個案總覽

After years of rapid growth, Peru's economy had recently slowed. Mineral prices were down and the current President, Humala, had only a year remaining in office before the next election. And he could not run again. While the country had many strengths, especially in minerals, natural resources and tourism, infrastructural problems, corruption, drugs, and inequality continued to plague its growth. The next election would help determine Peru's future growth.

Clearwater sought to market value-added shellfish products in a traditionally commodities based industry, while facing supply uncertainties and regulatory, environmental, and foreign exchange challenges. Clearwater harvested lobsters, clams, scallops, shrimp, and other marine creatures from the Canadian Atlantic, and sold the seafood all over the world. Although seafood buyers traditionally bought on price, Clearwater's innovations and technology investments enabled it to produce higher quality products; still, it faced the challenge of convincing buyers to pay a premium price. The firm's managers also prided themselves on their sustainable fishing practices, which were not the historical norm for the industry; here, again, translating these practices into increased willingness to pay was a challenge. As background, the case also discusses the challenges of fishery management at the national and international levels, using the collapse of the cod fishing industry as an example, and discussing the economics and politics of the fishery in classical terms of externalities and public goods.

Petrom was privatized by the Romanian state in 2004 and acquired by Austrian oil company OMV, with the state retaining a 20.6% stake in the company. The situation was particularly challenging for the foreign investor since the sector in which the company operated was strategic, was regulated by the Romanian state and the company was a key employer and tax payer in a country that was undergoing major structural change. Under OMV and CEO Mariana Gheorghe's leadership, OMV Petrom saw its net profit and sales almost double since 2005, while headcount was reduced by 50%. Gheorghe had negotiated challenges stemming from Petrom's legacy as a state owned company, such as lack of investment, aged assets, operational inefficiency, and bureaucracy while successfully managing the triangular partnership between the acquirer OMV, acquiree OMV Petrom and the Romanian government.

On October 1, 2013 at a meeting of ruling party officials, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said that he had decided to go ahead with a plan to increase the sales tax from 5% to 8%, beginning April 1, 2014. This tax hike had become law in August 2012, under then-Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda. Abe, faced with a choice he did not ask for, sought to make a decision he could live with. Deciding whether to raise the tax had proven very hard for him. He had to take extraordinary care weighing conditions. The Bank of Japan had already fired the first "arrow" of Abenomics, an unconventional easing of the money supply. The second, fiscal stimulus, was constrained by Japan's fiscal rebalancing goals. With regards to the third arrow, a strategy for economic growth, the government was still working out how to break entrenched regulations in farming and employment. Until the very last moment, Abe had to consider whether a tax increase would lead Japan back into the deep valley of deflation and economic stagnation.

This case is part of a four part series that examines the merger of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the National Naval Military Center at Bethesda - the most expensive, controversial and largest hospital merger in US history. The series includes: A case + A teaching note (Leadership of VADM Mateczun); B case + B teaching note (Army/Navy cultural issues); Epilogue (short conclusion); Film - award winning short documentary. The A case focuses on the leadership of Vice Admiral Dr. John Mateczun, a three-star Navy admiral who led the merger. Mateczun achieved what many considered to be a minor miracle - integrating Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval in the face of fierce institutional resistance. But in his drive to see the plan through, Mateczun stretched the limit of military authority, expended his political capital and alienated friends and colleagues. The case allows discussion of leadership styles and the importance of persuasion, negotiation, communication issues, and personal character. There are two companion cases and a 17-minute film. The film shows a brief history of the hospitals, explains the BRAC (Base Closure Commission), and shows the intensity and urgency of the medical needs of patients being cared for at Walter Reed during the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The B Case focuses on the difficulties of merging organizations with significant cultural differences. It may be taught together with the (A) case or on its own with the video. The short Epilogue looks at the outcome in 2014, 3 years after the merger. Case number 2035.0

