個案總覽

This case tells the story of the decision by the city government of Philadelphia to develop a publicly-owned competitor to private high-speed internet connection systems ("broadband"). The case describes both the city''s rationale, its desire to attract new business and its fear that a "digital divide" was leaving poorer residents without affordable access to the World Wide Web, and its means of implementing its decision, through a new not-for-profit arm of city government, which would contract with a private provider. That private provider would agree to provide relatively low-cost wireless web access throughout the city, thereby creating the largest wireless network in the US to date; in return, the city would steer its own information technology business to the new system, which was designed to compete with the private firms Verizon and Comcast. The case is designed to promote a discussion of the nature and causes of monopoly by raising issues of whether the incumbent cable and telephone companies enjoy market power in any of the services they offer and, if so, whether it is advisable to build a new municipal system to promote competition. HKS Case Number 1824.0

When the city of Boston applied to host the Democratic Party presidential nominating convention of July 2004, it did so in the belief that the event would bring the city both prestige and economic benefit. But by the time the convention was to be held, the terrible events of September 11, 2001 had intervened and, as a designated "national special security event," the convention was now subject to the tightest possible measures for security and protection. As a result, key sections of the city, and miles of roads, were virtually shut down in order to permit the convention to take place in the city's major indoor sports arena, and the event engendered complaints, not plaudits, from citizens and business owners alike. This case tells the story of the planning that preceded the convention, as federal officials by presidential directive in charge of national special security events found themselves having to balance expectations of a civic celebration with their own grave concerns about terrorist threats. The case is divided into three parts. Part A (1807.0) describes the elaborate planning process set up by the US Secret Service, which had overall responsibility for security planning for the convention, and the disputes among local, state and federal officials as to how draconian security measures had to be; it focuses in particular on two of the thorniest issues facing planners: whether to shut down a busy public transit station and a portion of a major interstate highway providing access to Boston from the north. Part B (1808.0) details the complex negotiations to resolve these and other security matters; the Epilogue (1808.1) provides a brief overview of the implementation of the security plan at the convention. HKS Case Number 1808.0.

When the city of Boston applied to host the Democratic Party presidential nominating convention of July 2004, it did so in the belief that the event would bring the city both prestige and economic benefit. But by the time the convention was to be held, the terrible events of September 11, 2001 had intervened and, as a designated "national special security event," the convention was now subject to the tightest possible measures for security and protection. As a result, key sections of the city, and miles of roads, were virtually shut down in order to permit the convention to take place in the city's major indoor sports arena, and the event engendered complaints, not plaudits, from citizens and business owners alike. This case tells the story of the planning that preceded the convention, as federal officials by presidential directive in charge of national special security events found themselves having to balance expectations of a civic celebration with their own grave concerns about terrorist threats. The case is divided into three parts. Part A (1807.0) describes the elaborate planning process set up by the US Secret Service, which had overall responsibility for security planning for the convention, and the disputes among local, state and federal officials as to how draconian security measures had to be; it focuses in particular on two of the thorniest issues facing planners: whether to shut down a busy public transit station and a portion of a major interstate highway providing access to Boston from the north. Part B (1808.0) details the complex negotiations to resolve these and other security matters; the Epilogue (1808.1) provides a brief overview of the implementation of the security plan at the convention. HKS Case Number 1808.1.

When the city of Boston applied to host the Democratic Party presidential nominating convention of July 2004, it did so in the belief that the event would bring the city both prestige and economic benefit. But by the time the convention was to be held, the terrible events of September 11, 2001 had intervened and, as a designated "national special security event," the convention was now subject to the tightest possible measures for security and protection. As a result, key sections of the city, and miles of roads, were virtually shut down in order to permit the convention to take place in the city's major indoor sports arena, and the event engendered complaints, not plaudits, from citizens and business owners alike. This case tells the story of the planning that preceded the convention, as federal officials by presidential directive in charge of national special security events found themselves having to balance expectations of a civic celebration with their own grave concerns about terrorist threats. The case is divided into three parts. Part A (1807.0) describes the elaborate planning process set up by the US Secret Service, which had overall responsibility for security planning for the convention, and the disputes among local, state and federal officials as to how draconian security measures had to be; it focuses in particular on two of the thorniest issues facing planners: whether to shut down a busy public transit station and a portion of a major interstate highway providing access to Boston from the north. Part B (1808.0) details the complex negotiations to resolve these and other security matters; the Epilogue (1808.1) provides a brief overview of the implementation of the security plan at the convention. HKS Case Number 1807.0.

