5HSRUW 7KLV SURYLVLRQ UHIOHFWV WKH QHHG IHOW LQ &RQJUHVV QRW RQO\ WR HVWDEOLVK JURZWK SROLF\ EXW WR HVWDEOLVK LQ D YLVLEOH ZD\ D FRQJUHVVLRQDO YHUVLRQ RI QDWLRQDO EXGJHW SULRULWLHV 7KXV WKH UHSRUW ZRXOG LQFOXGH DQ DQDO\VLV RI WKH

PAGE 141

3UHVLGHQWnV SURSRVHG EXGJHW LQ WHUPV RI QDWLRQDO JRDOV SULRULWLHV DQG JURZWK SROLFLHV DQG DQ DQDO\VLV RI WKH 3UHVLGHQWnV JURZWK UHn SRUW DV ZHOO DV SULRULW\ UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV IRU &RQJUHVV LQ OLJKW RI &233 DQDO\VLV 6 6HF Gf -DPHV 7KRUQWRQ ZDV DZDUH RI WKH PDJQLWXGH RI FKDQJHV WKDW 6 ZDV SURSRVLQJ \HW KLV SXUSRVH ZDV WR DVVHPEOH DOO WKH SLHFHV QHFHVVDU\ WR UHDOL]H WKH HVWDEOLVKPHQW RI D QDWLRQDO JURZWK SROLF\ SURFHVV 7KRUQWRQ DQG +XPSKUH\ ZHUH QRW FRQFHUQHG DV WKH HYHQWV GHVFULEHG ZLOO VKRZ ZLWK IRUPXODWLQJ D ELOO WKDW ZRXOG SDVV WKH UG &RQJUHVV 7KHLU REMHFWLYH ZDV WR GUDZ XS D ELOO FRQn WDLQLQJ DOO WKH PDMRU HOHPHQWV RI QDWLRQDO SROLF\ PDNLQJ WKDW LQ WKHLU MXGJPHQW VKRXOG EH FRQIURQWHG 029,1* $ %,// :,7+287 $ &200,77(( *LYHQ WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI FRPPLWWHH UHVRXUFHV IRU VXFFHVVIXO WUHDWPHQW RI D ELOO VHH &KDSWHU f 6 ZDV GRRPHG IURP WKH VWDUW 6HQDWRU +XPSKUH\ ZDV QR ORQJHU D PHPEHU RI WKH *RYHUQPHQW 2SHUDWLRQV &RPPLWWHH E\ WKH WLPH WKH ELOO ZDV LQWURGXFHG &RPn PLWWHH FKDLUPDQ 6DP (UYLQ -U 1&f ZDV RSSRVHG WR WKH ELOO DQG QR RWKHU PHPEHU ZDV LQWHUHVWHG LQ SXVKLQJ +XPSKUH\nV ELOO +XPSKUH\ ZDV FRPPLWWHG WR WKH LVVXH KRZHYHU DQG KH PRYHG RQ VHYHUDO IURQWV WR JDWKHU LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ ZKDW JURZWK SROLF\ VKRXOG EH WR SXEOLFL]H WKH QHHG WR JDWKHU VXSSRUW DQG WR VWUXFWXUH D GHILQLWH FRQFHUQ IRU JURZWK SROLF\ LQWR RWKHU IRUPV RI QDWLRQDO GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ +LV HIIRUWV LQGLFDWH WKH VW\OH RI

PAGE 142

DFWLRQ IRU VXFFHVV LQ &RQJUHVV WKDW +XPSKUH\ SUHDFKHV WR KLV VWDII %H WKHUH DQG EH SHUVLVWHQW (DUO\ LQ WKH UG &RQJUHVV +XPSKUH\ KDG WKH 6XEFRPPLWWHH RQ (FRQRPLF 3URJUHVV RI WKH -RLQW (FRQRPLF &RPPLWWHH SULQW WKUHH WKRXVDQG FRSLHV 2I $ 3URSRVDO IRU $FKLHYLQJ %DODQFHG 1DWLRQDO *URZWK DQG 'HYHORSPHQW -(& f ,Q D OHWWHU RI WUDQVPLWWDO WR :ULJKW 3DWPDQ 7H[f FKDLUPDQ RI ERWK VXEFRPPLWWHH DQG -(& +XPSKUH\ VWDWHG KLV KRSH WKDW WKH SURSRVDO ZRXOG EH FDUHIXOO\ UHYLHZHG QRW DV D SURSRVDO ZKLFK LV EHLQJ VXJJHVWHG WR VROYH DOO RI RXU QDWLRQnV PDQ\ FRPSOH[ DQG GLIILFXOW SUREOHPV EXW UDWKHU DV D SURSRVDO WR EHJLQ IRFXVLQJ QDWLRQDO DWWHQWLRQ RQ WKH XUJHQW QHHG RI WKH QDWLRQ WR JHW LWV SROLF\PDNLQJ KRXVH LQ RUGHU -(& LLLLYf 7KH VSHFLDO FRPPLWWHH SULQWLQJ RI WKH ELOO FRQWDLQHG D VHFWLRQE\VHFWLRQ DQDO\VLV DQG D IROGRXW FKDUW VKRZLQJ KRZ WKH QHZ SROLF\PDNLQJ VWUXFWXUH ZRXOG EH LQWHJUDWHG LQWR WKH H[LVWLQJ JRYHUQPHQWDO VWUXFWXUH 7KH ELOO LWVHOI ZDV SULQWHG ZLWK WKH ULJKWKDQG SDJHV OHIW EODQN IRU FRPPHQWV 7KH HQWLUH YROXPH PRUH WKDQ WZR KXQGUHG SDJHV ZDV XVHG WR VSUHDG LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ WKH ELOO DQG VRPH WKUHH WKRXVDQG FRSLHV ZHUH GLVWULEXWHG ZLWKLQ D \HDU &5 6f ,Q OLHX RI KHDULQJV RQ WKH SURSRVDO 6HQDWRU +XPSKUH\ KDG UHOLHG VLQFH RQ WKH &RQJUHVVLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFH &56f WR PRQLWRU VWDWH ORFDO DQG IHGHUDO DFWLYLWLHV UHOHYDQW WR WKH GHYHORSn PHQW RI D QDWLRQDO JURZWK SROLF\ &56 f 7KHVH UHSRUWV SURYLGHG D PDMRU LQIRUPDWLRQ VRXUFH DQG D IUDPHZRUN IRU FRQVLGHULQJ WKH GLYHUVH LVVXHV DIIHFWLQJ JURZWK SROLF\ TXHVWLRQV

PAGE 143

+XPSKUH\ GHYLVHG RWKHU ZD\V WR JDWKHU LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG WR VWLPXODWH LQWHUHVW LQ JURZWK SROLF\ $PRQJ WKHVH ZHUH f D UHn TXLUHPHQW WKDW WKH &RQJUHVVLRQDO %XGJHW 2IILFHnV DQQXDO UHSRUW FRPPHQW RQ WKH LPSDFW RI EXGJHW DOWHUQDWLYHV RQ EDODQFHG QDWLRQDO JURZWK DQG GHYHORSPHQW 3/ 6HF If +H SURPRWHG f WKH DGRSWLRQ RI WKH JHQHUDO SURFHVV QRWLRQ LQ 6 LQ WKH )RUHVW DQG 5DQJHODQGV 5HQHZDEOH 5HVRXUFHV 3ODQQLQJ $FW 3/ f DQG f WKH LQFOXVLRQ RI D PDQGDWH WR GHYHORS UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV IRU QHZ SROLF\ GHYHORSPHQW PHFKDQLVPV UHOHYDQW WR JURZWK SROLF\ IRU WKH H[HFXWLYH DQG &RQJUHVV DV SDUW RI WKH UHVSRQVLELOLW\ RI WKH 1DWLRQDO &RPPLVVLRQ RQ 6XSSOLHV DQG 6KRUWDJHV 3/ 6HF f 6HQDWRU +XPSKUH\ HQFRXUDJHG 5HSUHVHQWDWLYH *HRUJH %URZQ &DOLIf WR LQWURGXFH f D FRPSDQLRQ ELOO WR 6 RQ WKH +RXVH VLGH KH SURYLGHG f UXQQLQJ FRPPHQWDU\ RQ WKH 3UHVLGHQWnV QDWLRQDO JURZWK UHSRUW XVHG f KHDULQJV RI WKH 6XEn FRPPLWWHH RQ (FRQRPLF 'HYHORSPHQW RI WKH -RLQW (FRQRPLF &RPPLWWHH DQG WKH +RXVH 3XEOLF :RUNV &RPPLWWHH WR IXUWKHU SXEOLFL]H WKH VXEMHFW RI QDWLRQDO JURZWK SROLF\ LQ JHQHUDO DQG 6 LQ SDUWLFXODU 1$7,21$/ *52:7+ $1' 7+( %8'*(7 5(3257 $ PDMRU UHIRUP RI WKH UG &RQJUHVV ZKLFK ZRXOG HIIHFW 63$ WKHUHE\ IRUFLQJ WKH FRQVFLRXV LQWHUUHODWLRQVKLS RI GHFLVLRQV ZDV WKH FRQJUHVVLRQDO %XGJHW DQG ,PSRXQGPHQW &RQWURO $FW RI 3/ f 6 KDG EHHQ ZULWWHQ SULRU WR WKH IXURU FDXVHG

PAGE 144

E\ 3UHVLGHQW 1L[RQnV LPSRXQGPHQW RI IXQGV WKDW UHVXOWHG LQ D FRQFHUWHG GULYH LQ &RQJUHVV WR UHIRUP WKH EXGJHW SURFHVV ,Q WKH FRXUVH RI GHYHORSLQJ WKH EXGJHW UHIRUP WKH 6HQDWH ZDV SULPDULO\ FRQFHUQHG ZLWK HVWDEOLVKLQJ D FRQJUHVVLRQDO EXGJHW VR WKDW &RQn JUHVV ZRXOG EH PRUH HIIHFWLYH LQ VHWWLQJ QDWLRQDO SULRULWLHV WKH +RXVH ZDV VRPHZKDW PRUH FRQFHUQHG DERXW HOLPLQDWLQJ WKH WKUHDW SRVHG E\ LPSRXQGPHQW WR WKH SRZHU RI WKH SXUVH ,I &RQJUHVV ZRXOGQnW EULQJ WKH EXGJHW WR JURZWK SROLF\ +XPn SKUH\ ZRXOG WDNH JURZWK SROLF\ WR WKH EXGJHW ,W DUULYHG LQ WKH IRUP RI DQ DPHQGPHQW WR WKH PDMRU 6HQDWH EXGJHW ELOO 6 f ZKLFK PDQGDWHG WKH %XGJHW &RPPLWWHHV DQG WKH &RQJUHVVLRQDO %XGJHW 2IILFH WR FRQVLGHU WKH LPSDFW RI EXGJHW DOWHUQDWLYHV RQ QDWLRQDO JURZWK 6SHFLILFDOO\ WKH DPHQGPHQW ZRXOG IRUFH WKH QHZO\ IRUPHG FRPPLWWHH WR UHFHLYH DQG UHYLHZ DOO LQIRUPDWLRQ GDWD DQDO\VHV DQG UHSRUWV SUHSDUHG E\ WKH &RQn JUHVVLRQDO 2IILFH RI WKH %XGJHW RQ WKH VXEn MHFWV RI ORQJUDQJH QDWLRQDO JURZWK DQG GHn YHORSPHQW JRDOV DQG SULRULWLHV UHYLHZLQJ VXFK PDWHULDO DQG XVLQJ WKHP DV D JXLGH GXULQJ WKH GHOLEHUDWLRQ RQ FRQFXUUHQW UHVRn OXWLRQV RQ WKH EXGJHW DQG LQ FDUU\LQJ RXW RWKHU GXWLHV DVVLJQHG LQ 7LWOH ,9 RI WKLV DFW &5 6f $ VHFRQG SDUW RI WKH DPHQGPHQW UHTXLUHG WKDW WKH EXGJHW RIILFH VXE PLW D 1DWLRQDO *URZWK 'HYHORSPHQW *RDOV DQG 3ULRULWLHV 5HSRUW +XPSKUH\ SUHYDLOHG LQ WKH EXGJHW ELOO ZKLFK SDVVHG WKH 6HQDWH RQ 0DUFK 7KH EXGJHW UHSRUW GXH RQ RU EHIRUH 0D\ RI HDFK \HDU ZRXOG LQFOXGH

PAGE 145

DQ DVVHVVPHQW RI WKH SUREDEOH HIIHFW RI VXFK SURSRVHG EXGJHW RXWOD\V DQG EXGJHW DXWKRULW\ DQG RI VXFK DOORFDWLRQ RI UHVRXUFHV XSRQ WKH EDODQFHG JURZWK DQG GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH QDWLRQ VXFK DVVHVVPHQW WR EH GUDZQ IURP LQn IRUPDWLRQ GDWD UHSRUWV DQG DQDO\VHV ZKLFK VKDOO EH IXUQLVKHG WR WKH 'LUHFWRU XSRQ KLV UHTXHVW E\ VXFK )HGHUDO GHSDUWPHQWV DJHQFLHV DQG EXUHDXV DV KH PD\ GHWHUPLQH DQG DV PD\ KDYH VXFK UHTXHVWHG VXEMHFW PDWWHU ZLWKLQ WKHLU RIILFLDO MXULVGLFWLRQ &*2 f ,Q FRQIHUHQFH ZLWK WKH +RXVH WKDW SDUDJUDSK ZDV UHGXFHG WR D SKUDVH 7KXV WKH &RQJUHVVLRQDO %XGJHW 2IILFHnV UHSRUW RQ DOWHUQDn WLYHV WR WKH 3UHVLGHQWnV SURSRVDO VKRXOG WDNH LQWR DFFRXQW KRZ VXFK DOWHUQDWLYH DOORFDWLRQV ZLOO PHHW QDWLRQDO QHHGV DQG DIIHFW EDODQFHG JURZWK DQG GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV 3/ 6HF If +RZ WKH &%2 ZLOO IXOILOO WKLV PDQGDWH KDV \HW WR EH VHHQ EXW +XPSKUH\nV DPHQGPHQW ZDV D ORJLFDO ZD\ WR EXLOG FRQFHUQ IRU QDWLRQDO JURZWK LQWR WKLV DGGLWLRQ WR FRQJUHVVLRQDO GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ QDPHO\ LQWR LWV RZQ EXGJHW SURFHVV 7+( *52:7+ 32/,&< 352&(66 ,1 $ 6,1*/( 32/,&< $5($ 6HQDWRU +XPSKUH\ ZDV DEOH WR SUDFWLFH KLV QRWLRQ RI D IXWXUH RULHQWHG SROLF\ GHYHORSPHQW SURFHVV WKURXJK WKH )RUHVW DQG 5DQJH ODQG 5HQHZDEOH 5HVRXUFHV 3ODQQLQJ $FW RI 6 3/ f -DPHV 7KRUQWRQ KDG SHUVXDGHG +XPSKUH\ WR SURYLGH OHDGHUVKLS LQ H[n SHULPHQWLQJ ZLWK WKLV SURFHVVRULHQWHG DSSURDFK RYHU WKH REMHFn WLRQV RI SHUVRQDO VWDII ZKR ZHUH IHDUIXO WKDW +XPSKUH\ ZRXOG EH FDXJKW LQ D PDMRU EDWWOH EHWZHHQ SUHVHUYDWLRQLVWV DQG IRUHVW UHVRXUFH XVHUV

PAGE 146

7KH UHSRUW RQ WKLV ELOO QRWHG WKDW D VL]DEOH SRUWLRQ RI WKH FRXQWU\nV IRUHVW DQG UDQJHODQG LV RZQHG E\ WKH QDWLRQDO JRYHUQPHQW 7KH UHSRUW VWDWHG +RZHYHU WR UHDFK FRQFOXVLRQV DERXW ZKDW RXJKW WR EH GRQH RQ WKH )HGHUDO ODQGV ZH QHHG NQRZOHGJH DERXW WKH FXUUHQW DQG OLNHO\ SULYDWH DFWLRQV 5HDFKLQJ FRQFOXVLRQV RQ KRZ WKH SXEOLF HIIRUW FDQ KHOS WKH SULYDWH HIIRUW UHTXLUHV D FRPSUHKHQVLYH XQGHUVWDQGn LQJ RI WKH ZKROH SLFWXUH ,Q SUHSDULQJ WKLV OHJLVODWLRQ WKH &RPn PLWWHH UHIUDLQHG IURP DWWHPSWLQJ WR GHWHUn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n SOLVKLQJ WKH PLVVLRQ VHW IRUWK &$) f 7KH UHSRUW ZHQW RQ WR VD\ WKDW D NH\ IHDWXUH RI WKH OHJLVODWLRQ ZDV LWV DWWHPSW WR SUHYHQW VKRUWVLJKWHG FXUUHQW DFWLRQV 7KH ELOO SURYLGHG IRU DQ DVVHVVPHQW RI VLWXDWLRQV DQG QHHGV HVn WDEOLVKHG DQ H[SOLFLW JRDOVHWWLQJ SURFHVV LQFOXGLQJ SXEOLF SDUn WLFLSDWLRQ WLHG EXGJHWDU\ DQG DSSURSULDWLRQV SURFHVVHV WR WKH JRDOV HVWDEOLVKHG DQG WKHQ VHW XS D PHWKRG RI HYDOXDWLQJ SURJUDP SHUIRUPDQFH 7KH DFW VHW WKH \HDU DV WKH WDUJHW \HDU IRU IXOO LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI SODQQHG LQWHQVLYH PXOWLSOHXVH VXVWDLQHG

PAGE 147

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nV WDVN ZDV WR H[DPLQH WKH LVVXH RI ORQJWHUP SROLF\ PDNLQJ LQ WKH UHVRXUFHV DQG PDn WHULDOV DUHD DQG WR SURSRVH DW D PLQLPXP ZD\V WR HVWDEOLVK D QDWLRQDO UHVRXUFHV DQG PDWHULDOV LQIRUPDWLRQ V\VWHP ,Q RUGHU WR HVWDEOLVK D PHDQV WR LQWHJUDWH WKH VWXG\ RI VXSSOLHV DQG VKRUWDJHV RI UHVRXUFHV DQG FRPPRGLWLHV LQWR WKH WRWDO SUREOHP RI EDODQFHG QDWLRQDO JURZWK DQG GHYHORSPHQW +XPSKUH\nV ILUVW DSSURDFK ZDV WR KDYH WKH FRPPLVVLRQ UHSRUW WR &RQJUHVV DQG 3UHVLGHQW RQ WKH PRVW DSSURSULDWH PHDQV ZLWKLQ JRYHUQPHQW PXOWLn VWDWH QHWZRUNV DQG VWDWH MXULVGLFWLRQV WR VHW QDWLRQDO JURZWK SROLF\ +XPSKUH\nV RULJLQDO DPHQGPHQW HQXPHUDWHG WKH DVSHFWV RI QDWLRQDO SROLF\ PDNLQJ WR EH VWXGLHG E\ WKH FRPPLVVLRQ :KHQ 6HQDWRU 0LNH 0DQVILHOG 0RQWf REMHFWHG WR WKLV DGGLWLRQDO

PAGE 148

IUHLJKW +XPSKUH\ GURSSHG WKH DPHQGPHQWnV VHFRQG VHQWHQFH DQG D VWDJJHULQJ DUUD\ RI WRSLFV 7KH SULQFLSDO IXQFWLRQ RI VXFK SROLF\PDNLQJ SURFHVV DQG FRRUGLQDWLQJ V\VWHP LV WR GHn YHORS VSHFLILF QDWLRQDO SROLFLHV UHODWLQJ WR WKH DFKLHYHPHQW RI D PRUH EDODQFHG UHJLRQDO GLVWULEXWLRQ RI HFRQRPLF JURZWK DQG GHYHORSn PHQW LQFRPH GLVWULEXWLRQ HQYLURQPHQWDO SURWHFWLRQ VXSSO\ DQG FRQVHUYDWLRQ RI IXHOV DQG HQHUJ\ WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ V\VWHPV HPSOR\n PHQW KRXVLQJ KHDOWK FDUH VHUYLFHV IRRG DQG ILEHU SURGXFWLRQ UHFUHDWLRQ DQG FXOWXUDO RSSRUWXQLWLHV FRPPXQLFDWLRQ V\VWHPV ODQG XVH KXPDQ FDUH DQG GHYHORSPHQW WHFKQRORJ\ DVVHVVPHQW DQG WUDQVIHU DQG PRQHWDU\ DQG ILVFDO SROLF\ FU OJ 6f $IWHU IXUWKHU REMHFWLRQV +XPSKUH\ DVNHG WR KXGGOH IRU D IHZ PRPHQWV 'HVSLWH 6HQDWRU -RKQ 9 7XQQH\nV ODVWPLQXWH FDXWLRQV DJDLQVW DPHQGPHQWV KH FDXFXVHG ZLWK +XPSKUH\ DQG %URFN DQG +XPSKUH\ ZRQ RXW 7XQQH\ DQG %URFN DJUHHG WR DFFHSW +XPSKUH\nV DPHQGPHQW QRZ D SURSRVDO WR VHW XS D VSHFLDO DGYLVRU\ FRPPLWWHH WR WKH FRPn PLVVLRQ ZLWK LWV RZQ DXWKRUL]DWLRQ IRU DSSURSULDWLRQ ,W ZDV WR VWXG\ KRZ WKH SUREOHPV RI VXSSOLHV DQG VKRUWDJHV FRXOG EH LQWHJUDWHG LQWR ODUJHU TXHVWLRQV RI QDWLRQDO JURZWK DQG GHn YHORSPHQW 7KH DGYLVRU\ FRPPLWWHH ZDV WR SURGXFH UHFRPPHQGDn WLRQV UHJDUGLQJ WKH HVWDEOLVKPHQW RI D SROLF\PDNLQJ SURFHVV DQG VWUXFWXUH ZLWKLQ WKH H[HFXWLYH DQG OHJLVODWLYH EUDQFKHV RI WKH )HGHUDO *RYHUQPHQW DQG D V\VWHP IRU FRRUGLQDWLQJ WKHVH HIIRUWV ZLWK DSSURSULDWH PXOWLVWDWH UHJLRQDO DQG 6WDWH JRYHUQPHQWDO

PAGE 149

MXULVGLFWLRQ &5 6f 7KXV +XPSKUH\ ZRQ HQGRUVHPHQW RI WKH QHHG WR LQWHJUDWH PDWHULDOV TXHVWLRQV LQWR QDWLRQDO JURZWK SROLF\ D QHHG 6 ZRXOG PHHW DQG KH HVWDEOLVKHG D IXQGHG DGYLVRU\ FRPPLWWHH WR H[DPLQH WKH VROXWLRQV ZKLFK 6 RIIHUHG ,1752'8&7,21 ,1 7+( +286( 6 ZDV LQWURGXFHG LQ WKH +RXVH E\ 5HSUHVHQWDWLYH *HRUJH ( %URZQ -U &DOLIf D PHPEHU RI WKH &RPPLWWHH RQ 6FLHQFH DQG $VWURQDXWLFV %URZQ ZDV LQWHUHVWHG LQ ORQJUDQJH SODQQLQJ DQG KH KDG FRPH LQ FRQWDFW ZLWK SURSRVDOV VLPLODU WR +XPSKUH\nV WKURXJK WKH FRPPLWWHHnV KHDULQJV RQ IHGHUDO SROLF\ SODQV DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQV IRU VFLHQFH DQG WHFKQRORJ\ $V KH LQWURGXFHG WKH ELOO %URZQ SRLQWHG RXW WKH SURFHVV DVSHFWWKDW LW GRHV QRW VSHFLILFDOO\ SUHVFULEH SROLF\ EXW UDWKHU DWWHPSWV WR UHIRFXV QDWLRQDO LQVWLWXWLRQV VR DV WR DSSURDFK YLUWXDOO\ WKH HQWLUH VSHFWUXP RI GRPHVWLF SROLFLHV LQ UHODWLRQ WR JURZWK DQG GHYHORSn PHQW &5 +f ,Q WKH +RXVH WKH ELOO ZDV UHIHUUHG WR WKH 5XOHV &RPPLWWHH EHFDXVH LWV VFRSH ZDV VR EURDG WKDW LW IHOO LQ QR VLQJOH FRPPLWWHHnV MXULVGLFWLRQ $OWKRXJK %URZQ LQWURGXFHG WKH ELOO EHFDXVH LW ZDV ODWH LQ WKH VHVVLRQ KH GLG QRW SXVK LW 7KH +RXVH WKHQ KDG QR PHFKDQLVP IRU GHDOLQJ ZLWK ODUJHVFDOH SURSRVDOV RYHUODSSLQJ VHYHUDO MXULVGLFWLRQV $ SURYLVLRQ RI WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH UHIRUP DOORZV WKH 6SHDNHU WR UHIHU ELOOV ZKLFK RYHUODS WR HDFK FRPPLWWHH HLWKHU MRLQWO\ RU VHTXHQWLDOO\ 7KXV

PAGE 150

DFFRUGLQJ WR D VWDII PHPEHU LQ WKH WK &RQJUHVV D FRPSDQLRQ PHDVXUH WR 6 ZRXOG EH UHIHUUHG WR VL[ FRPPLWWHHV LQ WKH +RXVH 7+( 35(6,'(17n6 %,(11,$/ *52:7+ 5(3257 $ PDMRU LWHP LQ WKH RQJRLQJ GHEDWH RYHU QDWLRQDO JURZWK KDV EHHQ WKH UHSRUW ZKLFK WKH 3UHVLGHQW PXVW PDNH E\ )HEUXDU\ RI HDFK HYHQQXPEHUHG \HDU 7KH GLVFXVVLRQ DQG UHSRUW SURGXFHG E\ 5HSUHn VHQWDWLYH $VKOH\nV KHDULQJV RQ WKH ILUVW UHSRUW SXW WKH LVVXH LQ WHUPV RI SUHVLGHQWLDO UHOXFWDQFH WR WDNH DQ DFWLYH DQG IRUFHn IXO OHDGHUVKLS UROH LQ GHYHORSLQJ D QDWLRQDO JURZWK SROLF\ &%& E Ff &RQJUHVV WKHQ ZRXOG KDYH WR FRQWLQXH LWV LQLWLDn WLYHV WRZDUG D JURZWK SROLF\ ,Q WKLV VSLULW +XPSKUH\ XSVWDJHG $VKOH\ DQG RWKHU LQWHUHVWHG PHPEHUV RI &RQJUHVV LQ E\ FULWLFL]LQJ WKH 3UHVLGHQWnV VHFRQG JURZWK UHSRUW +XPSKUH\ UHn FHLYHG D FRS\ RI WKH GUDIW UHSRUW DV LW ZDV EHLQJ VXEPLWWHG E\ WKH 'HSDUWPHQW RI +RXVLQJ DQG 8UEDQ 'HYHORSPHQW WR WKH :KLWH +RXVH ,Q 2FWREHU KH SURGXFHG KLV RZQ DQDO\VLV RI WKH GUDIW UHn SRUW XVLQJ WKLV DQDO\VLV DV D IRUXP IRU SDUWV RI 6 ZKLFK ZRXOG UHPHG\ WKH GHIHFWV KH IRXQG LQ WKH UHSRUW &5 6, fA -(& $1' +286( 38%/,& :25.6 &200,77(( +($5,1*6 %HFDXVH QR KHDULQJV ZHUH KHOG VSHFLILFDOO\ RQ 6 +XPn SKUH\ XVHG UHODWHG KHDULQJV WR SXVK WKH ELOO KHDULQJV RQ QDWLRQDO JURZWK E\ WKH 6XEFRPPLWWHH RQ (FRQRPLF 'HYHORSPHQW RI -(& -(&

PAGE 151

f DQG KHDULQJV RQ WKH QHHG IRU D QDWLRQDO SXEOLF ZRUNV LQYHVWn PHQW SROLF\ E\ WKH +RXVH 3XEOLF :RUNV &RPPLWWHH &3: Ff ,17(5(67 $1' 6833257 2876,'( &21*5(66 6HQDWRU +XPSKUH\ DQG -DPHV 7KRUQWRQ ZHUH EXV\ JDWKHULQJ VXSSRUW RXWVLGH &RQJUHVV DQG GXULQJ WKH UG &RQJUHVV JHQHUDO VXSSRUW IRU PHFKDQLVPV WR VHW QDWLRQDO JURZWK SROLF\ ZDV JLYHQ E\ VHYHUDO JURXSV DPRQJ WKHP WKH 1DWLRQDO *RYHUQRUV &RQIHUHQFH WKH &RQIHUHQFH RI 0D\RUV WKH 1DWLRQDO $VVRFLDWLRQ RI &RXQWLHV WKH $PHULFDQ ,QVWLWXWH RI $UFKLWHFWV DQG WKH $PHULFDQ ,QVWLWXWH RI 3ODQQHUV 0DQ\ RI WKHVH JURXSV VXSSRUWHG RQH RU PRUH FRQFHSWV RU VWUXFWXUHV LQ 6 DOWKRXJK QRQH DGGUHVVHG WKH ELOO LWVHOI EHFDXVH LW ZDV QRW JHWWLQJ VHULRXV FRQVLGHUDWLRQ LQ &RQJUHVV DQG EHFDXVH RWKHU SURSRVDOV IRU QDWLRQDO JURZWK SROLF\ KDG EHHQ LQWURn GXFHG E\ 6HQDWRU 9DQFH +DUWNH ,QGf DOWKRXJK WKHVH SURSRVDOV ZHUH QRW VR WKRURXJK RU LQFOXVLYH DV 6 7KH $PHULFDQ ,QVWLWXWH RI 3ODQQHUV $,3f IRU LQVWDQFH LQ D VWDWHPHQW RQ QDWLRQDO SODQQLQJ SROLF\ DVNHG WKDW WKH IHGHUDO UHn JLRQDO FRXQFLOV EH XSJUDGHG DQG D FHQWUDO SODQQLQJ RIILFH EH HVWDEOLVKHG LQ WKH ([HFXWLYH 2IILFH RI WKH 3UHVLGHQW VLPLODU WR WKH 2IILFH RI %DODQFHG 1DWLRQDO *URZWK DQG 'HYHORSPHQW SURSRVHG LQ 6 $,3 FDOOHG RQ &RQJUHVV WR IRUP D -RLQW &RPPLWWHH RQ 1DWLRQDO 'HYHORSPHQW 3ROLF\ WR JLYH &RQJUHVV D SODQQLQJ DQG SROLF\ DQDO\VLV FDSDFLW\ UHODWHG WR QDWLRQDO GHYHORSPHQW 7KLV MRLQW FRPn PLWWHH ZDV WR H[DPLQH WKH QDWLRQDO SROLF\ LPSOLFDWLRQV RI WKH

PAGE 152

QDWLRQDO EXGJHW DQG UHYLHZ WKH 3UHVLGHQWnV JURZWK UHSRUW ZLWK WKH DLG RI DQ DGGLWLRQDO FHQWUDO VWDII RUJDQL]DWLRQ DQDO\]LQJ PDMRU OHJLVODWLYH SURJUDPV LQ UHODWLRQ WR QDWLRQDO JRDOV SULRULWLHV DQG GHYHORSPHQW WUHQGV $,3 f 2WKHU JURXSV JDYH VXSSRUW PRUH E\ WKHLU DQDO\VHV DQG FRQn IHUHQFHV WKDQ E\ WKH HQGRUVHPHQW RI WKHLU SURIHVVLRQDO PHPEHUn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f ZKLOH XUEDQ LQWHUHVWV DUH PRUH FRQFHUQHG ZLWK VROYLQJ XUEDQVXEXUEDQ DQG UDFLDO FRQIOLFWV DQG GHYHORSLQJ GHFOLQLQJ XUEDQ DUHDV \HW WKHVH FRQIOLFWV QHYHU UHDOO\ VXUIDFHG GXULQJ WKH UG &RQJUHVV 7+( 6(1$7( *29(510(17 23(5$7,216 &200,77(( 6 ZDV UHIHUUHG RQ LQWURGXFWLRQ WR WKH 6HQDWH *RYHUQPHQW 2SHUDWLRQV &RPPLWWHH &*2f 8S WR WKLV WLPH +XPSKUH\ KDG FRQWLQXHG WR ZRUN RQ WKH ELOO EXW KH KDG QRW PRYHG WR LQWURGXFH LW EHFDXVH KH ZDV QR ORQJHU D PHPEHU RI WKH FRPPLWWHH WKDW ZRXOG FRQVLGHU LW )LQDOO\ LQ )HEUXDU\ KH LQWURGXFHG WKH ELOO ZKHUHXSRQ LW ZDV VHQW WR WKH *RYHUQPHQW 2SHUDWLRQV &RPPLWWHH

