A policy is typically described as a principle or rule to guide decisions and achieve rational outcome(s). The term is not normally used to denote what is actually done, this is normally referred to as either procedure or protocol. Whereas a policy will contain the 'what' and the 'why', procedures or protocols contain the 'what', the 'how', the 'where', and the 'when'. Policies are generally adopted by the Board of or senior governance body within an organization where as procedures or protocols would be developed and adopted by senior executive officers. Policies can assist in both subjective and objective decision making. Policies to assist in subjective decision making would usually assist senior management with decisions that must consider the relative merits of a number of factors before making decsions and as a result are often hard to objectively test eg. work-life balance policy. In contrast policies to assist in objective decision making are usually operational in nature and can be objectively tested eg. password policy.

A Policy can be considered as a "Statement of Intent" or a "Commitment". For that reason at least, we can be held accountable for our "Policy"

The term may apply to government, private sector organizations and groups, and individuals. Presidential executive orders, corporate privacy policies, and parliamentary rules of order are all examples of policy. Policy differs from rules or law. While law can compel or prohibit behaviors (e.g. a law requiring the payment of taxes on income), policy merely guides actions toward those that are most likely to achieve a desired outcome.

Policy or policy study may also refer to the process of making important organizational decisions, including the identification of different alternatives such as programs or spending priorities, and choosing among them on the basis of the impact they will have. Policies can be understood as political, management, financial, and administrative mechanisms arranged to reach explicit goals.'''

Impact

Intended effects

The intended effects of a policy vary widely according to the organization and the context in which they are made. Broadly, policies are typically instituted to avoid some negative effect that has been noticed in the organization, or to seek some positive benefit.

Corporate purchasing policies provide an example of how organizations attempt to avoid negative effects. Many large companies have policies that all purchases above a certain value must be performed through a purchasing process. By requiring this standard purchasing process through policy, the organization can limit waste and standardize the way purchasing is done.

The State of California provides an example of benefit-seeking policy. In recent years, the numbers of hybrid cars in California has increased dramatically, in part because of policy changes in Federal law that provided USD $1,500 in tax credits (since phased out) as well as the use of high-occupancy vehicle lanes to hybrid owners (no longer available for new hybrid vehicles). In this case, the organization (state and/or federal government) created an effect (increased ownership and use of hybrid vehicles) through policy (tax breaks, highway lanes).

Unintended effects

Policies frequently have side effects or unintended consequences. Because the environments that policies seek to influence or manipulate are typically complex adaptive systems (e.g. governments, societies, large companies), making a policy change can have counterintuitive results. For example, a government may make a policy decision to raise taxes, in hopes of increasing overall tax revenue. Depending on the size of the tax increase, this may have the overall effect of reducing tax revenue by causing capital flight or by creating a rate so high that citizens are deterred from earning the money that is taxed. (See the Laffer curve.)

The policy formulation process typically includes an attempt to assess as many areas of potential policy impact as possible, to lessen the chances that a given policy will have unexpected or unintended consequences. Because of the nature of some complex adaptive systems such as societies and governments, it may not be possible to assess all possible impacts of a given policy.

Policy cycle

In political science the policy cycle is a tool used for the analyzing of the development of a policy item. It can also be referred to as a "stagist approach". One standardized version includes the following stages: # Agenda setting (Problem identification) # Policy Formulation # Adoption # Implementation # Evaluation

An eight step policy cycle is developed in detail in ''The Australian Policy Handbook'' by Peter Bridgman and Glyn Davis: (now with Catherine Althaus in its 4th edition)

# Issue identification # Policy analysis # Policy instrument development # Consultation (which permeates the entire process) # Coordination # Decision # Implementation # Evaluation

The Althaus, Bridgman & Davis model is heuristic and iterative. It is intentionally normative and not meant to be diagnostic or predictive. Policy cycles are typically characterized as adopting a classical approach. Accordingly some postmodern academics challenge cyclical models as unresponsive and unrealistic, preferring systemic and more complex models. They consider a broader range of actors involved in the policy space that includes civil society organisations, the media, intellectuals, think tanks or policy research institutes, corporations, lobbyists, etc.

