Search results

The purpose of this article is to propose a new framework for examining the relationship between the consumer and the product, focusing not on the benefits the consumer seeks to maximize, but on the other side of the ledger—the costs the consumer seeks to minimize. These costs tend to fall into the same categories of costs faced by other participants in the distribution channel. By conceptualizing the consumer as an active channel member, rather than as a passive recipient of products and services, we are able to present a systematic matrix of the total costs that consumers may weigh against benefits in their shopping, purchasing, and use decisions. On the basis of this framework, we suggest ways in which product and / or channel designers can improve their performance through deeper insights into consumers' cost tradeoffs.

Approaching a biography of a life as long, complex, and intertwined with the history of the 20th century as was John Kenneth Galbraith's is an intimidating prospect for any reader, particularly so when one knows that Galbraith's vision of economics and the world is so fundamentally different from one's own. Richard Parker's recent biography, however, is well worth reading despite any such intimidation as he turns Galbraith's life into a remarkably well-written and deeply researched tale of one of the most influential economists of the century. As should any excellent biography, it not only traces the life of the subject but also situates that life in the broader context of events which unfolded during his lifetime. In the case of Galbraith, he was very much a part of those major historical events. The result is a rich and detailed economic and political history of the United States in the 20th century, with Galbraith at the center of it. In addition, Parker offers a history of economics as a discipline, as seen through the eyes of a subject who was at once both the most famous economist of his time and someone whose ideas were frequently deemed not worthy of serious consideration by many in the discipline. Parker brings all of these threads together more or less seamlessly in telling Galbraith's story from the very beginning to pretty much the very end.

Property analysts and researchers have a fundamental requirement for reliable property market data. Historically, data on the commercial and industrial property market are weak, although a number of property indices have now been published for 20 years. Considerable debate has arisen as to the appropriateness of these data for meaningful and reliable econometric analysis. A particular problem is the existence of serial correlation. This paper considers the form and the nature of spatial data and examines the implications for their interpretation and analysis. The primary concern is with rent and yield data with a particular focus on those derived from valuations. It is concluded that the use of valuation data does not appear to be a constraint or the source of serial correlation. In addition, its existence parallels that found in other economic time series data of longer standing. A possible solution is the disaggregation of the data to the local level, which may reduce the smoothing induced by aggregation.

Government agencies have endeavored, with limited success, to improve the methodological consistency of regulatory benefit–cost analysis (BCA). This paper recommends that an independent cohort of economists, policy analysts and legal scholars take on that task. Independently established “best practices” would have four positive effects: (1) they would render BCAs more regular in form and format and, thus, more readily assessable and replicable by social scientists; (2) improved consistency might marginally reduce political opposition to BCA as a policy tool; (3) politically-motivated, inter-agency methodological disputes might be avoided; and (4) an independent set of “best practices” would provide a sound, independent basis for judicial review of agency BCAs.

The goal of this chapter is to reexamine the nature and structure of the military–industrial complex (MIC) through the works of John Kenneth Galbraith. MIC, or military power as he prefers, is a coalition of vested interests within the state and industry that promoted the military power in the name of “national security” for their interests. Galbraith’s theory of giant corporations helps us understand the role of military corporations in the MIC. Moreover, he is a critical scholar in examining this topic because he was a political insider in the Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations and a prominent public intellectual against the Vietnam War. Against this background, this chapter has three parts. After explaining the development of military Keynesianism with respect to the main economic thoughts, it examines the history of the MIC and its impact on economic priorities during and after the Cold War through Galbraith’s works. Finally, this chapter discusses MIC’s relevancy today and evaluates Galbraith’s prophecies.

Clinical guidelines have been identified as key components of improving clinical effectiveness. Local development of national guidelines is advocated to ensure that recommendations are relevant to local needs and context. This paper discusses the methods used in adapting national guidelines for geriatric day hospitals for use in the Northern and Yorkshire Region, and highlights differences between guidelines developed at national and regional levels.

To provide a critique of Belbin's team role theory, including the provision of a re‐definition of the concept of team role and an adequate framework for relating personality to team roles. The re‐defined concept of team roles has a significant social dimension that relates it to the roles people habitually play in teams, the autonomy provided by such roles and their commitment to them. It also advocates the use of the “Big Five” model for describing individual personality differences and relating them to team role behaviour.

A revised model of team role behaviour is described, along with a brief account of the “Big Five” model of personality, and findings are presented that relate team role behaviour to three sets of variables, namely, personality, team role expectations and team role orientation, including autonomy and commitment.

Team role behaviour is described using both self‐assessments and aggregated assessments by others derived from instruments using Likert‐type scales. Information is presented showing the relationship between these measures of team role behaviour and three sets of variables, namely, personality, team role expectations and team role orientation, including autonomy and commitment. These findings support the idea that team roles have a significant social dimension and that the “Big Five” model of personality provides a useful model for relating team role behaviour to individual personality traits.

The research does not look at a number of other issues raised by Belbin's theory of team roles, including the relationship between team composition and team effectiveness. Further research, using the measures described in the article, could be carried out to explore this relationship in actual teams, including exploring team composition in different work contexts.

The main implication of the research is that, while team role behaviour does appear to be related in part to individual personality traits, such traits are much less constraining than Belbin's theory suggests. Team role behaviour can usefully be seen, in part at least, as learned social behaviour, with individuals learning to play different roles in teams. Thus attempts to improve team effectiveness would benefit from looking more at learned behaviour (including leadership, problem solving, work organisation and interpersonal skills, as well as specialist expertise relevant to the particular team), while focusing relatively less on assessment, selection, placement and guidance.

Previous research on, and criticisms of, Belbin's team role theory have challenged it from within the discipline of psychology. This research is unique in criticising it from a more sociological perspective. It is also unique in shifting the practical focus for improving team effectiveness away from assessment, selection, placement and guidance to learned behaviour and skills.