On October 2, 2003, on the eve of a special election to choose a new Governor of California, the Los Angeles Times published a lengthy investigative article about allegations of sexual misconduct on the part of the leading candidate: movie star turned Republican gubernatorial hopeful Arnold Schwarzenegger. The result was surprising. As much as it made Schwarzenegger the subject of discussion, so too did it do the same for the Times itself. In part because it appeared within days of the election and, in part because of a history of criticism of the newspaper for what its critics alleged was a liberal political bias, the Times found itself having to defend publicly its decision to do what it understood to be a key responsibility of a major daily newspaper-scrutinizing the record of a politician. HKS Case Number 1790.0

In the late afternoon of a hot day in July, 2001, an accident beneath the streets of Baltimore threatened to turn into a disaster. A freight train carrying hazardous chemicals derailed and caught fire inside a tunnel that ran beneath one of the city's main streets. Not only did the tunnel accident block the major north-south train route for the eastern United States, it also released clouds of possibly toxic vapors into downtown streets. Incredibly, the first accident was followed by a second one-a break in a major water main, in exactly the same area, into which cascaded hundreds of thousands of gallons of water. It was a combination which a city official would call "everyone's worst nightmare." This case describes-blow-by-blow and meeting-by-meeting-the public emergency response to the tunnel fire and its aftermath. It details how a dozen different jurisdictions-including city, state and federal agencies-had to find ways to coordinate their response in the absence of established procedures for dealing with a situation which had never been specifically contemplated. Among the themes explored in this crisis management case is the role of the local chief executive (Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley), the conflicts and cooperation amongst agencies (including and especially fire and public works), and, more broadly, the question of how a series of crucial tactical decisions must be made in the absence of complete information (such as the level of toxic hazard). HKS Case Number 1769.0.

In the late afternoon of a hot day in July, 2001, an accident beneath the streets of Baltimore threatened to turn into a disaster. A freight train carrying hazardous chemicals derailed and caught fire inside a tunnel that ran beneath one of the city's main streets. Not only did the tunnel accident block the major north-south train route for the eastern United States, it also released clouds of possibly toxic vapors into downtown streets. Incredibly, the first accident was followed by a second one-a break in a major water main, in exactly the same area, into which cascaded hundreds of thousands of gallons of water. It was a combination which a city official would call "everyone's worst nightmare." This case describes-blow-by-blow and meeting-by-meeting-the public emergency response to the tunnel fire and its aftermath. It details how a dozen different jurisdictions-including city, state and federal agencies-had to find ways to coordinate their response in the absence of established procedures for dealing with a situation which had never been specifically contemplated. Among the themes explored in this crisis management case is the role of the local chief executive (Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley), the conflicts and cooperation amongst agencies (including and especially fire and public works), and, more broadly, the question of how a series of crucial tactical decisions must be made in the absence of complete information (such as the level of toxic hazard). HKS Case Number 1768.0

In the late afternoon of a hot day in July, 2001, an accident beneath the streets of Baltimore threatened to turn into a disaster. A freight train carrying hazardous chemicals derailed and caught fire inside a tunnel that ran beneath one of the city's main streets. Not only did the tunnel accident block the major north-south train route for the eastern United States, it also released clouds of possibly toxic vapors into downtown streets. Incredibly, the first accident was followed by a second one-a break in a major water main, in exactly the same area, into which cascaded hundreds of thousands of gallons of water. It was a combination which a city official would call "everyone's worst nightmare." This case describes-blow-by-blow and meeting-by-meeting-the public emergency response to the tunnel fire and its aftermath. It details how a dozen different jurisdictions-including city, state and federal agencies-had to find ways to coordinate their response in the absence of established procedures for dealing with a situation which had never been specifically contemplated. Among the themes explored in this crisis management case is the role of the local chief executive (Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley), the conflicts and cooperation amongst agencies (including and especially fire and public works), and, more broadly, the question of how a series of crucial tactical decisions must be made in the absence of complete information (such as the level of toxic hazard). HKS Case Number 1767.0.

