個案總覽

This sequel accompanies case number 2044.0. In August 2013, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) shocked many in the airline industry by filing a lawsuit to block the merger of American Airlines and US Airways on the grounds that the merger would reduce competition. The two airlines had announced their intention to merge in February, making way for the creation of the largest airline in the world. The new airline would carry roughly 200 million passengers a year, employ more than 100,000 workers, and have total revenues of nearly $40 billion. The American Airlines-US Airways merger was only the latest, albeit the largest, in a recent spate of airline mergers. During the first decade of the twenty-first century, the airline industry had been plagued by economic recession, high fuel prices, record losses and bankruptcies. Starting in the mid-2000s, airline executives responded with an aggressive program of consolidation. Mega deals, such as the merger of Delta and Northwest (in 2008), United and Continental (2010), and, Southwest and AirTran (2011), had dramatically reshaped the industry. If approved by federal authorities, the merger between American Airlines and US Airways would leave four major airlines (American, Delta, United and Southwest) in control of 80 percent of the domestic market, down from nine major carriers in 2005. Part A of this case summarizes the historical ups and downs of the volatile US airline industry, the concerns raised by the DOJ and the responses of American Airlines and US Airways, and asks students to weigh the evidence and determine if the advantages of combining the two airlines outweigh the potential harm to consumers. The case sequel describes how the DOJ eventually settled the lawsuit with the airlines, after American agreed to divest slots and gates at several airports in November 2013.

In August 2013, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) shocked many in the airline industry by filing a lawsuit to block the merger of American Airlines and US Airways on the grounds that the merger would reduce competition. The two airlines had announced their intention to merge in February, making way for the creation of the largest airline in the world. The new airline would carry roughly 200 million passengers a year, employ more than 100,000 workers, and have total revenues of nearly $40 billion. The American Airlines-US Airways merger was only the latest, albeit the largest, in a recent spate of airline mergers. During the first decade of the twenty-first century, the airline industry had been plagued by economic recession, high fuel prices, record losses and bankruptcies. Starting in the mid-2000s, airline executives responded with an aggressive program of consolidation. Mega deals, such as the merger of Delta and Northwest (in 2008), United and Continental (2010), and, Southwest and AirTran (2011), had dramatically reshaped the industry. If approved by federal authorities, the merger between American Airlines and US Airways would leave four major airlines (American, Delta, United and Southwest) in control of 80 percent of the domestic market, down from nine major carriers in 2005. Part A of this case summarizes the historical ups and downs of the volatile US airline industry, the concerns raised by the DOJ and the responses of American Airlines and US Airways, and asks students to weigh the evidence and determine if the advantages of combining the two airlines outweigh the potential harm to consumers. The case sequel describes how the DOJ eventually settled the lawsuit with the airlines, after American agreed to divest slots and gates at several airports in November 2013.

In July 2013 Tom Perez became the United States' 26th Secretary of Labor. Perez took the helm of the Department of Labor at a critical juncture. In recent years, the US economy was marred by historically high rates of unemployment, fueled by the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Although the economy had begun a slow recovery in 2010, there were only lackluster gains in private sector jobs. By 2013, more than 11 million Americans remained out of jobs and-in a competitive global marketplace-faced disheartening employment prospects. The Department of Labor was besieged by a sharp rise in demand for its worker development and protection services, but hobbled by fierce budget cuts. At a time when Americans faced stagnant wages and rising income inequality, could Perez's leadership help revive America's "ladder of opportunity?" The case provides a comprehensive review of the U.S. Department of Labor. The case explores the challenges Perez faces in his first year as Secretary of Labor and questions what his priorities should be even as millions of Americans struggle to make a decent living. Case number 2031.0

This video-based case explores how an impact evaluation for a promising after-school program in New York City went awry. In 2006, New York City's Mayor Michael Bloomberg created the Center for Economic Opportunity (CEO). Designed as an innovation fund, CEO tested anti-poverty programs by applying an evidence-based approach. One of CEO's programs, Teen ACTION, was developed to provide after-school service-learning opportunities to at-risk youth. Teen ACTION's model was based on a rigorously evaluated program which had proven to significantly reduce rates of teen pregnancy and course failure among participants when compared to a control group. But when it came time to evaluate Teen ACTION's impacts, CEO ran into significant hurdles. With rare candor, CEO officials, Kristin Morse and Carson Hicks discuss on video how flaws in the program's evaluation strategy, coupled with random unforeseen events like the Swine Flu, rendered the evaluation results unusable. HKS Case Number 2027.0.