PAGE 153

$PRQJ WKH ILIWHHQ PHPEHUV RI WKLV FRPPLWWHH LQWHUYLHZV UHn YHDOHG VRPH LQWHUHVW LQ UHVSRQVH WR 63$ TXHVWLRQV EXW OLWWOH RU QR WKRXJKW RI VSHFLILF UHPHGLHV WR WKH SUREOHPV RI DQWLFLSDWLRQ RI VHDUFKLQJ IRU HPHUJLQJ LVVXHV $OO H[SUHVVHG VRPH GLVVDWLVIDFn WLRQ ZLWK WKH QRUPDO ZD\V WKDW &RQJUHVV VHDUFKHV IRU SUREOHPV 0RVW RI WKH PHPEHUV ZHUH QRW VDQJXLQH DERXW FRQJUHVVLRQDO DELOLW\ WR DQWLFLSDWH FULVHV H[SUHVVLQJ FRQFHUQ DERXW RUJDQL]DWLRQDO PHFKDQLVPV SDUWLFXODUO\ IRU LGHQWLI\LQJ DQG IRUFLQJ DFWLRQ RQ SUREOHPV 2WKHUV QRWHG WKH YDOXH RI FULVHV LQ DOORZLQJ IRU FKDQJHV LQ GLUHFWLRQ PDMRU VKLIWV 2QH PHPEHU ZKR KDG EHHQ LQn YROYHG LQ D VWDWH DWWHPSW WR DQWLFLSDWH SUREOHPV DQG WR DUWLFXn ODWH ORQJUDQJH JRDOV EHO LHYHG WKDW WKLV W\SH RI SODQQLQJ DQG DVVHVVPHQW LV GRQH IRU PLOLWDU\ LVVXHV EXW QRW IRU VRFLDO RQHV +H WKRXJKW WKDW &RQJUHVV PD\ EH DEOH WR DQWLFLSDWH SUREOHPV DQG WKDW UHJDUGOHVV WKH DWWHPSW WR DQWLFLSDWH LV YDOXDEOH LQ LWVHOI FRPPLWWHH@ VWDII DQG WKH FKDLUPDQ 6HQDWRU (UYLQ FKDLUPDQ RI WKH FRPPLWWHH ZDV QRW SDUWLFXODUO\ LQWHUHVWHG LQ JURZWK SROLF\ TXHVWLRQV KH GLG QRW ZDQW WR FRQn VLGHU 6 'XULQJ WKH UG &RQJUHVV KH VSHQW PXFK RI KLV WLPH FKDLULQJ WKH :DWHUJDWH KHDULQJV DV ZHOO DV HQJDJLQJ LQ D IHZ PDMRU 2 OHJLVODWLYH DFWLYLWLHV VXFK DV EXGJHW UHIRUP

PAGE 154

6(1$725 +803+5(
PAGE 155

%DODQFHG 1DWLRQDO *URZWK DQG 'HYHORSPHQW FUHDWHG E\ WKH ELOO EXW JLYHQ +XPSKUH\nV SRVLWLRQ LQ WKH 6HQDWH LQ WKH WK &RQJUHVV KH EHFDPH FKDLUPDQ RI WKH -RLQW (FRQRPLF &RPPLWWHHf DQG WKH WHQWDWLYH QDWXUH RI WKLV SDUWLFXODU LQFHQWLYH SRZHU LQ WKH 6HQDWH ZDV SUREn DEO\ QRW D VLJQLILFDQW JRDO LQ GHWHUPLQLQJ +XPSKUH\nV DGYRFDF\ RI 6 +XPSKUH\nV DFWLRQV GXULQJ WKH WK &RQJUHVV SURORQJHG WKLV GLOHPPD RI WKH SUHGRPLQDQW JRDO +XPSKUH\ VZLWFKHG IURP 6 ZKLFK SURYLGHV IRU QDWLRQDO SODQQLQJ E\ IRFXVLQJ RQ JURZWK DQG GHYHORSPHQW SROLF\ SURFHVV WR D ELOO ZKLFK VWUHVVHG D PRUH HFRQRPLF DSSURDFK 6 WK &RQJUHVVf &ULWLFV KDYH VDLG WKDW WKLV VKLIW LQYROYHG DQ LPSOLFLW GRZQJUDGLQJ RI FRQFHUQ IRU HQYLURQPHQWDO SUREOHPV 7KHVH FULWLFV DOVR VXJJHVWHG WKDW +XPSKUH\nV FKDQJH ZDV SURPSWHG LQ SDUW E\ KLV QHHG IRU ODERU VXSn SRUW LI KH PDGH D ODVWPLQXWH ELG IRU WKH 'HPRFUDWLF SUHVLGHQWLDO QRPLQDWLRQ LQ 7KH SODQQLQJ ELOO KDV EHHQ VXSSRUWHG E\ WKH ,QLWLDWLYH &RPPLWWHH IRU 1DWLRQDO 3ODQQLQJ D JURXS RI QRWDEOHV KHDGHG E\ :DVVLO\ /HRQWLHI +DUYDUG HFRQRPLVW DQG /HRQDUG :RRGn FRFN SUHVLGHQW RI WKH 8QLWHG $XWR :RUNHUV 8QLRQ 6800$5< ,1&8%$7,1* $1 63$ 5()250 ,167,*$7,21 $1' 38%/,&,=,1* 7KH QHHG IRU QDWLRQDO JURZWK SROLF\ ZDV LQVWLJDWHG DQG SXEOLFL]HG IURP GLYHUVH VRXUFHV WKH OLPLWV WR JURZWK GHEDWH JRYHUQPHQWDO FRQFHUQ IRU XUEDQ DQG UXUDO JURZWK H[SUHVVHG LQ SURJUDPV VXFK DV $SSDODFKLD WKH 5XUDO 'HYHORSn PHQW $FW RI DQG D YDULHW\ RI UHSRUWV ZRUN E\ DFDGHPLF DQG

PAGE 156

SROLF\ UHVHDUFK LQVWLWXWHV DQG DFWLYLW\ E\ RWKHU FRQJUHVVLRQDO FRPPLWWHHV 6 SURSRVHG WKH PHFKDQLVPV QHFHVVDU\ WR HVWDEOLVK QDWLRQDO JURZWK SROLF\ :KLOH PRVW SXEOLFL]LQJ DFWLYLW\ LQFOXGHG VRPH PHQWLRQ RI VSHFLILF PHFKDQLVPV WKLV FRQFHUQ ZDV XVXDOO\ PLQRU 7KXV +XPSKUH\ ZDV DQ LPSRUWDQW LQVWLJDWRU RI WKH QHHG IRU PHFKn DQLVPV ZRUNLQJ WKURXJK DPHQGPHQWV WR EXGJHW SURFHVV OHJLVODWLRQ DQG RQ WKH 1DWLRQDO &RPPLVVLRQ RQ 6XSSOLHV DQG 6KRUWDJHV DQG WKURXJK FRPPHQWDU\ RQ WKH 3UHVLGHQWnV JURZWK UHSRUW )2508/$7,21 7KH ODUJH FRPSOH[ 6 SDFNDJH ZDV IRUPXn ODWHG WKURXJK WKH LQWHUHVW DQG SHUVLVWHQFH RI -DPHV ( 7KRUQWRQ DQG DW +XPSKUH\nV GLUHFWLRQ 7KH IRUPXODWRU GUDZV ERXQGDULHV DURXQG DQ LVVXH DQG HVWDEOLVKHV D IRFDO SRLQW IRU LWV IXUWKHU FRQVLGHUDWLRQ 3ULFH f 7KRUQWRQnV ERXQGDULHV LQ WKH ELOO ZHUH QRWKLQJ VKRUW RI WKH ZKROH UDQJH RI GRPHVWLF DQG VRPH LQWHUQDWLRQDO SROLFLHV DV ZHOO DV WKH DJHQFLHV ZKLFK GHDO ZLWK SROLF\ ,Q DGGLn WLRQ WR SURYLGLQJ IRU WKH DQDO\WLFDO XQLWV LQ WKH H[HFXWLYH DQG LQ &RQJUHVV ZKLFK ZRXOG VHDUFK IRU HPHUJLQJ LVVXHV DQG LQIRUP FXUUHQW GHFLVLRQV 7KRUQWRQ PDGH H[SOLFLW WKH JRYHUQPHQWDO IRUXPV ZKLFK PD\ IRUFH WKH FRQVFLRXV LQWHUUHODWLRQVKLS RI GHFLVLRQV :RUNLQJ ZLWKRXW VLJQLILFDQW FRPPLWWHH UHVRXUFHV EXW ZLWK VLJQLILn FDQW KHOS IURP WKH &RQJUHVVLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFH 7KRUQWRQ VSHQW D \HDU DQG D KDOI PXFK RI LW KLV RZQ WLPH LQ IRUPXODWLQJ WKH ELOO ZKLOH KLV PDMRU OHJLVODWLYH UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV IRU +XPSKUH\ LQYROYHG WKH $JULFXOWXUH &RPPLWWHH +XPSKUH\ FRXOG QRW FRPPDQG WKH OX[XU\ RI D VSHFLDO VXEFRPPLWWHH WR FRQVLGHU WKH JURZWK LVVXH

PAGE 157

,1)250$7,21 *$7+(5,1* ,QIRUPDWLRQ ZDV JDWKHUHG EXW QRW E\ D FRPPLWWHH KDQGOLQJ WKH ELOO 7KH *RYHUQPHQW 2SHUDWLRQV &RPPLWWHH ZRXOG QRW FRQVLGHU LW 6HQDWRU +XPSKUH\nV DFWLYLWLHV LQ UHODWLRQ WR EXGJHW OHJLVODWLRQ WKH VXSSOLHV DQG VKRUWDJHV FRPPLVVLRQ DQG WKH 3UHVLGHQWnV JURZWK UHSRUW DLGHG LQ WKH LQIRUPDWLRQJDWKHULQJ SURFHVV $ PDMRU VRXUFH RI LQIRUPDWLRQ KDV EHHQ WKH &56 VXPPDULHV RI GHYHORSPHQWV LQ WKH JURZWK SROLF\ DUHD $Q LPSRUWDQW GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ 6 DQG WKH RWKHU OHJLVODWLRQ ZH KDYH VWXGLHG LV WKH ODFN RI D KHDULQJ UHFRUG UHIOHFWLQJ DW OHDVW VRPH RI WKHVH HIIRUWV EHFDXVH RI WKH RXWRIFRPPLWWHH QDWXUH RI WKLV VWDJH RI 6 nV GHYHORSPHQW ,17(5(67 $**5(*$7,21 /LWWOH LQWHUHVW DJJUHJDWLRQ WRRN SODFH GXULQJ WKH UG &RQJUHVV ZKHQ FRQVLGHUHG LQ UHODWLRQ WR WKH LQWHUHVWV SRWHQWLDOO\ DIIHFWHG E\ WKH ELOO +XPSKUH\ DQG 7KRUQWRQ ZHUH LQ WRXFK ZLWK YDULRXV JURXSV OLNHO\ WR VXSSRUW WKHLU HIIRUWV VXFK DV WKH $PHULFDQ ,QVWLWXWH RI 3ODQQHUV DQG WKH $GYLVRU\ &RPPLVn VLRQ RQ ,QWHUJRYHUQPHQWDO 5HODWLRQV $ PDMRU IDFWRU FRQGLWLRQLQJ WKH XOWLPDWH GLVSRVLWLRQ RI D ELOO 3ULFH f QRWHG LV LWV LPSLQJHPHQW RQ EXUHDXFUDWLF VWUXFWXUHV 7KLV PDMRU FDWHJRU\ RI LQWHUHVWV ZDV QRW GHDOW ZLWK LQ WKH UG &RQJUHVV WKH H[HFXWLYH EUDQFK DJHQFLHV GHSDUWPHQWV DQG RIILFHV *LYHQ WKH HIIHFW 6 ZRXOG KDYH RQ SROLF\ FRRUGLQDWLRQ DQG KHQFH DJHQF\ DXWRQRP\ LW ZLOO QHYHU EH SDVVHG ZLWKRXW SUHVLGHQWLDO VXSSRUW DQG SUHVLGHQWLDO VXSSRUW RIWHQ UHTXLUHV LQFOXVLRQ RI WKH LQWHUHVWV RI PDMRU EXUHDXn FUDWLF DFWRUV DW WKH WLPH D ELOO LV VHULRXVO\ FRQVLGHUHG

PAGE 158

02%,/,=$7,21 $1' 02',),&$7,21} 6WDJHV DQG PXVW ZDLW IRU GHYHORSPHQW LQ DQRWKHU &RQJUHVV :KHWKHU DQ LVVXH JRHV EH\RQG WKH SXEOLFL]LQJ DQG IRUPXODWLQJ VWDJHV XVXDOO\ GHSHQGV RQ WKH VXSSRUW LW UHFHLYHV IURP LQGLYLGXDOV JURXSV RU JRYHUQPHQWDO XQLWV WKDW SRVVHVV DXWKRULW\ DQG OHJLWLPDF\ LQ WKH SROLF\ DUHD DQG RQ WKH H[WHQW RI nLQWUDHOLWH RUJDQL]LQJn E\ NH\ OHDGHUV 3ULFH f %HFDXVH WKH ELOO VWXFN DW WKH HQDEOLQJ FRPn PLWWHH OHYHO +XPSKUH\ UHDOL]HG WKDW PRELOL]DWLRQ HIIRUWV ZRXOG EH ZDVWHG $V D UHVXOW RI WKLV ODFN RI FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RSSRVLWLRQ WR 6 ZDV QRW JHQHUDWHG /LNHZLVH WKHUH ZHUH QR PRGLILFDn WLRQV RI 6 GXULQJ WKH UG &RQJUHVV EHFDXVH LW ZDV QRW VHULRXVO\ FRQVLGHUHG 7KH HVWDEOLVKPHQW RI D FRQJUHVVLRQDO EXGJHW SURFHVV DQG WKH DFFRPSDQ\LQJ &RQJUHVVLRQDO %XGJHW 2IILFH ZLOO QHFHVVLWDWH PXFK PRGLILFDWLRQ LI WKH ELOO LV WR EH UHLQWURGXFHG 8QOLNH WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQD VPDOO FKDQJH ZKLFK ZDV FRQn VLGHUHG DQG SDVVHG6 UHPDLQHG D ODUJH DQG ODUJHO\ XQH[n DPLQHG UHIRUP GXULQJ WKH UG &RQJUHVV :KLOH WKH HQHUJ\ FULVLV ZDV DW LWV SHDN ZKLOH VHYHUDO RWKHU FULVHV RFFXUUHG WKHVH HYHQWV KDG OLWWOH LPSDFW RQ VXSSRUW IRU PHFKDQLVPV WR VHW QDWLRQDO JURZWK SROLF\ 7KH ELOO WKDW UHIOHFWHG +XPSKUH\nV LQWHUHVWV DQG KLV VWDIIHUnV FRPPLWPHQW DQG H[SHUWLVH KDG EHHQ GHDG LQ FRPPLWWHH IURP WKH EHJLQQLQJ EXW 6HQDWRU +XPSKUH\ SHUVLVWHG LQ SURPRWLQJ WKH FRQFHSWV RI 6 DQG ZKHQHYHU SRVVLEOH WKH ELOO LWVHOI 6WLOO WKH %DODQFHG 1DWLRQDO *URZWK DQG 'HYHORSPHQW $FW RI ZDV GRRPHG WR UHPDLQ LQ LWV LQFXEDWLRQ SHULRG

PAGE 159

127(6 7KH FRPPLWWHHV UHSUHVHQWHG RQ WKH -RLQW &RPPLWWHH RQ %DODQFHG 1DWLRQDO *URZWK DQG 'HYHORSPHQW ZRXOG EH 6(1$7( &20 0,77((6$HURQDXWLFV DQG 6SDFH 6FLHQFHV $JULFXOWXUH DQG )RUHVWU\ $SSURSULDWLRQV $UPHG 6HUYLFHV %DQNLQJ +RXVLQJ DQG 8UEDQ $IIDLUV &RPPHUFH )LQDQFH *RYHUQPHQW 2SHUDWLRQV ,QWHULRU /Dn ERU DQG 3XEOLF :HOIDUH 3XEOLF :RUNV +286( &200,77((6$JULFXO WXUH $SSURSULDWLRQV $UPHG 6HUYLFHV %DQNLQJ DQG &XUUHQF\ (GXFDn WLRQ DQG /DERU 6FLHQFH DQG $VWURQDXWLFV 9HWHUDQnV $IIDLUV :D\V DQG 0HDQV -2,17 &200,77((6$WRPLF (QHUJ\ (FRQRPLF 6 6HF Ef 3HRSOH /HIW %HKLQG f IRU H[DPSOH $PRQJ WKHVH VRXUFHV ZHUH 7KH /LPLWV WR *URZWK 0HDGRZV HW DO f %OXHSULQW IRU 6XUYLYDO *ROGVPLWK $OOHQ $OODE\ 'DYROO t /DZUHQFH f DQG JRYHUQPHQW UHSRUWV RQ 3RSXODWLRQ DQG WKH $PHULFDQ )XWXUH f DQG 5HVRXUFHV DQG 0DQ 1DWLRQDO $FDGHP\ RI 6FLHQFHV Ef 7KH &RXQFLO VKDOO EH FRPSRVHG RI WKH $WWRUQH\ *HQHUDO WKH 6HFUHWDULHV RI +RXVLQJ DQG 8UEDQ 'HYHORSPHQW $JULFXOWXUH +HDOWK (GXFDWLRQ DQG :HOIDUH ,QWHULRU &RPPHUFH 'HIHQVH /DERU 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ 7UHDVXU\ DQG WKH &KDLUPDQ RI WKH %RDUG RI *RYHUQRUV RI WKH )HGHUDO 5HVHUYH 6\VWHP WKH 'LUHFWRU RI WKH )RXQGDWLRQ RQ WKH $PHULFDQ )XWXUH WKH &KDLUPDQ RI WKH 'RPHVWLF &RXQFLO WKH 'LUHFWRU RI WKH 2IILFH RI 0DQDJHPHQW DQG %XGJHW WKH &KDLUPDQ RI WKH &RXQFLO RI (FRQRPLF $GYLVHUV WKH &KDLUPDQ RI WKH $GYLVRU\ &RPPLWWHH RQ ,QWHUJRYHUQPHQWDO 5HODn WLRQV WKH 'LUHFWRU RI WKH 2IILFH RI (FRQRPLF 2SSRUWXQLW\ WKH $GPLQLVWUDWRU RI WKH )HGHUDO (QHUJ\ 2IILFH WKH $GPLQLVn WUDWRU RI WKH *HQHUDO 6HUYLFHV $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ WKH $GPLQLVn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nV JURZWK DQG GHYHORSPHQW JRDOV DQG

PAGE 160

SULRULWLHV 2QFH HDFK \HDU WKH 2IILFH VKDOO VXEPLW WR WKH &RPPLWWHHV RQ WKH %XGJHW RI ERWK +RXVHV DQG WR HDFK +RXVH RI &RQJUHVV D 1DWLRQDO *URZWK 'HYHORSPHQW *RDOV DQG 3ULn RULWLHV 5HSRUW FRQWDLQLQJ VXFK LQIRUPDWLRQ GDWD DQG DQDO\VLV DV WKH 'LUHFWRU VKDOO GHHP QHFHVVDU\ WR HQDEOH &RQn JUHVV WR FRQVLGHU ILVFDO DQG EXGJHWDU\ PDWWHUV LQ WHUPV RI EDODQFHG QDWLRQDO JURZWK DQG GHYHORSPHQW SROLFLHV DQG QDWLRQDO JRDOV DQG SULRULWLHV &5 6f 7KH DFW FUHDWLQJ ERWK WKH FRPPLVVLRQ DQG WKH VSHFLDO DGn YLVRU\ FRPPLWWHH 3/ f ZDV ODWHU DPHQGHG WZLFH EHFDXVH RI GHOD\V RQ WKH SDUW RI WKH H[HFXWLYH EUDQFK LQ VXEPLWWLQJ LWV QRPLQDWLRQV IRU SXEOLF PHPEHUV %RWK WKH FRPPLVVLRQ DQG WKH DGn YLVRU\ FRPPLWWHH DUH UHTXLUHG WR VXEPLW WKHLU UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV WR WKH &RQJUHVV E\ 'HFHPEHU ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKH DXWKRUL]HG IXQGLQJ OHYHOV IRU ERWK ZHUH LQFUHDVHG WR PLOOLRQ DQG UHVSHFWLYHO\ 7KRUQWRQ ZDV DSSRLQWHG H[HFXWLYH GLUHFWRU RI WKH DGn YLVRU\ FRPPLWWHH ZLWK VHYHUDO ORQJWLPH DGYRFDWHV RI QDWLRQDO SROLF\ SODQQLQJ QDPHG WR VHUYH RQ WKH FRPPLWWHH 1RUPDQ %HFNPDQ DVVLVWDQW GLUHFWRU RI WKH &RQJUHVVLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFH UHn VSRQVLEOH IRU &56 SXEOLFDWLRQV RQ JURZWK SROLF\f :DVLO\ /HRQWLHI +DUYDUG HFRQRPLVW DQG /HRQDUG :RRGFRFN SUHVLGHQW RI WKH 8QLWHG $XWR :RUNHUV FRFKDLUPHQ RI WKH ,QLWLDWLYH &RPPLWWHH IRU 1DWLRQDO 3ODQQLQJf 5DOSK :LGQHU GLUHFWRU RI WKH $FDGHP\ IRU &RQWHPSRUDU\ 3UREOHPV 2Q -DQXDU\ +XPSKUH\ DJDLQ JDYH KLV FULWLTXH RI WKH ILQDO UHSRUW LVVXHG E\ WKH 3UHVLGHQW &5 6f 7R D OHWWHU DVNLQJ IRU DQ LQWHUYLHZ ZLWK KLP RU DQ DLGH (UYLQ UHSOLHG WKXV $V \RX PD\ NQRZ KDYH EHHQ FRQWLQXRXVO\ RFFXSLHG ZLWK PDWWHUV RI HTXDO QDWLRQDO LPSRUWDQFH LQFOXGLQJ OHJLVODWLRQ WR UHTXLUH FRQILUPDWLRQ RI WKH 'LUHFWRU DQG 'HSXW\ 'LUHFWRU RI 0% WKH &RQJUHVVLRQDO EXGJHW PHDVXUH WKH HVWDEOLVKPHQW RI WKH )HGHUDO (QHUJ\ $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ HQHUJ\ UHVHDUFK 3UHVLGHQWLDO LPSRXQGn PHQW H[HFXWLYH SULYLOHJH DQG ODVW EXW QRW OHDVW WKH :DWHUn JDWH PDWWHU 7KH ELOOV \RX UHIHU WR ZKLFK DUH EHIRUH WKLV &RPPLWWHH DUH 6 6HQ +DUWNHnV *URZWK %LOOf DQG 6 DQG WKH\ DUH DOO EHLQJ SURFHVVHG E\ WKH &RPPLWWHH VWDII LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK XVXDO &RPPLWWHH SURFHGXUHV 7KH SUHVV RI ZRUN RQ WKH PDWWHUV PHQWLRQHG DERYH KDV SUHYHQWHG PH IURP IDPLOLDUL]LQJ P\VHOI ZLWK WKHVH ELOOV DQG KDYH QRW IRUPXODWHG DQ\ EHOLHIV DQG SHUFHSWLRQV ZLWK UHVSHFW WR WKHP $OVR IXUWKHU &RPPLWWHH DFWLRQ RQ WKHVH ELOOV GXULQJ WKH EDODQFH RI WKLV &RQJUHVV LV GRXEWIXO

PAGE 161

&XOYHUnV FDPSDLJQ DQG HOHFWLRQ WR WKH 6HQDWH VXJJHVW WKDW D FDUHHU EH\RQG WKH FKDPEHU ZDV D PDMRU JRDO GHWHUPLQLQJ PXFK RI KLV DFWLYLW\ EH\RQG KLV %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH ZRUN GXULQJ WKDW SHULRG

PAGE 162

&+$37(5 7+( )8// 23325781,7< $1' 1$7,21$/ *2$/6 $1' 35,25,7,(6 $&7

PAGE 163

,1752'8&7,21 (DUO\ LQ 6HQDWRU :DOWHU ) 0QGDOH 0LQQf LQWURGXFHG WKH )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ DQG 6RFLDO $FFRXQWLQJ $FW 6 f LQ WKH WK &RQJUHVV ,Q WKH HQVXLQJ HLJKW \HDUV WKH ELOO ZHQW WKURXJK VHYHUDO PLQRU FKDQJHV DQG D PDMRU DGGLWLRQ DQG HPHUJHG LQ WKH UG &RQJUHVV DV WKH )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ DQG 1DWLRQDO *RDOV DQG 3ULRULWLHV $FW 6 f $W LWV LQFHSWLRQ LQ WKH 0RQGDOH ELOO 6 f FDOOHG IRU D SURFHGXUH DQDODJRXV WR WKDW HVWDEOLVKHG E\ WKH (PSOR\PHQW $FW RI 6 GHFODUHG IXOO RSSRUWXQLW\ DQG VRFLDO DFFRXQWLQJ DV QDWLRQDO JRDOV FDOOHG RQ WKH 3UHVLGHQW WR VXEPLW DQ DQQXDO VRFLDO UHSRUW VLPLODU WR WKH HFRQRPLF UHSRUW SUHSDUHG E\ WKH &RXQn FLO RI (FRQRPLF $GYLVHUV &($f 7KH VRFLDO UHSRUW ZDV WR VHW IRUWK SURJUHVV WRZDUG IXOO RSSRUWXQLW\ DQG DOVR FXUUHQW DQG IRUHVHHDEOH QHHGV LQ YDULRXV VRFLDO DUHDV 6 ZRXOG HVWDEOLVK D &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV &6$f WR WKH 3UHVLGHQW WR GHYHORS DQG PDLQWDLQ WKH UHOLDEOH LQIRUPDWLRQ RU VRFLDO LQGLFDWRUV QHFHVVDU\ WR GHn WHUPLQH FXUUHQW VRFLDO FRQGLWLRQV 7KH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV ZRXOG DOVR UHFRPPHQG SURJUDP SULRULWLHV LQ OLJKW RI WKLV VRFLDO GDWD 6 ZRXOG FUHDWH D -RLQW &RPPLWWHH RQ WKH 6RFLDO 5HSRUW LQ &RQJUHVV WR H[DPLQH WKH 3UHVLGHQWnV VRFLDO UHSRUW 7KH PDMRU DGGLWLRQ WR WKLV SURSRVDO FDPH LQ LQ WKH IRUP RI DQ DPHQGPHQW

PAGE 164

E\ 6HQDWRU -DFRE -DYLWV 5 1
PAGE 165

VXJJHVWV KRZ WKH H[LVWHQFH RI D SURSRVDO FDQ EHFRPH D V\PEROLF UHLQIRUFHPHQW LQ WKLV FDVH RI WKH ZRUN RI WKRVH LQ WKH VRFLDO LQGLFDWRUV ILHOG ,Q WKH IROORZLQJ VHFWLRQV ZH KDYH FRQVLGHUHG WKH ELOOnV RULn JLQ LWV WUHDWPHQW LQ IRXU &RQJUHVVHV DQG WKH PHPEHU JRDOV DQG DWWLWXGHV RI LWV VSRQVRU DQG WKH &RPPLWWHH RQ /DERU DQG 3XEOLF :HOIDUH PHPEHUV 7KH GLVFXVVLRQ LV VXPPDUL]HG LQ WHUPV RI WKH VL[ VWDJHV RI WKH ELOOnV SURFHVVLQJ ,167,*$7,21 $1' 38%/,&,=,1* 2Q WKH PRUQLQJ RI -DQXDU\ 6HQDWRU 0RQGDOH QRWLFHG DQ DUWLFOH E\ -RVHSK .UDIW LQ WKH :DVKLQJWRQ 3RVW ZKLFK EHJDQ :LWK RQH QRWDEOH H[FHSWLRQ SUDFWLFDOO\ HYHU\WKLQJ WKDW $PHULFDQV GR JHWV RIILn FLDOO\ PHDVXUHG DW WKLV WLPH RI \HDU 7KH H[FHSWLRQ WKH WKLQJ WKDW LV QRW PHDVXUHG LV WKH VRFLDO HIIHFW RU LPSDFW RQ GDLO\ OLIH RI DOO WKH RWKHU WKLQJV WKDW DUH PHDVXUHG %XW SUREDEO\ QRZKHUH HOVH LV WKHUH D PRUH SUHVVLQJ QHHG WR WDNH UHJXODU UHDGLQJV DQG DFFRUGLQJO\ VRPH RI WKH PRVW SHUFHSn WLYH PHQ LQVLGH DQG RXWVLGH WKH JRYHUQPHQW KDYH EHJXQ ZRUN IRU D VRFLDO FRXQWHUSDUW WR WKH DQQXDO HFRQRPLF UHSRUW PDGH WR WKH 3UHVLGHQW DQG WKH &RQJUHVV E\ WKH &RXQFLO RI (FRQRPLF $GYLVHUV .UDIWL $f 7KLV DUWLFOH SURPSWHG 6HQDWRU 0RQGDOH WR VFKHGXOH D VSHHFK 0RQn GDOHnV LQWHUHVW JUHZ TXLFNO\ 7KH VSHHFK EHFDPH D OHJLVODWLYH SURn SRVDO WKH )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ DQG 6RFLDO $FFRXQWLQJ $FW 6 f LQ WKH WK &RQJUHVV

PAGE 166

-RVHSK .UDIW WKXV OLQNHG DFDGHPLF DQG H[HFXWLYH EUDQFK DFWLYLW\ DQG 0RQGDOHnV LQLWLDWLYH $ \HDU RI FULWLFDO PDVV IRU WKH VRFLDO LQGLFDWRUV PRYHPHQW KDG EHHQ %HUWUDP *URVVn 7KH 6WDWH RI WKH 1DWLRQ 6RFLDO 6\VWHPV $FFRXQWLQJ f PDGH D FRQn FHSWXDO VWDWHPHQW RQ WKH XVH RI VRFLDO GDWD IRU VRFLDO DQDO\VLV $ VWXG\ IXQGHG E\ 1$6$ WR GHWHUPLQH WKH LPSDFW RI WKH VSDFH SURn JUDP RQ GRPHVWLF VRFLHW\ SURGXFHG VRFLDO LQGLFDWRUV HGLWHG E\ 5D\PRQG %DXHU f $QRWKHU VSHFLILF DLG WR WKH FDXVH ZDV WKH UHSRUW RI WKH 1DWLRQDO &RPPLVVLRQ RQ 7HFKQRORJ\ $XWRPDWLRQ DQG (FRQRPLF 3URJUHVV LQ 7KH FRPPLVVLRQ UHOHDVHG LWV ILQGLQJV LQ )HEUXDU\ QRWLQJ WKH ODFN RI NQRZOHGJH RI WKH V\VWHPDWLF FDXVHV RI VRFLDO SUREOHPV DQG XUJHG UHVHDUFK RQ WKLV TXHVWLRQ $ PDMRU DGYDQFH IRU VRFLDO LQGLFDWRUV ZLWKLQ WKH JRYHUQPHQW WRRN SODFH LQ ZKHQ 3UHVLGHQW -RKQVRQ DVVLJQHG WKH WDVN RI GHYHORSLQJ VRFLDO LQGLFDWRUV WR WKH 'HSDUWPHQW RI +HDOWK (GXFDn WLRQ DQG :HOIDUH +(:f ,Q D 0DUFK PHVVDJH RQ GRPHVWLF KHDOWK DQG HGXFDWLRQ 3UHVLGHQW -RKQVRQ VWDWHG 7R LPSURYH RXU DELOLW\ WR FKDUW RXU SURJUHVV KDYH DVNHG WKH 6HFUHWDU\ RI +(: WR HVWDEn OLVK ZLWKLQ KLV RIILFH WKH UHVRXUFHV WR GHYHORS WKH QHFHVVDU\ VRFLDO VWDWLVWLFV DQG LQGLFDWRUV WR VXSSOHPHQW WKRVH SUHSDUHG E\ WKH 'HSDUWPHQW RI /DERU 6WDWLVWLFV DQG WKH &RXQFLO RI (FRQRPLF $GYLVHUV :LWK WKHVH \DUGVWLFNV ZH FDQ EHWWHU PHDVXUH WKH GLVn WDQFH ZH KDYH FRPH DQG SODQ WKH ZD\ DKHDG )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ f +(: LPSOHPHQWHG WKLV WDVN E\ IRUPLQJ D SDQHO RQ VRFLDO LQGLFDWRUV KHDGHG E\ :LOOLDP *RUKDP WKHQ DVVLVWDQW VHFUHWDU\ IRU SURJUDP