Content

Policies are typically promulgated through official written documents. Policy documents often come with the endorsement or signature of the executive powers within an organization to legitimize the policy and demonstrate that it is considered in force. Such documents often have standard formats that are particular to the organization issuing the policy. While such formats differ in form, policy documents usually contain certain standard components including:

A purpose statement, outlining why the organization is issuing the policy, and what its desired effect or outcome of the policy should be.

An applicability and scope statement, describing who the policy affects and which actions are impacted by the policy. The applicability and scope may expressly exclude certain people, organizations, or actions from the policy requirements. Applicability and scope is used to focus the policy on only the desired targets, and avoid unintended consequences where possible.

An effective date which indicates when the policy comes into force. Retroactive policies are rare, but can be found.

A responsibilities section, indicating which parties and organizations are responsible for carrying out individual policy statements. Many policies may require the establishment of some ongoing function or action. For example, a purchasing policy might specify that a purchasing office be created to process purchase requests, and that this office would be responsible for ongoing actions. Responsibilities often include identification of any relevant oversight and/or governance structures.

Policy statements indicating the specific regulations, requirements, or modifications to organizational behavior that the policy is creating. Policy statements are extremely diverse depending on the organization and intent, and may take almost any form.

Some policies may contain additional sections, including:

Background, indicating any reasons, history, and intent that led to the creation of the policy, which may be listed as motivating factors. This information is often quite valuable when policies must be evaluated or used in ambiguous situations, just as the intent of a law can be useful to a court when deciding a case that involves that law.

Definitions, providing clear and unambiguous definitions for terms and concepts found in the policy document.

Typologies

Policy addresses the intent of the organization, whether government, business, professional, or voluntary. Policy is intended to affect the 'real' world, by guiding the decisions that are made. Whether they are formally written or not, most organizations have identified policies.

Policies may be classified in many different ways. The following is a sample of several different types of policies broken down by their effect on members of the organization.

Distributive policies

Distributive policies extend goods and services to members of an organization, as well as distributing the costs of the goods/services amongst the members of the organization. Examples include government policies that impact spending for welfare, public education, highways, and public safety, or a professional organization's benefits plan.

Regulatory policies

Regulatory policies, or mandates, limit the discretion of individuals and agencies, or otherwise compel certain types of behavior. These policies are generally thought to be best applied when good behavior can be easily defined and bad behavior can be easily regulated and punished through fines or sanctions. An example of a fairly successful public regulatory policy is that of a speed limit.

Constituent policies

Constituent policies create executive power entities, or deal with laws. Constituent policies also deal with Fiscal Policy in some circumstances.

Miscellaneous policies

Policies are dynamic; they are not just static lists of goals or laws. Policy blueprints have to be implemented, often with unexpected results. Social policies are what happens 'on the ground' when they are implemented, as well as what happens at the decision making or legislative stage.

When the term policy is used, it may also refer to:

Official government policy (legislation or guidelines that govern how laws should be put into operation)

Broad ideas and goals in political manifestos and pamphlets

A company or organization's policy on a particular topic. For example, the equal opportunity policy of a company shows that the company aims to treat all its staff equally.

The actions the organization actually takes may often vary significantly from stated policy. This difference is sometimes caused by political compromise over policy, while in other situations it is caused by lack of policy implementation and enforcement. Implementing policy may have unexpected results, stemming from a policy whose reach extends further than the problem it was originally crafted to address. Additionally, unpredictable results may arise from selective or idiosyncratic enforcement of policy.

Types of policy analysis include:

Causal (resp. non-causal)

Deterministic (resp. stochastic, randomized and sometimes non-deterministic)

Index

Memoryless (e.g. non-stationary)

Opportunistic (resp. non-opportunistic)

Stationary (resp. non-stationary)

These qualifiers can be combined, so for example you could have a stationary-memoryless-index policy.

Types

Company Policy

Communications and Information Policy

Human resource policies

Privacy policy

Public policy

* Defense policy

* Domestic policy

* Economic policy

* Education policy

* Energy policy

* Environmental Policy

* Foreign policy

* Health policy

* Housing policy

* Information policy

* Macroeconomic policy

* Monetary policy

* Population policy

* Public policy in law

* Science policy

* Security policy

* Social policy

* Transportation policy

* Urban policy

* Water policy

Other uses of the term

In enterprise architecture for systems design, policy appliances are technical control and logging mechanisms to enforce or reconcile policy (systems use) rules and to ensure accountability in information systems.

