A Meta‐Analysis of General and Partial Equilibrium Simulations of Trade Liberalisation under the Doha Development Agenda

Model‐based simulation of welfare effects is commonly used to make a case for trade liberalisation and to inform participants and stakeholders in trade negotiations. However, the simulated welfare effects of trade liberalisation vary greatly, even across studies that model similar liberalisation scenarios. This undermines confidence in the reliability of model‐based simulations. A meta‐analysis of over 100 studies that model WTO Doha Development Agenda trade negotiation outcomes is employed to identify characteristics of models, databases and liberalisation experiments that influence simulated welfare effects. Meta‐regressions produce plausible results and explain a significant proportion of the variation in simulated welfare effects in a representative sample of Doha Development Agenda trade liberalisation studies. Results also reveal that many quantitative trade policy simulation studies fail to adequately document the assumptions and data on which they are based.     

Service failure and recovery: The impact of relationship factors on customer satisfaction

This research investigated how customers' relationships with a service organization affect their reactions to service failure and recovery. Our conceptual model proposed that customer-organizational relationships help to shape customers' attributions and expectations when service failures occur. The empirical results showed that customers with higher expectations of relationship continuity had lower service recovery expectations after a service failure and also attributed that failure to a less stable cause. Both the lower recovery expectations and the lower stability attributions were associated with greater satisfaction with the service performance after the recovery. These effects appeared to be key processes by which relationships buffer service organizations when service failures occur. Ronald L. Hess Jr. (ron. hess@business.wm.edu) (Ph.D., Virginia Tech) is currently an assistant professor of marketing at the College of William & Mary. His research interests include customer responses to service and product failures; organizational complaint handling; and customer assessments of satisfaction, loyalty, and service quality. He has published his research inMarketing Letters and several conference proceedings. Shankar Ganesan (sganesan @bpa.arizona.edu) (Ph.D., University of Florida) is an associate professor of marketing and Lisle and Rosslyn Payne Fellow in Marketing at the Eller College of Business and Public Administration, University of Arizona. His research interests focus on the areas of interorganizational relationships, buyer-seller negotiations, service failure and recovery, new product innovation, and E-marketing. He is the author of several articles that have appeared in leading academic journals, including theJournal of Marketing Research, theJournal of Marketing, theJournal of Retailing, theJournal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, theJournal of the Academy of Marketing Science, and theJournal of Applied Psychology. He currently serves on the editorial review board of theJournal of Marketing Research and theJournal of Marketing. Noreen M. Klein (nklein@vt.edu) (Ph.D., Pennsylvania State University) is currently an associate professor of marketing at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Her research interests include consumer decision making and the behavioral aspects of pricing, and her research has been published in the theJournal of Consumer Research, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Making, and theJournal of the Academy of Marketing Science.     

Market rationality and dividend announcements

We investigate stock market rationality by examining the timeliness and unbiasedness of the market's response to dividend announcements. Our initial findings for market timeliness show a sluggish market reaction to dividend announcements; however, when the ex-dividend effect is controlled for, we find no evidence of a sluggish market reaction. We examine the unbiasedness of the market's response by testing whether the net announcement effect across a sample that is devoid of ex-post selection bias sums to zero. We observe a significant positive net announcement effect and examine several plausible conjectures for this puzzling phenomenon, but none provides a satisfactory explanation.