PAGE 167

FRRUGLQDWLRQ ZKR JDYH WKH DFWXDO ZRUNLQJ WDVN WR 0DQFXU 2OVRQ DQ HFRQRPLVW 7KHVH DVVLJQPHQWV ZHUH DFFRUGHG IDYRUDEOH SXEOLFLW\ DQG GLVFXVVLRQ ZLWKLQ WKH VRFLDO LQGLFDWRUV PRYHPHQW 1HZV RI WKHVH HIIRUWV ILOWHUHG WKURXJK WKH OLEHUDO FROXPQLVW -RVHSK .UDIW WR 6HQDWRU 0RQGDOH .UDIW ZDV IDPLOLDU ZLWK WKH ZRUN RI *URVV DQG %DXHU DQG KH KDG EHHQ LPSUHVVHG E\ VLPLODU LGHDV H[SUHVVHG E\ 'DQLHO %HOO f .UDIW ZDV SURPSWHG WR SXW KLV WKRXJKWV LQWR DQ DUWLFOH E\ D GLVFXVVLRQ ZLWK 2OVRQ DERXW WKH ZRUN DW +(: 1R RQH FDQ DVVHUW ZLWK FRQILGHQFH WKH FRQn VHTXHQFH RI KDYLQJ DOO WKLV LQIRUPDWLRQ >HFRQRPLF DQG SRSXODWLRQ LQIRUPDWLRQ@ UHDGLO\ DQG UHJXODUO\ DYDLODEOH &HUWDLQO\ LW GRHV QRW PDNH PHQ DJUHH DQ\ PRUH WKDQ WKH\ XVHG WR DERXW VXFK WKLQJV DV WD[HV DQG ZDJHV EXW DW D PLQLPXP WKH VWDWLVWLFV DFW DV ZDUQLQJ VLJQDOV >7KH@ ODFN RI UHJXODU LQIRUPDWLRQ IRVWHUV DQ LQQRFHQFH DQG LUUHVSRQVLELOLW\ WKDW LV SRVLWLYHO\ WHUULI\LQJ $Q DQQXDO VRFLDO UHSRUW FDQ FUHDWH D FOLPDWH RI FRQWLQXLQJ VHOI FRUUHFWLRQ D EDUULHU RI LUUHYRFDEOH PLVn WDNHV QRW WR VD\ GLVDVWHUV VXFK DV WKH ORVV RI WKH 1HJUR JHQHUDWLRQ >WKH SRVWZDU JHQHUDWLRQ RI SRRU 1HJURHV ZKR JUHZ XS KRVWLOH WR $PHULFDQ VRFLHW\@ DQG WKDW LW VHHPV WR PH LV SHUKDSV WKH PRVW LPSRUWDQW EXVLQHVV QRZ EHIRUH WKH QDWLRQ .UDIW $OOf )2508/$7,21 .UDIWnV DUWLFOH WRXFKHG RQ PDWWHUV WKDW FRQFHUQHG 0RQGDOH DQG LW SURPSWHG KLP WR PRYH RQ WKH TXHVWLRQ RI D FRXQFLO RI VRFLDO DGYLVHUV 'HYHORSLQJ WKH IXOO RSSRUWXQLW\ ELOO ILOOHG D

PAGE 168

SROLF\ YRLG IRU 6HQDWRU 0RQGDOH LW DOORZHG KLP WR H[SUHVV KLPn VHOI +LV FRPPLWWHH DVVLJQPHQWV GLG QRW JLYH KLP WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR ZRUN RQ VRFLDO ZHOIDUH LVVXHV DQG KH KDG EHHQ ORRNLQJ IRU VRPHWKLQJ LPDJLQDWLYH DQG IXWXULVWLF 7KH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $Gn YLVHUV ILOOHG WKDW UROH +H UDLVHG WKH LVVXH DW D PHHWLQJ ZLWK KLV VWDII VKRUWO\ WKHUHDIWHU %LOO 6KDQGV D MRXUQDOLVW ZKR ZDV RQ 0RQGDOHnV VWDII DV D FRQJUHVVLRQDO IHOORZ RI WKH $PHULFDQ 3ROLWLFDO 6FLHQFH $VVRFLDWLRQ EHJDQ SUHSDULQJ D VSHHFK IRU 0Qn GDOH RQ VRFLDO DFFRXQWLQJ 6KDQGVn DVVLJQPHQW ZHQW WKURXJK VHYHUDO GUDIWV ,Q WKH SURFHVV 0RQGDOH EHFDPH PRUH LQWHUHVWHG DQG GHFLGHG WR VSRQVRU OHJLVODWLRQ RQ WKH LVVXH 6KDQGV DQG *DU\ $YHU\ D SROLWLFDO VFLHQWLVW RQ 0RQGDOHn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n FLDO VFLHQFH RQ VRFLDO LQGLFDWRUV *URVV t 6SULQJHU f +H VXJJHVWHG WKDW 0RQGDOHnV SURSRVDO EH YLUWXDOO\ LGHQWLFDO WR WKH DFW DQG KLV LGHD ZDV DFFHSWHG

PAGE 169

6 ,1 7+( 7+ &21*5(66 2Q )HEUXDU\ 6HQDWRU 0RQGDOH LQWURGXFHG IRU KLPVHOI DQG WHQ RWKHU VHQDWRUV WKH )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ DQG 6RFLDO $FFRXQWLQJ $FW 6 f 0RQGDOH H[SUHVVHG D KRSH WKDW WKLV DFW PLJKW DFFRPn SOLVK LQ WKH DUHD RI QDWLRQDO VRFLDO SROLF\ ZKDW WKH (PSOR\PHQW $FW RI KDV DFFRPSOLVKHG LQ WKH ILHOG RI HFRQRPLF SROLF\ )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ f 0RQGDOH ZHQW RQ WR SUDLVH WKH VRSKLVWLFDWHG FDSDELOLW\ >RI WKH &RXQFLO RI (FRQRPLF $GYLVHUV@ WR UHJLVWHU HYHU\ TXLYHU LQ WKH 86 HFRQRP\ DQG KH QRWHG WKDW WKH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV ZRXOG WHQG WRZDUG VLPLODU GHYHORS PHQW RI VRFLDO DQDO\VLV 0RQGDOHnV ELOO ZDV UHIHUUHG WR WKH *RYHUQPHQW 2SHUDWLRQV &RPn PLWWHH ZKHUH 6HQDWRU )UHG +DUULV 2NODf ZDV ZDLWLQJ WR KROG KHDULQJV LQ WKH 6XEFRPPLWWHH RQ *RYHUQPHQW 5HVHDUFK +DUULV KDG D UHODWHG SURSRVDO IRU D 1DWLRQDO )RXQGDWLRQ RI WKH 6RFLDO 6FLHQFHV DQG KH DJUHHG WR XVH KLV VXEFRPPLWWHH IRU KHDULQJV RQ 0RQGDOHnV ELOO +HDULQJV ZHUH KHOG RQ ILYH GD\V LQ -XQH DQG -XO\ )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ 3WV ,, ,,,f 7KLUW\ILYH SHUVRQV WHVWLILHG RU WRRN SDUW LQ WKH VHPLQDU WKLUW\VHYHQ RWKHUV VXEPLWWHG ZULWWHQ WHVWLPRQ\ RU FRPPHQWV 0RUH WKDQ WZRWKLUGV RI WKHP ZHUH DFDGHPLF RU SURIHVVLRQDO UHVHDUFKHUV 6HYHQ H[HFXWLYH EUDQFK DJHQFLHV SUHn VHQWHG XQLILHG VXSSRUW IRU WKH REMHFWLYHV IRU 6 EXW YLUn WXDOO\ XQLILHG GLVDJUHHPHQW ZLWK WKH PHDQV SURSRVHG DV ZH VKDOO VHH

PAGE 170

675$7(*,& 32/,&< $66(660(17 ,668(6 $1' 7+( 022' 2) 7+( 7,0(6 7KH ZDU RQ SRYHUW\ KDG EHJXQ $ FRPPLWPHQW E\ OLEHUDOV OLNH 0RQGDOH KDG EHHQ PDGH WR GHDO ZLWK SRYHUW\ DQG WR IRUPXODWH RWKHU VRFLDO SURJUDPV 8UEDQ ULRWV SDUWLFXODUO\ GXULQJ WKH VXPPHU RI WKH KHDULQJV EURXJKW VXSSRUW WR 6 VLQFH WKH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV ZDV SUHVXPDEO\ WR IDFH VXFK SUREOHPV )RU H[DPSOH DV :LOOLDP 7D\ORU WKH VWDII GLUHFWRU RI WKH (TXDO 5LJKWV &RPPLVn VLRQ QRWHG 7KH VXEFRPPLWWHH LV PHHWLQJ DW D WLPH ZKHQ RXU QDWLRQ LV UHDSLQJ WKH ILJKW IRU KDUn YHVW RI D FHQWXU\ RI QHJOHFW DQG GHSULYDn WLRQ WKH HVWDEOLVKPHQW RI D V\VWHP RI VRFLDO DFFRXQWLQJ LV QRW DQ HQG LQ LWVHOI EXW UDWKHU D PHDQV WR DVVLVW LQ HVWDEOLVKn LQJ WKH FRQGLWLRQV IRU HFRQRPLF DQG VRFLDO MXVWLFH LI WKH ZLOO WR GR VR H[LVWV %XW LW LV DQ LPSRUWDQW WHFKQLTXH EHFDXVH WKH UDSLGO\ FKDQJLQJ FRQGLWLRQV RI XUEDQ OLIH KDYH FUHDWHG SUREOHPV RI SRYHUW\ GHSULYDn WLRQ DQG GLVFULPLQDWLRQ PRUH LQWUDQVLJHQW WKDQ EHIRUH EHFDXVH SLHFHPHDO DSSURDFKHV ZLOO QRW EH VXIILFLHQW EHFDXVH ZH QHHG WR HVWDEOLVK RXU JRDOV ZLWK PXFK PRUH FODULW\ DQG WR DSSO\ WKH ULJRURXV WHVW RI SURJUHVV WRZDUG WUXH HTXDOLW\ GHWHUPLQLQJ ZKHWKHU ZH DUH IXOILOOLQJ RXU JRDOV )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ f $QRWKHU PDMRU DVSHFW RI WKH SUHYDLOLQJ PRRG ZDV FRQILGHQFH LQ HFRQRPLF JURZWK DQG WKH SRVLWLYH UROH WKH &RXQFLO RI (FRQRPLF $GYLVHUV &($f SUHVXPDEO\ SOD\HG LQ WKDW JURZWK ,W ZDV WKRXJKW WKDW WKH HIIHFWLYHQHVV RI WKH &($ LQ DGYLVLQJ WKH 3UHVLGHQW KRZ

PAGE 171

WR ILQH WXQH WKH HFRQRP\ FRXOG EH GXSOLFDWHG LQ WKH VRFLDO DUHD EXW WKLV DQDORJ\ ZDV QRW XQLYHUVDOO\ DFFHSWHG :KLOH IHZ FKDOOHQJHG WKH XVHIXOQHVV RI WKH &($ LQ REMHFWLRQV ZHUH UDLVHG DERXW WKH QHHG IRU D &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV EHFDXVH RI &($nV H[LVWHQFH DQG EHFDXVH RI WKH LQDGHTXDFLHV RI VRFLDO VFLHQFH ,Q DGGLWLRQ WZR RWKHU REMHFWLRQV UHOHYDQW WR 63$ FRQn FHUQV ZHUH UDLVHG QDPHO\ WKH ELOO IDLOHG WR GLVWLQJXLVK EHWZHHQ SROLF\ DQDO\VLV DQG DFWXDO GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ DQG SULRULW\ VHWWLQJ DQG WKH ELOO ZRXOG H[DFHUEDWH WKH H[HFXWLYHOHJLVODWLYH LPEDODQFH LQ DQDO\WLFDO DELOLW\ *HUKDUG &ROP FKLHI HFRQRPLVW RI WKH 1DWLRQDO 3ODQQLQJ $VVRn FLDWLRQ DQG ILUVW H[SHUW WR WHVWLI\ RQ WKH ELOO DJUHHG WKDW VRFLDO SURJUDPV KDG QRW EHHQ DGHTXDWHO\ UHODWHG WR QDWLRQDO JRDOV EXW KH REMHFWHG WKDW RWKHU DVSHFWV RI WKH 0RQGDOH SURSRVDO ZHUH DOn UHDG\ FRYHUHG E\ H[LVWLQJ DJHQFLHV &ROP VWDWHG WKDW WKHUH ZDV QR QHHG IRU D &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV +H VXJJHVWHG WKDW WKH &RXQFLO RI (FRQRPLF $GYLVHUV EH H[SDQGHG WR EHFRPH D FRXQFLO RI HFRQRPLF DQG VRFLDO DGYLVHUV OLNHZLVH WKH -RLQW (FRQRPLF &RPn PLWWHH -(&f ZRXOG EHFRPH D MRLQW HFRQRPLF DQG VRFLDO FRPPLWWHH )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ f 7KLV UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ ZDV WR EH UHSHDWHG E\ VHYHUDO SHUVRQV WKURXJKRXW WKH KLVWRU\ RI WKH SURn SRVDO SDUWLFXODUO\ E\ HFRQRPLVWV ,Q REMHFWLQJ WKDW WKH VRFLDO VFLHQFHV ZHUH QRW UHDG\ IRU WKH UHVSRQVLELOLW\ PRVW SHUVRQV WHVWLI\LQJ DGPLWWHG WKH QHHG WR GHn YHORS PRUH DGHTXDWH VRFLDO LQGLFDWRUV EXW RWKHUV VXFK DV &KDUOHV

PAGE 172

=ZLFN DVVLVWDQW GLUHFWRU RI WKH %XUHDX RI WKH %XGJHW SRLQWHG RXW WKDW WKH FRPSUHKHQVLYH WKHRUHWLFDO IUDPHZRUN DYDLODEOH WR WKH GUDIWHHV RI WKH (PSOR\PHQW $FW RI ZDV QRW DYDLODEOH LQ WKH VRFLDO DUHD LQ )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ f :LOOLDP *RUKDP WKHQ DVVLVWDQW VHFUHWDU\ IRU SURJUDP FRRUGLQDWLRQ LQ WKH 'HSDUWn PHQW RI +HDOWK (GXFDWLRQ DQG :HOIDUH QRWHG WKDW VRFLDO VFLHQn WLVWV E\ WUDLQLQJ ODQJXDJH DQG SURIHVVLRQDO UHLQIRUFHPHQWV ZHUH LQFOLQHG WR SOHDG IRU IXUWKHU UHVHDUFK EHIRUH FRPPLWWLQJ WKHPVHOYHV >WKHUHIRUH@ LW PLJKW EH EHWWHU WR KDYH D ERG\ FRPSRVHG RI HOGHU VWDWHVPHQ FOHUJ\PHQ FLYLO ULJKWV DFWLYLVWV DQG RWKHUV GLVWLQJXLVKHG E\ WKHLU V\PSDWK\ IRU WKH GLVDGYDQWDJHG WKDQ VRFLDO VFLHQWLVWV )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ f *RUKDPnV FRPPHQWV DOVR WRXFKHG RQ WKH REMHFWLRQ WKDW WKH ELOO FRQIXVHG DQDO\VLV DQG SROLF\ UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ 7KH SUREOHP DURVH EHFDXVH WKH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV ZDV WR EH DVVLJQHG WKH WDVN RI UHFRPPHQGLQJ SURJUDP SULRULWLHV LQ OLJKW RI WKH GDWD LW ZRXOG JDWKHU $V .HQQHWK %RXOGLQJ WKHQ ZLWK WKH $PHULFDQ (FRQRPLF $VVRFLDWLRQ SRLQWHG RXW ,W VKRXOG FHUWDLQO\ EH WKH EXVLQHVV RI WKH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV WR GHYHORS VRn FLDO LQGLFDWRUV DQG WR SURFHVV LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WKH VRFLHW\ LQ ZD\V WKDW ZLOO DVVLVW YHU\ PDWHULDOO\ WKH SURFHVV RI DSSUDLVDO RI YDULRXV SURJUDPV 7KH ILQDO DSSUDLVDO RI SURJUDPV KRZHYHU PXVW WDNH SODFH DV D UHVXOW RI D SROLWLFDO SURFHVV LQYROYLQJ D VXEWOH ZHLJKLQJ DQG HYDOXDWLQJ RI PDQ\ GLIIHUHQW YDULDEOHV DP VXUH WKDW &RQJUHVV XQGHUVWDQGV WKLV YHU\ ZHOO DQG LW ZLOO EH WUDJLF LI DQ\ PLVXQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH SXUSRVH RI WKH ELOO ZHUH WR SUHYHQW LW IURP EHLQJ rD66&An )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ f

PAGE 173

'RXJODV 5DH D SROLWLFDO VFLHQWLVW DW LQFOXGLQJ RQH@ EHWZHHQ WKH H[HFXWLYH EUDQFK DQG WKH &RQJUHVV 7KH SHQGLQJ DFW ZRXOG IXUWKHU H[DFHUEDWH WKLV LPEDODQFH LQ IDYRU RI WKH H[HFXWLYH E\ PDNLQJ &RQn JUHVV HYHQ PRUH GHSHQGHQW RQ WKH H[HFXWLYH IRU LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WKH VWDWH RI VRFLHW\ DQG WKH HIIHFWV RI WKH H[HFXWLYH SURJUDPV RQ

PAGE 174

WKH VWDWH RI WKH QDWLRQ >7KHUHIRUH@ WKH DQDO\VLV RI WKH GDWD >DW OHDVW LQ SDUW@ VKRXOG EH GRQH LQ D IDFLOLW\ DWWDFKHG WR &RQJUHVV :LWKRXW VXFK D FORVH OLQN VRn FLDO DFFRXQWLQJ ZLOO EH ODUJHO\ WKH H[HFX WLYHnV DFFRXQW )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ f 'XULQJ DQG ZLWK D 'HPRFUDWLF &RQJUHVV DQG DQ DFWLYLVW 'HPRFUDWLF 3UHVLGHQW OLWWOH FRQFHUQ ZDV JLYHQ WR WKH LQVWLWXn WLRQDO FDSDELOLW\ RI &RQJUHVV YLVDYLV WKH H[HFXWLYH 7+( (;(&87,9( %5$1&+ 326,7,21 6HYHQ H[HFXWLYH EUDQFK DJHQFLHV WHVWLILHG RU VXSSOLHG FRPPHQWV JHQHUDOO\ DJUHHLQJ ZLWK WKH REMHFWLYHV RI 6 DQG GLVDJUHHLQJ ZLWK WKH PHDQV $IWHU DOO WKH 'HSDUWPHQW RI +HDOWK (GXFDWLRQ DQG :HOIDUH KDG EHHQ ZRUNLQJ RQ VRFLDO LQGLFDWRUV )XOO 2SSRUn WXQLW\ f DQG 33%6 KDG EHHQ LQVWLWXWHG WR HYDOXDWH DQG FRPSDUH SURJUDP HIIHFWLYHQHVV )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ f 7KH DGPLQLVWUDWLYH DJHQFLHV QRWHG WKH GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH PDQGDWH RI WKH &RXQFLO RI (FRQRPLF $GYLVHUV DQG RI WKH SURSRVHG &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV )RU H[DPSOH &KDUOHV =ZLFN ZKRVH %XUHDX RI WKH %XGJHW FRRUGLQDWHG DJHQF\ WHVWLPRQ\ RQ WKH ELOO SRLQWHG RXW WKDW LQ VSHFLILF REMHFWLYHV FRXOG EH OLVWHG IRU WKH 3UHVLGHQWnV HFRQRPLF UHSRUW ,Q FRQWUDVW WKH JRDOV RI 6 ZHUH RYHUO\ JHQHUDO *DUGQHU $FNOH\ FKDLUPDQ RI WKH &RXQFLO RI (FRQRPLF $GYLVHUV DJUHHG QRWLQJ WKDW WKH VWDWHn PHQW RI SXUSRVH RI WKH $FW

PAGE 175

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n VLRQV VXJJHVWHG )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ f 021'$/(n6 5(63216( $1' 02',),&$7,21 0RQGDOH UHVSRQGHG WR WKH VXJJHVWLRQ WR DGG VRFLDO FRQFHUQV WR WKH PDQGDWH RI WKH &RXQFLO RI (FRQRPLF $GYLVHUV E\ VD\LQJ WKDW WKH &RXQFLO RI (FRQRPLF $GYLVHUV GRHV QRW ZDQW WR QRU FDQ LW GHDO ZLWK D EURDG VSHFWUXP RI VRFLDO LVVXHV VRFLDO FRQFHUQV ZRXOG UHn PDLQ VXERUGLQDWH WR HFRQRPLF FRQFHUQV LQ D FRXQFLO RI HFRQRPLF DQG VRFLDO DGYLVHUV 0RQGDOH VXJJHVWHG WKDW D PHUJHU ZDV SRVVLEOH DIWHU WKH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV KDG EHHQ HVWDEOLVKHG DQG WKH VRFLDO VFLHQFHV QXUWXUHG )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ f 0RQGDOH GLG PDNH D IHZ PLQRU PRGLILFDWLRQV LQ WKH ILUVW URXQG RI KHDULQJV 7KH PRVW LPSRUWDQW IRU VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW FRQFHUQV ZDV WKH DGGLWLRQ RI D VWDWHPHQW RQ WKH DQDO\VLV RI WKH ORQJUDQJH DVSHFWV RI VRFLDO SROLFLHV DV SDUW RI WKH UHVSRQVLELOLW\ RI WKH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV 0RQGDOH KDG ZDQWHG D IXWXULVW

PAGE 176

UHIRUP DQG KLV VWDII KDG H[DPLQHG PRVW RI WKH DYDLODEOH OLWHUDn WXUH \HW WKH ELOO GLG QRW VXIILFLHQWO\ UHIOHFW WKHLU FRQFHUQV $GGHG WR WKH GXWLHV RI WKH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV WKHQ ZDV WKH PDQGDWH WR PDNH DQG IXUQLVK VXFK VWXGLHV UHSRUWV WKHUHRQ DQG UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV ZLWK UHVSHFW WR SURJUDPV DFWLYLWLHV DQG OHJLVODWLRQ WKDW WKH 3UHVLGHQW PD\ UHTXHVW DQG DSSUDLVLQJ ORQJ UDQJH DVSHFWV RI VRFLDO SROLF\ FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH SROLF\ GHFODUHG LQ 6HFWLRQ )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ D f %XW WKH 0RQGDOH SURSRVDO ZDV GHVWLQHG QR IXUWKHU WKDQ WKH KHDULQJ URRP LQ WKH WK &RQJUHVV 5HDOL]LQJ WKHUH ZDV LQVXIILn FLHQW VXSSRUW LQ WKH IXOO *RYHUQPHQW 2SHUDWLRQV &RPPLWWHH 6HQDWRU +DUULV DYRLGHG EULQJLQJ WKH ELOO WR D YRWH LQ KLV VXEFRPPLWWHH +RZHYHU HYHQWV ZRUNHG FKDQJHV LQ WKH GLVWULEXWLRQ RI FRPn PLWWHH DVVLJQPHQWV LQ WKH 6HQDWH 7KH DVVDVVLQDWLRQ RI 5REHUW ) .HQQHG\ 1
PAGE 177

IRU 3ODQQLQJ DQG (YDOXDWLRQ RI 6RFLDO 3URJUDPV VSHFLDOO\ FUHDWHG WR KDQGOH 0RQGDOHnV ELOO 7+( 67 &21*5(66 6HQDWRU 0RQGDOH LQWURGXFHG KLV ELOO HDUO\ LQ WKH VW &RQn JUHVV KHQFH WKH ORZ QXPEHU 6 f GURSSLQJ WKH WHUP VRFLDO DFFRXQWLQJ WKH ELOO ZDV VLPSO\ WKH )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ $FW 7KH ELOO ZDV FRVSRQVRUHG E\ WZHQW\WKUHH RWKHU VHQDWRUV DQG UHIHUUHG WR WKH /DERU DQG 3XEOLF :HOIDUH &RPPLWWHH ZKHUH 0RQGDOH ZDLWHG DV FKDLUPDQ RI WKH VSHFLDO VXEFRPPLWWHH :KLOH WKH VSHFLDO VXEn FRPPLWWHH ZDV QRW HTXLSSHG ZLWK D VWDII LW DOORZHG 0RQGDOH WR KROG KHDULQJV DQG WR DVVLJQ +HUE -DVSHU RULJLQDOO\ RQ 0RQGDOHnV SHUVRQDO VWDII IURP WKURXJK RQ KLV 0LJUDWRU\ /DERU 6XEFRPPLWWHH VWDII WR ZRUN SDUW WLPH RQ WKH ELOO DQG DFW DV FRXQVHO WR WKH VSHFLDO VXEFRPPLWWHH 7+( $'0,1,675$7,21n6 5(63216( 72 62&,$/ 5(3257,1* 2QH RI WKH ODVW RIILFLDO DFWV RI WKH -RKQVRQ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ RQ -DQXDU\ KDG EHHQ WR LVVXH 7RZDUG D 6RFLDO 5HSRUW f WKH UHVXOW RI ZRUN LQ WKH 'HSDUWPHQW RI +HDOWK (GXFDWLRQ DQG :HOIDUH RQ VRFLDO LQGLFDWRUV 1RW WR EH RXWGRQH LQ WKH ILHOG RI VRFLDO UHSRUWLQJ 3UHVLGHQW 1L[RQ PDGH WKUHH PDMRU FKDQJHV UHOHYDQW WR 6 f 7KH FHQWUDOL]HG UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU JRYHUQPHQWZLGH VRFLDO LQGLFDWRUV ZDV PRYHG WR WKH %XUHDX RI WKH %XGJHW 7KH 2IILFH RI

PAGE 178

6WDWLVWLFDO 3ROLF\ LQ WKH %XUHDX RI WKH %XGJHW ZDV WR DVVHPEOH LQ D VLQJOH SHULRGLF SXEOLFDWLRQ WKH PDMRU VRFLDO PHDVXUHV DYDLODEOH )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ D f f 7KH 8UEDQ $GYLVRU\ &RPPLWWHH ZDV HVWDEOLVKHG DQG JLYHQ WKH WDVN RI SROLF\ FRRUGLQDWLRQ DQDORJRXV WR WKH WDVN RI WKH SURSRVHG &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV 8QGHU WKH GLUHFWLRQ RI 'DQLHO 3DWULFN 0R\QLKDQ WKLV FDELQHWOHYHO JURXS ZDV WR GHYLVH D QDWLRQDO XUEDQ SROLF\ ,Q KLV PHVVDJH RQ WKH 8$& WKH 3UHVLGHQW VDLG WKDW WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV KDV QHYHU KDG D SROLF\ FRKHUHQW FRQVLVWHQW SRVLn WLYH DV WR ZKDW WKH QDWLRQDO JRYHUQPHQW ZRXOG KRSH WR VHH KDSSHQ ZKDW LW ZLOO HQFRXUDJH ZKDW LW ZLOO GLVFRXUDJH )5 9RO f 7KH FRPPLWWHH ZDV WR GHILQH WKDW SROLF\ ,Q WKH H[HFXWLYH UHRUJDQL]DWLRQ RI WKH 8$& ZDV UHSODFHG E\ WKH 'RPHVWLF &RXQn FLO :LWK PRUH ZRUNLQJ VWDII DQG DJHQF\ VXSSRUW WKDQ WKH FRPn PLWWHH WKH 'RPHVWLF &RXQFLO ZDV WR IXOILOO ILYH IXQFWLRQV FODULILFDWLRQ RI JRDOV GHYHORSPHQW RI DOWHUQDWLYHV IRUPXODWLRQ RI SROLF\ FRRUGLQDWLRQ RI SROLF\ DQG UHYLHZ RI SROLF\ *UDKDP IRUWKFRPLQJf ,Q WKH SURFHVV LW ZRXOG EH UHFRPPHQGLQJ LQWHJUDWHG VHWV RI SROLF\ FKRLFHV LQ UHODWLRQ WR QDWLRQDO SULRULWLHV 7KXV WKH GHVFULSWLRQ RI LWV IXQFWLRQV WKRXJK QRW LQ UHDOLW\ LWV RSHUDWLRQVf ZDV VLPLODU WR WKDW RI WKH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV f 7KH 1L[RQ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ HVWDEOLVKHG WKH 1DWLRQDO *RDOV 5HVHDUFK 6WDII $V 2WLV *UDKDP SRLQWHG RXW 0R\QLKDQ XQGHUVWRRG WKDW SROLF\ FRRUGLQDWLRQ UHTXLUHG VRPH WKRXJKW DERXW QDWLRQDO JRDOV DQG XQGHU KLV SURGGLQJ D 1DWLRQDO *RDOV 5HVHDUFK 6WDII ZDV VHW XS

PAGE 179

LQ WKH :KLWH +RXVH *UDKDP IRUWKFRPLQJf ,Q KLV VWDWHPHQW HVWDEOLVKLQJ WKH JRDOV VWDII 1L[RQ VDLG WKDW LWV SXUSRVH ZDV WR DVVHPEOH GDWD WKDW FRXOG KHOS LOOXPLQH WKH SRVVLEOH UDQJH RI FKRLFHV IRU f§RXU WK $QQLYHUVDU\ VHWWLQJ IRUWK VRPH RI WKH NH\ FKRLFHV RSHQ WR XV DQG H[DPLQLQJ WKH FRQVHTXHQFHV RI WKHVH FKRLFHV 1L[RQ f $V DQ RIILFLDO LQYROYHG LQ SURGXFLQJ WKH 'HPRFUDWnV 7RZDUG D VRFLDO 5HSRUW SXW LW QDWLRQDO JRDOV LV D FRQJHQLDO SKUDVH IRU 5HSXEOLFDQV 3UHVLGHQW (LVHQKRZHU KDG D &RPPLVVLRQ RQ *RDOV IRU $PHULFDQV 3UHVLGHQW 1L[RQ XVHG LW WR H[SUHVV 5HSXEOLFDQ LQWHUHVW LQ ERWK VRFLDO LQGLFDWRUV DQG IXWXUHV W\SH SURJUDPV +RZHYHU WKH 1L[RQ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQnV FRPPLWPHQW WR WKH WKUHH FKDQJHV ZDV QRW DV VWURQJ DV WKHLU VSHHG\ HVWDEOLVKPHQW PLJKW VXJJHVW 7KH VRFLDO LQGLFDWRUV SXEOLFDWLRQ EHJXQ E\ WKH %XUHDX RI WKH %XGJHW LQ ZDV QRW SULQWHG XQWLO VRFLDO LQGLFDWRUV f 7KH 'RPHVWLF &RXQFLO GHVSLWH LWV PDQGDWH ZDV QHYHU DGHn TXDWHO\ VWDIIHG WR GR WKH DQDO\VLV QHFHVVDU\ IRU RYHUDOO GRPHVWLF SROLF\ FRRUGLQDWLRQ 7KH 1DWLRQDO *RDOV 5HVHDUFK 6WDII HQGHG DEUXSWO\ DIWHU RQH \HDU LWV ILUVW UHSRUW 7RZDUG %DODQFHG *URZWK 4XDQWLW\ ZLWK 4XDOLW\ f SUHVHQWLQJ OLWWOH PRUH WKDQ EODQG GHVFULSWLRQV RI WUHQGV ZLWKRXW FRQIURQWLQJ WKH KDUG SROLF\ FKRLFHV RU TXHVWLRQLQJ XQGHUO\LQJ DVVXPSWLRQV 7+( )$// $1' :,17(5 +($5,1*6 +HDULQJV LQ WKH VW &RQJUHVV UHIOHFWHG WKH VDPH DFDGHPLF ELDV DV LQ WKH SUHYLRXV &RQJUHVV 0RQGDOH DUUDQJHG IRU QLQH DFDGHPLFV