In insurance, policies are contracts between insurer and insured used to indemnify (protect) against potential loss from specified perils. While these documents are referred to as policies, they are in actuality a form of contract - see insurance contract.

In gambling, policy is a form of an unsanctioned lottery, where players purport to purchase ''insurance'' against a chosen number being picked by a legitimate lottery. Or can refer to an ordinary Numbers game

In artificial intelligence planning and ''reinforcement learning'', a policy prescribes a non-empty deliberation (sequence of actions) given a non-empty sequence of states.

In debate, the term "policy" is slang for policy or cross-examination debate.

See also

Mandate (politics)

Overton window

Policy analysis

Policy studies

Political science

Program evaluation

Public administration

Public health

Public policy (law)

Public policy schools

Public services

Social contract

Social welfare

Social work

Think tank

References

Howard, Cosmo. "The Policy Cycle: a Model of Post-Machiavellian Policy Making?" The Australian Journal of Public Administration, September 2005.

Stone, Diane."Global Public Policy, Transnational Policy Communities and their Networks", ''Journal of Policy Sciences'', 2008

External links

Category:Government * Category:Politics by issue Category:Decision theory

da:Policy de:Policy hi:नीति id:Kebijakan it:Policy (politica) nl:Beleid ja:政策 ko:정책 sv:Policy yi:פאליסי zh:政策

Ethan Nadelmann (b. March 13, 1957 in New York City) is the founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, a New York City-based non-profit organization working to end the war on drugs. Described by ''Rolling Stone'' as, "the point man for drug-policy-reform efforts," Ethan Nadelmann is one of the world's most respected and high profile critics and commentators on U.S. and international drug control policies.

Biography

Nadelmann was raised in a Jewish family in New York City; his father was a rabbi. He earned B.A., J.D., and Ph.D. degrees from Harvard University and a master’s degree in international relations from the London School of Economics. He taught politics and public affairs at Princeton University from 1987 to 1994. While he was at Princeton, he lectured and wrote extensively on drug policy, attracting considerable attention with his articles in such periodicals as ''Science'', ''Foreign Affairs,'' ''American Heritage'' and ''National Review''. He also formed the Princeton Working Group on the Future of Drug Use and Alternatives to Drug Prohibition.

Nadelmann founded the Lindesmith Center in 1994, a drug policy institute created with the philanthropic support of George Soros. Six years later the Center merged with the Drug Policy Foundation founded by Kevin Zeese and Arnold Trebach. The merger became the Drug Policy Alliance, an advocacy group for drug policies "grounded in science, compassion, health and human rights." As the Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance, Nadelmann takes a public health - rather than a criminal justice - approach to the war on drugs advocating for the application of harm reduction principles.

After Barack Obama won the presidential election, Matt Elrod, the director of the drug policy reform group DrugSense, filed an internet petition for Ethan Nadelmann as the new Drug Czar. Although any hopes in getting Nadelmann appointed were downplayed, "this petition will at least encourage President-elect Obama to think twice about his choice of drug czar." Drug Policy Alliance never lobbied for Nadelmann, however once media reports alleged that James Ramstad (R-MN) would be appointed to the post the organization urged people to oppose the appointment due to his opposition to medical marijuana and needle exchange among other things. Seattle's police chief Gil Kerlikowske became the next head of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). An appointment that DPA is cautiously optimistic about.

Advocacy

Nadelmann has also been a strong advocate of less restrictive marijuana laws in the United States including legalizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes and imposing civil rather than criminal penalties for those who are caught using or possessing small amounts of marijuana.