This case is part of a four part series that examines the merger of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the National Naval Military Center at Bethesda - the most expensive, controversial and largest hospital merger in US history. The series includes: A case + A teaching note (Leadership of VADM Mateczun); B case + B teaching note (Army/Navy cultural issues); Epilogue (short conclusion); Film - award winning short documentary. The A case focuses on the leadership of Vice Admiral Dr. John Mateczun, a three-star Navy admiral who led the merger. Mateczun achieved what many considered to be a minor miracle - integrating Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval in the face of fierce institutional resistance. But in his drive to see the plan through, Mateczun stretched the limit of military authority, expended his political capital and alienated friends and colleagues. The case allows discussion of leadership styles and the importance of persuasion, negotiation, communication issues, and personal character. There are two companion cases and a 17-minute film. The film shows a brief history of the hospitals, explains the BRAC (Base Closure Commission), and shows the intensity and urgency of the medical needs of patients being cared for at Walter Reed during the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The B Case focuses on the difficulties of merging organizations with significant cultural differences. It may be taught together with the (A) case or on its own with the video. The short Epilogue looks at the outcome in 2014, 3 years after the merger. Case number 2035.0

This case is part of a four part series that examines the merger of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the National Naval Military Center at Bethesda - the most expensive, controversial and largest hospital merger in US history. The series includes: A case + A teaching note (Leadership of VADM Mateczun); B case + B teaching note (Army/Navy cultural issues); Epilogue (short conclusion); Film - award winning short documentary. The A case focuses on the leadership of Vice Admiral Dr. John Mateczun, a three-star Navy admiral who led the merger. Mateczun achieved what many considered to be a minor miracle - integrating Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval in the face of fierce institutional resistance. But in his drive to see the plan through, Mateczun stretched the limit of military authority, expended his political capital and alienated friends and colleagues. The case allows discussion of leadership styles and the importance of persuasion, negotiation, communication issues, and personal character. There are two companion cases and a 17-minute film. The film shows a brief history of the hospitals, explains the BRAC (Base Closure Commission), and shows the intensity and urgency of the medical needs of patients being cared for at Walter Reed during the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The B Case focuses on the difficulties of merging organizations with significant cultural differences. It may be taught together with the (A) case or on its own with the video. The short Epilogue looks at the outcome in 2014, 3 years after the merger. Case number 2035.0

In 2016, the United States and the European Union struggled to reach an agreement over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Started in June 2013, TTIP negotiations had gone on much longer than anyone had expected. With elections coming on both sides of the Atlantic and a rising opposition in the public opinion, what where the odds that such a comprehensive trade agreement would see the light? How would TTIP change the rules of world trade? Who would benefit and who instead lose if an agreement was finally reached?

Crossing the Thin Blue Line examines a pressing decision faced by the City Council of Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada, regarding the future of policing services in the municipality and challenges the reader to consider diverse perspectives and recognize that - in the political realm - not all choices are as straightforward as they may seem. The narrative examines the history behind this decision, and considers variables (e.g. cost, stakeholder salience, local government issues, etc.) relevant to the decision. The case opens as Moncton City Councilor Brian Hicks weighs this imminent decision faced by the Council.

At the half-anniversary of the pro-democracy civil disobedience movement "Occupy Central with Love and Peace" on March 28, 2015, Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying was contemplating the future direction of Hong Kong. Did Hong Kong need universal suffrage, or were its greater challenges economic? After 40 years of remarkable growth, Hong Kong's long-held laissez faire philosophy seemed increasingly inconsistent with its young electorate, which was finding its voice in public debate. With inequality rising in Hong Kong, and the finance and real estate industries playing the dominant role in the economy, many in the territory wondered whether its unique economic model was threatened, or should be changed.

The note, while not intended to be historically comprehensive, explores the regulation of international trade from the period after World War II to developments in 2010, focusing on shifts in trade theory and policy as well as economic benefits and disadvantages associated with trade liberalization. The note also discusses the advantages and disadvantages of multilateral vs. bilateral or plurilateral agreements, as the latter become more common in arrangements between trading partners.