PAGE 180

WR WHVWLI\ DQG WZHOYH RWKHUV VHQW FRPPHQWV $OVR UHSUHVHQWHG ZHUH RQH SHUVRQ IURP RUJDQL]HG ODERU DQG RQH IURP WKH FLYLO ULJKWV PRYHPHQW 0RQGDOH KDG VL[ IRUPHU 'HPRFUDWLF RIILFLDOV JLYH WHVWLn PRQ\ RU SURYLGH FRPPHQWV LQ VXSSRUW RI 6 (LJKW DJHQFLHV SUHn VHQWHG WKH XQLWHG RSSRVLWLRQ RI WKH 1L[RQ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ 7KH DUn JXPHQWV IRU DQG DJDLQVW ZHUH EDVLFDOO\ VLPLODU WR WKRVH JLYHQ GXULQJ WKH SUHYLRXV &RQJUHVV +RZHYHU VRPH PDMRU VWDWHPHQWV GLG HPHUJH )RU H[DPSOH -RVHSK &DOLIDQR IRUPHU VSHFLDO DVVLVWDQW WR 3UHVLGHQW -RKQVRQ JDYH KLV RIWHQTXRWHG VXPPDU\ RI WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ XVHG WR PDNH VRFLDO SROLF\ LQ WKH -RKQVRQ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ 7KH GLVWXUELQJ WUXWK LV WKDW WKH EDVLV RI UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV E\ DQ $PHULFDQ &DELQHW RIILn FHU RI ZKHWKHU WR EHJLQ HOLPLQDWH RU H[n SDQG YDVW VRFLDO SURJUDPV PRUH QHDUO\ UHn VHPEOHV WKH LQWXLWLYH MXGJPHQW RI D EHQHYRn OHQW WULEDO FKLHI LQ UHPRWH $IULFD WKDQ WKH HODERUDWH VRSKLVWLFDWHG GDWD ZLWK ZKLFK WKH 6HFUHWDU\ RI 'HIHQVH VXSSRUWV D QHZ PDn MRU ZHDSRQV V\VWHP )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ D f 7KH QHHG RI EHWWHU DQDO\VLV IRU VRFLDO SURJUDPV IRXQG VXSSRUW IURP UHVHDUFK JURXSV (UQHVW +LOJDUG D SURIHVVRU RI SV\FKRORJ\ DQG HGXFDWLRQ DW 6WDQIRUG FKDLUPDQ RI MKH %HKDYLRUDO DQG 6RFLDO 6FLHQFHV 6XUYH\ &RPPLWWHH RI WKH 6RFLDO 6FLHQFH 5HVHDUFK &RXQFLO WKH %$66 FRPPLWWHHf UHSRUWHG EDVLF UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 1$6 f )LUVW D V\VWHP RI VRFLDO LQGLFDWRUV VKRXOG EH GHYHORSHG E\ WKH IHGHUDO JRYHUQPHQW DV SDUW RI WKH QDWLRQDO GDWD V\VWHP 6HFRQG

PAGE 181

WKH 1DWLRQDO $FDGHP\ RI 6FLHQFHV DQG 1DWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK &RXQFLO VKRXOG EH XVHG WR FRRUGLQDWH HIIRUWV WR GHYHORS RQ D SURYLVLRQDO EDVLV DQ DQQXDO VRFLDO UHSRUW 7KLUG WKH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $Gn YLVHUV VKRXOG EH HVWDEOLVKHG ZKHQ LW KDV EHHQ GHPRQVWUDWHG WKDW D XVHIXO DQG REMHFWLYH UHSRUW LV IHDVLEOH RQH WKDW ZLOO VHW IRUWK DOWHUQDWLYHV UHODWLYHO\ LQGHSHQGHQW RI WKH LPPHGLDWH SROLWLFDO FOLPDWH )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ D f 7KLV UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ XQGHUOLQHG D VSOLW ZLWKLQ WKH VRFLDO VFLHQFH FRPPXQLWLHV RYHU WKH GLUHFWLRQ RI VRFLDO LQGLFDWRUV UHVHDUFK 2QH IDFWLRQ OHG E\ (OHDQRU 6KHOGRQ IURP WKH 5XVVHOO 6DJH )RXQGDWLRQ WRRN WKH SRVLn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f DQG IURP WKH 1DWLRQDO 6FLHQFH )RXQGDWLRQ 16) f DOVR FDOOHG IRU PRUH DQDO\VLV IRU JRYHUQPHQW SURJUDPVA 2QH RI WKH SROLWLFLDQV ZKR WHVWLILHG LQ WKH VW &RQJUHVV ZDV 5HSUHVHQWDWLYH &ODXGH 3HSSHU )ODf 'XULQJ WKH VW &RQJUHVV DQG WKH QH[W WZR 3HSSHU LQWURGXFHG D FRPSDQLRQ PHDVXUH WR 6 DV D VHQDWRU 3HSSHU KDG HQFRXUDJHG WKH SDVVDJH RI WKH

PAGE 182

(PSOR\PHQW $FW RI f ZKHUH WKH ELOO ZDV DVVLJQHG WR WKH 5XOHV &RPPLWWHH RI ZKLFK 3HSSHU ZDV D PHPEHU :KHQ KH EHFDPH FKDLUPDQ RI D 6HOHFW &RPPLWWHH RQ &ULPH DQG LQYROYHG LQ WKDW ZRUN 3HSSHU QR ORQJHU SXVKHG WKH 0RQGDOH SURSRVDO DOWKRXJK KH GLG UHLQWURGXFH LW VXEVHTXHQWO\ 7,7/( ,, 6(1$725 -$9,76 $1' 35,25,7< 6(77,1* 'XULQJ WKH VW &RQJUHVV PDUNHG E\ WKH FRQWLQXLQJ ZDU LQ 9LHW 1DP DQG WKH EHJLQQLQJ RI D 5HSXEOLFDQ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ WKH 'HPRn FUDWLF &RQJUHVV HVSHFLDOO\ OLEHUDO PHPEHUV RI WKH 6HQDWH EHFDPH PRUH FRQFHUQHG ZLWK WKH UROH RI &RQJUHVV LQ VHWWLQJ QDWLRQDO SULRULWLHV 6HQDWRU :LLDP 3UR[PLUH :LVf XVHG KLV VXEFRPn PLWWHH RI WKH -RLQW (FRQRPLF &RPPLWWHH WR KROG KHDULQJV RQ FKDQJLQJ QDWLRQDO SULRULWLHV -(& f +H DOVR SURSRVHG HVn WDEOLVKLQJ D QDWLRQDO SULRULWLHV VWDII ZLWKLQ WKH -RLQW (FRQRPLF &RPPLWWH 0HDQZKLOH 6HQDWRU *D\ORUG 1HOVRQ :LVf KDG SURn SRVHG D -RLQW &RQJUHVVLRQDO &RPPLWWHH RQ 1DWLRQDO 3ULRULWLHV DQG 6HQDWRU $EUDKDP 5LELFRII &RQQf KDG KHOG KHDULQJV RQ WKH SRVVLEOH H[WHQVLRQ RI WKH UROH RI WKH FRPSWUROOHU JHQHUDO LQ WKH SULRULW\VHWWLQJ DUHD ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR WKHVH SURSRVHG UHIRUPV WKHUH ZHUH VRPH LQFUHDVHV LQ WKH DQDO\WLFDO FDSDFLW\ RI &RQJUHVV SURn YLGHG E\ WKH /HJLVODWLYH 5HRUJDQL]DWLRQ $FW RI VHH &KDSWHU f 7KH OHJLVODWLYH LQLWLDWLYHV PRVW LPSRUWDQW IRU 6 ZHUH WKRVH RI 6HQDWRU -DFRE -DYLWV 5 1
PAGE 183

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n IHVW WKH JUHDW QHHG WR SURYLGH &RQJUHVV ZLWK WKH UHTXLVLWH GDWD DQG DQDO\WLF WRROV IRU FULWLFDO DQG VRSKLVWLFDWHG DQDO\VLV RI ERWK H[LVWLQJ DQG SURSRVHG QDWLRQDO SURJUDPV DQG RQ QDWLRQDO UHVRXUFHV )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ D f +LV 7LWOH ,, RI WKH H[SDQGHG 6 ZRXOG HVWDEOLVK DQ 2IILFH RI 1DWLRQDO *RDOV DQG 3ULRULWLHV $QDO\VLV 2*3$f IRU &RQJUHVV 7KH RIILFH ZRXOG VXEPLW WR &RQJUHVV HDFK \HDU D QDWLRQDO SULRULWLHV UHSRUW ZKLFK ZRXOG LQFOXGH EXW QRW EH OLPLWHG WR $Q DQDO\VLV LQ WHUPV RI QDWLRQDO SULRULWLHV RI WKH DQQXDO EXGJHW VXEPLWWHG E\ WKH 3UHVLGHQW DQG RI WKH (FRQRPLF 5HSRUW RI WKH 3UHVLGHQW DQG WKH 6RFLDO 5Hn SRUW RI WKH 3UHVLGHQW $Q H[DPLQDWLRQ RI WKH UHVRXUFHV DYDLODEOH WR WKH QDn WLRQ WKH IRUHVHHDEOH FRVWV DQG H[SHFWHG EHQHILWV RI H[LVWLQJ DQG SURSRVHG IHGHUDO SURJUDPV DQG WKH UHn VRXUFH DQG FRVW LPSOLFDWLRQV RI DOWHUQDWLYH VHWV RI QDWLRQDO SULRULWLHV

PAGE 184

5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV FRQFHUQLQJ VSHQGLQJ SULRULWLHV DPRQJ IHGHUDO SURJUDPV DQG FRXUVHV RI DFWLRQ LQFOXGLQJ LGHQWLILFDWLRQ RI WKRVH SURJUDPV DQG FRXUVHV RI DFWLRQ ZKLFK VKRXOG EH JLYHQ WKH JUHDWHVW SULRULW\ DQG WKRVH ZKLFK FRXOG EH PRUH SURSHUO\ GHIHUUHG )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ f 7KH -RLQW (FRQRPLF &RPPLWWHH ZRXOG KROG KHDULQJV RQ WKH QDWLRQDO JRDOV DQG SULRULWLHV UHSRUW DQG RQ RWKHU VWXGLHV SURGXFHG E\ WKH RIILFH ,Q HIIHFW &RQJUHVV ZRXOG EH VXSSO\LQJ LWVHOI ZLWK DQ LQn VWLWXWLRQ DQDORJRXV WR WKH 3UHVLGHQWnV %XUHDX RI WKH %XGJHW 7KXV WR 0RQGDOHnV SURSRVDO IRU DQ H[HFXWLYH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV ZDV DGGHG -DYLWVn SURSRVDO IRU D FRQJUHVVLRQDO %XUHDX RI WKH %XGJHW 2Q 0DUFK DQRWKHU GD\ RI KHDULQJV ZDV KHOG RQ WKH DPHQGHG ELOO ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR 6HQDWRU -DYLWV 6HQDWRU &KDUOHV + 3HUF\ 5 ,OOf QRZ WKH WZHQW\ILIWK FRVSRQVRU RI WKH ELOO MRLQHG LQ VXSSRUWLQJ 6 &KDUOHV =ZLFN ZKR DV DVVLVWDQW GLUHFWRU RI WKH %XUHDX RI WKH %XGJHW OHG WKH -RKQVRQ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQnV RSSRn VLWLRQ WR WKH SURSRVDO LQ QRZ WHVWLILHG LQ VXSSRUW RI 6 =ZLFN UHYLHZHG KLV WHVWLPRQ\ DQG SRLQWHG RXW WKDW WKH -RKQVRQ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ KDG EHHQ LQ DJUHHPHQW ZLWK WKH REMHFWLYHV RI WKH ELOO EXW KDG WKRXJKW WKH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV SUHPDWXUH 'Hn YHORSPHQWV VLQFH WKHQ LQ VRFLDO LQGLFDWRUV KDG FKDQJHG WKLV REMHFn WLRQ =ZLFN VXSSRUWHG HVWDEOLVKPHQW RI WKH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $Gn YLVHUV DQG FULWLFL]HG WKH 1L[RQ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ IRU WKH UHWURn JUHVVLRQ RI WKHLU SRVLWLRQ +H DGGHG WKDW WKH 1L[RQ UHRUJDQL]DWLRQ SODQ UHYHDOHG RQ 0DUFK PDGH D &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV HYHQ

PAGE 185

PRUH LPSRUWDQW 7KH 'RPHVWLF &RXQFLO FUHDWHG E\ WKH 3UHVLGHQW DQG VWDIIHG E\ KLV DSSRLQWHHV ZRXOG EH XQDYDLODEOH WR &RQJUHVV EHn FDXVH RI H[HFXWLYH SULYLOHJH 7KH ODFN RI FRQJUHVVLRQDO DFFHVV ZRXOG PDNH WKH DGYLVHUVn DQQXDO VRFLDO UHSRUW PRUH LPSRUWDQW IRU MXGJLQJ H[HFXWLYH DFWLRQV RQ VRFLDO SURJUDPV )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ D f 2WKHU 'HPRFUDWV RXW RI WKH DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ DOVR VXSSRUWHG 0RQGDOHnV SURSRVDO HLWKHU LQ ZKROH RU SDUW :LOEXU &RKHQ IRUPHU 6HFUHWDU\ RI WKH 'HSDUWPHQW RI +HDOWK (GXFDWLRQ DQG :HOIDUH 0DQFXU 2OVRQ -RVHSK &DOLIDQR &KDUOHV %DUU IRUPHU 6HFUHWDU\ RI WKH 7UHDVXU\ DQG /HRQDUG .H\VHUOLQJ IRUPHU FKDLU PDQ RI WKH &RXQFLO RI (FRQRPLF $GYLVHUV 7KH 1L[RQ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQnV RSSRVLWLRQ OHG E\ 0DXULFH 0DQQ DVVLVWDQW GLUHFWRU RI WKH %XUHDX RI WKH %XGJHW ZDV VLPLODU WR WKDW RI WKH -RKQVRQ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ QDPHO\ WKDW VRFLDO VFLHQFH DQDO\VLV ZDV FXUUHQWO\ LQDGHTXDWH 7KH RSSRVLWLRQ DUJXHG WKDW H[n WHQVLYH DFWLYLWLHV ZHUH EHLQJ XQGHUWDNHQ ZLWKLQ WKH DGPLQLVWUDn WLRQ E\ WKH 8UEDQ $IIDLUV &RPPLWWHH WKH %XUHDX RI WKH %XGJHW DQG VHYHUDO GHSDUWPHQWV 6 WKH\ FODLPHG UHSUHVHQWHG &RQJUHVV WHOOLQJ WKH 3UHVLGHQW KRZ KH VKRXOG VWUXFWXUH KLV H[HFXWLYH RIILFH 7KH SUROLIHUDWLRQ RI VWDWXWRU\ XQLWV LQ WKH H[HFXWLYH RIILFH ZRXOG LPSDLU WKH IOH[LELOLW\ RI WKH 3UHVLGHQW WR RUJDQL]H KLV RIILFH DV KH VHHV ILW 0RUHRYHU DQ LQFUHDVH LQ VXFK XQLWV FRXOG FUHDWH D PDMRU FRRUGLQDWLRQ SUREOHP IRU WKH 3UHVLGHQW DQG WKH :KLWH +RXVH VWDII )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ D f

PAGE 186

&200,77(( $1' 6(1$7( $&7,21 2Q $SULO 6 ZDV FRQVLGHUHG DQG SDVVHG E\ 6HQDWRU 0RQGDOHnV VXEFRPPLWWHH 2Q -XO\ LW ZDV SDVVHG E\ WKH IXOO &RPn PLWWHH RQ /DERU DQG 3XEOLF :HOIDUH ,Q ERWK FDVHV WKH WZHQW\ILYH PHPEHUV FRVSRQVRULQJ WKH ELOO LQFOXGHG D PDMRULW\ RI WKH VXEn FRPPLWWHH DQG WKH IXOO FRPPLWWHH WKHUH ZDV QHYHU DQ\ TXHVWLRQ RI SDVVDJH +RZHYHU D VLJQLILFDQW FKDQJH ZDV PDGH DW WKH FRPPLWWHH OHYHO ,Q H[HFXWLYH VHVVLRQ DIWHU WKH PHPEHUV KDG DJUHHG WR WKH ELOO 6HQDWRU &ODLERUQH 3HOO 5,f VXJJHVWHG WR 0RQGDOH WKDW LW PLJKW QRW EH D JRRG LGHD WR KDYH DQRWKHU FRQJUHVVLRQDO FRPPLWWHH $OWKRXJK 0RQGDOH IDYRUHG NHHSLQJ WKH -RLQW &RPPLWWHH RQ WKH 6RFLDO 5HSRUW LQ WKH ELOO KH UHSOLHG WKDW LWV LQFOXVLRQ KDG VRPHn ZKDW ERWKHUHG KLP DQG SXW LW WR WKH PHPEHUV DV WKH\ ZHUH OHDYLQJ 7KH IXOO FRPPLWWHH DJUHHG WR GURS LW 7KXV WKH UHSRUW LVVXHG E\ WKH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUVUDWKHU WKDQ JRLQJ WR D MRLQW FRPn PLWWHH FUHDWHG WR JLYH LW VSHFLDO DWWHQWLRQZRXOG EH UHIHUUHG WR WKH 6HQDWH &RPPLWWHH RQ /DERU DQG 3XEOLF :HOIDUH DQG WKH +RXVH &RPPLWWHHV RQ (GXFDWLRQ DQG /DERU DQG RQ ,QWHUVWDWH DQG )RUHLJQ &RPPHUFH 7KH FRPPLWWHH UHSRUW UHFRPPHQGLQJ 6HQDWH SDVVDJH RI 6 )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ Ef JDYH WKH QRUPDO MXVWLILFDWLRQV WKDW 0RQGDOH DQG RWKHUV KDG PDGH VLQFH DQG DGGHG LQ GHIHQVH RI 7LWOH WKDW WKH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV ZRXOG ILW LQ ZLWK 3UHVLGHQW 1L[RQnV UHRUJDQL]DWLRQ SODQ IRU WKH ([HFXWLYH 2IILFH RI WKH

PAGE 187

3UHVLGHQW E\ SURYLGLQJ WKH 'RPHVWLF &RXQFLO ZLWK WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ QHFHVVDU\ WR PDNH SROLF\ UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV WR WKH 3UHVLGHQW )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ E f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f 2Q 6HSWHPEHU WKH 6HQDWH FRQVLGHUHG 6 6HQDWRUV 0RQGDOH -DYLWV DQG 3UR[PLUH VSRNH IRU WKH ELOO 6HQDWRUV 3HWHU + 'RPLQLFN 5 &RORf 5REHUW *ULIILQ 5 0LFKf DQG -RKQ 7 :LOOLDPV 5 'HOf VSRNH DJDLQVW LW 'RPLQLFN UDLVHG VHYHUDO REMHFWLRQV 6 ZRXOG PDQGDWH DQ RIILFH WKH 3UHVLGHQW GLG QRW ZDQW 7KH SURSRVHG DPRXQW ZRXOG PHDQ D ODUJH VWDII LQ DGGLn WLRQ WR WKH WKUHH PHPEHUV RI WKH &6$ 7KH FRXQFLO ZRXOG EH LQYROYHG LQ RYHUVHHLQJ DFWLYLWLHV RI HYHU\ VWDWH DQG ORFDO JRYHUQn PHQW 7KH &6$ ZRXOG DFW DV D JHQHUDO RYHUVHHU JURXS IRU DOO IHGHUDO JRYHUQPHQW DFWLRQ GHVLJQHG WR HVWDEOLVK IRU WKH :KLWH +RXVH DQG IRU &RQJUHVV WKH VRFLDO RUGHU DV WKH\ VHH LW &RQJUHVV ZRXOG QRW EH DEOH WR FRRUGLQDWH WKH )HEUXDU\ WK VRFLDO

PAGE 188

UHSRUW WKDW LW UHFHLYHV IURP WKH 3UHVLn GHQW ZLWK LWV RZQ 0DUFK VW UHSRUW SURn YLGHG E\ WKH &RQJUHVVLRQDO 2IILFH RI *RDOV DQG 3ULRULWLHV $QDO\VLV 7KH SURSRVDO ZRXOG JLYH PRQH\ WR VWDII SHRSOH DQG QRW WKH SRRU DQG QHHG\ &5 6,f 6HQDWRU -RKQ :LOOLDPV FRPPHQWHG SHUKDSV WKH\ JRW WKH 7LWOH n)XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ $FW IURP WKH IDFW WKDW LW ZRXOG JLYH DQ RSSRUWXQLW\ WR WKH &RPPLVVLRQHUV WR SURPRWH WKHLU RZQ ZHOIDUH E\ JLYLQJ WKHP D MRE &5 6, f 'HVSLWH WKHVH REMHFWLRQV 6 ZDV SDVVHG E\ D YRWH RI WR GLYLGHG DORQJ SDUWLVDQ DQG LGHRn ORJLFDO OLQHV RI WKH RSSRVHG DOO ZHUH HLWKHU 5HSXEOLFDQV RU 6RXWKHUQ 'HPRFUDWV 0HDQZKLOH LQ WKH +RXVH WKH FRPSDQLRQ ELOO GLG QRW PRYH 5HSUHVHQWDWLYH 3HSSHU KDG EHHQ GLVWUDFWHG E\ RWKHU OHJLVODWLYH ZRUN 7+( 1' &21*5(66 2Q -DQXDU\ 0RQGDOH LQWURGXFHG 6 IRU KLPVHOI DQG WZHQW\IRXU RWKHU VHQDWRUV &5 6f 7KH 63$ IXQFWLRQV RI KLV SURSRVDO ZHUH WKH VDPH H[FHSW WKDW WKH VHFWLRQ FUHDWLQJ D -RLQW &RPPLWWHH RQ WKH 6RFLDO 5HSRUW KDG EHHQ GHOHWHG 7KH VRFLDO UHSRUW SUHSDUHG E\ WKH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV ZRXOG EH UHIHUUHG WR WKH 6HQDWH &RPPLWWHH RQ /DERU DQG 3XEOLF :HOIDUH DQG WKH +RXVH &RPPLWWHHV RQ (GXFDWLRQ DQG /DERU DQG RQ ,QWHUVWDWH DQG )RUHLJQ &RPPHUFH 7KXV 7LWOH ZDV HYHQ PRUH H[HFXWLYH RULHQWHG

PAGE 189

WKDQ ZKHQ LW ZDV ILUVW LQWURGXFHG WKH LPEDODQFH LQ DQDO\WLFDO FDSDELOLW\ ZDV LQFUHDVHG 7KH LPEDODQFH ZDV PLWLJDWHG KRZHYHU E\ 7LWOH ,, ZKLFK ZRXOG FUHDWH DQ 2IILFH RI *RDOV DQG 3ULRULWLHV $QDO\VLV 2*3$f :LWK WKH DGGLWLRQ RI WKH 2IILFH RI *RDOV DQG 3ULRULWLHV $QDO\VLV WKH GDWH RI WKH 3UHVLGHQWnV DQQXDO VRFLDO UHSRUW ZDV PRYHG IURP 0DUFK WR )HEUXDU\ 7KH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV KDG WR UHSRUW WR WKH 3UHVLGHQW LQ -DQXDU\ UDWKHU WKDQ )HEUXDU\ 7KXV WKH RIILFH DV FULWLFV SRLQWHG RXW KDG RQO\ WZR ZHHNV )HEUXDU\ WR 0DUFK WR H[DPLQH WKH 3UHVLGHQWnV VRFLDO UHSRUW DQG DGG LWV FRPPHQWV RQ WKLV UHSRUW WR LWV FRPPHQWV RQ WKH 3UHVLn GHQWnV EXGJHW DQG HFRQRPLF UHSRUW 1R DFWLRQ E\ DQ\ FRPPLWWHH ZDV UHTXLUHG LQ UHVSRQVH WR WKH 2*3$ UHSRUW 1R FRPPLWWHH ZDV UHTXLUHG WR SURSRVH D VHW RI FRQn JUHVVLRQDO JRDOV RU EXGJHW SULRULWLHV +RZHYHU WKH IDFW WKDW WKH 6HQDWH KDG JRQH RQ UHFRUG LQ WKH VW DQG DJDLQ LQ WKH QG &RQn JUHVV LQ VXSSRUW RI EHWWHU SULRULW\VHWWLQJ PHFKDQLVPV IRU &RQn JUHVV ZDV WR KDYH DQ LPSRUWDQW LPSDFW RQ WKH XOWLPDWH EXGJHW UHn IRUP DGRSWHG LQ WKH UG &RQJUHVVA +($5,1*6 7KH QG &RQJUHVV FRQWLQXHG WKH WUHQG WRZDUG VKRUWHQHG KHDUn LQJV ,Q RQH GD\ RI KHDULQJV ILYH ZLWQHVVHV UHSUHVHQWHG WKH PDMRU SRVLWLRQV GXULQJ WKDW &RQJUHVV 7KH DGPLQLVWUDWLRQnV SRVLWLRQ SUHVHQWHG E\ 'ZLJKW ,QN RI WKH 0% UHPDLQHG XQFKDQJHG GHYHORSPHQWV

PAGE 190

WKURXJKRXW WKH H[HFXWLYH EUDQFK YLWLDWHG WKH QHHG IRU D &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV 7KH DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ FKRVH WR LJQRUH WKH UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ RI LWV 3RSXODWLRQ &RPPLVVLRQ VXSSRUWLQJ D &RXQFLO 2I 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV 3RSXODWLRQ DQG WKH $PHULFDQ )XWXUH f ,Q WKH VW &RQJUHVV 6HQDWRU 3UR[PLUH KDG GHIHQGHG 6 GXULQJ IORRU GHEDWH DIWHU DVVXUDQFHV WKDW WKH 2IILFH RI *RDOV DQG 3ULRULWLHV $QDO\VLV ZRXOG QRW LQIULQJH RQ WKH SUHURJDWLYHV RI WKH -RLQW (FRQRPLF &RPPLWWHH WKH SURSRVHG -RLQW &RPPLWWHH RQ WKH 6RFLDO 5HSRUW KDG DOUHDG\ EHHQ GURSSHG 'XULQJ WKH QG &RQn JUHVV 3UR[PLUH ZDV FKDLUPDQ RI WKH -RLQW (FRQRPLF &RPPLWWHH DQG PRUH FRQFHUQHG ZLWK UHWDLQLQJ LWV GRPLQDQW UROH LQ GLVFXVVLQJ QDWLRQDO SULRULWLHV ZLWKLQ &RQJUHVV 'XULQJ KH KDG UHFRPn PHQGHG HQODUJLQJ WKH VWDII RI WKH -RLQW (FRQRPLF &RPPLWWHH WR LQn FOXGH D QDWLRQDO SULRULWLHV VHFWLRQ ,Q WKH KHDULQJV 3UR[n PLUH UDLVHG KLV REMHFWLRQV DERXW 6 V LQIULQJLQJ RQ WKH ZRUN RI WKH -RLQW (FRQRPLF &RPPLWWHH WR 0RQGDOH EXW ZLWKRXW VDWLVIDFn WLRQ 7KH\ DJUHHG WR GLVFXVV WKHLU GLVDJUHHPHQWV RQ WKH 6HQDWH IORRU )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ f 5D\PRQG %DXHU HGLWRU RI WKH JURXQGEUHDNLQJ VRFLDO LQGLFDn WRUV f ZDV EURXJKW WR WHVWLI\ RQ EHKDOI RI WKH ELOO GHVn SLWH KLV LQLWLDO UHOXFWDQFH WR HQGRUVH WKH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $Gn YLVHUV EHFDXVH RI WKH VKRUW OLIH RI WKH 1DWLRQDO *RDOV 5HVHDUFK 6WDII WR ZKLFK KH KDG EHHQ VHQLRU FRQVXOWDQW ,Q KLV WHVWLPRQ\ %DXHU UHYLHZHG WKH IDWH RI WKH JRDOV VWDII DQG QRWHG WKDW KDG WKH\ EHHQ D VWDWXWRU\ ERG\ DV WKH FRXQFLO ZRXOG EH WKH JRDOV

PAGE 191

VWDII ZRXOG KDYH EHHQ PRUH VHFXUH %DXHU VXJJHVWHG WKDW VHYHUDO H[HFXWLYH EUDQFK GHYHORSPHQWV DQG D JURZLQJ ERG\ RI VRFLDO LQGLn FDWRUV NQRZOHGJH KDG QR FHQWUDO QHUYRXV V\VWHP QR SRLQW RI FRRUGLQDWLRQ WKDW WKH FRXQFLO ZRXOG SHUIRUP WKLV UROH (YHQ LI WKH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV ZDV D VWDWXWRU\ ERG\ %DXHU ZHQW RQ WKH :KLWH +RXVH KDG D WUHPHQGRXV SRZHU RYHU LW WKH SRZHU WR LJQRUH 6RFLDO UHSRUWLQJ ZRXOG RFFXU LQ WKH FRQn WH[W RI SURJUDPV DQG SROLFLHV RI WKH DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ LQ RIILFH DQG LQ WKDW VHQVH WKH DQQXDO VRFLDO UHSRUW ZRXOG EH D SROLWLFDO GRFXPHQW $FFRUGLQJ WR %DXHU WKH UHTXLVLWHV IRU VXFFHVV RI WKH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV LQ DGGLWLRQ WR XVHIXO VRFLDO LQGLFDn WRUV DQG VRFLDO UHSRUWLQJ ZRXOG LQFOXGH GLSORPDF\ VNLOO RSSRUn WXQLVP DQG OXFN )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ f 0HDQZKLOH FKDQJHV ZHUH WDNLQJ SODFH ZLWKLQ WKH VRFLDO VFLHQFH FRPPXQLW\ 0RQGDOH QRWHG DIWHU WKH KHDULQJV WKDW KH ZDV SOHDVHG WKDW VXSSRUW IURP WKH VRFLDO VFLHQFH FRPPXQLW\ KDG LQFUHDVHG IRU WKH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV &5 6,f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

PAGE 192

f 'HVSLWH WKLV IRUPDO VXSSRUW GHEDWHV FRQWLQXHG ZLWKLQ WKH VRFLDO VFLHQFH FRPPXQLW\ 7KH &ROHPDQ UHSRUW RQ HGXFDWLRQDO RSSRUWXQLW\ KDG VWLUUHG GLVFXVVLRQ RI VRFLDO VFLHQFH UHVHDUFK DV DPPXQLWLRQ LQ SROLWLFDO GHEDWHV RQ HGXFDWLRQDO SROLF\ &DOGZHOO 2UODQV +HQULRW fA 6RFLDO 6FLHQFH DQG WKH )HGHUDO *RYHUQPHQW f D YROXPH RI WKH $QQDOV RI WKH $PHULn FDQ $FDGHP\ RI 3ROLWLFDO DQG 6RFLDO 6FLHQFH DQG DQRWKHU HGLWHG E\ %HUWUDP *URVV 3ROLWLFDO ,QWHOOLJHQFH IRU $PHULFDnV )XWXUH f FRQWLQXHG WKLV GLVFXVVLRQ ZLWKLQ WKH DFDGHPLF FRPPXQLW\ $QRWKHU GHYHORSPHQW GXULQJ WKH SHULRG RI WKH QG &RQJUHVV ZDV WKH FRXQWHUEXGJHW HIIRUW RI WKH 1DWLRQDO 8UEDQ &RDOLWLRQ %HQVRQ t :ROPDQ f 5HDOL]LQJ WKDW FKDQJLQJ SULRULWLHV KDG WR EH URRWHG XOWLPDWHO\ LQ IHGHUDO H[SHQGLWXUHV WKH 1DWLRQDO 8UEDQ &RDOLWLRQ SURYLGHG DQ DOWHUQDWLYH EXGJHW ZKLFK RIIHUHG FDUHIXO HVWLPDWHV RI WKH GLPHQVLRQV RI QDWLRQDO QHHGV DQG WKH UHVRXUFHV UHTXLUHG WR SD\ IRU WKHP IRU HDFK RI WKH QH[W ILYH ILVn FDO \HDUV )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ f 6RO /LQRZLW] FKDLUPDQ RI WKH 1DWLRQDO 8UEDQ &RDOLWLRQ QRWHG LQ WHVWLPRQ\ KRZ VLPLODU WKH FRDOLWLRQnV WDVN ZDV WR WKDW SURSRVHG IRU WKH 2IILFH RI *RDOV DQG 3ULRULWLHV $QDO\VLV 7KH DEVHQFH RI WKDW DELOLW\ LQ &RQJUHVV KH QRWHG HQJHQGHUV &RQJUHVVLRQDO GHSHQGHQFH RQ WKH H[HFXWLYH EUDQFK ZLWK UHVSHFW WR WKH PDMRU FRQWRXUV RI WKH EXGJHW DQG KHQFH WKH VKDSH RI RXU SULRULWLHV )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ fA