Quotes

The "war on drugs" and its prohibitionist, punitive strategy have failed to solve America's drug problem. In fact, they bear much of the blame for drug-related crime, epidemic use of crack cocaine and the spread of AIDS through dirty syringes. Washington must begin developing policy that seeks first to reduce the harm drugs do users and society. Officials need only look at successful innovations in Europe and Australia like needle exchange, addiction treatment and supervised maintenance, and decriminalization. Public health rather than politics should be paramount. We won't win until the average parent believes drug reform protects kids better than the war on drugs. Who are we? We are people who love drugs...we need to find a way to live with it in peace. But we are also people who hate drugs. We have suffered from overdoses and addiction. But we know that drugs are here to stay, and prohibition and the criminal justice system is not the way to deal with it. And we are people who don't care about drugs. People who care about the Constitution, who care about 2.2 million Americans behind bars, who care about fundamental rights and freedoms. "The best answer is to move slowly but firmly to dismantle the edifice of enforcement. Start with the possession and sale of cannabis and amphetamines, and experiment with different strategies. /.../ Removing the ban on possession would make it easier to regulate drug quality, to treat the health effects of overuse, and to punish drug-users only if they commit crimes against people or property."

Bibliography

''Cops Across Borders: The Internationalization of U.S. Criminal Law Enforcement''. Pennsylvania State University Press, Dec. 1993. ISBN 0271010959

''Policing the Globe: Criminalization and Crime Control in International Relations'', with Peter Andreas. Oxford University Press USA, August 3, 2006. ISBN 0195089480

References

External links

Brief bio of Nadelman at Drug Policy Alliance website

Article on his 2001 talk to the San Francisco Medical Society

Ethan Nadelmann, Ph.D A Guide to the Drug-Legalization Movement

Category:American non-fiction crime writers Category:American social sciences writers Category:Harvard University alumni Category:Alumni of the London School of Economics Category:International relations scholars Category:Jewish American writers Category:Princeton University faculty Category:Psychedelic drug advocates Category:1957 births Category:Living people Category:Drug policy reform activists

name	William Asa Hutchinson
image name	AsaHutchinson.JPG
birth date	December 03, 1950
birth place	Bentonville, Arkansas
office	Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration
term start	2001
term end	2003
president	George W. Bush
preceded	Donnie R. Marshall
succeeded	Karen Tandy
state2	Arkansas
district2	3rd
term start2	January 3, 1997
term end2	August 6, 2001
preceded2	Tim Hutchinson
succeeded2	John Boozman
party	Republican
alma mater	Bob Jones UniversityUniversity of Arkansas
religion	Baptist
spouse	}}

William Asa Hutchinson (born December 3, 1950) is a former U.S. Attorney for the Fort Smith-based Western District of Arkansas, U.S. Congressman from the Third District of Arkansas, Administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and the first-ever Under Secretary for Border & Transportation Security at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. In 2006, Hutchinson ran as Republican candidate for governor of Arkansas and lost to Democratic candidate Mike Beebe.

Legal career

Hutchinson practiced law in Fort Smith for 21 years and handled more than 100 jury trials. It was during this time that he was appointed by President Ronald W. Reagan as U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Arkansas. At the age of 31, Hutchinson was the youngest U.S. Attorney in the nation and made national headlines after successfully prosecuting The Covenant, The Sword, and The Arm of the Lord (CSA), a white supremacist organization founded by polygamist James Ellison. The CSA forced a three-day armed stand-off with local, state and federal law enforcement. As U.S. Attorney, Hutchinson put on a flak jacket and personally negotiated a peaceful conclusion to the stand-off.

During his tenure as U.S. Attorney for the Western District, Hutchinson was described as aggressive in his efforts to prosecute criminals. However, there are continuing suspicions regarding his actions surrounding the investigation of infamous pilot and drug smuggler Barry Seal, a key operator in the Iran-Contra scandal. Hutchinson opened the investigation into Seal but chose not to see the case through to completion when he resigned to run for the Senate. Hutchinson would later be appointed to run the DEA. In 2007, Hutchinson was briefly considered as a replacement for Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General; however, Michael Mukasey was eventually named instead.