When Dr. John Kitzhaber became Oregon's Governor in January 2011, the state faced a reported $2 billion deficit in the state's Medicaid budget. Consequently, Kitzhaber, working in partnership with his top health policy advisors and an array of stakeholders, undertook a multi-year effort to transform the state's Medicaid delivery system. At the time, that system consisted of separate managed care organizations for different kinds of providers; but in July 2012 the state unveiled its first coordinated care organizations (CCOs), local "umbrella" groups that would bring together an area's health care providers in a single managed care setting. The case details the effort to design, implement, and begin to evaluate CCOs. After providing background on the history of health care reform in Oregon and the recent passage of the federal Affordable Care Act, it overviews the effort to bring together an array of local stakeholders to develop a blueprint for CCOs, the subsequent focus on gaining approval for CCOs from the state legislature and federal government, and finally the process of implementing CCOs and beginning to gauge their impact. The case concludes in March 2015 when Governor Kitzhaber resigned amid concerns about the state's efforts to establish Cover Oregon, the organization set up to create the state's health insurance exchange under the federal Affordable Care Act.

In July 2013, more than 150 negotiators from the European Union and the United States converged in Washington, D.C. to begin crafting what could become the world's largest free trade agreement-the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Billed as a transformational trade accord, the TTIP would go beyond tariffs to cut non-tariff barriers, expand trade in services, streamline regulatory standards, and incorporate trade elements to suit a rapidly evolving global economy. American and European leaders had pushed for the TTIP in the hope that it would provide a much-needed boost to struggling American and European economies, which were mired in recession and high unemployment since 2008, and buckling under rising competition from China. But the negotiators, faced a sobering reality, "the reason we have not had a trade agreement like this between ourselves in the last several decades isn't because nobody thought of it," said Michael Froman, United States Trade Representative. "It's because there have always been issues that have tripped us up." Under intense political pressure and rising public scrutiny, will the negotiating teams be able to reduce trade barriers between the two economic giants? This case explores how in the absence of multilateral trade liberalization, regional trade agreements are becoming increasingly popular. With an in-depth account of the political and technical challenges in negotiating a mega regional accord, the case questions if political will or the need for economic growth can overcome longtime barriers to deeper trade integration.

In spring 2009, North Dakota experienced some of the worst flooding in state history. This case describes how the state's National Guard responded by mobilizing thousands of its troops and working in concert with personnel and equipment from six other states as well as an array of federal, state, and local stakeholders. Specifically, after providing background on the North Dakota National Guard and the state's susceptibility to flooding, the case captures how Guard officials developed and practiced a plan ("Operation Rollback Water") to respond to the floods and how they then had to adapt that plan as the crisis escalated and conditions changed. In particular, the Guard had to work with a large amount of federal resources that arrived amid the crisis, it had to respond to demands for extensive and rapid assistance from a range of municipalities, and it had to endure a prolonged event that taxed Guard members in the field and the operations and management team that supported them. The case concludes with an epilogue that describes how the Guard applied the lessons it learned from the 2009 floods in response to a similar disaster in 2011.

In spring 2009, North Dakota experienced some of the worst flooding in state history. This case describes how the state's National Guard responded by mobilizing thousands of its troops and working in concert with personnel and equipment from six other states as well as an array of federal, state, and local stakeholders. Specifically, after providing background on the North Dakota National Guard and the state's susceptibility to flooding, the case captures how Guard officials developed and practiced a plan ("Operation Rollback Water") to respond to the floods and how they then had to adapt that plan as the crisis escalated and conditions changed. In particular, the Guard had to work with a large amount of federal resources that arrived amid the crisis, it had to respond to demands for extensive and rapid assistance from a range of municipalities, and it had to endure a prolonged event that taxed Guard members in the field and the operations and management team that supported them. The case concludes with an epilogue that describes how the Guard applied the lessons it learned from the 2009 floods in response to a similar disaster in 2011.

In spring 2009, North Dakota experienced some of the worst flooding in state history. This case describes how the state's National Guard responded by mobilizing thousands of its troops and working in concert with personnel and equipment from six other states as well as an array of federal, state, and local stakeholders. Specifically, after providing background on the North Dakota National Guard and the state's susceptibility to flooding, the case captures how Guard officials developed and practiced a plan ("Operation Rollback Water") to respond to the floods and how they then had to adapt that plan as the crisis escalated and conditions changed. In particular, the Guard had to work with a large amount of federal resources that arrived amid the crisis, it had to respond to demands for extensive and rapid assistance from a range of municipalities, and it had to endure a prolonged event that taxed Guard members in the field and the operations and management team that supported them. The case concludes with an epilogue that describes how the Guard applied the lessons it learned from the 2009 floods in response to a similar disaster in 2011.

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.

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.