PAGE 193

&200,77(( $1' 6(1$7( $&7,21 6 SDVVHG WKH &RPPLWWHH RQ /DERU DQG 3XEOLF :HOIDUH RQ -XQH E\ D YRWH RI WR 6HQDWRU 'RPLQLFN DQG 6HQDWRU 5REHUW 7DIW -U 5 2KLRf YRWHG DJDLQVW LW ,Q WKH UHSRUW RQ 6 7DIW DQG 'RPLQLFN VXSSOLHG PLQRULW\ YLHZV UHLWHUDWLQJ PRVW RI 'RPLQLFNnV REMHFWLRQV DW WKH WLPH RI WKH SDVVDJH RI 6 LQ WKH SUHYLRXV &RQn JUHVV )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ f 6 ZDV FRQVLGHUHG E\ WKH 6HQDWH RQ -XO\ 0QGDOH DQG -DYLWV OHG WKH GHEDWH DLGHG DW WKH HQG E\ 6HQDWRU +XPSKUH\ DQG 6HQDWRU (GZDUG 0 .HQQHG\ 0DVVf 7KH RSSRVLWLRQ ZDV OHG E\ 7DIW DQG 'RPLQLFN DLGHG E\ 6HQDWRUV &DUO 7 &XUWLV 5 1HEf DQG 0DUORZ : &RRN 5 .\f 0RQGDOH WRRN PRUH VHULRXVO\ WKH RSSRVLWLRQ RI 6HQDWRU 3UR[ PLUH $V D WDFWLF WR SODFDWH 3UR[PLUHnV REMHFWLRQV 0RQGDOH KDG VHULRXVO\ FRQVLGHUHG DPHQGLQJ 6 VR WKDW WKH &RXQFLO RI (FRQRPLF $GYLVHUV ZRXOG EH H[SDQGHG WR D FRXQFLO RI HFRQRPLF DQG VRFLDO DGn YLVHUV 7KLV H[SDQGHG FRXQFLO ZRXOG SXW RXW DQ HFRQRPLF UHSRUW LQ 'HFHPEHU DQG D VRFLDO UHSRUW LQ -DQXDU\ WR EH FRQVLGHUHG E\ WKH MRLQW HFRQRPLF DQG VRFLDO FRPPLWWHH DQ H[SDQGHG -RLQW (FRQRPLF &RPPLWWHH +RZHYHU DQRWKHU DUUDQJHPHQW ZDV ZRUNHG RXW EHWZHHQ 0RQGDOH DQG 3UR[PLUH DV D IORRU DPHQGPHQW )RXU DPHQGPHQWV ZHUH RIIHUHG 7KH ILUVW ZDV 0RQGDOHnV FRPSURPLVH ZLWK 3UR[PLUH 7KH 3UR[PLUH DPHQGPHQW ZRXOG PDNH WKH -RLQW (FRQRPLF &RPPLWWHH UHn VSRQVLEOH IRU RYHUVHHLQJ WKH RSHUDWLRQV RI WKH 2IILFH RI *RDOV

PAGE 194

DQG 3ULRULWLHV $QDO\VLV ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKH RIILFH ZRXOG WR WKH PD[LPXP H[WHQW FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH SURYLVLRQV RI WKLV WLWOH DFFRUG SULRULW\ WR UHTXHVWV PDGH E\ WKH -(& &5 6f 7KXV 3UR[PLUH ZRXOG HIIHFWLYHO\ JDLQ WKH HQODUJHG SULRULWLHV VWDII KH KDG SURSRVHG IRU WKH -RLQW (FRQRPLF &RPPLWWHH 0RQGDOH DQG -DYLWV VXSSRUWHG 3UR[PLUHnV DPHQGPHQW EXW 7DIW RIIHUHG DQ DPHQGPHQW WR 3UR[PLUHnV DPHQGPHQW WR HOLPLQDWH DQ\ UHIHUHQFH WR WKH -RLQW (FRQRPLF &RPPLWWHH LQFOXGLQJ WKH RULJLQDO DVVLJQPHQW WKDW WKH MRLQW FRPPLWWHH KROG KHDULQJV RQ WKH UHSRUW RI WKH 2IILFH RI *RDOV DQG 3ULRULWLHV $QDO\VLV )DFHG ZLWK WKLV WKUHDW 3UR[PLUH EDFNHG GRZQ ZLWKGUDZLQJ KLV DPHQGPHQW LQ IDYRU RI WKH RULJLQDO ODQJXDJH JLYLQJ WKH MRLQW FRPPLWWHH WKH GXW\ WR KROG KHDULQJV 6HQDWRU :LOOLDP ( %URFN 5 7HQQf RIIHUHG DQ DPHQGPHQW WR KDYH WKH 2*3$nV DVVLVWDQW GLUHFWRU DSSRLQWHG E\ WKH PLQRULW\ OHDGHUV RI WKH +RXVH DQG 6HQDWH LQ WKH VDPH IDVKLRQ WKDW WKH 6HQDWH PDMRULW\ OHDGHU DQG +RXVH 6SHDNHU DSSRLQW WKH GLUHFWRU 0RQGDOH DQG -DYLWV VXSSRUWHG WKLV DPHQGPHQW DV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK VWUHQJWKHQLQJ WKH OHJLVODWXUH LQ D ELSDUWLVDQ VHQVH DQG WKH DPHQGPHQW ZDV DFFHSWHG E\ WKH 6HQDWH &5 6f 7KH DPHQGPHQW ZDV KRZHYHU QRW LQFOXGHG LQ WKH YHUVLRQ RI 6 LQn WURGXFHG LQ WKH QH[W &RQJUHVV 7DIW PDGH RQH ODVW DWWHPSW WR DPHQG WKH ELOO E\ GURSSLQJ 7LWOH 7KLV DPHQGPHQW ZDV TXLFNO\ GLVSHQVHG ZLWK ,Q WKH ILQDO YRWH WKH ELOO SDVVHG WR 7KRVH RSSRVHG ZHUH DJDLQ HLWKHU 5HSXEOLFDQV RU 6RXWKHUQ 'HPRFUDWV &5 6f

PAGE 195

7+( 5' &21*5(66 ,Q DW WKH EHJLQQLQJ RI WKH UG &RQJUHVV 7LWOH RI 6 ZDV VL[ \HDUV ROG 7LWOH ,, ZDV IRXU \HDUV ROG ERWK KDG SDVVHG WKH 6HQDWH WZLFH $V WKH KHDULQJ UHFRUG VKRZV VXSSRUW FDPH SULPDULO\ IURP WKH DFDGHPLF FRPPXQLW\ $V D 0RQGDOH VWDIIHU SXW LW ,W UHSUHVHQWV WKH LQWHUHVWV RI DFDGHPLFLDQV DERXW SHUFHQW WKH SHRSOH DQG WKH SROLWLFLDQV GR QRW XQGHUVWDQG WKH QHHG IRU LW 7KH DUJXPHQWV IRU DQG DJDLQVW WKH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV KDG FKDQJHG OLWWOH DOWKRXJK WKHUH ZDV PRUH VRFLDO LQn GLFDWRUV ZRUN DYDLODEOH WR GLVFXVV $OVR DV WKH HFRQRP\ EHJDQ LWV GRZQWXUQ WKHUH ZDV OHVV SUDLVH IRU WKH DELOLW\ RI WKH &RXQn FLO RI (FRQRPLF $GYLVHUV WR WHOO WKH 3UHVLGHQW KRZ WR ILQH WXQH WKH HFRQRP\ 7LWOHV DQG ,, RI 6 UHPDLQHG GLVMRLQWHG FRQWULEXn WLRQV WR WKH VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW FDSDELOLWLHV RI &RQJUHVV 7KH WLWOHVn UHODWLRQVKLS ZRXOG FKDQJH GXULQJ WKLV &RQJUHVV UDWKHU WKDQ FRQWLQXLQJ DV XQFRRUGLQDWHG SDUWV RI WKH RQH SURSRVDO WKH\ ZHUH WRWDOO\ VHSDUDWHG 7+( 32/,7,&$/ 6(77,1* 1,;21 $W WKH EHJLQQLQJ RI WKH UG &RQJUHVV 3UHVLGHQW 1L[RQ ZDV ULGLQJ WKH FUHVW RI KLV ODQGVOLGH YLFWRU\ RYHU *HRUJH 0F*RYHUQ 1L[RQ FULWLFL]HG &RQJUHVV DV GR QRWKLQJ DQG KLVDLGHV WDONHG RI EHLQJ DEOH WR JRYHUQ ZLWK WKH VXSSRUW RI D RQHWKLUG PLQRULW\ RI PHPEHUV LQ &RQJUHVV MXVW HQRXJK WR SUHYHQW YHWR RYHUULGHV 1L[RQnV DVVDXOW RQ &RQJUHVV OHG WKH 6HQDWH WR IRUHJR WKH SUDFWLFH RI GHOD\LQJ WKH

PAGE 196

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f MRLQHG 'RPLQLFN DQG 7DIW LQ RSSRVLWLRQ 7KH UHSRUW ZDV YLUWXDOO\ LGHQWLFDO WR WKDW RI WKH QG &RQJUHVV ZLWK DQ DGGLWLRQDO SDUDn JUDSK QRWLQJ WKH ZRUN RI WKH -RLQW 6WXG\ &RPPLWWHH RQ %XGJHW

PAGE 197

&RQWURO DQG LWV UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ IRU D FRQJUHVVLRQDO EXGJHW RIILFH VLPLODU LQ IXQFWLRQ WR WKH 2IILFH RI *RDOV DQG 3ULRULWLHV $QDO\VLV )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ f 6KRUWO\ WKHUHDIWHU 6HQDWRU -DYLWV ZLWK 0RQGDOHnV DJUHHPHQW DPHQGHG 6 E\ GHOHWLQJ 7LWOH ,, -DYLWV SRLQWHG RXW WKH VLPLODULWLHV EHWZHHQ WKH 2IILFH RI *RDOV DQG 3ULRULWLHV $QDO\VLV DQG WKH &RQJUHVVLRQDO 2IILFH RI WKH %XGJHW SURSRVHG E\ WKH &RQn JUHVVLRQDO %XGJHWDU\ 3URFHGXUHV $FW RI 6 &*2 f $V D PHPEHU RI WKH &RPPLWWHH RQ *RYHUQPHQW 2SHUDWLRQV -DYLWV KDG KLV WLWOH RIIHUHG DV DQ DPHQGPHQW WR 6 6HQDWRU (UYLQnV EXGJHW SURSRVDO IRU -DYLWV UHDOL]HG WKDW WKLV FRPPLWWHH ZDV WKH IRUXP IRU 7LWOH ,, 0RQGDOH FRQFXUUHG 3DUW RI WKH FUHGLW IRU WKH 6HQDWHnV HPSKDVLV RQ SULRULW\ VHWWLQJ WKURXJK WKH EXGJHW SURFHVV PXVW JR WR -DYLWVn DQG 0RQGDOHnV 6 -DYLWVn SHUVLVWHQFH LQ DWWHPSWLQJ WR JLYH &RQJUHVV D PHFKDQLVP IRU IRFXVLQJ RQ SULn RULWLHV PDGH WKH 6HQDWH PRUH DPHQDEOH WR WKLV IXQFWLRQ RI WKH EXGJHW WKDQ WKH +RXVH ZDV 6R 0RQGDOHnV SURSRVDO ZDV UHWXUQHG WR QHDUO\ LWV RULJLQDO FRQGLWLRQ QDPHO\ WR HVWDEOLVK WKH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV DQG LWV DQQXDO VRFLDO UHSRUW 7KH -RLQW &RPPLWWHH RQ WKH 6RFLDO 5Hn SRUW KDG EHHQ HOLPLQDWHG ,QIRUPDWLRQ ZDV VWLOO JDWKHUHG RQ WKH ELOO DQG UHODWHG GHYHORSPHQWV EXW LQ D IRUP VLPLODU WR WKDW IRU 6 QDPHO\ D FRPSHQGLXP RI VRXUFHV GHYHORSHG E\ WKH &56 *HQHYLHYH .QH]R LQ WKH VFLHQFH SROLF\ GLYLVLRQ KDG SUHSDUHG DQQRWDWHG ELEOLRJUDSKLHV LQFRUSRUDWHG LQWR WKH KHDULQJV LQ WKH

PAGE 198

VW DQG WKH QG &RQJUHVV )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ D f ,Q WKH UG &RQJUHVV WKHVH ELEOLRJUDSKLHV ZHUH FLUFXODWHG LQ WKH IRUP RI D &RQJUHVVLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFH PXOWLOLWK RQ VRFLDO LQGLFDWRUV .QH]R f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f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f 7KDW HQGHG WKH IORRU GHEDWH WKH ELOO ZDV UHIHUUHG WR WKH *RYHUQPHQW 2SHUDWLRQV &RPPLWWHH 2Q 1RYHPEHU WKH ELOO ZDV FDOOHG XS IURP WKH FRPPLWWHH DQG SODFHG RQ WKH FDOHQGDU 6HQDWRU (UYLQ

PAGE 199

KDG WDNHQ QR DFWLRQ RQ WKH ELOO DQG 0RQGDOH GLG QRW SXVK IRU UHFRQVLGHUDWLRQ GXULQJ WKH UG &RQJUHVV 7KXV 6 UHFHLYHG IDYRUDEOH DFWLRQ LQ FRPPLWWHH EXW QR DFWLRQ IURP WKH IXOO 6HQDWH 0(0%(5 *2$/6 $1' $77,78'(6 ,W DSSHDUV WKDW 0RQGDOHnV SUHGRPLQDQW JRDO LQ SXUVXLQJ 6 ZDV JRRG SROLF\ 0RQGDOH ZDV LQWHUHVWHG LQ VRFLDO SURJUDPV DQG VRFLDO SROLF\ JHQHUDOO\ 7KH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV UHSUHn VHQWHG D ZD\ WR SURYLGH WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ QHFHVVDU\ IRU EHWWHU VRFLDO SURJUDPV DOWKRXJK 0RQGDOHnV FRQFHSWLRQ RI WKH JRRG SROLF\ SURFHVV QHYHU DGHTXDWHO\ FRQVLGHUHG &RQJUHVV DV DQ LQVWLWXWLRQ ,Q 0RQGDOHnV ELG IRU WKH SUHVLGHQF\ KLV SURSRVDO IRU D &RXQn FLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV ZRXOG EH OLVWHG DV RQH RI PDQ\ OHJLVODWLYH LQLWLDWLYHV
PAGE 200

DQG ZKHQ DQ HQGRUVHPHQW FDPH IURP DQ DFDGHPLF JURXS RU JRYHUQPHQW FRPPLVVLRQ +RZHYHU VXFK DFWLYLW\ ZDV QRW YHU\ VLJQLILFDQW IRU KLV UHHOHFWLRQ HIIRUWV *RRG SROLF\ ZDV WKH SUHGRPLQDQW UHDVRQ IRU -DYLWVn DFWLYLWLHV 2WKHU PHPEHUV RI WKH FRPPLWWHH KDG QRW UHDFKHG WKH WKUHVKROG OHYHO RI DFWLYLW\ WKDW ZRXOG DOORZ WKHP WR UHODWH WKHLU DFWLRQV WR VSHFLILF JRDOV EXW WKH\ ZHUH DEOH WR UHVSRQG WR VRPH RI WKH VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW SROLF\ DWWLWXGH TXHVWLRQV 2WKHU PHPn EHUV RI WKH &RPPLWWHH RQ /DERU DQG 3XEOLF :HOIDUH ZHUH OHVV KRSHn IXO WKDQ 0RQGDOH DERXW WKH DQWLFLSDWRU\ FDSDFLW\ RI WKH JRYHUQPHQW SDUWLFXODUO\ &RQJUHVV )LYH RI WKH HLJKW UHVSRQGLQJ RQ OHYHO RI VDWLVIDFWLRQ ZLWK FRQJUHVVLRQDO VHDUFK ZHUH GLVVDWLVILHG 0RVW RI WKHVH PHPEHUV UHODWHG WKH VHDUFK TXHVWLRQ WR D SDUWLFXODU DUHD RI FRQFHUQ LH SODQQLQJ LQGLYLGXDO LQLWLDWLYHV E\ VHQDWRUV SULRULW\ FRRUGLQDWLRQ 2QH FRPPLWWHH PHPEHU JDYH D XVHIXO GHVFULSn WLRQ RI WKH VHDUFK IRU SUREOHPV LQ WKH SROLWLFDO FRQWH[W RI &RQJUHVV 6HDUFK UHVXOWV IURP DWWHPSWV WR DQWLFLSDWH IXWXUH QHHGV DQG LVVXHV VR \RX FDQ VWHDO WKHP IURP VRPHERG\ HOVH 7KLV ZRUNV EHFDXVH RI WKH JHQHUDOO\ DFFHSWHG JHQWOHPHQnV DJUHHn PHQW >LQ WKH 6HQDWH@ WKDW RQFH \RX HVWDEn OLVK D OHDG RQ DQ LVVXH RWKHUV UHFRJQL]H LW DV \RXUV 7KXV WKH IXWXUH LV VHDUFKHG E\ 6HQDWRUVn VWDII PHPEHUV ORRNLQJ IRU LVVXHV /HVV LV GRQH LQ WKLV UHJDUG E\ FRPn PLWWHH VWDIIHUV XQOHVV LW LV DW WKH GLUHFn WLRQ RI WKH FKDLUPDQ 7KLV VHDUFK LV UHODWHG WR SUHVLGHQWLDO DVSLUDWLRQV WKRXJK QRW DOZD\V RU QHFHVVDULO\ VR
PAGE 201

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n YDQFH SURJUDPV FRVW PRQH\ WKH SXEOLF GRHV QRW ZDQW VRPHWKLQJ WKH\ GRQnW WKLQN WKH\ QHHG DQG WKH\ GRQnW VHH WKH FXUUHQW QHHG IRU DQWLFLSDWHG SUREOHPV &RQJUHVV KDV D UHSUHVHQWDWLYH IXQFWLRQ 7KH SXEOLF ZKLFK LV UHSUHVHQWHG LV QRW LQWHUHVWHG LQ WKH IXWXUH LQ DQ\ VSHFLILF WHUPV ,Q HIIHFW D PHPEHU KDV WR EHFRPH D VDOHVPDQ IRU WKH SUREOHP D FULVLV KHOSV VHOO WKH XUJHQF\ RI WKH QHHG WR GHDO ZLWK WKH SUREOHP 6RPH PHPEHUV SULQFLSDOO\ WKRVH ZLWK OHJLVODWLYH SURSRVDOV LQ WKLV DUHD QRWHG WKDW VWUXFWXUDO RU LQVWLWXWLRQDO IDFWRUV ZRXOG KHOS UDLVH LVVXHV PRUH HIIHFWLYHO\ 2Q WKH DELOLW\ RI WKH JRYHUQn PHQW WR SUHGLFW HPHUJLQJ SUREOHPV WKUHH PHPEHUV VDLG WKH\ KDG QRW WKRXJKW DERXW LW $QRWKHU ZDV LPSUHVVHG E\ WKH DWWHPSWV DW IRUHFDVWLQJ LQ 7KH /LPLWV WR *URZWK EXW ODPHQWHG WKH IDFW WKDW WKHVH DWWHPSWV FRXOG QRW EH WUDQVODWHG LQWR VSHFLILF SROLF\

PAGE 202

UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 2WKHUV QRWHG WKH JUHDWHU IDFLOLW\ RI PDNLQJ SUHn GLFWLRQV LQ SK\VLFDO UDWKHU WKDQ VRFLDO DUHDV 6HYHUDO PHPEHUV DJUHHG WKDW WKH\ GLG QRW UHFHLYH RU XVH PXFK LQ WKH ZD\ RI IRUHFDVWV RU RWKHU IXWXUHRULHQWHG LQIRUPDWLRQ 2QH RIILFH VXUYH\HG WKH VWDII LQ UHVSRQVH WR WKLV TXHVWLRQ DQG IRXQG WKDW WKH IXWXUHV LQIRUPDWLRQ UHFHLYHG ZDV SULPDULO\ IURP OREE\LVWV DQG ZDV GLVUHJDUGHG ZKHQ LW GLG QRW DJUHH ZLWK WKH VWDIInV SRVLn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f 2QH 'HPRFUDW IDYRUHG KHDY\ JRYHUQPHQW LQYROYHPHQW ZKLOH DQRWKHU ZDV PRUH FDXWLRXV DQG H[SOLFLW VWDWLQJ WKDW WKH JRYHUQPHQW VKRXOG SURYLGH LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ RSWLRQV DV ZHOO DV OHDGHUVKLS DQG DGYRFDF\ EXW LW VKRXOG QRW FRQWURO WDVWHV ZDQWV DQG GHVLUHV $ OLEHUDO 5HSXEOLFDQ ZKR UHVSRQGHG QRWHG WKDW DV D SROLF\ PDWWHU WKH UROH RI WKH JRYHUQn PHQW LV WR JLYH GLUHFWLRQ 0RUH FRQVHUYDWLYH 5HSXEOLFDQV QRWHG WKDW WKH JRYHUQPHQW FDQ H[HUW FRQWURO LQ FHUWDLQ DUHDV DQG GRHV VR E\ LWV SURJUDPV EXW DFFRUGLQJ WR RQH RI WKHP WKLV FRQWURO VKRXOG RFFXU LQ UHVSRQVH WR D QHHG DQG QRW DV DQ LQWHUYHQWLRQ

PAGE 203

$OO WKH PHPEHUV UHVSRQGLQJ WR WKH TXHVWLRQ RI WKH DELOLW\ RI &RQJUHVV WR SUHVHQW D SRVLWLYH LQVSLULQJ YLVLRQ RI WKH IXWXUH DJUHHG WKDW &RQJUHVV FDQQRW GR VR H[FHSW LQ VSHFLILF DUHDV $ FRKHUHQW YLVLRQ LV QRW SRVVLEOH ZLWK VHQDWRULDO HJRPDQLDFV 2QH KRZHYHU GLG QRWH WKDW &RQJUHVV FRXOG SOD\ D PRUH GHILQLWH SDUW LQ SUHVHQWLQJ DQ LQVSLULQJ DQG SRVLWLYH YLVLRQ JLYHQ D FRQn WH[W RI UHVSRQVLEOH SDUWLHV ZLWK D ODUJH PDMRULW\ LQ &RQJUHVV DQG D SUHVLGHQW RI WKH VDPH SDUW\ 6800$5< 6,; 67$*(6 7KH VXPPDU\ RI 6 nV KLVWRU\ LQ WHUPV RI VL[ VWDJHV RI PDn WXULW\ LV DV IROORZV 67$*( ,167,*$7,21 $1' 38%/,&,=,1* ,QVWLJDWLRQ DQG SXEOLn FL]LQJ RI WKH QHHG IRU 6 EHJDQ LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI WKH *UHDW 6RFLHW\n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

PAGE 204

FRPPLVVLRQV VXFK DV WKH 3RSXODWLRQ &RPPLVVLRQ FDOOHG IRU D FRXQFLO RI VRFLDO DGYLVHUV 6HYHUDO DFDGHPLF VWXGLHV FDOOHG IRU EHWWHU VRFLDO DQDO\VLV DQG LQ VRPH FDVHV VXSSRUWHG WKH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV 0RQGDOH GXULQJ WKHVH \HDUV PDGH HIIRUWV WR SXEOLFL]H WKHVH RFFXUUHQFHV RQ EHKDOI RI 6 +RZHYHU VRFLDO DQDO\VLV LV QRW D VH[\ LVVXH LW LV QRW XVXDOO\ FRYHUHG E\ WKH SUHVV 1HZV FRYHUDJH ZDV FRQILQHG ODUJHO\ WR VSHFLDOL]HG MRXUn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nV VWDII WR VXSSO\ H[SHUWLVH RQ VRFLDO VFLHQFH DQDO\VLV RU WKH PHFKDQLVP RI QDWLRQDO SROLF\ IRUPXODWLRQ 7KH UHVXOWLQJ IRUPXODWLRQ ZDV D UHODWLYHO\ VLPSOH GXSOLFDn WLRQ RI WKH SURFHVV RI HFRQRPLF UHSRUWLQJ HVWDEOLVKHG E\ WKH (PSOR\PHQW $FW RI 1DPHO\ WKHUH ZRXOG EH D &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV WR SURYLGH DQ DQQXDO VRFLDO UHSRUW WR &RQJUHVV ,Q &RQJUHVV D MRLQW FRPPLWWHH ZRXOG EH FUHDWHG WR KDQGOH WKH

PAGE 205

UHSRUW 7KURXJK WKLV SURFHVV WKH IXQFWLRQ RI WKH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV ZRXOG EH WR HQFRXUDJH WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI VRFLDO DQDO\VLV DQG VRFLDO UHSRUWLQJ PXFK LQ WKH ZD\ WKDW WKH &RXQFLO RI (FRQRPLF $GYLVHUV HQFRXUDJHG WKH JURZWK RI HFRQRPLF GDWD DQG DQDO\VLV 7LWOH ,, ZDV IRUPXODWHG E\ 6HQDWRU -DYLWVn VWDII LQ RUGHU WR SURYLGH &RQJUHVV ZLWK WKH WHFKQLFDO EXGJHWDU\ H[SHUWLVH WKH 3UHVLn GHQW UHFHLYHG IURP WKH 2IILFH RI 0DQDJHPHQW DQG %XGJHW 7KH SURn SRVHG FRQJUHVVLRQDO RIILFH ZRXOG DQDO\]H JRDOV DQG EXGJHW SULRULWLHV DQG UHSRUW LQ 0DUFK RI HDFK \HDU :KLOH WKLV UHSRUW ZRXOG EH FRQn VLGHUHG E\ WKH -RLQW (FRQRPLF &RPPLWWHH QR RWKHU FKDQJHV ZHUH WR EH PDGH LQ FRQJUHVVLRQDO GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ 67$*( ,1)250$7,21 *$7+(5,1* 0RQGDOH SURILWHG IURP WKH GHn FHQWUDOL]DWLRQ SUDFWLFHG LQ WKH &RPPLWWHH RQ /DERU DQG 3XEOLF :HOn IDUH 3ULFH f %HJLQQLQJ LQ 0RQGDOH KDG D VSHFLDO VXEn FRPPLWWHH DV WKH IRUXP LQ ZKLFK WR FRQVLGHU 6 ,Q ZKHQ WKH VSHFLDO VXEFRPPLWWHH ZDV HOLPLQDWHG 0RQGDOH ZDV VWLOO DOORZHG WR JDWKHU LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ 6 ZLWK WKH VWDII RI KLV 6XEFRPPLWWHH RQ &KLOGUHQ DQG
PAGE 206

5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFH SUHSDUHG DQ DQDO\VLV RI GHYHORSPHQWV LQ WKH VRFLDO LQGLFDWRUV ILHOG DQG WKLV DQDO\VLV ZDV LQFRUSRUDWHG LQWR WKH KHDULQJ UHFRUG LQ WKH VW DQG QG &RQJUHVV )RU WKH UG &RQJUHVV WKHUH ZDV D VHSDUDWH &RQJUHVVLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFH SXEOLFDWLRQ RQ VRFLDO LQGLFDWRUV .QH]R f +HUE -DVSHU WKH PDMRU VWDII SHUn VRQ RQ 0RQGDOHnV VSHFLDO VXEFRPPLWWHH ZDV PRVW UHVSRQVLEOH IRU LQIRUPDWLRQ JDWKHUHG GXULQJ LWV H[LVWHQFH 7KH SROLWLFDO LQIRUPDn WLRQ LQ WHUPV RI VXSSRUW DQG RSSRVLWLRQ WKDW -DVSHU QHHGHG IROORZHG SUHGLFWDEOH SDUWLVDQ DQG LGHRORJLFDO OLQHV 2WKHU RSSRVLn WLRQ FDPH IURP 6HQDWRU 3UR[PLUH EHFDXVH RI WKH ELOOnV LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU KLV -RLQW (FRQRPLF &RPPLWWHH -DVSHU DOVR PRQLWRUHG DFWLYLWLHV LQ WKH +RXVH EXW RQFH 5HSUHVHQWDWLYH 3HSSHU ORVW LQWHUHVW LQ SXVKLQJ WKH ELOO WKHUH ZDV QRWKLQJ WR EH PRQLWRUHG 'XULQJ WKH UG &RQJUHVV QR KHDULQJV ZHUH KHOG DQG OLWWOH SROLWLFDO LQIRUPDn WLRQ ZDV JDWKHUHG 67$*( ,17(5(67 $**5(*$7,21 2QH RI WKH IDFWRUV QHFHVVDU\ IRU SDVVDJH RI D PDMRU VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW UHIRUP WKH K\SRWKHVHV RI WKLV UHVHDUFK VXJJHVW LV D VSHFWUXP RI VXSSRUW H[n WHQGLQJ EH\RQG WKH SURIHVVLRQDO LQWHUHVWV PRVW GLUHFWO\ DIIHFWHG 6 IHOO VKRUW RQ WKLV UDQJH $V RQH VWDII PHPEHU SXW LW WKH LQWHUHVWV UHSUHVHQWHG E\ 6 ZHUH SHUFHQW DFDGHPLF (YHQ WKLV VXSSRUW ZDV ZHDNHQHG E\ GLVDJUHHPHQWV ZLWKLQ WKH VRFLDO VFLHQFH FRPPXQLW\ RYHU ERWK WKH GLUHFWLRQ RI VRFLDO LQGLFDWRUV UHVHDUFK DQG WKH XVH RI D &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV WR OLQN VRFLDO VFLHQFH PRUH GLUHFWO\ WR JRYHUQPHQW $FDGHPLF VXSSRUW ZDV IXUWKHU ZHDNHQHG

PAGE 207

E\ WKH UHOXFWDQFH RI VRFLDO VFLHQFH RUJDQL]DWLRQV WR HQGRUVH OHJLVODWLRQ DV RWKHU SURIHVVLRQDO RUJDQL]DWLRQV GR VXFK DV WKH PHGLFDO DQG EDU DVVRFLDWLRQV /DERU H[SUHVVHG YHU\ OLWWOH VXSSRUW IRU 6 DOWKRXJK WKH ODERU UHSUHVHQWDWLYH ZKR WHVWLILHG KDG EHHQ LQYROYHG LQ TXHVWLRQV RI VRFLDO DQG SROLF\ DQDO\VLV DV D PHPn EHU RI WKH &RPPLVVLRQ RQ $XWRPDWLRQ 7HFKQRORJ\ DQG (FRQRPLF 3URJUHVV /LNHZLVH RQH RI WKH IHZ EXVLQHVVPHQ WR WHVWLI\ RQ 6 ZDV OREE\LQJ IRU KLV RZQ SURIHVVLRQ E\ VXJJHVWLQJ WKDW SHUVRQV IDPLOLDU ZLWK WKH ILHOG RI EXVLQHVV PDQDJHPHQW VKRXOG EH LQFOXGHG DPRQJ PHPEHUV RI WKH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ f 67$*( 02%,/,=$7,21 6 SDVVHG WKH 6HQDWH WZLFH WKH &RPn PLWWHH RQ /DERU DQG 3XEOLF :HOIDUH WKUHH WLPHV LQGLFDWLQJ VRPH PRELOL]DWLRQ E\ 0RQGDOH DQG KLV VWDII KRZHYHU E\ WKH UG &RQn JUHVV YHU\ OLWWOH KDG EHHQ DFFRPSOLVKHG 7KH ELOO SDVVHG WKH FRPPLWWHH EXW 0RQGDOH ZDV PRUH FRQFHUQHG ZLWK NHHSLQJ WKH ELOO DOLYH WKDQ KDYLQJ LW DFWXDOO\ HQDFWHG LQWR ODZ 7KH RSSRVLWLRQ SULQFLSDOO\ FRQVHUYDWLYH 6HQDWRUV 7DIW DQG 'RPLQLFN ZHUH QRW WRR FRQFHUQHG DERXW PRELOL]LQJ VXSSRUW WR SUHYHQW WKH ELOOnV SDVVDJH 7DIW GLG DVN 6HQDWRU 6DP (UYLQ WR LQVXUH WKDW WKH ELOO EH UHIHUUHG WR WKH &RPPLWWHH RQ *RYHUQPHQW 2SHUDWLRQV LQ KRSH WKDW LI WKH ELOO DSSURDFKHG WKH SRLQW RI HQDFWPHQW WKH SUHFHGHQW ZRXOG UHTXLUH FRQVLGHUDWLRQ E\ WKH PRUH FRQVHUYDWLYH *RYHUQPHQW 2SHUDWLRQV &RPn PLWWHH DV ZHOO DV E\ WKH OLEHUDO /DERU DQG 3XEOLF :HOIDUH &RPPLWWHH

PAGE 208

7KH ODFN RI RUJDQL]HG VXSSRUW RU RSSRVLWLRQ HLWKHU LQVLGH RU RXWVLGH &RQJUHVV LV D VLJQLILFDQW DVSHFW RI WKH ELOOnV KLVWRU\ (QRXJK VXSSRUW ZDV PRELOL]HG IRU 6 WR SDVV WKH 6HQDWH WZLFH \HW WKH +RXVH QHYHU VHULRXVO\ FRQVLGHUHG WKH ELOO $SSDUHQWO\ 0RQGDOH DQG KLV VWDII PDGH OLWWOH HIIRUW WR PRELOL]H LQ WKH +RXVH $V 0RQGDOHnV VWDII SRLQWHG RXW WKHUH ZDV QR UHDO LQFHQWLYH IRU 5HSUHVHQWDWLYH 3HSSHU RU RWKHU PHPEHUV WR JHW LQYROYHG VR ORQJ DV WKH ELOO ZDV FRQVLGHUHG DOPRVW H[FOXVLYHO\ D 0RQGDOH LQLWLDn WLYH 3HSSHUnV LQWHUHVW VSUDQJ IURP KLV LQYROYHPHQW DV D VHQDWRU ZLWK WKH SDVVDJH RI WKH (PSOR\PHQW $FW RI \HW KH ZDV GLVn WUDFWHG E\ RWKHU OHJLVODWLYH GXWLHV DQG OHIW WKH ELOO ZLWK QR FKDPSLRQ RQ WKH +RXVH VLGH 67$*( 02',),&$7,21 $Q HDUO\ 6WUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW PRGLILFDWLRQ DGGHG WR WKH GXWLHV RI WKH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $Gn YLVRUV DQ H[SOLFLW UHIHUHQFH WR D UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU ORQJWHUP DQDO\VLV $ VHFRQG PRGLILFDWLRQ HOLPLQDWHG WKH -RLQW &RPPLWWHH RQ WKH 6RFLDO 5HSRUW DW WKH VXJJHVWLRQ RI D PHPEHU RI WKH /DERU DQG 3XEOLF :HOIDUH &RPPLWWHH WKDW D QHZ FRPPLWWHH IRU &RQJUHVV ZDV XQQHFHVVDU\ 0RQGDOH ZDV QRW YHU\ DWWDFKHG WR WKH MRLQW FRPn PLWWHH LGHD DQG KH DJUHHG WR GURS LW $QRWKHU PRGLILFDWLRQ FRQn VLGHUHG EXW QRW EURXJKW DERXW ZDV WR DPHQG WKH ELOO DV PDQ\ KDG VXJJHVWHG VR WKDW LW ZRXOG DGG WR RU H[SDQG WKH -RLQW (FRQRPLF &RPPLWWHH 7KH PDMRU PRGLILFDWLRQV LQ WKH ELOOnV KLVWRU\ ZHUH WKH DGGLWLRQ DQG ODWHU GHOHWLRQ RI 7LWOH ,, 6HQDWRU -DYLWVn SURSRVDO IRU D FRQJUHVVLRQDO 2IILFH RI *RDOV DQG 3ULRULWLHV $QDO\VLV