Political career

In 1986, Hutchinson challenged popular Democratic U.S. Senator (and former governor) Dale Bumpers. It was a nationally Democratic year, and he fared worse than had Bumpers' previous challenger, Little Rock investment banker William P. "Bill" Clark, in 1980. In 1990, Hutchinson's race against Winston Bryant for attorney general of Arkansas also ended in defeat in another nationally Democratic year, but the race was very tight up to the end. After losing that race, Hutchinson became the co-chairman, with Sheffield Nelson of Little Rock, of the state Republican Party, a position he would hold for five years. During that period, Hutchinson was credited with helping build the GOP organization in Arkansas dramatically by leading the effort to require the state to finance polling stations throughout the state, allowing more Republican voters to get to the polls and vote. Hutchinson considered a rematch with Bumpers in 1992 before he deferred to Mike Huckabee, who also lost to Bumpers. That same year, Hutchinson's brother, Tim Hutchinson, was elected to represent the northwest quadrant of Arkansas in Congress on the retirement of veteran Republican U.S. Representative John Paul Hammerschmidt of Harrison.

U.S. Congress

In 1996, when his brother decided not to run for re-election to the House in order to seek the open U.S. Senate seat that year caused by the retirement of popular Democrat David Pryor, Asa Hutchinson ran for the seat and won. (His brother also won his campaign for Senate, and served for one term.) Hutchinson, who had at first decided to run for an open seat in the Arkansas House of Representatives from Sebastian County, defeated Ann Henry, a long-time friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton who outspent Hutchinson during the campaign.

Hutchinson was re-elected to the House twice more, in 1998 and 2000. In office, he led efforts to crack down on illegal drugs, particularly methamphetamines. Hutchinson also served as one of the managers (prosecutors) during the Senate impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in 1998. In 1999, Hutchinson was involved in the effort to reform campaign finance laws and offered an alternative proposal to the bill by Christopher Shays and Marty Meehan, which he opposed on the grounds that it "went too far" because it attempted to ban television commercials by legal third party organizations. Hutchinson did support the bill by John McCain and Russ Feingold in the Senate. He also attempted, unsuccessfully, to gut the Hyde civil asset forfeiture reform bill that sought to prevent police abuse of its power to seize private property on mere suspicion of being linked to any criminal investigation. His amendment, allegedly, would have empowered the police to continue profiting from drug money.

Executive branch

After being re-elected to his third term in Congress in November 2000, Hutchinson was appointed Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in 2001. ''Washington Post'' columnist David Broder praised Hutchinson's appointment to head the DEA, writing: "The high esteem in which former Rep. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas is held by his colleagues was demonstrated by the 98-1 Senate vote confirming him last month as the new director of the Drug Enforcement Administration. Even more telling was the fact that Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee and an ardent opponent of the impeachment of President Clinton, appeared at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to praise Hutchinson, who had been one of the Republican House managers presenting the case against Clinton to the full Senate. In his 4½ years in the House, Hutchinson, a former U.S. attorney, earned an estimable reputation as a thoughtful conservative and, as liberals like Conyers and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont affirmed, as a fair-minded advocate."

Broder, however, questioned the effectiveness of the traditional approach to the war on drugs and called for a new direction. Hutchinson did just that. During his tenure at the DEA, he led a re-evaluation of the DEA's mission and resources, concluding that too many resources were focused on 1980s-era drug enforcement priorities. Hutchinson called greater attention to newly emergent drug threats such as methamphetamine in rural America, Ecstasy among youth, and Predatory Drugs (also known as date rape drugs) against women. He also lobbied aggressively for greater investments in prevention and treatment. He particularly focused on using Drug Treatment Courts as a way to help non-violent drug offenders beat addiction.

After the September 11 attacks, Congress created the Department of Homeland Security. President George W. Bush tapped Hutchinson to lead the Border and Transportation Security Directorate, the largest division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with more than 110,000 employees. Hutchinson was confirmed by unanimous consent by the U.S. Senate on January 23, 2003. Later, during his campaign for Governor of Arkansas, Hutchinson's opponent attempted to portray him as mishandling immigration issues. Hutchinson's critics particularly focused on his efforts to limit the Border Patrol to patrolling the border and stopping illegal immigrants from crossing the border, while giving Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents sole responsibility for removing aliens already in the country.

