The goal of the study was to contribute empirical data to the discussion of appropriate diagnostic classification of obese and nonobese, hinging, and nonbinging eating disordered patients. The study consists of two parts: (1) patients with binge eating disorder (BED) (N = 22) are compared to a matched sample of patients with bulimia nervosa (BN) and to 16 patients with obesity (body mass index [BMI] >30). These patient groups were crosssectionally assessed using expert ratings (interview) and self‐ratings. (2) A sample of 68 patients with BED were assessed longitudinally on admission and discharge of inpatient treatment and at a 3‐year follow‐up using the same instruments as in the first study. The study is the first to report longitudinal data on patients with BED. The general pattern of the cross‐sectional data was that patients with BN not only had higher scores concerning disturbances of eating behavior and attitude but also for general psychopathology when compared to patients with obesity without marked binges. The scores of patients with BED had an intermediate position between BN and obesity but were closer to BN than to obesity. The BED group (and the obesity group) showed a high degree of body dissatisfaction, which, however, was accounted for by their high body weight. Concerning general psychopathology BED as well as BN had significantly higher scores than the obesity group in the Hopkin's Symptom Checklist (SCL) subscale anger and hostility, in the Complaint List, the PERI Demoralization Scale, and the Beck Depression Inventory. Results of the longitudinal study with BED showed marked improvement in specific and general psychopathology over time. Except for body weight this improvement largely persisted over the 3‐year follow‐up period. Severity of depression did not predict the course of body weight over time. Data are presented concerning the design of diagnostic criteria for eating disturbed patients not fitting criteria for BN or anorexia nervosa (AN). Arguments pro and contra the introduction of a new BED category in psychiatric diagnostic criteria are discussed. Although there is generally a need for developing or revising the diagnostic criteria for recurrent bingers, our data do not support inclusion of BED (as presently defined) as a separate diagnostic category in DSM‐IV. © 1993 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

The digitalization of financial services opened a window for new players in the financial industry. These start-ups take on tasks and functions previously reserved for banks, such as financing, asset management, and payments. In this article, we trace the transformation of the industry after digitalization. By using data on FinTech formations in Germany, we provide first evidence that entrepreneurial dynamics in the FinTech sector are not so much driven by technology as by the educational and business background of the founders. Furthermore, we investigate the reactions of traditional banks to the emergence of these start-ups. In contrast with other emerging industries such as biotechnology, a network analysis shows that FinTechs have mostly engaged in strategic partnerships and only a few banks have acquired or obtained a financial interest in a FinTech. We explain the restraint of traditional banks to fully endorse the new possibilities of digitalized financial services with the characteristics of the technology itself and with the postponed fundamental decisions of banks to modernize their IT infrastructure.

After World War II, most industrialising nations adopted some form of welfare-state approach to balance the economic activities of self-interested agents and social welfare. In the realm of scientific research and innovation, this often meant that governments took primary responsibility for funding public research organisations, including research universities and government laboratories. Over the past four decades, however, the significance of private funding for agricultural research has increased, and academic scientists now often work in public-private partnerships. We argue that this trend needs to be carefully monitored because public goods are likely to be overlooked and undervalued in such arrangements. In the interest of developing indicators to monitor the trend, we document public and private funding for agricultural research and agricultural innovation in four countries: the USA, the UK, Ireland and Germany. Our results show that although neoliberalism is evident in each country, it is not homogeneous in its application and impacts, suggesting that national and institutional contexts matter. This article is directed at stimulating debates on the relationships between university research, agricultural innovation and public goods.

In the 1950s and 1960s, prominent institutional economists in the United States offered what became the orthodox theory on the obstacles to commercializing scientific knowledge. According to this theory, scientific knowledge has inherent qualities that make it a public good. Since the 1970s, however, neoliberalism has emphasized the need to convert public goods to private goods to enhance economic growth, and this theory has had global impacts on policies governing the generation and diffusion of scientific research and innovation. We critique the foundational conceptualizations of scientific knowledge as either public or private by examining Germany’s treatment of scientific outputs as club goods. We then compare the relative impacts on social welfare of distinct United States and German approaches to food and agricultural research and innovation. We conclude with reflections on how these findings might contribute to a democratic debate on how best to manage scientific knowledge to enhance social welfare.