Search results

Waste management is one of the vital objectives for the EU since it has a substantial effect on the environment. European Commission expects annual waste creation on Earth to increase by 70% by 2050. European Commission also estimates that efficient waste management might boost the EU economy's gross domestic product (GDP) by 0.5% by 2030. Hence, it is essential to conduct research including both efficiency and influencing factors analysis for effective waste management. First, we employ both slack-based measure (SBM) and super-SBM data envelopment analysis approaches to investigate the waste management efficiency of the EU region and distinguish between efficient countries. The countries with small areas such as Luxembourg and Ireland have demonstrated super efficiency. Second, we maintain our empirical research with ordinary least square analysis to explore the determinants of waste management. We also conclude that population density, GDP per capita, and tourism rise the amount of waste generated in the EU region.

The smart city paradigm has evolved from a perspective focused on technological infrastructures to an approach in which the effects of the technological apparatus improve the quality of life of people, urban resilience, urban sustainability, and health, by introducing the concept of smart and sustainable city 3.0. In this chapter, the authors evaluate mobility as a key aspect of improving the environmental, social, and economic well-being of communities under the central concept of smart and sustainable city 3.0. To this end, the authors underline the link between mobility, the Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMP), and environmental health. Then, the authors outline (i) the mobility requirements to be met from a smart perspective on environmental health and how (ii) the SUMPs can be considered as the basic tool for connecting smartness with mobility and environmental health. Finally, the results obtained will be discussed, and future directions of this research will be illustrated.

Due to its high leverage nature, a bank suffers vitally from the credit risk it inherently bears. As a result, managing credit is the ultimate responsibility of a bank. In this chapter, we examine how efficiently banks manage their credit risk via a powerful tool used widely in the decision/management science area called data envelopment analysis (DEA). Among various existing versions, our DEA is a two-stage, dynamic model that captures how each bank performs relative to its peer banks in terms of value creation and credit risk control. Using data from the largest 22 banks in the United States over the period of 1996 till 2013, we have identified leading banks such as First Bank systems and Bank of New York Mellon before and after mergers and acquisitions, respectively. With the goal of preventing financial crises such as the one that occurred in 2008, a conceptual model of credit risk reduction and management (CRR&M) is proposed in the final section of this study. Discussions on strategy formulations at both the individual bank level and the national level are provided. With the help of our two-stage DEA-based decision support systems and CRR&M-driven strategies, policy/decision-makers in a banking sector can identify improvement opportunities regarding value creation and risk mitigation. The effective tool and procedures presented in this work will help banks worldwide manage the unknown and become more resilient to potential credit crises in the 21st century.

This study is a comment on Geoffrey Hodgson’s “Discovering Institutionalism: One Person’s Journey.” In this self-description of the evolution of his thought, Hodgson distinctly acknowledges Thorstein Veblen’s influence on his own institutional perspective. This is the issue that I explore in this study. My argument is that Hodgson can be understood as a Veblenian, but he does not fit in the Veblenian notion that became popular in the mid-twentieth century. I argue that Hodgson’s notion of habits is the strongest Veblen’s influence on him, and his reconstitutive downward and upward causations are in line with Veblen’s institutionalism, albeit without the mid-twentieth century Veblenian writings. I also address the approach to the content of habits as a break between Hodgson’s and Veblen’s institutionalism. By offering an unprecedented Veblenianism, I argue that Hodgson’s institutional economics can be understood as a new institutionalist segmentation.