Search results

Two studies in the context of English‐French relations in Québec suggest that individuals who strongly identify with a group derive the individual‐level costs and benefits that drive expectancy‐value processes (rational decision‐making) from group‐level costs and benefits. In Study 1, high identifiers linked group‐ and individual‐level outcomes of conflict choices whereas low identifiers did not. Group‐level expectancy‐value processes, in Study 2, mediated the relationship between social identity and perceptions that collective action benefits the individual actor and between social identity and intentions to act. These findings suggest the rational underpinnings of identity‐driven political behavior, a relationship sometimes obscured in intergroup theory that focuses on cognitive processes of self‐stereotyping. But the results also challenge the view that individuals' cost‐benefit analyses are independent of identity processes. The findings suggest the importance of modeling the relationship of group and individual levels of expectancy‐value processes as both hierarchical and contingent on social identity processes.

To achieve a full understanding of the role of marketing from plan to profit requires a knowledge of the basic building blocks. This textbook introduces the key concepts in the art or science of marketing to practising managers. Understanding your customers and consumers, the 4 Ps (Product, Place, Price and Promotion) provides the basic tools for effective marketing. Deploying your resources and informing your managerial decision making is dealt with in Unit VII introducing marketing intelligence, competition, budgeting and organisational issues. The logical conclusion of this effort is achieving sales and the particular techniques involved are explored in the final section.

The paper aims to present an approach to cost-benefit analysis with stochastic data. Determining the type and the values of alternative’s factors are probably the most important issue in this approach. Therefore, in the proposed approach, a competitive advantage model was built to measure the values of alternative’s factors. Then, a satisfactory cost-benefit analysis model with random data was proposed to evaluate the alternatives. The cost-benefit analysis of each alternative was carried out to obtain the real and satisfactory cost-benefit of the decision-maker.

This paper is orientationally expressed as a mathematical problem in which the optimization problem needs to analyze the approach. This paper is written based on uncertainty linear optimization. Optimization under uncertainty refers to this branch of optimization where there are uncertainties involved in the data or the model and is popularly known as stochastic optimization problems.

As was seen in the purpose part, in this paper, an approach is presented to cost-benefit analysis by the use of competitive advantage with stochastic data. In this regards, a stochastic optimization problem to assess competitive advantage is proposed. This optimization problem recognizes the values of alternative’s factors which is the most important step in cost-benefit analysis. An optimization problem is proposed to cost benefit analysis, as well.

To investigate different aspects of the proposed approach, a case study with random data of 21 economic projects was considered.

Cost–benefit analysis is a systematic approach to estimating the strengths and weaknesses of alternatives used to determine options which provide the best approach to achieving benefits while preserving savings. Cost–benefit analysis is related to cost-effectiveness analysis. Benefits and costs are expressed in monetary terms and are adjusted for the time value of money; all flows of benefits and costs over time are expressed on a common basis in terms of their net present value, regardless of whether they are incurred at different times. As seen the paper using competitive advantage tries to determine the values of alternative’s factor. As competitive advantage model analyze the advantages and disadvantages of alternatives, this paper by the use of this idea tries to determine the costs and benefits. Two stochastic optimization problems in the middle of this approach are proposed, which assess competitive advantage and cost–benefit analysis, respectively.

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.

The proposed contents of the planned Financial Services and Markets Act have been revealed in the draft bill (FSMB) that was introduced into Parliament on 17 June, 1999 and in various announcements by the government. On that basis, the Act is expected to require the Financial Services Authority (FSA) to have regard, in discharging its functions, to the economic impacts of the provisions it makes and to publish a cost‐benefit analysis (CBA) of proposed rules and general guidance with respect to the operation of rules. This paper describes the technical and organisational measures that the FSA is taking in order to fulfil the FSMB's requirements for CBA and considers the rationale for those requirements. The paper suggests that the case for undertaking cost‐benefit analysis rests on the dangers of interfering in markets without analysing the likely consequences in a rigorous and theoretically sound manner. The paper also reviews the (so far limited) experience of applying cost‐benefit analysis to financial regulation in the UK and suggests how difficulties in the assessment of the costs and benefits can be addressed, with a consequent increase in the value of financial regulation.

In the last four years, since Volume I of this Bibliography first appeared, there has been an explosion of literature in all the main functional areas of business. This wealth of material poses problems for the researcher in management studies — and, of course, for the librarian: uncovering what has been written in any one area is not an easy task. This volume aims to help the librarian and the researcher overcome some of the immediate problems of identification of material. It is an annotated bibliography of management, drawing on the wide variety of literature produced by MCB University Press. Over the last four years, MCB University Press has produced an extensive range of books and serial publications covering most of the established and many of the developing areas of management. This volume, in conjunction with Volume I, provides a guide to all the material published so far.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the applicability of the alternative way of discounting, such as the hyperbolic discount method, for the economic feasibility test on Free Trade Zone development project that needs intergenerational analysis.

To analyze the effects of applying alternative discounting method in the cost-benefit analysis, this paper uses the hyperbolic discount method and HM-Treasury’s method (Britain), as well as the traditional exponential discount method. Also, this study uses benefit and cost data from the actual feasibility test of the Free Trade Zone development project in Korea, to obtain better policy implication.

For the case of long-term analysis, using the exponential discounting method in the benefit-cost analysis could not give us balanced analytic results, because it discounts too much on future generation’s benefits. In contrast, if we use the hyperbolic discounting method, we could obtain better balanced results since it can control the generational effects. This paper also finds that for the results to be valid, the analysis period must be expanded long enough (a minimum of 100 years).

The major findings of this paper confirm the results of previous studies regarding long-term benefit-cost analysis. Also, the result of this paper is properly compatible with the findings of behavioral economics, such as the time inconsistency of preferences. However, no research has been done with the proper length of analytic periods for using hyperbolic discounting yet. To examine this matter, this paper performs benefit-cost analysis with actual data from the feasibility studies in Korea. To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first study to find the proper length of analytic periods that can be compatible with the hyperbolic discount method.