PAGE 209

$OWKRXJK WKH SURFHGXUHV LQ 7LWOH DQG 7LWOH ,, ZHUH QHYHU UHDOO\ LQWHUPHVKHG WKH HIIHFW RI 6HQDWRU -DYLWVn DPHQGPHQW ZDV WR FRXQWHUn DFW WKH H[HFXWLYH RULHQWDWLRQ RI 7LWOH 7KXV WKH 0RQGDOH SURSRVDO IRU D &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV WKH VRFLDO SROLF\ LQ WKH :KLWH +RXVH DSSURDFK WR nVWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW KDG D ORQJ KLVWRU\ LQ WKH 6HQDWH ,W ZDV VSDZQHG LQ WKH ULJKW HQYLURQPHQW WR NHHS LW DOLYH D OLEHUDO /DERU DQG 3XEOLF :HOIDUH &RPPLWWHH DQG D 'HPRFUDWLF DQG VXIILFLHQWO\ OLEHUDO 6HQDWH
PAGE 210

IHGHUDO JRYHUQPHQW FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH SULPDU\ UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV RI VWDWH DQG ORFDO JRYHUQPHQWV DQG WKH SULYDWH VHFWRU WR SURn PRWH DQG HQFRXUDJH VXFK FRQGLWLRQV DV ZLOO JLYH HYHU\ $PHULFDQ WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR OLYH LQ GHFHQF\ DQG GLJQLW\ DQG WR SURYLGH D FOHDU DQG SUHFLVH SLFWXUH RI ZKHWKHU VXFK FRQGLWLRQV DUH SURPRWHG DQG HQFRXUDJHG LQ VXFK DUHDV DV KHDOWK HGXFDWLRQ DQG WUDLQLQJ UHKDELOLWDWLRQ KRXVLQJ IRFDWLRQDO RSSRUWXQLWLHV WKH DUWV DQG KXPDQLWLHV DQG VSHFLDOLVWV IRU WKH PHQWDOO\ LOO DQG UHWDUGHG WKH GHSULYHG WKH DEDQGRQHG DQG WKH FULPLQDO DQG E\ PHDVXULQJ SURJUHVV LQ PHHWLQJ VXFK QHHGV 6 6HF LQ )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ f 7HFKQRORJLFDO DGYDQFHV FUHDWH QHZ LQYHVWPHQW RSSRUWXQLWLHV ZKLFK H[SHFW WR EH SDLG RXW RI WKH HQKDQFHG HDUQLQJV WKDW WKH\ SURGXFH %XW WKHUH DUH FOHDUO\ ORVVHV HJ WKH GLVSODFHPHQW WR WKH ZRUNHU FDXVHG E\ WHFKQRORJLFDO FKDQJH 7KHUH LV RIWHQ D GLYHUJHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH SULYDWH FRVWV ERUQH E\ DQ HQWUHSUHn QHXU DQG WKH VRFLDO FRVW RI SURGXFWLRQ $OWKRXJK GDWD RQ FULPH KHDOWK GHSHQGHQW FKLOGUHQ DQG WKH OLNH DUH FROOHFWHG E\ IHGHUDO DJHQFLHV WKHUH LV UDUHO\ DQ\ HIIRUW WR OLQN WKHVH SUREOHPV WR XQGHUO\LQJ FRQGLWLRQV QRU LV WKHUH IXOO PHDVXUH RI WKH FRVW RI WKHVH LOOV 6\VWHPDWLF DQDO\VLV RI VXFK GDWD PLJKW VXJJHVW SRVVLEOH FRXUVHV RI UHn PHGLDO DFWLRQ >7HFKQRORJ\ DQG WKH $PHULFDQ (FRQRP\ f 0RQGDOH DGGHG IRU MXVW DV ZH WKUDVK DURXQG LQ WKH DUHD RI VRFLDO SROLF\ WRGD\ VR WRR GLG ZH WKUDVK DURXQG LQ WKH DUHD RI HFRQRPLF SROLF\ EHIRUH PDNLQJ GHFLVLRQV RQ WKH EDVLV RI XQWHVWHG WKHRULHV DQG LQDGHTXDWH LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG DVVXPLQJ WKDW F\FOLn FDO ZD\V RI ERRP DQG EXVW ZHUH LQHYLWDEOH %XW \HDUV DJR WKH &RQJUHVV HQDFWHG WKH (PSOR\PHQW $FW RI HVWDEOLVKLQJ WKH &RXQFLO RI (FRQRPLF $GYLVHUV DQG UHn TXLULQJ WKH 3UHVLGHQW WR GHOLYHU WR &RQJUHVV DQ DQQXDO UHSRUW WR &RQJUHVV RQ WKH SURJUHVV RI WKH HFRQRP\ RQ WKH \HDU SDVW DQG SURVSHFWV IRU WKH \HDU DKHDG ,Q WKH WZR GHFDGHV VLQFH WKH HQDFWPHQW RI WKDW ODZ ZH KDYH GHYHORSHG WKH VRSKLVWLFDWHG FDSDELOLW\ WR UHJLVWHU HYHU\ TXLYHU LQ WKH 86 HFRQRP\ 7KH VRSKLVWLFDWHG GDWD RI WKH &RXQFLO RI (FRQRPLF $GYLVHUV DQG WKURXJK WKH DQQXDO UHSRUW RI WKH 3UHVLGHQW WKH 3UHVLGHQWnV SROLFLHV DQG SURJUDPV KDYH EHHQ JLYHQ EURDG SXEOLF H[SRVXUH ZKLOH WKH UHSRUW VWDWLVWLFV DFFXUDWHO\ PHDVXUH WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI WKH HFRQRP\ LQ FRPSDULVRQ ZLWK SDVW \HDUV :H VWLOO GHEDWH HFRQRPLF SROLF\ RI FRXUVH EXW RXU GHFLn VLRQV DUH QRZ VKDSHG RQ WKH EDVLV RI KDUG IDFWXDO LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG RXU HFRQRP\ LV GRLQJ IDU EHWWHU WKDQ LW KDV HYHU GRQH EHIRUH )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ f

PAGE 211

7KH WKUHH UHSRUWV SURYLGHG PL[HG VXSSRUW IRU 6 EH\RQG WKHLU HQGRUVHPHQW RI DGYDQFLQJ VRFLDO VFLHQFH DQDO\VLV 7KH %$66 FRPPLWWHH FDOOHG IRU D &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV RQO\ DIWHU LW KDG EHHQ VKRZQ WKDW D VRFLDO UHSRUW ZDV IHDVLEOH DQG FRXOG EH GRQH LQ D QRQSROLWLFDO PDQQHU 1$6 Df 7KH 1DWLRQDO $FDGHP\ RI 6FLHQFHV $GYLVRU\ &RPPLWWHH RQ *RYHUQPHQW 3URJUDPV UHFRPPHQGHG WKDW WKH 2IILFH RI 6FLHQFH DQG 7HFKQRORJ\ EH XVHG IRU FRRUGLQDWLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG WKDW DQ LQVWLWXWH IRU DGYDQFHG UHVHDUFK RQ SXEOLF SROLF\ EH GHYHORSHG WR VWLPXODWH EHWWHU UHVHDUFK DQG DQDO\VLV 1$6 f 7KH 1DWLRQDO 6FLHQFH )RXQGDWLRQnV ERDUG FDOOHG IRU WKH H[SDQVLRQ RI WKH &RXQFLO RI (FRQRPLF $GYLVHUV WR LQFOXGH VRFLDO VFLHQWLVWV 16) f ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR WKH PL[HG VXSSRUW IURP WKHVH JURXSV WKH HVWDEn OLVKPHQW RI WKH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV ZDV HQGRUVHG E\ WKH 3UHVLGHQWn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f &RQJUHVVPDQ 3HSSHU NHSW WKH -RLQW &RPPLWWHH RQ WKH 6RFLDO 5HSRUW LQ KLV YHUVLRQ RI WKH ELOO 0RQGDOH KRSHG WKDW LI WKH ELOOV HYHU PRYHG WKURXJK WKH +RXVH DQG 6HQDWH WKH -RLQW &RPPLWWHH ZRXOG EH LQ WKH +RXVH YHUVLRQ DQG LQFOXGHG LQ WKH FRQIHUHQFH FRPPLWWHH UHYLVLRQ 7KH 6HQDWH ZRXOG DSSURDFK EXGJHW UHIRUP ODUJHO\ DV D PHDQV WR DOORZ &RQJUHVV WR EH PRUH HIIHFWLYH LQ VHWWLQJ QDWLRQDO SULRULn WLHV ZKLOH WKH +RXVH ZRXOG EH PRUH FRQFHUQHG ZLWK LPSRXQGPHQW FRQWURO &*2 [Yf 7KLV 6HQDWH HPSKDVLV RQ SROLF\ DQG SULn RULWLHV ZDV ODWHU UHIOHFWHG LQ WKH FKRLFH RI WKH GLUHFWRU IRU WKH &RQJUHVVLRQDO %XGJHW 2IILFH ,Q JHQHUDO +RXVH &RPPLWWHH PHPEHUV VDZ WKH 2IILFH DV D QHXWUDO DQDO\WLFDO DUP RI &RQJUHVV VLPLODU WR WKH *HQHUDO $FFRXQWLQJ 2IILFH 0DQ\ 6HQDWH PHPEHUV KRZHYHU SUHIHUUHG D PRUH SROLF\ RULHQWHG DJHQF\ WKDW ZRXOG DFWLYHO\ UHFRPn PHQG DOWHUQDWLYHV WR WKH $GPLQLVWUDWLRQnV EXGJHW &4 f 7KH 6HQDWH ZRQ DQG $OLFH 5LYOLQ D VHQLRU IHOORZ DW WKH %URRNn LQJV ,QVWLWXWLRQ DQG FRDXWKRU RI VHWWLQJ 1DWLRQDO 3ULRULWLHV ZDV FKRVHQ

PAGE 212

+RZHYHU 0RQGDOHnV LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI VXSSRUW IURP WKH FRQIHUHQFH ZDV QRW UHIOHFWHG LQ WKH OLVWLQJ RI LWV UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV LQ WKH 6 KHDULQJ WH[W )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ f ,Q DQ LQIOXHQWLDO DUWLFOH 3HWHU +HQULRW UDLVHG WKH IROORZn LQJ SROLWLFDO TXHVWLRQV DERXW VRFLDO LQGLFDWRUV ,f ,V WKH URRW RI FRQWHPSRUDU\ VRFLDO SUREOHPV D ODFN RI LQn IRUPDWLRQ RU D FRQIOLFW RI LQWHUHVWV" f :KDW DUH WKH FRQVHn TXHQFHV RI WKH SROLWLFDO RULHQWDWLRQ RI WKH SURSRQHQWV RI VRFLDO LQGLFDWRUV" f :KDW SROLWLFDO FRQVHTXHQFHV IROORZ IURP WKH IDFW WKDW VRFLDO LQGLFDWRU V\VWHPV DUH PRGHOHG XSRQ HFRQRPLF V\VWHPV" f &DQ WKHUH EH YDOXH QHXWUDOLW\ LQ WKH FKRLFH RI TXHVWLRQV DVNHG LQ GHYHORSLQJ VRFLDO LQGLFDWRU V\VWHPV" f :KDW SROLWLFDO FRQVHTXHQFHV IROORZ IURP WKH IDFW WKDW VRPH SKHQRPHQD FDQ PRUH UHDGLO\ EH PHDVXUHG WKDQ RWKn HUV" f :KDW LQIOXHQFHV ZLOO OREE\LQJ SUHVVXUHV KDYH RQ WKH GDWD JDWKHULQJ" f :KDW LQIOXHQFH ZLOO WKH FKDUDFWHU RI D SDUWLFXODU DJHQF\ KDYH XSRQ WKH JDWKHULQJ RI WKH GDWD" f :KDW LV WKH SROLWLFDO LPSRUWDQFH RI WKH SUHVHQWDWLRQ RI D VRFLDO UHSRUW ZKLFK XWLOL]HV V\VWHPV RI VRFLDO LQGLFDWRUV" f :KDW VDIHJXDUGV DUH QHFHVVDU\ WR SUHYHQW WKH PDQDJHPHQW RI GDWD" f ,V LW SRVVLEOH RU GHVLUDEOH WR SUHYHQW LQGLn FDWRUV IURP EHLQJ XVHG DV YLQGLFDWRUV DQG LQGLFDWRUV" ,,f 7R KRZ ZLGH DQ DXGLHQFH ZLOO WKH GDWD IRU VRFLDO LQGLn FDWRUV EH DYDLODEOH" f :KDW DUH WKH GDQJHUV WR SULYDF\ V\VWHP RI VRFLDO LQGLFDWRUV PLJKW LQYROYH" f :KDW XSRQ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ ZLOO WKH XVH RI VRFLDO LQGLFDWRUV WKDW D LPSDFW KDYH" +HQULRW f $Q DQQXDO UHSRUW VLPLODU WR WKH &RXQWHUEXGJHW ZDV WKH %URRNLQJV VHULHV RQ VHWWLQJ 1DWLRQDO 3ULRULWLHV 6FKXOW]H +DPLOn WRQ t 6FKLFN 6FKXOW]H )ULHG 5LYOLQ t 7HHWHUV f 7KHVH UHSRUWV SUHVHQWHG DOWHUQDWLYHV WR WKH 3UHVLGHQWnV EXGJHW SURSRVDO DQG ZHUH UHIHUUHG WR GXULQJ WKH KHDULQJV DQG IORRU GHn EDWH DV DQ H[DPSOH RI WKH W\SH RI DQDO\VLV WKDW &RQJUHVV VKRXOG EH DEOH WR GR IRU LWVHOI HJ )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ &5 6 f +HUE -DVSHU OHIW 0RQGDOHnV VWDII LQ 0DUFK DQG WKH UHn VSRQVLELOLWLHV IRU 6 ZHUH WUDQVIHUUHG WR -LP 9HUGLHU DQG DQRWKHU FRQJUHVVLRQDO IHOORZ IURP WKH $PHULFDQ $FDGHP\ IRU WKH $GYDQFHPHQW RI 6FLHQFH 3DPHOD (EHUW

PAGE 213

+<327+(6(6 $1' &203$5,6216

PAGE 214

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f SURSRVDOV SURFHVVHG" +RZ PDWXUH ZHUH WKH\ LQ WHUPV RI WKH VL[ VWDJHV RI SURFHVVLQJ f LQVWLJDWLRQ DQG SXEOLFL]LQJ f IRUPXn ODWLRQ f LQIRUPDWLRQ JDWKHULQJ f LQWHUHVW DJJUHJDWLRQ f PRELOL]DWLRQ DQG f PRGLILFDWLRQ" $PRQJ WKHVH SURSRVDOV RQO\ WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ RI WKH &RPPLWWHH 5HIRUP $PHQGPHQWV RI + 5HV f ZDV SDVVHG GXULQJ WKH UG &RQJUHVV 7KH HIIHFWV RI FULVLV GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ DQG WKH LQDGHTXDFLHV RI &RQJUHVV LQ KDQGOLQJ HPHUJLQJ SUREOHPV ZHUH ZHOO SXEOLFL]HG LQ DQG HDUO\ 7KH LVVXH RI FRQJUHVn VLRQDO UHIRUP LQFOXGLQJ 63$ UHIRUPV ZDV LQVWLJDWHG E\ WKH SDUW\ OHDGHUVKLS LQ WKH +RXVH DV ZHOO DV E\ 5HSUHVHQWDWLYHV 5LFKDUG

PAGE 215

%ROOLQJ DQG -RKQ &XOYHU ,QIRUPDWLRQ JDWKHULQJ ZDV D ULFK DQG LQYROYHG SURFHVV WKH VHFRQG PDMRU HIIRUW IRU WKH +RXVH VLQFH ,QIRUPDWLRQ RQ WKH SRWHQWLDO DSSURDFKHV WR IRUHVLJKW E\ FRPPLWWHHV FDPH IURP D QXPEHU RI VRXUFHV 7KH IRUPXODWLRQ RI WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ DIWHU WKH GHFLVLRQ DJDLQVW D FHQWUDO FRPn PLWWHH ZDV GRQH E\ KDUG VFLHQFH VWDIIHUV LQ FRQMXQFWLRQ ZLWK WHVWLPRQ\ IURP WKH VFLHQFH SROLF\ GLYLVLRQ RI WKH &RQJUHVVLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFH &56f 7KH PDMRU LQWHUHVWV LQYROYHG ZHUH 5HSUHn VHQWDWLYH &XOYHUnV SHUVLVWHQW GHPDQGV 5HSUHVHQWDWLYH 'DYLG 0DUWLQnV DFFHSWDQFH RI IRUHVLJKW DV SDUW RI WKH UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV RI D VHSDUDWH RYHUVLJKW VXEFRPPLWWHH IRU HDFK FRPPLWWHH DQG WKH EXUHDXFUDWLF LQWHUHVWV RI WKH &RQJUHVVLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFH 6XSSRUW LQ WKH FRPPLWWHH ZDV XQDQLPRXV IRU WKH SURYLVLRQLI QRW IRU WKH VHSDUDWH VXEFRPPLWWHHf§DQG RQFH LW ZDV LQ WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHHnV SURSRVDO QR IXUWKHU PRELOL]DWLRQ ZDV QHFHVVDU\ 7KHUH ZDV PXFK PRELOL]DWLRQ IRU DQG DJDLQVW RWKHU SDUWV RI WKH ELOO EXW WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ UHPDLQHG XQWRXFKHG 7KH RQO\ PRGLILFDWLRQ DQG RQH QRW DLPHG DW WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ ZDV WR UHWDLQ WKH RYHUVLJKWIRUHVLJKW PDQGDWH IRU FRPPLWWHHV ZKLOH OHDYLQJ WKH HVWDEOLVKPHQW RI D VHSDUDWH VXEFRPPLWWHH WR WKH GLVFUHWLRQ RI HDFK FRPPLWWHH 7KH )XOO 2SSRUWXQLW\ DQG 1DWLRQDO *RDOV DQG 3ULRULWLHV $FW 6 f SDVVHG WKH 6HQDWH &RPPLWWHH RQ /DERU DQG 3XEOLF :HOIDUH IRU WKH WKLUG WLPH 7KH QHHG IRU 7LWOH 6HQDWRU :DOWHU 0RQGDOHnV SURSRVDO IRU D &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV UHFHLYHG PXFK SXEOLFLW\

PAGE 216

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nV KLVWRU\ (YHQ LQ WKH HDUO\ \HDUV VXSSRUW QHYHU ZHQW PXFK EH\RQG DFDGHPLF DQG SURIHVVLRQDO JURXSV 2SLQLRQ ZLWKLQ WKH VRFLDO VFLHQFH FRPPXQLW\ GLYHUJHG RQ WKH QHHG IRU WKH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV DQG DQ HIIHFWLYH OREE\LQJ FDPSDLJQ ZDV QHYHU PRXQWHG 0RELOL]DWLRQ LQ WKH &RPPLWWHH RQ /DERU DQG 3XEOLF :HOIDUH UHn TXLUHG OLWWOH HIIRUW DQG OLWWOH HIIRUW ZDV OLNHZLVH UHTXLUHG IRU 6HQDWH SDVVDJH LQ WKH WZR SUHYLRXV &RQJUHVVHV DV 'HPRFUDWV DQG OLEHUDO 5HSXEOLFDQV OLQHG XS DJDLQVW 5HSXEOLFDQV DQG FRQVHUYn DWLYH 6RXWKHUQ 'HPRFUDWV ,Q WKH UG &RQJUHVV QR HIIRUW ZDV PDGH DIWHU WKH ELOO ZDV VHQW EDFN WR WKH 6HQDWH IORRU IURP WKH &RPn PLWWHH RQ *RYHUQPHQW 2SHUDWLRQV $QRWKHU PDMRU VKRUWFRPLQJ WKURXJKRXW WKH ELOOnV KLVWRU\ ERWK LQ LQWHUHVW DJJUHJDWLRQ DQG PRELOL]DWLRQ ZDV WKH IDLOXUH WR ILQG DQ HIIHFWLYH VSRQVRU RI

PAGE 217

WKH ELOO RQ WKH +RXVH VLGH )LQDOO\ WKH ELOO ZDV PRGLILHG E\ GHOHWLRQ RI WKH SURSRVHG -RLQW &RPPLWWHH RQ WKH 6RFLDO 5HSRUW DQG E\ DGGLWLRQ WKHQ GHOHWLRQ LQ WKH UG &RQJUHVV RI 6HQDWRU -DFRE -DYLWVn SURSRVDO IRU D FRQJUHVVLRQDO 2IILFH RI *RDOV DQG 3ULRULW\ $QDO\VLV 6HQDWRU +XPSKUH\nV %DODQFHG 1DWLRQDO *URZWK DQG 'HYHORSPHQW $FW RI 6 f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n WLRQV DQG WKDW 6DP (UYLQ LWV FKDLUPDQ ZDV QRW LQWHUHVWHG LQ WKH ELOO +XPSKUH\ ZDV EHKRRYHG WR XVH KLV RZQ DQG 7KRUQWRQnV LPDJLQDWLRQ 7KH\ KDG WKH &RQJUHVVLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFH FRPSLOH DQQXDO OLVWV RI GHYHORSPHQWV LQ WKH DUHD RI JURZWK DQG GHYHORSn PHQW SROLF\ $ YDULHW\ RI PHDQV ZHUH XVHG VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ WR SXEOLn FL]H DQG JDWKHU VXSSRUW IRU WKH QHHG IRU JURZWK SROLF\ DQG IRU

PAGE 218

6 7KHVH PHDQV LQFOXGHG DPHQGPHQWV WR ELOOV UHIRUPLQJ WKH EXGJHW SURFHVV DQG HVWDEOLVKLQJ D FRPPLVVLRQ RQ VXSSOLHV DQG VKRUWDJHV WKH HVWDEOLVKPHQW RI D ORQJUDQJH SROLF\ GHYHORSPHQW SURFHVV LQ WKH VLQJOH SROLF\ DUHD RI QDWLRQDO IRUHVWV DQG UDQJH ODQGV FRPPHQWDU\ RQ WKH 3UHVLGHQWnV JURZWK UHSRUW DQG WHVWLPRQ\ XVHG WR DGYRFDWH 6 DW KHDULQJV RQ RWKHU ELOOV +DG WKH ELOO EHHQ VHULRXVO\ FRQVLGHUHG LW ZRXOG KDYH EURXJKW RXW VLJQLILn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

PAGE 219

7KDW WKH JRYHUQPHQW VKRXOG DWWHPSW WR GLUHFW RU FRQWURO IXWXUH GHYHORSPHQWV 7KDW &RQJUHVV LV DW D FRPSDUDWLYH GLVDGYDQWDJH WR WKH 3UHVLGHQW LQ SURYLGLQJ D ODUJHVFDOH SRVLWLYH LQVSLULQJ YLVLRQ IRU WKH QDWLRQ 7KDW LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ OLNHO\ IXWXUH FRQGLWLRQV LQn FOXGLQJ &RQJUHVVLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFH OLVWV RI HPHUJLQJ LVVXHV LV DYDLODEOH &200,77(( )$&7256 )DYRUDEOH FRPPLWWHH DFWLRQ ZLOO EH GLUHFWO\ UHODWHG WR WKH IROORZLQJ IDFWRUV $ VXSSRUWLYH FRPPLWWHH RU VXEFRPPLWWHH FKDLUPDQ 6WDII LQWHUHVW RU H[SHULHQFH ZLWK 63$UHODWHG DFWLYLWLHV DV ZHOO DV SROLWLFDO LQIRUPDWLRQJDWKHULQJ DQG EDUJDLQLQJ VNLOOV $Q LGHRORJLFDOO\ OLEHUDO RU 'HPRFUDWLF PDMRULW\ ZKLFK SHUFHLYHV WKDW 63$ ZLOO UDLVH VRFLDO ZHOIDUH RU JRYHUQPHQW PDQDJHPHQW LVVXHV RU D FRQJUHVVLRQDO UHn IRUP PDMRULW\ ZKLFK SHUFHLYHV WKDW LWV LQVWLWXWLRQDO SRVLWLRQ ZLOO EH KHOSHG RU DW OHDVW QRW KXUW E\ FRQn JUHVVLRQDO DGRSWLRQ RI 63$ WHFKQLTXHV &RQVWLWXHQWRULHQWHG DQGRU EURDGO\ EDVHG LQWHUHVW JURXS VXSSRUW DQG VXSSRUW IURP WKRVH JURXSV ZLWK D SURIHVVLRQDO VWDNH LQ 63$UHODWHG DFWLYLW\ 3RVLWLYH DFWLYLW\ IURP EXUHDXFUDWLF VWUXFWXUHV H[HFXWLYH DJHQFLHV DQG FRQJUHVVLRQDO VXSSRUW RUJDQLn ]DWLRQVf EDVHG RQ SRWHQWLDO EHQHILW IURP FRQGXFWLQJ 63$ DFWLYLW\ RU IURP LWV SROLF\ LPSOLFDWLRQV 7KH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK WKH 63$ SURSRVDO DIIHFWV ORZHU OHYHOV RI WKH HQGVPHDQV FKDLQ GRHV QRW DWWHPSW WR DQDO\]H DQG IRUFH GHFLVLRQV DFURVV SROLF\ DUHDV XVHV WKH H[LVWLQJ FRPPLWWHH VWUXFWXUH ZLWKRXW FKDQJHV DQG RIIHUV QR VLJQLILFDQW WKUHDW WR WKH SUHYDLOLQJ GLVn WULEXWLRQ RI SRZHU DPRQJ PHPEHUV &RUUHVSRQGHQFH RI 63$ SURSRVDOV WR WKHVH K\SRWKHVHV ZLOO EH H[DPLQHG LQ WHUPV RI FRPPLWWHH IDFWRUV WKHQ FRPPLWWHH PHPEHU JRDOV DQG HOHPHQWV RI WKH 63$ SROLF\ DWWLWXGH

PAGE 220

&200,77(( )$&7256 &200,77(( $1' 68%&200,77(( &+$,50(1 7KH WKUHH 63$ SURSRVDOV LQGLFDWHG D IDYRUDEOH FRPPLWWHH FKDLUPDQ LV D QHFHVVDU\ EXW QRW VXIILFLHQW IDFWRU LQ D SURSRVDOnV VXFFHVV 5HSUHVHQWDWLYH %ROOLQJ IDYRUHG WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ DOWKRXJK KLV VXSSRUW DV FKDLUPDQ ZDV OHVV LPSRUWDQW EHFDXVH WKH VHOHFW FRPPLWWHH RSHUDWHG PRUH FRO HJLDOO\ WKDQ PRVW VWDQGLQJ FRPPLWWHHV 6HQDWRU +DUULVRQ :LOOLDPV VXSSRUWHG 6HQDWRU 0RQGDOHnV 6 :LOOLDPV PDLQWDLQHG WKH FRPPLWWHHnV SDWWHUQ RI DOORZLQJ WKH GHFHQWUDOL]DWLRQ RI SRZHU DQG WKH HQFRXUDJHPHQW RI SHUVRQDO LQLWLDn WLYHV DPRQJ PHPEHUV 3ULFH f :LOOLDPV KDG EHHQ SUHFHGHG DV FKDLUPDQ E\ 6HQDWRU 5DOSK
PAGE 221

7KH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH VWDII FRQWDLQHG DW OHDVW WKUHH W\SHV RI PHPEHUV KDUG VFLHQFH RU VFLHQFH SROLF\ SROLWLFDO VFLHQFH DQG ODZ\HUSROLWLFRV 0RVW LPSRUWDQW IRU WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ ZHUH WKH KDUG VFLHQFH W\SHV ZKR WUDQVODWHG WKH FDOO IRU SROLF\ SODQQLQJ DQG PRQLWRULQJ HPHUJLQJ FRQGLWLRQV DW WKH FRPPLWWHH OHYHO LQWR WKH VSHFLILF DVVLJQPHQW RI IXWXUHV UHVHDUFK DQG IRUHn FDVWLQJ 7KLV WUDQVODWLRQ RFFXUUHG LQ FRQMXQFWLRQ ZLWK WKH HIIRUWV RI WKH VFLHQFH SROLF\ GLYLVLRQ RI WKH &RQJUHVVLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFH 7KXV EDFNJURXQG H[SHULHQFH RU IDPLOLDULW\ ZLWK IXWXUHV UHVHDUFK DQG IRUHFDVWLQJ ZHUH PDGH DYDLODEOH WR RWKHU VWDII PHPn EHUV PRUH VNLOOHG DW SROLWLFDO LQIRUPDWLRQ JDWKHULQJ +RZHYHU RQFH WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ HQWHUHG WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHHnV PDMRU GUDIW LW VWD\HG WKHUH DQG QR IXUWKHU VXSSRUW ZDV QHFHVn VDU\ DV LW ZDV FDUULHG DORQJ ZLWK WKH ELOO ,W ZRXOG FDXVH OLWWOH FKDQJH LQ WKH GLVWULEXWLRQ RI SRZHU HLWKHU ZLWKLQ RU DFURVV WKH +RXVH FRPPLWWHHV DQG WKHUHIRUH UHTXLUHG OLWWOH SROLWLFDO LQIRUn PDWLRQ JDWKHULQJ RU EDUJDLQLQJ 2ULJLQDOO\ 6 ZDV GUDIWHG E\ D MRXUQDOLVW ZRUNLQJ DV DQ $PHULFDQ 3ROLWLFDO 6FLHQFH $VVRFLDWRQ FRQJUHVVLRQDO IHOORZ ZLWK KHOS IURP RWKHU 0RQGDOH VWDIIHUV DQG IURP %HUWUDP *URVV D SROLWLn FDO VFLHQWLVW DQG IRUPHU 6HQDWH VWDII SHUVRQ HVVHQWLDO WR WKH (PSOR\PHQW $FW RI 7KXV NQRZOHGJHDEOH SHUVRQV ZHUH LQYROYHG LQ GUDIWLQJ WKH RULJLQDO ELOO :LWK D FKDQJH LQ VWDII LQ WKH VW &RQJUHVV FDPH VRPH SROLWLFDO LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG EDUJDLQLQJ VNLOOV EXW QRW HQRXJK WR DLG LQ ZLGHQLQJ VXSSRUW EH\RQG DFDGHPLF