While serving as Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security in the Bush Administration, Hutchinson supported Bush's proposals to provide more job opportunities for illegal aliens without criminal records, while tightening security on the border. In September 2004, he said: "Eliminating the fear of deportation will be an incentive." In his written response to Senate questions, Hutchinson also said "Undocumented aliens will tell you they often have trouble sleeping at night, and leaving for work each day, not knowing if they will make it home at the end of the day." Hutchinson also said that Americans are not willing to put in the resources that would be required to remove the estimated 12 million or more population of illegal immigrants. In that same testimony, Hutchinson emphasized that any debate over immigration reform must start first with enforcement of immigration laws and border security, asserting, "You have to start with the proposition that in order to be effective in the war against terrorism our nation must be able to secure its borders."

Hutchinson was also careful to temper his support for Bush's Temporary Worker Proposal with a call for strengthening security first. In his testimony, he asserted:

The necessary elements to tackle this enormous problem [of illegal immigration] effectively are: (1)Increasing the funding of technology and security personnel along the border, (2)Making it more difficult for illegal aliens to get jobs in this country, and (3) providing a workable and practical means for migrant workers to meet the job needs in this country when those jobs cannot be filled otherwise. When, and only when, these security measures are established then it is appropriate to begin a conversation on providing a temporary legal status to the eight million illegal workers already in this country. It is a significant security vulnerability to allow such a large population live and work anonymously in our communities, with no legal identities or other common connections to society. It is, in fact, a terrorist’s dream. Moreover, any legal status should be a temporary work permit with a point of return to the alien’s home country."

2006 Governor's race

Shortly after his return to Arkansas, Hutchinson announced his intention to run for governor in 2006. Initially, Hutchinson was to face the three-term Lieutenant Governor Winthrop Paul Rockefeller, who was favored in most pre-election polls, in the Republican Primary. Rockefeller's withdrawal and death from a blood disorder in early 2006 left the field to Hutchinson. He was defeated in the general election by the Democratic candidate, then-Arkansas Attorney General Mike Beebe.

Agreed to serve on The Constitution Project's Guantanamo Task Force

Hutchinston agreed to serve on The Constitution Project's Guantanamo Task Force in December 2010. He told the ''Associated Press'' he agreed to join the task force because he believed it was "something important for our national security and our war on terrorism."

Business career

In early 2005, Hutchinson founded a consulting firm, Hutchinson Group, LLC with partners Betty Guhman and Kirk Tompkins, in Little Rock and accepted a contract for a one-year position with Venable LLP in Washington, D.C., as the chair of its Homeland Security practice. Hutchinson ended his contract with Venable LLP in March 2006 to focus on his gubernatorial campaign and his consulting firm in Little Rock. In January 2007, Hutchinson rejoined Venable.

In June 2006, the ''Arkansas Democrat Gazette'' reported that Hutchinson's $2,800 investment in Fortress America Acquisition Corporation, a company that Hutchinson advises, was worth over a million dollars after the initial public offering. The ''Arkansas Democrat Gazette'' story noted that Hutchinson is unable to touch his stock for another two years. The six founding shareholders in Fortress America besides Hutchinson include: former U.S. Representative Tom McMillen of Maryland, former U.S. Senator Don Nickles of Oklahoma, and a private-equity firm that has former CIA Director James Woolsey among its partners.

On May 4, 2006, Hutchinson filed a financial disclosure form, which he was required to submit as candidate for governor, that did not include the Fortress American holdings. On the form, Hutchinson listed his stock and options in two other companies, and even disclosed bank and credit-union accounts with balances under $1,000. He did not list his 200,000 shares in Fortress America, which were trading at about $5 per share. "Just totally an oversight," Hutchinson said when questioned by the media. Hutchinson filed an amended report the next day to correct the error.

Family

Asa Hutchinson's older brother, Tim Hutchinson, preceded him as U.S. Representative from Arkansas's 3rd congressional district and served one term as a United States Senator from Arkansas from 1997–2003, being defeated for a second term by then-Arkansas Attorney General Mark Pryor, a Democrat, in 2002. Asa and Tim Hutchinson are both graduates of Bob Jones University in Greenville, South Carolina from the Class of 1972. His identical twin nephews, Jeremy and Timothy Hutchinson, sons of Tim Hutchinson, were the first twins to serve alongside each other in the Arkansas General Assembly, both as members of the House of Representatives. Hutchinson is also the brother-in-law of Arkansas state Senator Kim Hendren who married his sister, Marylea Hutchinson, in 1958.

