Bundling attractions for rural tourism development

Tourism is often regarded as a viable solution to economic crisis, especially for remote areas without many development options. While many tourism destinations have strong cultural or heritage assets, not all destinations have primary attractions that can bring visitors to the region. Rather than developing special interest “themes”, rural areas that do not have enough of any one type of tourism resource to act as a primary draw may consider bundling different attraction types to increase visitation. The purpose of this study is to investigate the preferences of visitors to secondary heritage sites and explore the relationship between heritage tourism and alternative, non-heritage activities in rural areas. Findings revealed that motivation to visit small-scale heritage sites consisted of two dimensions: learning and recreation. The two motivational dimensions influenced visitors’ interest in different heritage attractions and likelihood of visiting heritage tourism “scenarios”. As for alternative activities, there was a cluster of “popular” activities that were enjoyed by both learning-oriented and recreation-oriented respondents, but recreation-oriented visitors were more interested in nature-based activities and sport-related activities than learning-oriented visitors. Findings can help rural communities improve secondary attractions and diversify their tourism product by bundling heritage attractions with non-heritage activities.     

Evaluating transport user benefits and social surplus in a transport market—The case of the Norwegian ferries

The article first infers how consumer surplus in a market is linked to revenue under different assumptions about fare elasticity and when using different types of demand functions. This information is added to producer surplus in order to derive social surplus. The method, thus, produces a simple approach for authorities to assess social surplus in a market and its benefits to the users. A modified exponential demand function is applied to calculate consumer surplus and social surplus for 97 ferry services in Norway regulated by the state. The calculations are based on empirical data concerning ferry fare, revenue data at service level and reasonable assumptions about fare point elasticity for services covering different distances.In 2007, these services generated welfare for the users (consumer surplus) and the society (social surplus) amounting to about 5.8 billion NOK and 4.3 billion NOK, respectively. Consumer surplus and social surplus varied considerably amongst the services. Only 3 of the 97 services operate with positive profits and, hence, without subsidies. About 21 of the services contribute negatively to social surplus. Many of these unprofitable services are the only transport alternatives in rural areas and could be argued to continue operation according to politically decided regional measures. Implicitly, maintaining all these 21 services means that the welfare for the people in these areas is valued as up to four times greater than the welfare of the people in the rest of society.     

Strip Clubs, “Secondary Effects” and Residential Property Prices

Municipalities regulate sexually oriented businesses (SOBs) through the “secondary effects” doctrine, which justifies limiting First Amendment speech protections inside SOBs. Negative effects of SOBs on nearby neighborhood quality are a frequently cited secondary effect. Little empirical evidence exists that SOBs generate such negative externalities. If SOBs generate negative externalities, then nearby property prices should decrease when a strip club opens. We estimate regression models of housing prices to determine the effect of new clubs on nearby residential property prices in Seattle, exploiting the termination of a 17‐year moratorium on openings and find no evidence that strip clubs have “secondary effects.”     

Bankruptcy costs, liability dollarization, and vulnerability to sudden stops

Countries with intermediate levels of institutional quality suffer larger output contractions following sudden stops of capital inflows than less developed nations. However, countries with strong institutions seldom experience significant falls in output after capital flow reversals. We reconcile these two observations using a calibrated DSGE model that extends the financial accelerator framework developed in Bernanke, Gertler and Gilchrist (1999). The model captures financial market institutional quality with creditors' ability to recover assets from bankrupt firms. Bankruptcy costs affect vulnerability to sudden stops directly but also indirectly by affecting the degree of liability dollarization. Simulations reveal an inverted U-shaped relationship between bankruptcy costs and the output loss following sudden stops.     

Supplier Development Responsibility and NPD Project Outcomes: The Roles of Monetary Quantification of Differences and Supporting‐Detail Gathering

Firms increasingly rely on suppliers to perform tasks in new product development (NPD). Research has only recently begun to focus on the processes to manage this supplier development responsibility, and has hardly investigated how firms collect and analyze information regarding the cost and performance of alternative supplier offerings. Our study addresses this gap, through a field survey among 144 paired samples of project leaders and cost analysts involved in the same NPD projects. On the basis of literature and qualitative research, we conceptualize a substantive model. We first use a substantive validity assessment to vet the measures for the proposed constructs. We then test the substantive model with structural equation modeling using a multiple‐sample analysis. The results strongly show that monetary quantification of differences and detail gathering play significant roles in successfully leveraging supplier development responsibility. The findings support the hypothesis that the extent of development responsibility that suppliers have leads the development team to a more focused monetary quantification of the differences in alternative supplier offerings. Monetary quantification of differences has a significant, positive effect on the extent of supporting‐detail gathering and on the development speed of the project, whereas supporting‐detail gathering has a significant, positive effect on the product advantage of the new product as well as development speed. These findings are robust across the two functional perspectives. Our study complements the literature on interfirm control and monitoring by demonstrating the effects of selective and focused output controls.