In 2008, the state of Oregon had the budget to enroll 10,000 individuals into Medicaid. But officials knew that demand for Medicaid would be far greater. To give all poor, uninsured Oregonians a fair chance at receiving health insurance, the state established a lottery. In this simple lottery, renowned economists Katherine Baicker (at Harvard) and Amy Finkelstein (at MIT) found a rare and promising natural experiment. For decades, evidence on the impacts of health insurance on health was dominated by observational studies, which offered inconclusive answers. Under the Oregon lottery, some individuals were randomly selected from a waiting list to receive insurance while others were not, enabling comparison between the two groups, and in effect creating a randomized experiment. The Oregon health experiment, as it came to be known, would finally give economists and policymakers rigorous evidence on how access to health insurance affected the provision and use of health care, and ultimately, influenced the health and well-being of the population. By 2016, as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, an estimated 25 million Americans were set to obtain health insurance, 12 million under Medicaid alone; driving home the need to find conclusive answers to these longstanding questions. Case number 2019.0

This case has two parts, a text-based case and a supplemental PowerPoint presentation. The case traces the evolution of an evidence-based research study on the education sector in Pakistan. In 2003, Atish (fictionalized character), a Pakistan-born, Harvard educated economist returns to his native Pakistan to help reform a lagging education system. But Atish unearths conflicting information on the state of education in his country. Despite large investments, government-run schools are failing to provide quality education. And international media coverage asserts that the educational void in Pakistan is rapidly being filled by madrassas, or religious schools, that are designed to train children in extremism. Upon closer scrutiny, Atish finds holes in the madrassa enrollment numbers. Similarly, Atish learns that affordable private schools have sprung up across the country, yet no nationwide analysis on the quality of education they provide exists. In rural Pakistan, he also learns to suspect conventional wisdom regarding parental involvement and interest in educating their children. Before he can develop policy recommendations, Atish will have to separate fact from anecdotal information to understand the education landscape in Pakistan. Case number 2003.0

"Shaping the Future of Solar Power: Climate Change, Industrial Policy and Free Trade (Part B)," is the second of a two part case but may also be taught on its own. In May 2013, European Union Trade Commissioner, Karel De Gucht faced a career defining choice. Soon, he would have to announce a decision on the EU's biggest anti-dumping case, initiated by a group of European solar panel makers against Chinese manufacturers. De Gucht was aware that imposing tariffs on Chinese solar companies could set off a wider trade war between two of the world's largest economies. Part B of the case highlights the tensions between the E.U. and China on sale of solar panels, echoing the politically charged solar battles between the U.S. and China in 2012. The negotiated solar trade settlement between the E.U. and China offers insights into the political realities behind industrial policies, action on climate change, and free trade. Case number 2008.0

In the American canon of anti-poverty programs, Moving to Opportunity (MTO)-a housing experiment conducted in the 1990s-stood out for its ambitious yet simple design. Under the experiment, more than 4,600 extremely poor families were randomly assigned to receive housing vouchers in five major American cities. Just like in clinical trials, MTO gave social scientists the opportunity to untangle the effect of place on poverty, and to learn if a better neighborhood could directly improve the lives of the poor. In 2003, a mid-term evaluation of MTO revealed a controversial and surprising outcome. After being placed in neighborhoods with low poverty, teen girls appeared to benefit far more from their new surroundings than teen boys. The rigorous empirical analysis of the MTO experiment had identified important differences by gender, but could not explain the social processes or experiences that led to those differences. A different research methodology would need to examine what the quantitative data could not. This case profiles the qualitative research conducted by Harvard sociologist Kathryn Edin and others on MTO teens. With the help in-depth interviews the researchers offer a deeper understanding of the daily experiences and behavioral patterns that shaped the divergent outcomes between MTO male and female adolescents. Case Number 2007.0

For nearly two decades, the leading evidence on hormone therapy was based on findings from observational studies like the Nurses' Health Study. In 1985, researchers at Nurses' Health Study confirmed that postmenopausal women who took estrogen had lower rates of heart disease than women who had never taken the hormone. These influential findings helped drive the surge in hormone prescriptions in the 1980s and 1990s. But in 2002, in a stunning turnaround, researchers for a randomized clinical trial called the Women's Health Initiative reported that hormone therapy, in fact, increased the risk of heart disease and stroke among postmenopausal women. Almost overnight, prescriptions for hormone treatment plummeted. For millions of women who were either abruptly taken off hormones or denied treatment, though, the feeling of confusion and anguish remained. At the heart of the hormone therapy controversy was the fact that two different research approaches-observational studies and randomized experiments-had arrived at diametrically opposite results, once again raising questions about what constituted reliable evidence. Case Number 2005.0

In 1993, the Indian government approved a constitutional amendment that would forever change the face of rural politics. The landmark legislation mandated that village councils-traditionally the bastion of higher caste males-hold regular elections and reserve one-third of the seats for women. India, however, was not alone in its efforts to increase women's representation in elected government. By 2012, half the world's countries had adopted political quotas for women. Despite the rapid rise of political quota systems there was remarkably little rigorous evidence on their effectiveness. Did more female leaders result in more gender equal societies? Could a mandatory change in the balance of power reduce discrimination against women? The design of the Indian quota system gave social scientists a unique opportunity to examine the causal impact of gender quotas. This case profiles findings from the body of rigorous evidence on the impacts of female political quotas in India-with potential lessons for governments and businesses everywhere. Case number 1996.0

