Price behaviour in the US sweetener market: a cointegration approach

The sweetener market in the United States is complicated because of the substitution possibilities between high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and sugar. This study focuses on the relationship between raw sugar prices and the prices for high fructose corn syrup. Sugar and HFCS are imperfect substitutes for several industrial uses. Sugar can be used for all industrial uses, but HFCS has limited uses. This study uses cointegration analysis to examine the relationship between sugar and HFCS prices as well as the relationship between raw and refined sugar prices over time. The results indicate that sugar and HFCS prices move together for the 1983–1996 period. However, after this time period HFCS prices no longer follow sugar prices.     

Segregating genetically modified and nongenetically modified corn in a marketing channel

The adoption of GM corn in the United States depends on many factors including segregation costs, which have minor impacts on aggregate welfare. Because the demand for nonGM corn is small relative to its supply, no premium for nonGM corn can be generated in excess of the segregation costs. An outward shift in the supply of corn resulting from the adoption of GM varieties has a greater impact on aggregate welfare than do the segregation costs required to satisfy the GM-free demand. A 10% increase in the aggregate supply of GM corn increases aggregate welfare by more than US $250 million. However, nonadopters of GM corn lose while adopters can gain or lose depending on the nature of the aggregate demand curve for US corn.     

Innovation: the classic traps

Never a fad, but always in or out of fashion, innovation gets rediscovered as a growth enabler every half dozen years. Too often, though, grand declarations about innovation are followed by mediocre execution that produces anemic results, and innovation groups are quietly disbanded in cost-cutting drives. Each managerial generation embarks on the same enthusiastic quest for the next new thing. And each generation faces the same vexing challenges- most of which stem from the tensions between protecting existing revenue streams critical to current success and supporting new concepts that may be crucial to future success. In this article, Harvard Business School professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter reflects on the four major waves of innovation enthusiasm she's observed over the past 25 years. She describes the classic mistakes companies make in innovation strategy, process, structure, and skills assessment, illustrating her points with a plethora of real-world examples--including AT&T Worldnet, Timberland, and Ocean Spray. A typical strategic blunder is when managers set their hurdles too high or limit the scope of their innovation efforts. Quaker Oats, for instance, was so busy in the 1990s making minor tweaks to its product formulas that it missed larger opportunities in distribution. A common process mistake is when managers strangle innovation efforts with the same rigid planning, budgeting, and reviewing approaches they use in their existing businesses--thereby discouraging people from adapting as circumstances warrant. Companies must be careful how they structure fledgling entities alongside existing ones, Kanter says, to avoid a clash of cultures and agendas--which Arrow Electronics experienced in its attempts to create an online venture. Finally, companies commonly undervalue and underinvest in the human side of innovation--for instance, promoting individuals out of innovation teams long before their efforts can pay off. Kanter offers practical advice for avoiding these traps.