In 2000, Oxfam America, an international relief and development organization, launched itself on a bold new course. A small but respected agency, it had devoted itself for three decades to supporting "partner" organizations in developing countries throughout the world, funding a variety of grassroots activities. Now, under the leadership of its president, Raymond Offenheiser, Oxfam America had joined with eleven other Oxfams worldwide to become a "global campaigning force" that would focus on challenging the policies and practices of governments and corporations that harmed the poor. The new initiative was in keeping with Offenheiser's belief that it was time for the international development community to move beyond the "welfare" model of service delivery and embrace an approach that took aim at structural impediments that kept impoverished people from improving their lot. But the commitment to becoming a global campaigning organization would pose new challenges for Offenheiser and his senior managers. Within Oxfam America, the campaign work put new pressures on the organization's staff and resources. Some staff members, particularly those who worked with partner organizations in the field, found the campaign work onerous and, in some cases, irrelevant, and worried that Oxfam America's grassroots work in its regional offices was losing its primacy in the agency. HKS Case Number 1738.0

The resignation of Mississippi Senator Trent Lott from his position as Majority Leader was an event unprecedented in the history of the US Senate. It occurred precipitously, in the wake of remarks he had made at an event where no one expected controversy-the 100th birthday party of the Senate's oldest member, South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond. Lott's remarks, in which he praised Thurmond's 1948 run for the Presidency as the candidate of the segregationist Dixiecrat Party, only gradually sparked a firestorm, however. This case tells the story of how the controversy grew, with particular emphasis on the role of non-traditional media-specifically on the role of those political writers who distributed their views through "web logs". The case describes how the Lott story spread from the keyboards of such "bloggers" to the more mainstream print and television press-to the point at which public pressure culminated in Lott's resignation from the Senate leadership. This case allows for discussion of the evolution of the press, as new electronic media facilitated the efforts of a range of voices to reach a wider public, and of the life-cycle of what some have termed press feeding frenzies, wherein the fate of major public officials or policy issues seemingly follows a sort of dramatic script, as they take center stage in the reporting of the moment. The case can be used either by those with a special interest in the way in which public officials deal with the press, or by those with a special interest in the internal dynamics of the mass media. It can be used in conjunction with "Managing a Press Feeding Frenzy" (1135.0, 1135.1), "Breaking the Bad News: Divad" (841.0), and/or "Siege Mentality: ABC, the White House and the Iran Hostage Crisis " (823.0). HKS Case Number 1731.0.

Aung San Suu Kyi, who would win the Nobel Peace Prize and galvanize world attention on the brutal military rulers of Burma, was, until 1988, an expatriate for much of her life, with largely historical and intellectual connections to the country of her birth. She was the daughter of Aung San, Burma's "father of independence", assassinated in 1947, and herself the author of a history of the southeast Asian country. This case tells the dramatic story of her transformation from her role as a writer and mother, living in Oxford, England, to that of a political leader who electrified throngs in Rangoon (Burma's capital) and sacrificed much of what she held dear as she became a symbol of resistance to the Burmese military and was forced to live under house arrest. This case is intended to provide a vehicle for discussion of the elements which allow a leader to emerge and to gain deep, emotional support from the public. Aung San Suu Kyi's personal, historical status--being her father's daughter--combined with a series of events that thrust her into the public eye (starting with her return to Burma simply to be at the bedside of her dying mother) and set the stage for her dramatic role. At the same time, the case raises the question of what factors, specifically--from personal characteristics to tactical decisions--made her effective. It raises, too, the ethical question of whether, or how, she should have reached some entente with the military rulers of Burma, as she sought to convert symbolic impact to real political change. See also Part B (1686.0).

