Determinants of internal and external R&D: Some Dutch evidence

Summary Innovating firms can choose to engage in either internal or external R&D, or in both. In the current study, we shall examine internal and external R&D separately to determine empirically the market structure characteristics explaining the external R&D share and the differences in market structure determinants between internal and external R&D. Our results indicate that a government policy that aims at stimulating technological progress by offering external research facilities is particularly interesting for smaller, capital-intensive firms operating in less concentrated markets.We would like to thank Alfred Kleinknecht for providing the R&D data and Kees Bakker and Yvonne Prince for providing the market structure data. We thank Alfred Kleinknecht, Bart Nooteboom and an anonymous referee for their comments and suggestions We acknowledge a research grant from the Stichting KMO Fonds.     

Fortress Bethesda

Critics within and outside the National Institutes of Health say that NIH's central administration is hostile and defensive and needs to be shaken up. They hope a new director will do just that.     

Lifting physical and institutional barriers to development on a small‐scale irrigation scheme

If it is accepted that both the system and the individual can act as barriers to development at the micro‐level, development policy could be aimed at identifying the major causes and sources of inefficiency and removing the existing barriers to the achievement of efficiency.

In this article the major barriers to system efficiency are identified as being physical and institutional, and they include the physical structure of irrigation schemes, the land tenure system and the marketing structure. A theoretical discussion of each of these factors is used to propose more specific strategies for micro‐level rural development.     

The economics of dying: A misapplication of tools

Conclusions Unlike McKenzie and Tullock, we do not know how personsshould treat their bodily organs or what is an ideal exit. That depends upon their utility goals, which are defined in output terms specific to the decision maker. We contend that the body is an input into the utility production process, and therefore, as with any input, it must be maintained and repaired at a level consistent with the output goals for maximization of utility. Thus, from this framework, it is quite consistent for a person to die with healthy organs without any thought of belief in reincarnation or the desire to bequeath one's bodily organs to others, or religious values. Self interest is all that must prevail.Also, the fact that there are interrelationships between the organs in the system, and at points these relationships take on fixed factor characteristics such that reduced levels of operation in one organ can create disorientation or coma or damage to other organs, means that the body cannot die as M-T suggest. Zero capacity for all organs at death is a technical impossibility as well as being inconsistent with the output goals of utility maximizers.     

Valuation of SGARAs IN THE Wine Industry: Time for Sober Reflection

The application of AASB 1037 Self Generating and Regenerating Assets provides little guidance to the commercial performance of winemakers. The valuation of grapevines essentially requires the valuation of a segment of a business (vineyards), from which is deducted the value of associated infrastructure. Grapevines are reported at a fictional "net market value" even though they cannot be bought or sold. The combination of recognising revaluation increments as distributable profits through the valuation of grapevines at "net market value", and the subsequent "amortisation" of those revaluation increments over the useful lives of the grapevines, creates a reporting maze which is more likely to confuse than inform.