Search results

This paper seeks to examine the use of the cohort component method as a method of deriving replacement demand for manpower forecasting.

The paper explains the principal concepts of replacement demand and how replacement demand has been estimated in two alternative ways: the cohort component method and using longitudinal data on individuals. The paper focuses on one of these ways, the cohort component method, and illustrates how this method can fail to capture all the relevant flows driving replacement demand. It also compares the method to the alternative approach based on individual data and discusses US and Irish results using both methods.

The cohort component method is found to underestimate replacement demand significantly in many occupations.

Research estimates of replacement demand should be based on individual longitudinal data rather than the cohort component method.

Many countries undertake some form of occupational employment forecasting including, in many cases, making estimates of replacement demand. This paper should help to clarify the appropriate choice of methodology for estimating replacement demand.

This conceptual paper uses the resource-based theory (RBT) of the firm to argue that for competitors to improve their innovation through a cooperative relationship – coopetitive relationship – they need to work on building a stable relationship with each other by investing a special type of resources, namely locked-in resources.

The authors draw on RBT criteria to argue that when the antecedent – the locked-in resources – and the mediator – the relationship stability – are valuable, rare, inimitable and organized (VRIO), they will help the parties involved achieve sustained competitive advantage from the coopetitive relationship.

This paper argues that locked-in resources lead to higher coopetitive relationship stability by reducing the impact of opportunistic behavior from any of the partners. More stable relationship leads to more innovations especially radical innovations. In addition, the nature of the industry plays a moderating role. The industry's competitive intensity affects the relationship between locked-in resources and relationship stability. The industry's age affects the relationship between stability and innovation quantity and type.

This conceptual paper anchors its arguments within the RBT related to the firm's strategic resources (VRIO) characteristics and applies the same arguments (VRIO) beyond the firm level to the coopetitive relationship level. The model invites researchers and practitioners to consider two new constructs namely locked-in resources and coopetitive relationship stability in order to build successful coopetitive relationships.

This paper contributes considerably and in a practical manner to managers as it draws their attention to the importance of investing a special type of resources, namely locked-in resources and ensuring the relationship stability with their coopetitors to achieve the desired outcome. It also draws the managers' attention to the impact industry's competitive intensity and industry's age have on the quality of the relationship and on the innovation outcomes.

A distinct contribution of this conceptual paper is the introduction of two new constructs: locked-in resources and coopetitive relationship stability. Locked-in resources are valuable within the coopetitive relationship and they improve the second construct or relationship stability. Relationship stability is different from relationship strength as it leads to more trust between partners over longer periods of time.

Butt can be placed within the framework of what George Boyce (1995, pp. 18–19) terms colonial patriotism. Butt's analyses of Ireland's economy and development during the next years brought together the several strands that marked out an Ireland of citizens, an Ireland of sort which has emerged at the turn of the present millennium. What were the influences on Butt and what is his place in the development of political economy? His position is best characterised as eclectic and distinct from the other early holders of the Whately Chair. Drawing upon but not endorsing classical political economy, Adam Smith, Longfield, Jean-Baptiste Say and others, Butt defies pigeonholing. His economic analysis emerged slowly, and initially, there was little hint that he would expand on Longfield's position which essentially was a theory of profit (McGovern, 2000, p. 5). However, Butt moved beyond Longfield's analysis and whereas the latter remained in the classical tradition on free trade, he did not. He expanded Longfield's approach that crucial to the determination of the price of goods was the importance of applying a unit of whatever resource to its marginal use, concluding that the factors of production were remunerated in relation to the utility they created in their least efficient, marginal employment (Boylan & Foley, 2003, Vol. 2, p. 10). His importance, it has been observed, was in drawing attention to the potential resource mobilisation and distribution aspects of protection and in assessing the benefits and weaknesses of protection in relation to the complexity of specific circumstances (Boylan and Foley, 2003, Vol. 3, p. 5). Butt's Whatley lectures have received most attention although it will be suggested that certain of his other writings were as important or even more significant as indicative of his ideas on political economy. In his first Whatley lecture (Butt, 1837a), appropriating the title ‘Introduction’, Butt outlined somewhat verbosely the scope of what he intended to address and adopted the high ground about the purpose of political economy. He declared it was ‘to teach certain truths connected with the social condition of man – it attempts to explain the nature of the causes by which is brought about that singular machinery of society by which Providence has set man to supply each other's wants, and thus receive and confer a mutual benefit’ (1837a, p. 23). Butt addressed the question of production and the creation of ‘utility’. Employing the illustration of cotton stockings, Butt demonstrated the complex interchange required to produce even the most mundane of articles (1837a, pp. 25–26). ‘When you purchase your pair of cotton stockings’, he noted, ‘you are positively commanding for your own personal comfort and accommodation, not only the services of thousands of your cotemporary fellow creatures, but the accumulated results of the labours of generations that have long since passed away’ (1837a, p. 28). Thus, he maintained, political economy ‘teaches the laws which regulate the production, distribution and consumption of wealth’ (1837a, p. 30).

I. Introduction In their recent pastoral letter, the Catholic bishops of this country have reputedly taken a new approach in rooting their moral imperatives in the Bible. As opposed to the established, official convention of “proof‐texting”, the US bishops focus on certain biblical themes which presumably “speak to” contemporary issues and problems. Chief among these is the so‐called “preferential option for the poor”, which is attributed to both the Old and New Testaments and early Church (Christianity).