Aung San Suu Kyi, who would win the Nobel Peace Prize and galvanize world attention on the brutal military rulers of Burma, was, until 1988, an expatriate for much of her life, with largely historical and intellectual connections to the country of her birth. She was the daughter of Aung San, Burma's "father of independence," assassinated in 1947, and herself the author of a history of the southeast Asian country. This case tells the dramatic story of her transformation from her role as a writer and mother, living in Oxford, England, to that of a political leader who electrified throngs in Rangoon (Burma's capital) and sacrificed much of what she held dear as she became a symbol of resistance to the Burmese military and was forced to live under house arrest. This case is intended to provide a vehicle for discussion of the elements which allow a leader to emerge and to gain deep, emotional support from the public. Aung San Suu Kyi's personal, historical status--being her father's daughter--combined with a series of events that thrust her into the public eye (starting with her return to Burma simply to be at the bedside of her dying mother) and set the stage for her dramatic role. At the same time, the case raises the question of what factors, specifically--from personal characteristics to tactical decisions--made her effective. It raises, too, the ethical question of whether, or how, she should have reached some entente with the military rulers of Burma, as she sought to convert symbolic impact to real political change. See also Part A (1685.0).

In the spring of 1998, nonprofit agencies known as "child-sponsorship" organizations found themselves on the defensive. The agencies-dedicated to raising charitable funds in the United States to support children and their communities in poor, developing countries-had been the subject of a scathing critique, a two-part series in the Chicago Tribune accusing them, in effect, of misleading donors. The series asserted that the organizations had not lived up to the promise implicit in fundraising advertisements: that specific children would benefit directly from the contributions of individual sponsors. The agencies mounted a spirited and largely successful public defense of their approach-one in which aid was targeted not only at individual children but at the communities in which they lived. At the same time, however, they sought new ways to reassure the public about their effectiveness. This case details the ensuing effort by a group of six child sponsorship agencies to agree on "industry" standards that would make their goals and methods clear. The case describes the differing situations of the various organizations so as to lay the groundwork for discussion about likely difficulties in reaching agreement on standards, as well as extrapolation as to what sort of standards could both command consensus among the agencies and satisfy public demands for "transparency." The case serves the broader purpose of framing the issues and dynamics of industry self-regulation more generally, particularly in a nonprofit context. See also, Part B (1665.0). HKS Case Number 1665.0

In the spring of 1998, nonprofit agencies known as "child-sponsorship" organizations found themselves on the defensive. The agencies-dedicated to raising charitable funds in the United States to support children and their communities in poor, developing countries-had been the subject of a scathing critique, a two-part series in the Chicago Tribune accusing them, in effect, of misleading donors. The series asserted that the organizations had not lived up to the promise implicit in fundraising advertisements: that specific children would benefit directly from the contributions of individual sponsors. The agencies mounted a spirited and largely successful public defense of their approach-one in which aid was targeted not only at individual children but at the communities in which they lived. At the same time, however, they sought new ways to reassure the public about their effectiveness. This case details the ensuing effort by a group of six child sponsorship agencies to agree on "industry" standards that would make their goals and methods clear. The case describes the differing situations of the various organizations so as to lay the groundwork for discussion about likely difficulties in reaching agreement on standards, as well as extrapolation as to what sort of standards could both command consensus among the agencies and satisfy public demands for "transparency." The case serves the broader purpose of framing the issues and dynamics of industry self-regulation more generally, particularly in a nonprofit context. See also, Part B (1665.0). HKS Case Number 1664.0

When Anthony Williams is elected mayor of Washington, DC in November 1998, he inherits a city that had been close to insolvency. Although its financial picture has improved, it has historically lacked the equipment and systems to deliver high-quality city services. Williams had won a convincing victory at the polls in part by emphasizing the need for improved service and accountability. He faces two challenges: both to improve the quality of city services and to devise a way to ensure voters are aware of the extent of the improvement. With both in mind, Williams and his top aides develop a new system to guide city government. The comprehensive performance measurement system requires all city departments to set measurable "scorecard" goals for improving the services they deliver-and to report regularly on their progress in meeting them. This case describes the design and implementation of the DC performance measurement system, with particular focus on several specific departments. The case is designed, specifically, to help students understand the difference between outputs and outcomes, a distinction reinforced by a review and assessment of the goals set by the city departments featured in the case. Data provided in exhibits provides a vehicle for reinforcing the output/outcome distinction-and the tendency of public sector agencies to see outputs as an end in themselves. HKS Case Number 1647.0

