A direct test of hyperbolic discounting using market asset data

This paper introduces a framework that generalizes exponential discounting in a net present value model by including a quasi-hyperbolic discount parameter in the asset valuation equation. Using observed market asset data, a statistically significant quasi-hyperbolic parameter is obtained, thus rejecting exponential discounting.     

NEEDS FOR CONSISTENCY AND FLEXIBILITY IN MEASURES OF REAL PRODUCT BY INDUSTRY1

Study of relationships between outputs, inputs, prices, and final demands in the United States can be strengthened by: (1) eliminating disparities in official measures of output (mainly the Index of Industrial Production and Real Gross National Product), and (2) obtaining agreement on the conceptual framework for studying these relationships. Real Gross Product has provided a consistent framework for study of productivity and prices for the total economy and for broad industry groups, but has not easily permitted the analysis of commodity detail particularly for intermediate commodities. Industrial Production, on the other hand, has considerably extended the detailed analysis of commodity output but has not provided a basis for systematic analysis of productivity and prices within a consistent framework for the total economy. This paper illustrates the effect of some of the disparities between Industrial Production and Gross Product in manufacturing on the analysis of relations between prices and output and prices and productivity. This is done for the 1954–1958 period when benchmark data are available for both measures. Inconsistencies for a number of industries cause difficulties in analyzing the interplay of demand and cost influences on price changes; for example, industries which rise above average in output and below in price in one measure are not the same as those in similar price-quantity relationships in the other measure. The paper concludes by recommending improvements in data and concept in order to eliminate some of the disparities and to enable analysts to reap the benefits of both types of measures of real output.     

Thriving locally in the global economy

More and more small and midsize companies are joining corporate giants in striving to exploit international growth markets. At the same time, civic leaders worry about their communities' economic future in light of the impact of global forces on the operation and survival of business. How can communities retain local vitality yet still link their business to the global economy? Harvard professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter addresses that question in this classic HBR article, orginally published in 1995. To avoid a clash between international economic interests and local political interests, globalizing business must learn how to be responsive to the communities in which they operate, Kanter says. And communities must determine how to create a civic culture that will attract and retain footloose companies. The author surveyed five U.S. regions with direct connections to the global economy--Boston, Cleveland, Miami, Seattle, and the Spartanburg-Greenville region of South Carolina--to determine their business and civic leader's strategies for improving their constituent's quality of life. She identified ways in which the global economy can work locally by capitalizing on the resources that distinguish one place from another. Kanter argues that regions can invest in capabilities that connect their local populations to the global economy in one of three ways: as thinkers, makers, or traders. She points to the Spartanburg-Greenville region as a good example of a world-class makers, with its exceptional blue-collar workforce that has attracted more than 200 companies from 18 countries. The history of the economic development of this region is a lesson for those seeking to understand how to achieve world-class status and bring local residents into the world economy.     

Supporting innovation and venture development in established companies

Accumulated research findings call into question the ability of established corporations to develop and manage new ventures successfully. This article argues that the problem comes in large part from failing to differentiate between the requirements of administrative management—geared to managing existing activities and holding things in place to ensure continuation of already-developed activities—and the requirements of entrepreneurial management—designed to create change by developing something new. The two kinds of management are in tension and may interfere with each other, but every established organization needs both in order to get both innovation and efficiency.Innovations and new ventures have four particular characteristics that account for their special management requirements: uncertainty, knowledge-intensivity, competition with alternative courses of action, and boundary-crossing. Thus entrepreneurial management to support creation of the new puts a stress on such features as visionary leadership, “patient money,” planning flexibility, team continuity/stability, and interfunctional cooperation. But the usual requirements of administrative management in established corporations contradict these principles. Thus some companies try to set their new ventures apart from the old to avoid conflicts in management requirements. However, this this only partially solves the problem.All companies need both to manage ongoing activities and to create new ones—with the proportions of each depending on the nature of the business. They need to strike a balance between administrative and entrepreneurial management. The problem of venture development in established corporations occurs when administrative management comes to dominate and innovation is not valued sufficiently. The command system of administrative management needs to be replaced by a mutual adjustment system.High innovation companies build mutual adjustment into their design. They allow flexibility to move into an entrepreneurial mode. They are characterized by broader jobs: structures built around small business units or functionally complete project teams; cultures stressing the ability of people to contribute more over time; and easy access to the key “power tools” of information, support, and resources.A more entrepreneurial corporation minimizes hard-and-fast rules and procedures governed by a rigidly defined command structure and emphasizes instead flexibility and broadly-skilled sets of employees in flexible units that can be grouped or regrouped as changing circumstances require.Large corporations must institute deliberate programs to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship, including removing the roadblocks of unnecessary administrative requirements; encouraging integration across departments and functions: changing budgeting and accounting procedures and providing internal venture capital and special project funds; discretionary time; and new business performance measures.     

定价策略迷失：不只是简单降价

在经济低迷时期，由于需求下降、产能过剩和价格敏感度提高，各种因素都在共同推动产品价格走低，降价已经成了很多企业应对低迷的杀手锏。