Footnotes

External links

Hutchinson is a contributor to Security Debrief, a blog of homeland security news and analysis

Hutchinson gubernatorial campaign site

Hutchinson Group consulting site

Voting record maintained by the Washington Post

KFI-AM interview after Hutchinson stops illegal immigrant roundups by US Border Patrol (Requires WMP or equivalent)

Paper, Plastic, or Republican: One Race That's Not in the Bag, by William Booth, November 6, 2006, ''Washington Post''

Category:1950 births Category:Living people Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas Category:Drug Enforcement Administration Administrators Category:United States Department of Homeland Security officials Category:Arkansas Republicans Category:University of Arkansas people Category:Bob Jones University alumni Category:Arkansas Republican state chairmen Category:Baptists from the United States Category:Hutchinson family Category:People from Fort Smith, Arkansas Category:Benton County, Arkansas Category:United States Attorneys for the Western District of Arkansas

de:Asa Hutchinson

playername	Ben Page
fullname	Benjamin Page
dateofbirth	April 09, 1985
cityofbirth	Woodstock, Georgia
countryofbirth	United States
height
position	Midfielder/Forward
currentclub	Charlotte Eagles
clubnumber	18
youthyears1	2004–2007
youthclubs1	Lipscomb Bisons
years1	2007
clubs1	Southern California Seahorses
caps1	10
goals1	2
years2	2008–
clubs2	Charlotte Eagles
caps2	46
goals2	4
pcupdate	May 14, 2011
ntupdate	}}

Ben Page (born April 9, 1985 in Woodstock, Georgia) is an American soccer player who currently plays for Charlotte Eagles in the USL Professional Division.

Career

College

Page played college soccer at Lipscomb University, where he earned four consecutive All-Conference Honors in his four year career, and was the Carolina Gamecock Tournament MVP.

During his college years Page also played with the Southern California Seahorses in the USL Premier Development League.

Professional

Undrafted by Major League Soccer out of college, Page signed with Charlotte Eagles in 2008 . He made his professional debut on August 1, 2008, in Charlotte's 2008 season opener against Pittsburgh Riverhounds. He made 10 appearances in total for the Eagles in 2008, helping the team to the USL Second Division regular season title.

References

External links

Charlotte Eagles bio

Category:1985 births Category:Living people Category:American soccer players Category:Charlotte Eagles players Category:Southern California Seahorses players Category:USL Second Division players Category:USL Premier Development League players Category:USL Professional Division players

Bridget Rosewell is a British economist. Her expertise includes economic development, transport and agglomeration economics, development evaluation, infrastructure, forecasting, industry dynamics and competition as well as policy analysis related to these areas.

Biography

Born in Wimbledon, England in 1951, she was educated at Wimbledon High School (1958–69) and St. Hugh's College, Oxford (BA in Politics and Economics, 1974; M.Phil. in Economics, 1976. She did not achieve the higher D.Phil. doctorate award). She was a Lecturer in economics at St. Hilda's College, Oxford (1976–78), and at Somerville College, Oxford (1978–81), then a Tutor in economics at Oriel College, Oxford (1981–84). She was concurrently a research officer in the Department of Economics and Statistics, Oxford University (1976–81).

She was Deputy Director, Economics at the Confederation of British Industry, then left to found a number of consultancies, including Business Strategies Ltd, now part of Experian.

Rosewell is chair of Volterra Consulting which she founded in 1998 with Paul Ormerod. She also serves as a non-executive director of the Britannia Building Society and Chair of Governors, Wimbledon High School.

She speaks fluent French and some German. She is divorced, with two adult children. Her hobbies include painting, walking, and picture-framing.

Contributions to the field

Rosewell is interested in the concept of agglomeration, which quantifies the positive effects of the increases in economic density brought about by new infrastructure such as bridges and rail links.

Her recent work includes studies of the evolution of market structures, including in the market for pollution permits; urban systems; and statistical model validation.

Research interests

Her current research interests focus on the economic performance of local economies, the performance of markets, and business organisation. She is especially interested in the application of the tools of complex systems analysis to these issues and in questions of statistical model validation.

References

Category:1951 births Category:Living people Category:British economists Category:People educated at Wimbledon High School