PAGE 222

JURXSV %\ WKH UG &RQJUHVV OLWWOH VWDII HIIRUW ZDV UHTXLUHG LQ RUGHU WR NHHS WKH ELOO DOLYH DOWKRXJK VRPH DGGLWLRQDO LQIRUPDWLRQ JDWKHULQJ ZDV GRQH 1R FRPPLWWHH VWDII ZRUNHG RQ 6 ,QVWHDG -DPHV ( 7KRUQWRQ RULJLQDOO\ VWDII GLUHFWRU RI +XPSKUH\nV 5XUDO 'HYHORSn PHQW 6XEFRPPLWWHH ZDV LWV IRUPXODWRU DQG HQWUHSUHQHXU :LWK EDFNn JURXQG H[SHULHQFH LQ SROLF\ IRUPXODWLRQ 7KRUQWRQ KDG GHYHORSHG DQ H[SHUWLVH DQG D FRPPLWPHQW WR SURFHVV WKLQNLQJ %HFDXVH KH KDG IRUPXODWHG WKH PDVVLYH DQG FRPSOH[ ELOO KH DOVR NQHZ ZKHUH LW PLJKW EH ILW LQWR FRQJUHVVLRQDO DFWLYLWLHV 7KLV NQRZOHGJH EHFDPH SDUWLFXODUO\ LPSRUWDQW WR +XPSKUH\nV QHHG WR SXVK 6 LQ IRUXPV RWKHU WKDQ WKH 6HQDWH &RPPLWWHH RQ *RYHUQPHQW 2SHUDWLRQV ,QIRUPDWLRQJDWKHULQJ VWDII ZRUN ZDV DOVR SURYLGHG E\ DQQXDO &56 SXEOLFDWLRQV RQ GHYHORSPHQWV LQ WKH JURZWK SROLF\ DUHD &56 f ,QWHUHVW DJJUHJDWLRQ ZRUN ZDV GLUHFWHG WRZDUG YDULRXV SURIHVVLRQDO JURXSV VXFK DV WKH $PHULFDQ ,QVWLWXWH RI 3ODQQHUV DQG JRYHUQPHQW JURXSV RU DVVRFLDWLRQV VXFK DV WKH $GYLn VRU\ &RPPLVVLRQ RQ ,QWHUJRYHUQPHQWDO 5HODWLRQV DQG WKH 1DWLRQDO /HDJXH RI &LWLHV %XW WKH IXOOVFDOH HIIRUWV QHFHVVDU\ IRU VR IDUUHDFKLQJ D ELOO DV 6 ZHUH SUHPDWXUH GXULQJ WKH UG &RQJUHVV &200,77(( 0(0%(56+,3 ,Q WKH WZR FRPPLWWHHV ZKHUH WKH 63$ SURSRVDOV ZHUH GHDOW ZLWK RQH LQYROYHG DQ LGHRORJLFDOO\ OLEHUDO PDMRULW\ DQG WKH RWKHU D

PAGE 223

FRQJUHVVLRQDO UHIRUP PDMRULW\
PAGE 224

DQG UHFLSURFLW\ DPRQJ WKLV FRPPLWWHHnV DFWLYLVWV )HQQR 3ULFH f ,Q WKH UG &RQJUHVV 0RQGDOH EURXJKW 7LWOH WR WKH IORRU DIWHU 6HQDWRU -DYLWV KDG VHSDUDWHG KLV SURSRVDO 7KH ELOO ZDV UHIHUUHG WR WKH 6HQDWH &RPPLWWHH RQ *RYHUQPHQW 2SHUDn WLRQV &*2f EHFDXVH RI DQ DJUHHPHQW EHWZHHQ D FRQVHUYDWLYH 5HSXEOLFDQ DQG D FRPPLWWHH FKDLUPDQ 7KH FRQVHUYDWLYH UHDOL]HG WKDW &*2V PHPEHUVKLS ZDV PRUH FRQVHUYDWLYH WKDQ &/3:nV DQG WKH FRPPLWWHH FKDLUPDQ ZDV UHDG\ WR PDLQWDLQ KLV FRPPLWWHHnV LQVWLn WXWLRQDO SUHURJDWLYHV &*2 PHPEHUV ZKR YHQWXUHG DQ RSLQLRQ RI WKH HIIHFWV RI 63$ IURP HLWKHU +XPSKUH\nV 6 RU 0RQGDOHnV 6 GLG QRW VHH DQ\ V\VWHPDWLF ELDV IURP WKH DQDO\VLV 7KHLU DWWLWXGHV GLG QRW PRYH WKHP WR SXVK HLWKHU ELOO *LYHQ WKH FKDLUPDQnV RSSRVLWLRQ LW ZDV XQOLNHO\ WKDW HIIRUW ZRXOG KDYH PDGH D GLIIHUHQFH 7KXV WKH FRPSRVLWLRQ RI WKH FRPPLWWHH ZDV QHYHU DQ LPSRUWDQW IDFWRU DOWKRXJK 6HQDWRU 7DIWnV DFWLRQ VXJn JHVWV WKDW LW PLJKW KDYH EHHQ LI WKH 63$ ELOOV KDG EHHQ VHULRXVO\ FRQVL GHUHG ,17(5(67 *5283 6833257 7KH VWXGLHV RI WKH WKUHH ELOOV WHQG WR FRQILUP WKH K\SRWKHVLV RI LQWHUHVW JURXS VXSSRUW WR WKH H[WHQW WKDW D SURSRVDO LQYROYHG FKDQJHV LQ VWUXFWXUDO DUUDQJHPHQWV LQ &RQJUHVV RU WKH H[HFXWLYH 7KH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ ZKLFK GLG QRW LQYROYH VXFK FKDQJHV ZDV SDVVHG ZLWKRXW GLUHFW HIIRUW RQ LWV EHKDOI 6 PDGH LW WKURXJK WKH 6HQDWH WZLFH PRUH IURP 0RQGDOHnV HIIRUWV DQG IURP 'HPRFUDWLF

PAGE 225

DQG OLEHUDO VXSSRUW IRU ERWK WKH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV DQG -DYLWVn 2IILFH RI *RDOV DQG 3ULRULWLHV $QDO\VLV WKDQ IURP LQWHUHVW JURXS DFWLYLW\ ,QWHUHVW JURXS VXSSRUW QHYHU H[WHQGHG PXFK EH\RQG DFDGHPLF RU UHODWHG SURIHVVLRQDO JURXSV 6 ZDV PRGHOHG DIWHU WKH (PSOR\PHQW $FW RI $V QRWHG LQ &KDSWHU SHDN DVVRFLn DWLRQV OLQHG XS RQ ERWK VLGHV RI WKH DFW DQG WKLV OLQHXS ZDV VXIILFLHQW WR LQVXUH VSRQVRUV DQG RSSRQHQWV LQ WKH 6HQDWH DQG LQ WKH +RXVH D OHYHO RI DFWLYLW\ UHVXOWLQJ IURP IHDUV RI XQHPn SOR\PHQW IROORZLQJ :RUOG :DU ,, DQG LQYROYLQJ ODUJH VHJPHQWV RI VRFLHW\ 1R VXFK IRUFH ZDV EHKLQG 0RQGDOHn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n FUDWLF DFWLYLW\ +RZHYHU 6 UHIXWHG WKH K\SRWKHVLV E\ SDVVLQJ WKH 6HQDWH GHVSLWH SHUVLVWHQW RSSRVLWLRQ IURP WKH H[HFXWLYH EUDQFK

PAGE 226

7KH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ HQJHQGHUHG IDYRUDEOH DFWLYLW\ IURP D UHOHYDQW EXUHDXFUDF\ WKH &RQJUHVVLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFH VFLHQFH SROLF\ GLYLVLRQ 7KH VWDII GLUHFWRU RI WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH DQG WKH PRVW UHOHYDQW WHVWLPRQ\ IRU WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ FDPH IURP WKH VFLHQFH SROLF\ GLYLVLRQ 7KH VLWXDWLRQ ZDV DQDORJRXV WR D FRPPLWWHH DVNLQJ WKH H[HFXWLYH DJHQF\ WKDW ZLOO LPSOHPHQW D ELOO WR EHFRPH LQYROYHG LQ GUDIWLQJ LW ,Q WKLV FDVH WKH FRQJUHVVLRQDO EXUHDXFUDF\ KDG UHDOL]HG IURP WKH EHJLQQLQJ WKDW LWV LQWHUHVWV ZHUH DW VWDNH 6 PHW ZLWK RSSRVLWLRQ IURP WKH -RKQVRQ DQG 1L[RQ DGPLQLVn WUDWLRQV $OWKRXJK WKH 'HPRFUDWV ZHUH FRQFHUQHG WR H[SUHVV WKHLU VXSSRUW RI WKH ELOOnV REMHFWLYHV ERWK 5HSXEOLFDQV DQG 'HPRFUDWV ZHUH FRQFHUQHG WKDW DQRWKHU FRRUGLQDWLQJ JURXS ZDV QRW QHHGHG LQ WKH :KLWH +RXVH WKDW WKH VRFLDO VFLHQFHV ZHUH QRW \HW UHDG\ DQG WKDW RWKHU H[LVWLQJ XQLWV PLJKW SHUIRUP WKH QHFHVVDU\ GDWD JDWKHUn LQJ DQG VRFLDO DQDO\VLV 7KH &RXQFLO RI (FRQRPLF $GYLVHUV ZDV DGDPDQW DERXW WKH LQDELOLW\ RI D &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV WR PHHW WKH DVVLJQHG WDVN 7KHUH ZHUH VRPH FKLQNV LQ WKH JRYHUQn PHQWDO RSSRVLWLRQ 1RQEXUHDXFUDWLF JRYHUQPHQW FRPPLVVLRQV UHFRPn PHQGHG WKH HVWDEOLVKPHQW RI VXFK D FRXQFLO ,QGHHG WKH ODFN RI D VLJQLILFDQW EXUHDXFUDWLF VXSSRUW GLG QRW GHWHU FRPPLWWHH DQG 6HQDWH SDVVDJH RI 6 6 QHYHU SURJUHVVHG IDU HQRXJK WR ZDUUDQW H[HFXWLYH EUDQFK FRPPHQW 7KH RQO\ UHSRUWV ILOHG ZLWK WKH &RPPLWWHH RQ *RYHUQPHQW 2SHUDWLRQV FDPH IURP WKH *HQHUDO $FFRXQWLQJ 2IILFH

PAGE 227

ZKLFK FRPPHQWHG RQ WHFKQLFDO TXHVWLRQV DQG WKH $GYLVRU\ &RPPLVn VLRQ RQ ,QWHUJRYHUQPHQWDO 5HODWLRQV ZKLFK HQGRUVHG WKH FRQFHSW RI WKH ELOO DQG UHLWHUDWHG LWV HQGRUVHPHQW RI PDQ\ VSHFLILF SURYLVLRQV 63$ $6 $1 ,668( ,Q &KDSWHU LW ZDV QRWHG WKDW 63$ UHIRUPV PD\ JHQHUDWH SDWn WHUQV RI FRQIOLFW UHIOHFWLQJ VXEVWDQWLYH LVVXHV WKDW WKH DQDO\VLV PD\ DLG RU WKH 63$ UHIRUPV PD\ JHQHUDWH FRQIOLFW EHFDXVH RI FKDQJHV WR EH PDGH LQ WKH GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ V\VWHP 63$ UHIRUPV ZHUH WKRXJKW WR JHQHUDWH FRQIOLFW EDVHG RQ IRXU UHODWHG HIIHFWV WKDW FRXOG UHVXOW IURP DQ 63$ UHIRUP f D ULVH LQ WKH OHYHO RI WKH HQGVPHDQV FKDLQ DW ZKLFK SROLF\ GLVSXWHV WDNH SODFH f WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK WKH DQDO\VLV IRUFHV WKH FRQVFLRXV LQWHUUHODn WLRQVKLS RI GHFLVLRQV DFURVV SROLF\ DUHDV RU DFURVV FRPPLWWHHV f WKH FKDQJHV UHTXLUHG LQ H[LVWLQJ VWUXFWXUHV DQG f WKH UHGLVWULEXWLRQ RI SRZHU WKDW LV WKUHDWHQHG 7KH FDVHV WHQGHG WR VXSSRUW WKH H[SHFWHG UHODWLRQVKLSV ZKHUH WKH SURSRVDO ZDV VHULRXVO\ FRQVLGHUHG 7KXV WKH PLQLPDO FKDQJH SURSRVDO WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQf UDLVHG QR REMHFWLRQV ZKLOH WKH PRGHUDWH FKDQJH SURSRVDO 6 f JHQHUDWHG VRPH REMHFWLRQV DQG WKH PD[LPDO FKDQJH SURSRVDO 6 f ZDV QRW FRQVLGHUHG 7KH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ FDOOV IRU IXWXUHV UHVHDUFK DQG IRUHn FDVWLQJ ZKLFK PD\ FODULI\ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS DPRQJ PHDQV DQG HQGV ZLWKLQ D FRPPLWWHHnV SROLF\ DUHDV 1R FRPPLWWHH LV IRUFHG QRU

PAGE 228

LV DQ\ HPSRZHUHG WR HQWHU WKH MXULVGLFWLRQ RI DQRWKHU FRPPLWWHH DOWKRXJK FRPPLWWHH DQDO\VLV PD\ UDLVH WKH FURVVFRPPLWWHH LPSDFW RI DFWLRQV RQ UHODWHG SROLFLHV 7KH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ GLG QRW UHTXLUH D FKDQJH LQ WKH GLVWULEXWLRQ RI SRZHU ZLWKLQ RU DPRQJ FRPPLWWHHV $ FHQWUDO JRDOV RU JURZWK FRPPLWWHH KDG EHHQ FRQn VLGHUHG EXW ZDV UHMHFWHG EHFDXVH WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH IHOW WKDW PHPEHUV RI WKH +RXVH ZRXOG EH RSSRVHG WR DQ\ FHQWUDOL]DWLRQ RI SRZHU RWKHU WKDQ WKURXJK D EXGJHW FRPPLWWHH ZKLFK ZDV EHLQJ FRQn VLGHUHG HOVHZKHUH LQ WKH +RXVH GXULQJ WKH UG &RQJUHVV 7KH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ ZDV XQWRXFKHG ZKLOH RWKHU VHFWLRQV RI WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH SURSRVDO SDUWLFXODUO\ RQ FRPPLWWHH MXULVGLFn WLRQV ZHUH XOWLPDWHO\ GHIHDWHG EHFDXVH RI FKDQJHV WR EH ZURXJKW LQ SRZHU GLVWULEXWLRQ 7KXV WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ ZDV QRW SHUFHLYHG DV UHTXLULQJ DQ\ VLJQLILFDQW VKLIW LQ SRZHU 6 ZRXOG WHQG WR VKLIW SROLF\ EDWWOHV WR KLJKHU OHYHOV RQ WKH HQGVPHDQV FKDLQ ,Q WKH H[HFXWLYH WKH VKLIW ZRXOG RFFXU WKURXJK WKH DQQXDO VRFLDO UHSRUW DQG WKH VRFLDO DGYLVHUVn UHFRPn PHQGDWLRQV RQ WKH 3UHVLGHQWnV EXGJHW DQG RQ VSHFLILF PHDQV WR DFKLHYH VWDWHG HQGV ,Q &RQJUHVV WKH VKLIW ZRXOG RFFXU WKURXJK 6HQDWRU -DYLWVn 2IILFH RI *RDOV DQG 3ULRULWLHV $QDO\VLV 7KH RIILFH ZRXOG FODULI\ WKH FKRLFHV IDFLQJ &RQJUHVV DQG WKH LQWHUn UHODWLRQ RI VSHFLILF SURJUDPV DQG FRQJUHVVLRQDO SULRULWLHV 7KH FRQVFLRXV LQWHUUHODWLRQVKLS RI GHFLVLRQV ZRXOG EH IRUFHG LQ WKH H[HFXWLYH DQG LQ &RQJUHVV DOWKRXJK WKH DQDO\VLV ZRXOG RFFXU LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI H[LVWLQJ RUJDQL]DWLRQV 7KH 2IILFH RI *RDOV DQG 3ULRULWLHV $QDO\VLV ZRXOG RSHUDWH ZLWK WKH FXUUHQW FRPPLWWHH

PAGE 229

VWUXFWXUH DQG SURFHGXUHV LVVXLQJ LWV DQDO\VLV RI WKH 3UHVLGHQWnV EXGJHW SURSRVDOV DQG HFRQRPLF DQG VRFLDO UHSRUWV IRU WKH FRQVLGHUD WLRQ RI H[LVWLQJ FRPPLWWHHV 0RQGDOHnV 7LWOH ZDV DPHQGHG VR WKDW WKH VRFLDO UHSRUWLQJ V\VWHP ZRXOG RSHUDWH WRWDOO\ ZLWKLQ WKH FRQWH[W RI H[LVWLQJ FRPPLWWHHV 7KXV ERWK WLWOHV ZRXOG IRUFH DQDO\VLV RI WKH LQWHUUHODWLRQVKLS RI GHFLVLRQV EXW WKH XVH RI WKDW DQDO\VLV ZLWKLQ H[LVWLQJ VWUXFWXUHV ZRXOG UHPDLQ GLVFUHWLRQDU\ 6 ZRXOG UDLVH SROLF\ GLVSXWHV WR KLJKHU OHYHOV RI WKH HQGVPHDQV FKDLQ H[SUHVVLQJ SURJUDPV LQ WHUPV RI WKHLU LPSDFW RQ JURZWK SROLF\ JRDOV 6XFK D ULVH LQKHUHQWO\ LQYROYHV FURVVn SROLF\ DQG FURVVFRPPLWWHH DQDO\VLV DQG LW HVWDEOLVKHV D SURFHVV ZKLFK PDNHV LW GLIILFXOW WR LJQRUH WKH DQDO\VLV 6 ZRXOG PDNH PDMRU FKDQJHV LQ VWUXFWXUHV IRU SROLF\ FRRUGLQDWLRQ LQ WKH H[HFXWLYH EUDQFK DQG &RQJUHVV 7KH ELOO ZRXOG FUHDWH D QHWZRUN RI RIILFLDO DQG FLWL]HQV DGYLVRU\ JURXSV WKURXJKRXW WKH FRXQWU\ DQG HVWDEOLVK D VHSDUDWH LQGHSHQGHQW UHVHDUFK IRXQGDWLRQ 6RPH RI WKHVH FKDQJHV VXFK DV WKH MRLQW FRQJUHVVLRQDO FRPPLWWHH ZHUH GHVLJQHG WR VLW RQ WRS RI WKH H[LVWLQJ VWUXFWXUH RI FRPPLWn WHHV DQG ZRXOG LQFOXGH WKHLU FKDLUPHQ \HW LW LV OLNHO\ WKDW WKLV DQG RWKHU FKDQJHV SURSRVHG LQ WKH ELOO ZRXOG DIIHFW WKH GLVWULEXWLRQ RI SRZHU 7KH LPSDFW RI WKHVH IDFWRUV LQKHUHQW LQ DQ\ 63$ UHIRUP KDG D GLIIHULQJ LPSDFW RQ WKH KDQGOLQJ RI WKH WKUHH SURSRVDOV H[DPLQHG KHUH 7KH PLQLPDO FKDQJH DQG GLVFUHWLRQDU\ DQDO\VLV DVSHFWV RI WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ DLGHG LQ LWV SDVVDJH LW DURXVHG OLWWOH

PAGE 230

DWWHQWLRQ RQ WKHVH JURXQGV 6 JHQHUDWHG RSSRVLWLRQ IURP ERWK 'HPRFUDWLF DQG 5HSXEOLFDQ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQV EHFDXVH RI WKH FKDQJHV LW ZRXOG EULQJ DERXW 7KH 6HQDWH FRPPLWWHH DFFHSWHG WKH FKDQJHV LQ WKH H[HFXWLYH EXW HOLPLQDWHG WKH -RLQW &RPPLWWHH RQ WKH 6RFLDO 5HSRUW VR WKHUH ZRXOG EH PLQLPDO FKDQJH LQ &RQJUHVV 7KH IDFW WKDW 6 ZRXOG FDXVH VLJQLILFDQW FKDQJHV ZDV QRW ZLGHO\ NQRZQ EHFDXVH WKH ELOO ZDV QRW VHULRXVO\ FRQVLGHUHG \HW LW PD\ KDYH EHHQ RQH RI WKH UHDVRQV IRU 6HQDWRU (UYLQnV ODFN RI LQWHUHVW LQ WKH ELOO &200,77(( &203$5,6216 +RZ GRHV WKH DFWLYLW\ RI WKH WKUHH FRPPLWWHHV RQ WKH ELOOV FRPSDUH ZLWK WKH SDWWHUQV RI FRPPLWWHH DFWLRQ GHVFULEHG E\ 3ULFH DQG )HQQR" 3ULFH QRWHG WKDW WKH 6HQDWH *RYHUQPHQW 2SHUDWLRQV &RPPLWWHHnV VWUHQJWKV OD\ LQ LQVWLJDWLRQ DQG SXEOLFL]LQJ DQG LQ LQIRUPDWLRQ JDWKHULQJ f ,Q WKLV VHQVH ZKLOH WKH 6HQDWH FRPPLWWHH ZDV MXULVGLFWLRQDOO\ PRVW UHOHYDQW WR FKDQJLQJ JRYHUQPHQW VWUXFWXUHV WR SURYLGH IRU 63$ LW ZDV LOO SUHSDUHG WR IRUPXODWH DQG PRELOL]H IRU 63$ ELOOV 6 IRXQG WKH FRUQ PL WHH UHOXFWDQW WR SHUIRUP HYHQ LWV VWURQJ IXQFWLRQV RQ DQ DOUHDG\ IRUPXODWHG ELOO :KLOH WKH FRPPLWWHH GLG SXUVXH FHUWDLQ VSHFLILF UHIRUPV VXFK DV WKH HVWDEOLVKPHQW RI D &RQVXPHU 3URWHFn WLRQ $JHQF\ LW GLG QRW VHHN RXW ZLGHVFDOH FKDQJHV LQ WKH H[HFXn WLYH EUDQFK 6HQDWRU (UYLQ ZDV QRW LQWHUHVWHG LQ WKLV LVVXH DQG KLV WLPH ZDV WDNHQ XS ZLWK WKH FRQVXPHU SURWHFWLRQ LVVXH EXGJHW UHIRUP DQG WKH :DWHUJDWH FRPPLWWHH

PAGE 231

+XPSKUH\nV DFWLRQV ZKHQ IDFHG ZLWK DQ XQUHVSRQVLYH &RPPLWWHH RQ *RYHUQPHQW 2SHUDWLRQV VKRZ DQRWKHU FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI WKH 6HQDWH WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI LQGLYLGXDO QRQFRPPLWWHH DFWLRQ 'HFLVLRQPDNLQJ LQVLGH WKH 6HQDWH LV PXFK OHVV RI D FRPPLWWHH GRPLQDWHG SURFHVV WKDQ LQ WKH +RXVH >6HQDWRUV@ ZDQW WR FDQ DQG GR VXVWDLQ D GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ SURFHVV WKDW LV PRUH LQGLYLGXDOLVWLF DQG JLYHV JUHDWHU LQIOXHQFH WR WKH LQGLYLGXDO OHJLVn ODWRU WKDQ LV WKH FDVH LQ WKH +RXVH )HQQR f +XPSKUH\ SURPRWHG 6 WKURXJK GLYHUVH DFWLYLWLHV VHH &KDSWHU f :KLOH +XPSKUH\ ZDV LQGLYLGXDOO\ HIIHFWLYH GXULQJ WKH HDUO\ VWDJHV RI WKH ELOOn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t 3DWWHUVRQ f )RU WKH SHULRG RI WKH UG &RQJUHVV WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH ZDV WR UHYLHZ DQG UHFRPn PHQG FKDQJHV LQ FRPPLWWHH MXULVGLFWLRQV DQG SURFHGXUHV LQFOXGn LQJ RYHUODSSLQJ FRPPLWWHH MXULVGLFWLRQV 6LQFH WKH -RLQW &RPPLWWHH

PAGE 232

RQ &RQJUHVVLRQDO 2SHUDWLRQV ZKRVH RQJRLQJ GXW\ LV WR FRQVLGHU FRPPLWWHH RSHUDWLRQV ZRXOG QRW FRQVLGHU WKH SUREOHP RI FRPPLWWHH MXULVGLFWLRQV WKH VHOHFW FRPPLWWHH ZDV FKRVHQ WR H[DPLQH WKHP ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR LWV VLQJXODU SXUSRVH DQG ERXQGHG OLIHVSDQ WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH ZDV GLVWLQJXLVKHG E\ WKH FROOHJLDOLW\ DQG ELSDUWLVDQVKLS RI LWV RSHUDWLRQ DV ZHOO DV E\ WKH TXDOLW\ RI LWV VWDII 7KH SROLF\ LQGLYLGXDOLVP DQG SROLF\ SDUWLVDQVKLS RI WKH +RXVH (GXFDWLRQ DQG /DERU DQG 6HQDWH /DERU DQG 3XEOLF :HOIDUH &RPPLWWHHV ZHUH DEVHQW 7KH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH UHVHPEOHG WKH QRQn SDUWLVDQ DQG OHVV LQGLYLGXDOLVWLF +RXVH &RPPLWWHH RQ )RUHLJQ $IIDLUV $V WKLV FRPPLWWHH GXULQJ WKH SHULRG RI )HQQRnV UHVHDUFK WKHQ GHDOW ZLWK RQH PDMRU ELOO D \HDU WKH IRUHLJQ DLG ELOO WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH VLPLODUO\ SURGXFHG RQO\ RQH ODUJH SURSRVDO 3ROLF\ LQLWLDWLYHV IRU PHPEHUV WKXV PHDQW WKH LQFRUSRUDWLRQ RI D GHVLUHG FKDQJH LQWR WKH ODUJHU SURSRVDO &XOYHU LQVXUHG WKH SUHVHQFH RI WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ LQ + 5HV WKH ODUJH SURSRVDO DQG WKH REMHFW RI DWWHQWLRQ $QRWKHU GLVWLQFWLRQ UHOHYDQW WR 63$ UHIRUP ZDV WKH QDWXUH RI JRRG SROLF\ DV SXUVXHG E\ WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH 7KH +RXVH &RPn PLWWHHV RQ (GXFDWLRQ DQG /DERU DQG RQ )RUHLJQ $IIDLUV KDYH EHHQ GHVFULEHG DV GRPLQDWHG E\ WKH SXUVXLW RI JRRG SROLF\ )HQQR f 7KH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHHnV JRRG SROLF\ JRDO GHDOW ZLWK +RXVH SURn FHGXUHV DQG MXULVGLFWLRQV UDWKHU WKDQ ZLWK VXEVWDQWLYH SROLF\ &RPPLWWHH PHPEHUV KDG D JUHDWHU FRPPLWPHQW WR HIIHFWLYH +RXVH RSHUDWLRQV DQG WKH UHIRUPV LPSOLHG WKDQ WKH UHPDLQGHU RI WKH

PAGE 233

+RXVH 7KH 6HQDWH &RPPLWWHH RQ /DERU DQG 3XEOLF :HOIDUH DQG WKH +RXVH &RPPLWWHH RQ (GXFDWLRQ DQG /DERU RIWHQ SURGXFH ELOOV ZKLFK DUH WRR OLEHUDO IRU WKH SDUHQW FKDPEHU 5DWKHU WKDQ WRR OLEHUDO RU WRR FRQVHUYDWLYH WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH SURGXFW ZDV WRR FRQn JUHVVLRQDO UHIRUP RULHQWHG DQG VHFWLRQV GHDOLQJ ZLWK FRPPLWWHH MXULVGLFWLRQV ZHUH UHMHFWHG 7KH RSSRVLWLRQ WR SURSRVHG FKDQJHV LQ +RXVH SURFHVVHV FDPH QRW IURP WKH SDUWLVDQ RU LGHRORJLFDO JURXSLQJV HYLGHQW LQ UHVSRQVH WR JRRG SROLF\ LQLWLDWLYHV LQ WKH &RPPLWWHH RQ /DERU DQG 3XEOLF :HOIDUH EXW IURP D VWDNH LQ WKH V\VWHP RU VHQLRULW\ DOLJQPHQW 7KH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ D SRWHQWLDOO\ LPSRUWDQW UHIRUP GLG QRW UHTXLUH DQ\ VKLIWV LQ SRZHU DQG QHYHU EHFDPH D WDUJHW RI WKH FRQJUHVVLRQDO UHIRUP RSSRVLn WLRQ WR WKH MXULVGLFWLRQDO FKDQJHV 7KH WUHDWPHQW RI 6 E\ WKH &RPPLWWHH RQ /DERU DQG 3XEOLF :HOIDUH SHUPLWV WKH JUHDWHVW DPRXQW RI FRPSDULVRQ ZLWK SUHYLRXV UHVHDUFK 3ULFH DQG )HQQR DVFULEHG JHQHUDO SDWWHUQV RI GHFHQWUDOLn ]DWLRQ SDUWLVDQVKLS PXWHG E\ WKH SUHVHQFH RI OLEHUDO 5HSXEOLn FDQVf DQG DFWLYH SXUVXLW RI SROLF\ LQGLYLGXDOLVP WR WKLV FRPPLWn WHH DQG WKHVH SDWWHUQV ZHUH UHIOHFWHG LQ WKH FDVH RI 6 /LEHUDO 5HSXEOLFDQV SDUWLFXODUO\ 6HQDWRU -DFRE -DYLWV VKRZHG PXWHG SDUWLVDQVKLS ZKLOH HQFRXUDJLQJ OLEHUDO SROLF\ LQGLYLGXDOLVP $V OLEHUDOV DQG DFWLYLVWV WKH FRPPLWWHHnV 'HPRFUDWV ZHUH HYHQ PRUH VXSSRUWLYH RI SROLF\ LQGLYLGXDOLVP DQG LQ QR VHQVH YLHZ>HG@ WKHPVHOYHV DV PHUHO\ UHVSRQGLQJ WR LQLWLDWLYHV WDNHQ LQ WKH SROLF\ HQYLURQPHQW )HQQR f &RQWURO RI FRPPLWWHH VWDII DXJn PHQWHG WKLV OLEHUDO SUHGRPLQDQFH -DYLWVn FRQWURO RYHU PLQRULW\

PAGE 234

VWDII LQ WKH /DERU DQG 3XEOLF :HOIDUH &RPPLWWHH RIWHQ OHIW FRQ A VHUYDWLYH 5HSXEOLF 3HWHU 'RPLQLFN WR PXVWHU WKH RSSRVnWLRQ ZLWKRXW DLG IURP FRPPLWWHH VWDII 3ULFH f &RQVHUYDWLYHV VXIIHUHG VLPLODUO\ LQ 0RQGDOHnV VSHFLDO VXEFRPPLWWHH RQ 6 ZKHUH -DYLWV ZDV WKH UDQNLQJ PLQRULW\ PHPEHU 6 DOVR ILWV WKH SDWWHUQ RI OLEHUDO VHQDWRULDO DFWLYLVP DQG fSXEOLF VW\OH 3ULFH f 7KDW PHPEHUV RI WKH &RPPLWWHH RQ /DERU DQG 3XEOLF :HOIDUH DW WLPHV DVVXPH SROLF\ OHDGHUVKLS SXWV WKHP LQ WKH SRVLWLRQ RI FUHDWLQJ D GHPDQG IRU WKHLU OHJLVn ODWLRQ 7KLV FRPPLWWHHnV PHPEHUV KDYH EHHQ NQRZQ WR SURG RXWVLGH JURXSV WR VXSSRUW D VHQDWRULDO LQLWLDWLYHWKH HFKR FUHDWLQJ WKH \HOO 3ULFH f 0RQGDOH WULHG WR GR VR ZLWK 6 DQG WKH DLG RI WKH /DERU DQG 3XEOLF :HOIDUH &RPPLWHH DQG WKH IXOO 6HQDWH 7KDW WKH \HOO ZDV QHYHU ORXG HQRXJK LV UHIOHFWHG E\ WKH IDFW WKDW WKH +RXVH ZRXOG QRW FRQVLGHU 6 0(0%(5 *2$/6 2XU GLVFXVVLRQ KDV VXJJHVWHG QXPHURXV IDFWRUV DW WKH FRPPLWWHH OHYHO WKDW DUH UHOHYDQW WR 63$ SURSRVDOV EXW WKH IRFXV RQ FRPn PLWWHHV VKRXOG QRW REVFXUH WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKH SROLF\ HQWUHn SUHQHXU 7KH FDVH DSSURDFK ZDV FKRVHQ EHFDXVH LW JLYHV VRPH FOXHV ZK\ WKH SKHQRPHQRQ RI SROLF\ PDNLQJ UHPDLQV VLQJXODUO\ UHVLVWDQW WR WKHRU\ EXLOGLQJ DQG JHQHUDOL]DWLRQ 3ULFH f 7KH QRWLRQ RI UROH KDV EHHQ ZLGHO\ XVHG LQ VWXGLHV RI &RQJUHVV EXW IHZ DWWHPSWV KDYH EHHQ PDGH WR OLQN UROH RULHQWDWLRQV WR WKH

