Search results

Contemporary literature reveals that, to date, the poultry livestock sector has not received sufficient research attention. This particular industry suffers from unstructured supply chain practices, lack of awareness of the implications of the sustainability concept and failure to recycle poultry wastes. The current research thus attempts to develop an integrated supply chain model in the context of poultry industry in Bangladesh. The study considers both sustainability and supply chain issues in order to incorporate them in the poultry supply chain. By placing the forward and reverse supply chains in a single framework, existing problems can be resolved to gain economic, social and environmental benefits, which will be more sustainable than the present practices.

The theoretical underpinning of this research is ‘sustainability’ and the ‘supply chain processes’ in order to examine possible improvements in the poultry production process along with waste management. The research adopts the positivist paradigm and ‘design science’ methods with the support of system dynamics (SD) and the case study methods. Initially, a mental model is developed followed by the causal loop diagram based on in-depth interviews, focus group discussions and observation techniques. The causal model helps to understand the linkages between the associated variables for each issue. Finally, the causal loop diagram is transformed into a stock and flow (quantitative) model, which is a prerequisite for SD-based simulation modelling. A decision support system (DSS) is then developed to analyse the complex decision-making process along the supply chains.

The findings reveal that integration of the supply chain can bring economic, social and environmental sustainability along with a structured production process. It is also observed that the poultry industry can apply the model outcomes in the real-life practices with minor adjustments. This present research has both theoretical and practical implications. The proposed model’s unique characteristics in mitigating the existing problems are supported by the sustainability and supply chain theories. As for practical implications, the poultry industry in Bangladesh can follow the proposed supply chain structure (as par the research model) and test various policies via simulation prior to its application. Positive outcomes of the simulation study may provide enough confidence to implement the desired changes within the industry and their supply chain networks.

This article posits that a more rigorous enforcement of the Constitutional Doctrine of Non-delegation would prevent many of the problems that have been identified with benefit–cost analysis. In particular, a rigorous application would prevent administrative agencies from using benefit–cost analysis as a screen to make policy decisions that the agency otherwise wishes to occur. Though the US Courts might have some difficulty in enforcing this notion, it is possible to do, and would greatly help the benefit–cost process, by regulating it to its proper place in an administrative system.

The European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) calls for far-reaching changes to the way economic activity will occur in EU digital markets. Before its remedies are imposed, it is critical to assess their impacts on individual markets, the digital sector, and the overall European economy. The European Commission (EC) released an Impact Assessment in support of the DMA that purports to evaluate it using cost/benefit analysis.

An economic evaluation of the DMA should consider its full impacts on dynamic competition. The Impact Assessment neither assesses the DMA's impact on dynamic competition in the digital economy nor evaluates the impacts of specific DMA prohibitions and obligations. Instead, it considers benefits in general and largely ignores costs. We study its benefit assessments and find they are based on highly inappropriate methodologies and assumptions. A cost/benefit study using inappropriate methodologies and largely ignoring costs cannot provide a sound policy assessment.

Instead of promoting dynamic competition between platforms, the DMA will likely reinforce existing market structures, ossify market boundaries, and stunt European innovation. The DMA is likely to chill R&D by encouraging free riding on the investments of others, which discourages making those investments. Avoiding harm to innovation is critical because innovation delivers large, positive spillover benefits, driving increases in productivity, employment, wages, and prosperity.

The DMA prioritizes static over dynamic competition, with the potential to harm the European economy. Given this, the Impact Assessment does not demonstrate that the DMA will be beneficial overall, and its implementation must be carefully tailored to alleviate or lessen its potential to harm Europe’s economic performance.

The application of benefit–cost analysis principles by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to a major infrastructure investment proposal – the expansion of Chicago O’Hare International Airport – is analyzed. The City of Chicago is proposing a major physical expansion of O’Hare Airport, which is but one of the alternative solutions to the high level of passenger delays that are currently experienced. The FAA must approve benefit–cost analyses done by the City in order for it to be eligible for federal funding. In the course of this process, the City has prepared two alternative benefit–cost studies of the proposed expansion. The analytic framework and empirical approach of both analyses is described, the results summarized, and the methods and estimates critiqued. It is concluded that neither study provides an estimate of net national benefits that meets minimal accepted professional standards. Finally, an overall assessment of the federal government process in considering and approving benefit–cost studies is provided, and suggestions for improving this process are offered.

Benefit–cost analysis took root in the U.S. at the federal level in the 1930s with the use of the method by the Army Corps of Engineers. It now is used widely by government agencies and research organizations. The practice has long been controversial, and it remains so. Some critics find the weaknesses of benefit–cost analysis to be so severe as to warrant abandoning its practice.