This case tells the story of Dr. Bruce Siegel, a New York-born physician who, in 1996, takes a position as president of a financially troubled public hospital, Tampa General. Siegel must consider both the prospect of somehow privatizing the deficit-ridden hospital, at the same time walking a political tightrope because of the need to gain the approval of local elected officials for whatever course he plots. His choices are influenced by the fact that Tampa's sizeable African-American community has historically been convinced that privatization of the hospital will lead to a diminution of services for low-income persons of color in the community. Siegel, himself the son of a Haitian mother, must deal with expectations that, as a person of color himself, he will hew to the consensus approach of the Tampa's black community-at the same time understanding well that if does not put the hospital's finances in order, he risks doing grave harm to his career as a medical administrator. HKS Case Number 1608.0

This case tells the story of Dr. Bruce Siegel, a New York-born physician who, in 1996, takes a position as president of a financially troubled public hospital, Tampa General. Siegel must consider both the prospect of somehow privatizing the deficit-ridden hospital, at the same time walking a political tightrope because of the need to gain the approval of local elected officials for whatever course he plots. His choices are influenced by the fact that Tampa's sizeable African-American community has historically been convinced that privatization of the hospital will lead to a diminution of services for low-income persons of color in the community. Siegel, himself the son of a Haitian mother, must deal with expectations that, as a person of color himself, he will hew to the consensus approach of the Tampa's black community-at the same time understanding well that if does not put the hospital's finances in order, he risks doing grave harm to his career as a medical administrator. HKS Case Number 1608.1

This case provides a succinct account of the high profile failure of the Clinton Administration's initiative to reorganize the US health care and health insurance system so as to provide universal coverage at the same time as controlling costs. The case traces the origins of the reform impetus and describes the structure and proposal of the Administration's health care task force, chaired by First Lady Hillary Clinton and directed by Ira Magaziner. The case focuses, however, on the extent and nature of opposition to the plan, particularly from the business community, implicitly raising the questions of how the Administration might have handled matters differently and what factors whether substance or tactics or both allowed the opposition to be successful. The case is a vehicle, too, for discussion of the business-government relationship in the U.S. through its focus both on the nature of the US health insurance system (largely linked to private employment) and on the variety of business and interest groups within the US private sector. HKS Case Number 1600.0

This case provides a succinct account of the high profile failure of the Clinton Administration's initiative to reorganize the US health care and health insurance system so as to provide universal coverage at the same time as controlling costs. The case traces the origins of the reform impetus and describes the structure and proposal of the Administration's health care task force, chaired by First Lady Hillary Clinton and directed by Ira Magaziner. The case focuses, however, on the extent and nature of opposition to the plan, particularly from the business community, implicitly raising the questions of how the Administration might have handled matters differently and what factors whether substance or tactics or both allowed the opposition to be successful. The case is a vehicle, too, for discussion of the business-government relationship in the U.S. through its focus both on the nature of the US health insurance system (largely linked to private employment) and on the variety of business and interest groups within the US private sector. HKS Case Number 1600.0

What would prompt an elected official to take on what appears to be a moral cause with little immediate political benefit? That is the implicit political ethics question raised by this case, which describes the somewhat quixotic, decade-long effort of Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy to block, through legislation, the export of so-called "unregistered" pesticides -- that is, agricultural chemicals that were not approved for sale in the United States. As chairman of the Senate Agricultural Committee when he began his crusade, Leahy sought to make reform of U.S. pesticide export policy a centerpiece of his tenure, notwithstanding the hostility of commercial interests with close ties to the committee and the indifference of the public. HKS Case Number 1583.0