PAGE 235

OHJLVODWLYH HIIRUWV WKDW LQGLYLGXDOV DQG FRPPLWWHHV GR RU GR QRW XQGHUWDNH 3ULFH f ,Q WKLV VWXG\ PHPEHU JRDOV KDYH EHHQ XVHG WR XQGHUVWDQG WKH QDWXUH RI OHJLVODWLYH UHVSRQVLELOLW\ VKRZQ LQ WKH WKUHH 63$ SURSRVDOV %\ XVH RI JRDO FDWHJRULHV VXJn JHVWHG E\ )HQQR f LW ZDV K\SRWKHVL]HG WKDW WKH JRDO RI JRRG SROLF\ ZRXOG SUHGRPLQDWH RYHU JRDOV OLNH UHHOHFWLRQ RU SRZHU LQ WKH FKDPEHU 7KH FDVH VWXGLHV KDYH VXSSRUWHG WKLV K\SRWKHVLV WKDW WKH JRDO RI JRRG SROLF\ ZRXOG EH SUHGRPLQDQW RYHU WKH JRDOV RI UHHOHFWLRQ RU SRZHU LQ WKH FKDPEHU LQ GHWHUPLQLQJ 63$UHODWHG DFWLRQ +RZHYHU WKLV VXSSRUW DQG WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ JDWKHUHG RQ WKH UHODWLYH LPSRUWDQFH RI JRDOV GRHV QRW DGHTXDWHO\ H[SODLQ WKH LQLn WLDWLYHV WDNHQ LQ WKH 63$ DUHD )HQQR XVHG WKH JRDO FDWHJRULHV WR XQGHUVWDQG WKH JHQHUDO SDWn WHUQV RI UHLQIRUFHPHQW ZKLFK GLIIHUHQWLDWH FHUWDLQ FRPPLWWHHV 7KH EHKDYLRU LQYROYHG LQ SURFHVVLQJ OHJLVODWLYH LQLWLDWLYHV LV WRR VSHFLILF WR EH IXOO\ XQGHUVWRRG E\ FDWHJRULHV DLPHG DW PRUH GLIIXVH RU DJJUHJDWH IRUPV RI EHKDYLRU :K\ &XOYHU +XPSKUH\ DQG 0RQGDOH FKRVH WR SXUVXH 63$UHODWHG FKDQJHV KDV EHHQ DPRQJ RXU FRQFHUQV ,Q HDFK FDVH VWXG\ WKHUH ZDV D SDUWLFXODU VHW RI FLUFXPn VWDQFHV WKDW OHG WKHVH PHPEHUV WR SXUVXH WKH VSHFLILF 63$ SURSRVDOV )RU 0RQGDOH D -RVHSK .UDIW FROXPQ VWUXFN D UHVSRQVLYH FKRUG WKH LGHD RI VRFLDO UHSRUWLQJ DQG WKH PHFKDQLVP RI D &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV IHOO QHDWO\ WRJHWKHU $W WKH WLPH 0RQGDOH GLG QRW EHORQJ WR WKH /DERU DQG 3XEOLF :HOIDUH &RPPLWWHH DQG KH ZDV GLVn VDWLVILHG ZLWK KLV LQDELOLW\ WR ZRUN PRUH DFWLYHO\ RQ VRFLDO

PAGE 236

LVVXHV 7KH VRFLDO DGYLVHUV LGHD DOORZHG KLP WR ILOO D SHUVRQDO YRLG DV D SROLF\ PDNHU ZLWK VRPHWKLQJ KH WKRXJKW LPDJLQDWLYH DQG IXWXULVWLF +H XVHG KLV SHUVRQDO VWDII UHVRXUFHV DQG DGYLFH QHFHVn VDU\ WR IRUPXODWH WKH ELOO DQG KH KDG D IDYRUDEOH FROOHDJXH 6HQDWRU )UHG +DUULV UHDG\ WR KROG KHDULQJV LQ WKH WK &RQJUHVV )URP WKH VW &RQJUHVV RQ 0RQGDOH KDG KLV RZQ VSHFLDO VXEFRPn PLWWHH IRU WKH ELOO +XEHUW +XPSKUH\ UHWXUQHG WR WKH 6HQDWH LQ DIWHU IRXU \HDUV DV 9LFH3UHVLGHQW :RUNLQJ LQ WKH 6XEFRPPLWWHH RQ 5XUDO 'HYHORSPHQW +XPSKUH\ EHJDQ WR EH FRQFHUQHG ZLWK WKH ODUJHU FRQn WH[W RI WKH SUREOHPV RI UXUDO DUHDV QDWLRQDO JURZWK SROLF\ +LV VXEFRPPLWWHH VWDII GLUHFWRU ZDV H[SHULHQFHG DQG FRPPLWWHG WR WKH LGHD RI D PRUH FRKHUHQW QDWLRQDO SROLF\PDNLQJ SURFHVV $V D PHPEHU RI WKH *RYHUQPHQW 2SHUDWLRQV &RPPLWWHH +XPSKUH\ IRXQG WKDW WKH JURZWK SROLF\ ELOO RIIHUHG D VLJQLILFDQW LQLWLDWLYH WR EH WDNHQ LQ WKDW FRPPLWWHH +LV ELG IRU WKH SUHVLGHQF\ LQ OHG KLP IURP WKH *RYHUQPHQW 2SHUDWLRQV &RPPLWWHH WR WKH )RUHLJQ 5HODWLRQV &RPPLWWHH +RZHYHU WKLV VZLWFK GLG QRW VWRS +XPSKUH\nV RU KLV VWDII PHPEHUnV HIIRUWV WR IRUPXODWH DQ 63$ SURSRVDO DQG WKHQ SXEOLFL]H WKH QHHG IRU LW LQ D YDULHW\ RI IRUXPV -RKQ &XOYHU KDG VKRZQ D YDULHW\ RI SROLF\ DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQDO VNLOOV ERWK DV FKDLUPDQ RI WKH +RXVH 'HPRFUDWLF 6WXG\ *URXS DQG LQ WKH 'HPRFUDWLF 3DUW\nV QDWLRQDO SROLF\ FRPPLWWHH ,Q WKH +RXVH KH ZDV IUXVWUDWHG E\ WKH VPDOO DPRXQW RI FUHDWLYH ZRUN GRQH E\ WKH *RYHUQPHQW 2SHUDWLRQV &RPPLWWHH RI ZKLFK KH ZDV D PHPEHU

PAGE 237

&XOYHU KDG D GULYLQJ FRQFHUQ IRU WKH SUREOHPV RI FULVLV GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ DQG WKH RXWPRGHG KDELWV RI &RQJUHVV UHLQIRUFHG E\ KLV IULHQGVKLS ZLWK $OYLQ 7RIIOHU &XOYHU ZDV RQH RI WKH UHSUHVHQWDn WLYHV ZKR SURPSWHG WKH IRUPDWLRQ RI WKH 6HOHFW &RPPLWWHH RQ &RPn PLWWHHV WR DGGUHVV WKH TXHVWLRQV RI PRGHUQL]LQJ WKH +RXVH 2QFH WKH FRPPLWWHH ZDV IRUPHG DQG HIIHFWLYHO\ VWDIIHG WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ GHYHORSHG DV D ORJLFDO SURJUHVVLRQ RI &XOYHUn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n WXGHV RI WKRVH ZKR ZHUH QRW DV DFWLYH LQ WKH 63$ DUHDV" $QG ZKDW LI DQ\ UHODWLRQ GR WKHVH SROLF\ DWWLWXGHV KDYH WR VSHFLILF 63$ IRUPXODWLRQV" ,Q WKLV VHFWLRQ WKH UHVSRQVHV KDYH EHHQ H[DPLQHG WR WKH TXHVWLRQV RQ PHPEHUVn 63$ SROLF\ DWWLWXGHV 6LQFH WKH IRFXV RI WKLV UHVHDUFK ZDV FRPPLWWHH DFWLYLW\ TXHVWLRQV ZHUH DVNHG RI WKH PHPEHUV RI WKH WZR 6HQDWH FRPPLWWHHV DQG RQH +RXVH

PAGE 238

FRPPLWWHH 7KH UHVSRQVHV KDYH EHHQ JURXSHG ZLWK GLVWLQFWLRQV PDGH RQ WKH EDVLV RI SDUWLVDQVKLS LGHRORJ\ DQG OHYHO RI 63$ DFWLYLW\ SULQFLSDO VSRQVRU RU QRWf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n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n YDQW SROLWLFDOO\ LPSRUWDQW LVVXHV 7KH VSRQVRUV RI 63$ OHJLVODn WLRQ H[SUHVVHG GLVVDWLVIDFWLRQ ZLWK FRQJUHVVLRQDO VHDUFK SURFHGXUHV

PAGE 239

EXW WKH\ ZHUH LQ WKH PLQRULW\ LQ H[SUHVVLQJ RSWLPLVP WKDW WKH JRYHUQPHQW FRXOG DQWLFLSDWH SUREOHPV EHIRUH WKH FULVLV VWDJH 2QO\ RQHTXDUWHU RI WKRVH UHVSRQGLQJ WKRXJKW WKH JRYHUQPHQW FRXOG DYRLG FULVLV GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ 2I WKH SHVVLPLVWLF PDMRULW\ RQHWKLUG VSHFLILFDOO\ PHQWLRQHG KXPDQ QDWXUH DV D URRW FDXVH FDQnW FKDQJH KXPDQ QDWXUH WKH VWUXFWXUH LV WKHUH LWnV WKH SROLWLFDO ZLOO WKDW LV PLVVLQJ DQG +LVWRU\ VKRZV WKDW LW >FULVLV GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ@ LV SDUW RI WKH KXPDQ EHDVW 6HYHUDO RI WKRVH ERWK RSWLPLVWLF DQG SHVVLPLVWLF DERXW DQWLFLn SDWLQJ FULVHV PHQWLRQHG WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI LQVWLWXWLRQDO DUUDQJHn PHQWV IRU LGHQWLI\LQJ SUREOHPV DQG IRUFLQJ WKH JRYHUQPHQW WR FRQIURQW HPHUJLQJ SUREOHPV 2QH DUWLFXODWH FRQVHUYDWLYH ZKR KDG H[SUHVVHG KLV VDWLVIDFWLRQ ZLWK WKH VHDUFK IRU SUREOHPV E\ WKH &RQJUHVV ZDV SHVVLPLVWLF DERXW WKH DELOLW\ RI &RQJUHVVDQG GHPRFUDWLF JRYHUQPHQW JHQHUDOO\ UHJDUGOHVV RI LQVWLWXWLRQDO PHFKDQLVPVWR DQWLFLSDWH FULVHV )RUFLQJ WKH FRXQWU\ WR PHHW SUREOHPV EHIRUH WKH\ UHDFK D FULVLV VWDJH QHFHVVLWDWHV D GLVFLSOLQH WKDW LVQnW LQ WKH SHUVRQDO RU SROLWLFDO OLYHV RI WKH SHRSOH 7KH SHRSOH SHUFHLYHG HQHUJ\ WR EH D FULVLV DQG DFWHG LQ D GLVFLSOLQHG ZD\ IRU D VKRUW WLPH WKH\ VKRZHG VHOIGLVFLSOLQH :KHWKHU LQIODWLRQ ZLOO KDYH WKH VDPH UHVXOW LV XQn FOHDU HVSHFLDOO\ LI LW PHDQV KXUWLQJ WKH SRFNHWERRN &RQJUHVV LV LOO HTXLSSHG HPRWLRQDOO\ WR GHFODUH JRRG SROLF\ >EXW@ WKHUH LV QRWKLQJ IXQFWLRQDOO\ GHILFLHQW ZLWK &RQJUHVV UDWKHU WKH SUREOHP LV WKDW LQ D GHPRFUDWLF VRFLHW\ WKH OHJLVODWXUH FDQQRW

PAGE 240

UHDOO\ DQWLFLSDWH SUREOHPV 7KHUH LV D QHHG IRU D SXEOLF UHODWLRQV HIIRUW WR VHOO WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI IXWXUH SUREOHPV
PAGE 241

IRU H[DPSOH DYRLGHG DQ\ GLUHFW FRPPHQW RQ WKH DFFXUDF\ RI SUHGLFn WLRQV LQ WKH VRFLDO DUHD EXW KH DGGHG WKDW SUHGLFWLYH DELOLW\ ZDV QRW WKH RQO\ FRQFHUQ *LYHQ D JUHDW DPRXQW RI LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG JRRG LQWXLWLRQ \RX FDQ SUHGLFW D OLWWOH EXW PRUH LPSRUWn DQWO\ \RX FDQ SURYLGH DOWHUQDWLYH SUHGLFWLRQV $ FRQVHUYDWLYH 5HSXEOLFDQ ZKR KDG EHHQ LQYROYHG LQ ORFDO SODQQLQJ HIIRUWV LQ KLV GLVWULFW QRWHG WKDW DQ\ SUHGLFWLRQ LV DQ XQFHUWDLQ EXVLQHVV EXW WKLV LV QR UHDVRQ QRW WR DWWHPSW WR SUHGLFW 3ODQQLQJ LV SDUW RI UDWLRQDO EHKDYLRU ,Q GLVFXVVLQJ WKH DELOLW\ RI PHPEHUV WR FKRRVH LQIRUPDWLRQ VRXUFHV (GZDUG 6FKQHLHU f FRPPHQWHG WKDW PHPEHUV RI &RQJUHVV EHFDXVH RI WKHLU SURIHVVLRQ DV SROLWLFLDQV RIWHQ H[FHO LQ MXGJn LQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ E\ LWV VRXUFH 6HYHUDO PHPEHUV UHVSRQGHG QRW DERXW WKH DFFXUDF\ RI SUHGLFWLRQV EXW DERXW WKH VRXUFHV RI SUHn GLFWLRQV QRWLQJ WKDW PRVW SUHGLFWLRQV DQG IXWXUH LQIRUPDWLRQ JHQHUDOO\f DUH SURYLGHG E\ OREE\LVWV WR VXSSRUW VSHFLILF SRVLn WLRQV $QRWKHU FRPPHQWHG RQ WKH SUREOHPV RI PDNLQJ DQG XVLQJ SUHGLFWLRQV IRU WKH JRYHUQPHQW 2IILFLDOV KDYH WKHLU MREV DQG SRVLWLRQV E\ YLUWXH RI WKHLU UHODWLRQVKLS WR WKH VWDWXV TXR RU WKH QDWXUH RI WKH VWDWXV TXR 3UHGLFWLRQV ZKLFK PLJKW DGYHUVHO\ DIIHFW WKLV DUH QRW ZHOFRPH $ SDUWLVDQ GLYLVLRQ DPRQJ UHVSRQVHV E\ %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH PHPEHUV WR D TXHVWLRQ RI JRYHUQPHQWnV UROH LQ GLUHFWLQJ RU FRQn WUROOLQJ WKH IXWXUH ZDV QRWHG LQ &KDSWHU ,QWHUYLHZV LQ WKH 6HQDWH FRQILUPHG WKLV REVHUYDWLRQ 2I WKH QLQH PHPEHUV LQFOXGLQJ

PAGE 242

VSRQVRUV ZKR DVVLJQHG WKH JRYHUQPHQW D SRVLWLYH UROH HLJKW ZHUH PRGHUDWH RU OLEHUDO 'HPRFUDWV WKH RWKHU ZDV D OLEHUDO 5HSXEOLFDQ 0RVW 5HSXEOLFDQV UHDFWHG WR WKH ZRUG FRQWURO LQ WKH TXHVWLRQ LQ FRQWUDVW PDQ\ 'HPRFUDWV IRFXVHG RQ WKH ZRUG GLUHFWf GRQnW OLNH WKH ZRUG FRQWURO VDLG RQH 5HSXEOLFDQ $QRWKHU FRXOG QRW JLYH DQ DQVZHU >RQ WKH JHQHUDO UROH RI JRYHUQPHQW@ >,W@ GHSHQGV RQ WKH LQGLYLGXDO FLUFXPVWDQFHV :H PD\ EH DEOH WR FRQWURO WKH IXWXUH LQ WKH DUHD RI HQHUJ\ VHOIVXIILFLHQF\ >EXW@ QRW PDQ\ DUHDV DUH OLNH WKDW $QRWKHU 5HSXEOLFDQ ZDV QRW VXUH WKDW WKH DXWKRULW\ LV EHWWHU DV D FDWDO\VW WKH DOWHUQDWLYH >WR FRQn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

PAGE 243

GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ 6RPH PHQWLRQHG VSHFLILF SROLF\ DUHDV VXFK DV DJULFXOWXUH HGXFDWLRQ DQG WKH HFRQRP\ $QRWKHU PHQWLRQHG WKH IXWXUHV LQIRUPDWLRQ LQ WKH &OXE RI 5RPH UHSRUWV 0HDGRZV HW DO 0HVDURYLF t 3HVWHO f $V LQ WKH FDVH RI WKH DFFXUDF\ RI SUHGLFWLRQV PHPEHUV DQG VWDII RIWHQ VSRNH RI WKH VRXUFHV RI IXWXUHV LQIRUPDWLRQ $Q RIILFH ZKLFK SROOHG LWV VWDII PHPEHUV RQ WKLV TXHVWLRQ IRXQG UHODWLYHO\ OLWWOH IXWXUHV LQIRUPDWLRQ WKDW WKH\ ZHUH DZDUH RI ZKDW WKH RIILFH GLG ILQG ZDV VXSSOLHG E\ OREE\ JURXSV ,Q &KDSWHU LW ZDV VXJJHVWHG WKDW NQRZOHGJH DQG XVH RI WKH HPHUJLQJ LVVXHV VHUYLFH RI WKH &RQJUHVVLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFH PLJKW SURYLGH DQ LQGLFDWRU RI WKH PHPEHUnV VHDUFK IRU H[LVWLQJ 63$ UHVRXUFHV ZLWKLQ &RQJUHVV $ERXW KDOI RI WKRVH LQWHUYLHZHG ZHUH IDPLOLDU ZLWK WKH OLVWV SUHSDUHG IRU WKH UG &RQJUHVV \HW WKH RQO\ PHPEHU ZKR KDG PDGH XVH RI WKHP ZDV D FRPPLWWHH FKDLUn PDQ 7KH UHPDLQGHU ZHUH XQIDPLOLDU ZLWK WKLV VHUYLFH WR FRPPLWWHH FKDLUPDQ XQGRXEWHGO\ EHFDXVH WKH OLVWV DUH GHYHORSHG LQ FRQVXOn WDWLRQ ZLWK FKDLUPHQ DQG GLVWULEXWHG DW WKHLU GLVFUHWLRQ $OO RI WKH 63$ VSRQVRUV ZHUH IDPLOLDU ZLWK WKH VXEMHFW OLVWV 7KH RQO\ XQDQLPRXV UHVSRQVH ZDV JLYHQ WR WKH TXHVWLRQ RI WKH UROH RI &RQJUHVV LQ SURYLGLQJ D SRVLWLYH LQVSLULQJ YLVLRQ IRU WKH QDWLRQnV IXWXUH $OO PHPEHUV LQWHUYLHZHG UHFRJQL]HG WKH GLVn DGYDQWDJH RI &RQJUHVV ZLWK SULPD GRQQDV RU VHQDWRULDO HJRPDQLDFV FRPSDUHG WR WKH 3UHVLGHQW LQ HIIHFWLYHO\ SURSRVLQJ ODUJHVFDOH JRDOV 0DQ\ PHPEHUV VDLG WKDW &RQJUHVV FDQ DQG GRHV

PAGE 244

SURYLGH WKLV W\SH RI OHDGHUVKLS RQ VRPH LVVXHV RU LQ VSHFLILF DUHDV EXW QRW LQ WHUPV RI DQ RYHUDOO SURJUDP :KDW GR WKH DQVZHUV WR TXHVWLRQV RQ WKH SROLF\ DWWLWXGH WRZDUG 63$ WHOO XV" +RZ XVHIXO ZHUH WKHVH DQVZHUV LQ GLIIHUHQn WLDWLQJ VSRQVRUV IURP RWKHU PHPEHUV DQG ZKDW DUH WKHLU LPSOLn FDWLRQV" 7KH TXHVWLRQV RQ SUHGLFWLRQ WKH UROH RI &RQJUHVV IXWXUHRULHQWHG LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG WKH VXEMHFW OLVWV GLG QRW VLJn QLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQWLDWH VSRQVRUV IURP RWKHU PHPEHUV 7KH TXHVn WLRQV RQ VHDUFK WKH DELOLW\ WR DQWLFLSDWH DQG WKH UROH RI WKH JRYHUQPHQW LQ GLUHFWLQJ DQG FRQWUROOLQJ WKH IXWXUH PDGH D FRPn SRVLWH SLFWXUH 7KH VSRQVRUV RI 63$ ELOOV DUH GLVVDWLVILHG ZLWK WKH QRUPDO SDWWHUQV RI FRQJUHVVLRQDO VHDUFK WKH\ IHHO WKDW WKH JRYHUQPHQW KDV D SRVLWLYH UROH LQ GLUHFWLQJ RU FRQWUROOLQJ WKH IXWXUH DQG PRVW LPSRUWDQWO\ WKH\ DUH RSWLPLVWLF DERXW WKH DELOLW\ RI WKH JRYHUQPHQW LQFOXGLQJ &RQJUHVV WR DQWLFLSDWH DQG GHDO ZLWK SUREOHPV EHIRUH WKH FULVLV VWDJH $V WKH FDVH VWXGLHV VKRZHG WKHVH HOHPHQWV RI DQ 63$ SROLF\ DWWLWXGH KDG OLWWOH GHWHUPLQDEOH LPSDFW RQ WKH VXSSRUW RU RSSRVLWLRQ IRU 63$ PHDVXUHV RQ WKH SDUW RI RWKHU FRPPLWWHH PHPEHUV 6800$5< 7KH WKUHH FDVHV VWXGLHG KHUH JHQHUDOO\ FRQILUPHG WKH K\SRWKn HVL]HG UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ FRPPLWWHH IDFWRUV DQG WKH VXFFHVVIXO SURFHVVLQJ RI 63$ UHIRUPV 7KH FRPSRVLWH SLFWXUH HPHUJHG RI D

PAGE 245

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nV SURFHVVLQJ +RZHYHU WKHVH IDFWRUV RSHUDWH ZLWKLQ FRPPLWWHHV RU XSRQ FRPPLWWHH DFWLYLW\ $QRWKHU VHW RI IDFWRUV DIIHFWV WKH YLDELOLW\ RI D ELOO ZKHWKHU LW ZLOO IO\ LQ WKH SDUHQW FKDPEHU ,Q &KDSWHU WKH IDFWRUV DIIHFWLQJ WKH YLDELOLW\ RI RXU 63$ UHIRUPV GXULQJ WKH UG &RQJUHVV KDYH EHHQ FRQVLGHUHG DORQJ ZLWK WKH LPSOLFDWLRQV RI WKHVH IDFWRUV IRU RWKHU FRQJUHVVLRQDO UHIRUP HIIRUWV 127(6 +\SRWKHVHV RQ FRPPLWWHH IDFWRUV ZHUH WDNHQ SULQFLSDOO\ IURP WKH ZRUNV RI 'DYLG 3ULFH f DQG 5LFKDUG )HQQR f ZLWK DGGLWLRQV UHOHYDQW WR VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW FRQn JUHVVLRQDO UHIRUPRU SROLF\ SURFHVV 7KH IDFW WKDW WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH PHPEHUV ZHUH GLIIHUHQW IURP PRVW RWKHU PHPEHUV LQWHUYLHZHG ZDV TXLFNO\ QRWLFHDEOH 7KH TXHVWLRQV GHDOLQJ ZLWK VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW SROLF\ DWWLn WXGH ZHUH QRW ZLWKLQ WKH QRUPDO UDQJH RI GLVFXVVLRQ IRU PRVW

PAGE 246

PHPEHUV (DUO\ LQWHUYLHZLQJ LQ WKH 6HQDWH SDUWLFXODUO\ DPRQJ PHPn EHUV ZKR ZHUH RQ WKH UHOHYDQW FRPPLWWHH EXW ZKR GLG QRW KDYH WKHLU RZQ SURSRVDOV LQ WKLV DUHD UHYHDOHG VRPH KHVLWDQF\ LQ DQVZHULQJ WKH TXHVWLRQV 9LUWXDOO\ DOO RI WKH VHYHQ %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH PHPn EHUV ZHUH FRPIRUWDEOH LQ DQVZHULQJ VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW TXHVWLRQV DQG JHQHUDOO\ GLVFXVVLQJ WKH FRQFHSWXDO QDWXUH RI FRQn JUHVVLRQDO RSHUDWLRQV $ %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH PHPEHU DQG D VWDIIHU DJUHHG WKDW WKLV FRQFHSWXDO RULHQWDWLRQ DQG LQVWLWXWLRQDO FRPPLWn PHQW ZRXOG SUHGLVSRVH WKHVH PHPEHUV WRZDUG VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW WR D JUHDWHU GHJUHH WKDQ WKH DYHUDJH PHPEHU RI &RQJUHVV ,QWHUHVW JURXS DFWLYLW\ RQ WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH SURSRVDO ZDV SULPDULO\ QHJDWLYH 0RVW LQWHUHVW JURXSV IURP 5DOSK 1DGHUnV JURXS DQG HQYLURQPHQWDOLVWV WR WKH &KDPEHU RI &RPPHUFH IHDUHG WKH ORVV RI HVWDEOLVKHG UHODWLRQVKLSV DQG WKHUHIRUH OREELHG DJDLQVW WKH PDMRU MXULVGLFWLRQDO FKDQJHV SURSRVHG E\ WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH 7KH H[FHSWLRQV ZHUH IRUPHU 'HPRFUDWLF RIILFLDOV RI WKH &RXQFLO RI (FRQRPLF $GYLVHUV ZKR VDZ WKH OLJKW DQG WHVWLILHG LQ VXSSRUW RI WKH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV GXULQJ WKH 5HSXEOLFDQ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ 7KH UHTXLUHPHQW RI VHSDUDWH RYHUVLJKWIRUHVLJKW VXEFRPn PLWWHHV ZRXOG KDYH DIIHFWHG WKH GLVWULEXWLRQ RI SRZHU ZLWKLQ FRPn PLWWHHV LQ D ZD\ ZKLFK VRPH PHPEHUV DUJXHG ZRXOG PDNH HIIHFWLYH RYHUVLJKW GLIILFXOW E\ LVRODWLQJ WKH RYHUVHHUV 7KH XOWLPDWH GHFLVLRQ ZDV WR OHDYH WKH HVWDEOLVKPHQW RI D VHSDUDWH RYHUVLJKW VXEFRPPLWWHH WR HDFK FRPPLWWHH

PAGE 247

,03/,&$7,216 $1' &21&/86,216

PAGE 248

9,$%,/,7< ,03/,&$7,216 )25 &21*5(66,21$/ 5()250 $ ELOOnV SODFH LQ VL[ VWDJHV RI GHYHORSPHQW UHIOHFWV LWV PDWXULW\ WKH GHJUHH RI UHVSRQVLYHQHVV WR D ELOO LQ WKH SDUHQW FKDPEHU PDUNV LWV YLDELOLW\ $ IDFWRU ZKLFK DXJPHQWV D ELOOnV YLDELOLW\ LV D VHQVH RI XUJHQF\ DPRQJ UHOHYDQW VHFWRUV RI WKH SXEOLF DQG PHPEHUV RI &RQJUHVV 7KH UG &RQJUHVV SURGXFHG IRU D YDULHW\ RI UHIRUPV D VHQVH RI XUJHQF\ DQG D VHQVH RI QHHG DIIHFWLQJ WKH SURFHVVLQJ RI WKH WKUHH VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW 63$f UHIRUPV LQ VHYHUDO ZD\V 3UHVLGHQW 1L[RQnV LPSRXQGPHQW RI DSSURSULDWHG IXQGV DQG RWKHU RIIHQVHV WR FRQJUHVVLRQDO SUHURJDWLYHV DQG VHQVLELOLWLHV VXIILFn LHQWO\ HQUDJHG WKH &RQJUHVV WR FRPSHO LW WR DFWLRQ 7KH DFWLRQV RI 3UHVLGHQW 1L[RQ DQG KLV DVVLVWDQWV GXULQJ DQG DIWHU WKH SUHVLGHQWLDO FDPSDLJQ OHG WR WKH :DWHUJDWH VFDQGDO WKH :DWHUJDWH FRPPLWWHH LPSHDFKPHQW SURFHHGLQJV DQG XOWLPDWHO\ WKH UHVLJQDn WLRQ RI WKH 3UHVLGHQW $OVR VHYHUDO HFRQRPLF DQG HQYLURQPHQWDO FULVHV ZHUH IHOW GXULQJ WKH SHULRG PRVW QRWDEO\ WKH HQHUJ\ FULVLV 7KXV LPSRXQGPHQW :DWHUJDWH DQG WKH HQHUJ\ FULVLV ZHUH PDMRU HYHQWV GXULQJ WKH UG &RQJUHVV WKDW PLJKW KDYH FUHDWHG D VHQVH RI XUJHQF\ IRU FRQJUHVVLRQDO UHIRUP 7KH LPSRXQGPHQW FRQWURYHUV\ DQG FULVLV GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ SULRU WR WKH HQHUJ\ FULVLV FRQWULEXWHG WR DQ DJUHHPHQW ZLWKLQ WKH +RXVH RYHU WKH QHHG IRU UHIRUP DQG WKXV VXIILFLHQW VXSSRUW WR HVWDEOLVK

PAGE 249

WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH 2QFH HVWDEOLVKHG WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH HDVLO\ ZRUNHG WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ LQWR LWV SURSRVDO 7KH YLDELOLW\ RI WKH IRUHVLJKW SURYLVLRQ LQ WKH +DQVHQ FRPPLWWHH DQG LQ WKH +RXVH DW ODUJH ZDV DVVXUHG E\ LWV SUHVHQFH DPRQJ WKH SURn FHGXUDO DVSHFWV RI WKH %ROOLQJ SURSRVDO 7KH MXULVGLFWLRQDO FKDQJHV UHFRPPHQGHG E\ WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH ZHUH QRW VR YLDEOH 7KH UHIRUPnPDMRULW\ FUXPEOHG ZKHQ D VXIILFLHQW QXPEHU RI PHPEHUV IHOW WKDW WKHLU FXUUHQW SRVLWLRQV ZHUH WKUHDWHQHG E\ FKDQJHV LQ FRPPLWn WHH MXULVGLFWLRQV 'XULQJ WKH UG &RQJUHVV 6 ZDV DIIHFWHG LQ WZR VSHFLILF ZD\V E\ FRQJUHVVLRQDO UHVSRQVH WR LPSRXQGPHQW DQG :DWHUJDWH f 'XULQJ WKH EXGJHW UHIRUP GHEDWHV 6HQDWRU -DFRE -DYLWV VHSDUDWHG KLV 7LWOH ,, LQ RUGHU WR RIIHU LW DV DQ DPHQGPHQW WR WKH FRQJUHVn VLRQDO EXGJHW SURSRVDOV 7KLV GHOHWLRQ OHIW 6HQDWRU 0RQGDOH ZLWK WKH &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV SURSRVDO f &RQJUHVV VKRZHG D GHFLGHG ODFN RI LQWHUHVW LQ JLYLQJ D 3UHVLGHQW VR XQUHFHSWLYH WR VRFLDO SURJUDPV DV 5LFKDUG 1L[RQ D &RXQFLO RI 6RFLDO $GYLVHUV $V RQVVWDIIHU SXW LW WKH RRPSK KDG JRQH RXW RI WKH ELOO 6 ZDV DIIHFWHG WR WKH H[WHQW WKDW WKH *RYHUQPHQW 2SHUDn WLRQV &RPPLWWHH ZDV EXV\ ZLWK EXGJHW UHIRUP SURSRVDOV DQG LWV FKDLUPDQ 6HQDWRU 6DP (UYLQ ZDV GLVWUDFWHG E\ KLV FKDLUPDQVKLS RI WKH :DWHUJDWH FRPPLWWHH (TXDOO\ LPSRUWDQW IRU 6 WKH HQHUJ\ FULVLV DQG VLPLODU SUREOHPV KDGA QR HIIHFW RQ UHVSRQVLYHn QHVV ZLWKLQ &RQJUHVV WR WKH ELOO DQG WKH ELOOnV UHOHYDQFH WR WKHVH LVVXHV ZDV QHYHU HIIHFWLYHO\ GHPRQVWUDWHG

PAGE 250

,03/,&$7,216 2) 7+,6 5(6($5&+ 7KH FRPPLWWHH IRFXV KDV OHDG WR DQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ KRZ WKHVH SURSRVDOV GLG DQG GLG QRW PRYH WRZDUG XOWLPDWH SDVVDJH
PAGE 251

LWV RZQ OHYHO RI DFWLYLW\ RQ IXWXUHV UHVHDUFK DQG IRUHFDVWLQJ %HFDXVH RI WKH LQFLSLHQW QDWXUH RI 6 DQG 6 LW LV XVHIXO WR FRQVLGHU WKH EXGJHW UHIRUP ZKLFK LQFOXGHG VRPH SURYLVLRQV IRU VWUDWHJLF SROLF\ DVVHVVPHQW DQG GLG FDXVH FKDQJHV LQ WKH GLVWULn EXWLRQ RI SRZHU DORQJVLGH WKH MXULVGLFWLRQDO VHFWLRQV RI WKH %ROOLQJ FRPPLWWHH UHSRUW 7KH ODWWHU ZKLOH QRW H[SOLFLWO\ FRQn FHUQHG ZLWK DQDO\VLV ZRXOG KDYH DFFRPSOLVKHG WKH WKLUG 63$ IXQFn WLRQ E\ IRUFLQJ WKH FRQVFLRXV LQWHUUHODWLRQVKLS RI GHFLVLRQV ZLWKLQ SROLF\ DUHDV E\ JURXSL