When Solyndra, a California-based solar panel maker, filed for bankruptcy in 2011, the U.S. government was left with more than half a billion dollars in unpaid debt. The bankruptcy was a major embarrassment for the Obama administration which had touted renewable energy companies like Solyndra as the wave of the future, and had invested billions of dollars in government loan guarantees to promote them. The Chinese government, however, had outpaced the U.S. in providing loan guarantees and subsidies to solar manufacturers and helped transform the country's nascent solar manufacturing industry into a world leader. Chinese dominance in the solar market ultimately triggered a high-stakes trade war between the United States and China but neither country could contain the massive downturn in the solar market that began in 2012. The case provides an in-depth account of the complex and often competing agendas on climate change, industrial policy and free trade which fueled the politically charged trade battles between the U.S. and China. Against the backdrop of the global environmental challenge, the case includes details on the Obama administration's signature energy subsidy program and the factors that led to Solyndra's collapse. It also traces the rise of China's solar industry as well as the trade complaints made by the U.S. against China at the World Trade Organization and the subsequent Department of Commerce decision to impose penalties against Chinese solar panel makers.

In early 2010, Robert Griffiths, Counselor for Economic Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Bangkok, braced himself for the possibility of serious diplomatic fallout with Thailand's government. Griffiths was in charge of providing the analysis on human trafficking in Thailand for the U.S. State Department's annual Trafficking in Persons report, but with a steady rise in victims of trafficking, Thailand was at risk of being put on the State Department's "watchlist" of countries making inadequate progress. For the Thai government, which took pride in its counter-trafficking efforts, being placed on the U.S. watchlist would constitute humiliation by a longtime friend. And for Griffiths, a senior representative of the U.S. Foreign Service in Thailand, provoking the host government's ire could imperil not only future collaboration against human trafficking, but also important engagements on trade, intellectual property and security. The case traces the hard realities of fighting human trafficking even when close allies, like the U.S. and Thailand, share similar aspirations. With an in-depth profile of the U.S. legislation against global human trafficking, the case offers an insider's view of the charged diplomatic engagement between the two countries in 2010. Case number 1991.0

In December 2011, the United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency issued a joint proposal to dramatically increase fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions of passenger cars and light trucks sold between 2017 and 2025. The joint proposal was created in response to President Obama's call for both agencies to build on a national program that would "produce a new generation of clean vehicles." By 2025, new cars and light trucks were expected to achieve an unprecedented average fuel economy of nearly 50 miles per gallon (mpg), reducing fuel consumption by 4 billion barrels of oil and cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide over the lifetimes of the new vehicles. The NHTSA predicted that the national program would generate benefits of $323 billion-primarily in the form of savings in fuel costs for vehicle owners-amounting to four times the cost. This case takes an in-depth look at the NHTSA's regulatory impact analysis for the 2017-2025 fuel economy regulation and examines the proposed social benefits and costs of the program. According to NHTSA's analysis, the private benefits to vehicle owners are several times the cost, while the external benefits are modest and more than offset by the loss in gas tax revenues. The case explores the NHTSA's explanations for the apparent paradox: if there are large net gains for vehicle owners (and for manufacturers who better meet buyers' preferences) from vehicles with higher mpg, why does the market not generate more fuel-efficient vehicles on its own? Could it be standard market failures, perhaps inconsistencies in consumer behavior patterns, or errors in the agency's estimates of costs or benefits? Are the more traditional market failures suggested by the NHTSA (imperfect competition in the auto industry and limited information) valid explanations? Case Number 1973.0

In late 2006, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg created the Center for Economic Opportunity (CEO). Born out of recommendations made by the Bloomberg appointed public-private Commission for Economic Opportunity, CEO was designed to be an innovations lab that would test anti-poverty programs by applying a results-based approach. With a budget of $100 million, CEO would closely monitor new programs and hold them accountable for producing measurable results. Uniquely, CEO would cut funding for programs that did not "make the grade." Bloomberg named Veronica White the Executive Director of CEO. White had decades of experience working in executive positions in several New York City agencies but with CEO she had daunting tasks ahead. She would have to redefine how poverty was measured in the city, facilitate cross agency partnerships, and most important, develop an effective and achievable evaluation system for all programs. This case traces the CEO team's challenges in placing program evaluation at the core of their mission. CEO programs are geared toward three target populations-working poor adults, young adults between the ages of 16 and 24, and families with children ages five and below. In the first year of operation, White and her team launched a slate of anti-poverty programs that varied widely in scale and scope and ranged from New York's first ever conditional cash transfer program to a program that would accelerate graduation rates in community colleges. But from the beginning, CEO's evidence-based programming was put to the test. White faced constant pressure to "produce results quickly." With the 2008 recession, however, CEO endured significant cuts in its evaluation budget. White and her team had to make the most of limited resources while still sustaining a comprehensive evaluation policy. Case Number 1971.0