地区本位的新政治经济学分析

本文从新政治经济学角度，对中国经济转型过程中出现的地区本位现象进行了分析。建立了一个综合本地区居民福利、本地区生产企业福利、政府职能代理人（官员和公务员）本身的利益以及本地区政府财政收入四大块组成地区总福利函数模型．并解出了最优市场保护率。分析认为．地区本位现象的出现是地方政府基于多种利益关系考虑而实施的一种不合理却是必然的举措。     

新经济、后发优势与东亚可持续发展

虽然同属于“东亚模式”,但日本和台湾在信息化赶超过程中却形成了显著不同的模式,并导致了二者在新经济条件下经济赶超的失败和成功对比;以日本和“四小龙”为借鉴,东亚发展中国家在新经济条件下,只有充分利用跨越式发展的机遇,才能成功实现经济赶超;为了实现东亚经济整体的可持续发展目标,必须重塑“东亚模式”。     

区域经济一体化的新制度经济学分析

在世界经济发展进程中,区域经济一体化是当前世界经济发展的趋势之一,是经济发展到一定阶段的集中体现与必然结果。本文首先介绍了区域一体化组织的理论,然后从新制度经济学的角度来分析区域经济一体化理论,提出了分析区域经济一体化本质的新视角。     

New Labour at work: long-term unemployment and the geography of opportunity

New Labour has placed great faith in active labour market policiesto address problems of long-term unemployment and poverty. Thispaper considers the effectiveness of welfare-to-work programmesin light of persistent regional employment disparities withinthe UK. It is argued that the government has proceeded froma flawed analysis of the causes and magnitude of long-term unemployment,framing the issue in terms of ‘worklessness’ andneglecting demand-side concerns of job availability and jobquality.     

适应新形势需要深入开展企业标准化工作

介绍以生产三大合成材料为主的大型石油化工联合企业，在激烈的市场竞争中，如何开展企业标准化工作。     

制度递延逆反论——一个典型制度变迁的案例描述与推论

西方新制度经济学家在研究制度变迁时,忽视了一个十分重要的内容--制度递延,而制度递延对全面理解和衡量制度变迁的效率是非常重要的.本文通过对典型案例的观察,发现制度递延会产生逆反效应,即一项制度变迁后,社会文化环境出现严重的负面效应,从而部分抵制了制度变迁的积极作用,进一步扩展发现,在我国市场经济体制建立过程中,诚信面临巨大的考验.由此提醒:在推进社会主义新农村建设过程中,采取积极措施,最大限度地减少负面效应.     

新会计准则认识及应用准备情况调查与分析

新会计准则的颁布是我国会计史上一次历史性的变革,对我国社会经济生活产生了深远的影响,同时也对企业财务人员和财务系统的适应能力提出了巨大的挑战。为评估各类企业对新会计准则的认识及应对情况,本文选取了五省市的86家企业进行了问卷调查。结果表明,各类企业整体支持新会计准则,但认识理解深度不够;企业的财务系统的适应存在风险,实际运用有一定困难。在上述调查的基础上,我们对新会计准则的推广运用提出了进一步的讨论与建议。     

以涉外导游发展为基础的西咸新区旅游开发研究

西咸新区拥有丰富的旅游资源、便利的交通和较为完善的基础设施为旅游开发提供了重要的保证。本文从西咸新区发展旅游的基础条件和存在的问题入手,阐述西咸新区定位旅游产业的原因和必要性,同时提出相关的开发策略。     

Criteria used by venture capitalists to evaluate new venture proposals

A questionnaire was administered to one hundred venture capitalists to determine the most important criteria that they use to decide on funding new ventures. Perhaps the most important finding from the study is direct confirmation of the frequently iterated position taken by the venture capital community that above all it is the quality of the entrepreneur that ultimately determines the funding decision. Five of the top ten most important criteria had to do with the entrepreneur's experience or personality. There is no question that irrespective of the horse (product), horse race (market), or odds (financial criteria), it is the jockey (entrepreneur) who fundamentally determines whether the venture capitalist will place a bet at all.The question is if this is the case, then why is so much emphasis placed on the business plan? In a business plan there is generally little to indicate the characteristics of the entrepreneur—it is generally devoted to a detailed discussion of the product/service, the market, and the competition. To us, the implications are obvious—such content is necessary, but not sufficient. The business plan should also show as clearly as possible that the “jockey is fit to ride” —namely, indicate by whatever feasible and credible means possible that the entrepreneur has staying power, has a track record, can react to risk well, and has familiarity with the target market. Failing this, he or she needs to be able to pull together a team that has such characteristics and show that he or she is capable of leading that team.Factor analysis of the results indicate that venture capitalists appear to assess ventures systematically in terms of six categories of risk to be managed. These are: risk of losing the entire investment: risk of being unable to bail out if necessary; risk of failure to implement the venture idea; competitive risk; risk of management failure; and risk of leadership failure.Finally, three clusters of venture capitalists were identified: those who carefully assess the competitive and implementation risks: those who seek easy bail out; and those who deliberately keep as many options open as possible.     

Radical innovations in new product development and their financial performance implications: An event study of US manufacturing firms

At the dawn of the 21st century, global competition continues to increase at an accelerating rate and radical innovation is recognized as a potent weapon for firms to achieve sustainable competitive advantages. Academics, practitioners and consultants share the view that radical innovation is important to the long-term financial success of firms. Nevertheless, empirical studies on the relationship between radical innovation and firm performance have been dominated by survey research, which provided little concrete evidence on the financial impact of radical innovation. In this study we traced the financial performance of publicly traded manufacturing firms in the United States that introduced radical innovations over the period 1986-2000 and examined whether radical innovation could lead to superior financial performance in these firms. We employed the event-study method, matching each sample firm with a control group of firms in the same industry with similar pre-event performance and firm size. Our results show that while radical innovation helps firms maintain sales growth and return on sales (ROS), firm profitability in terms of return on assets (ROA) is not significantly improved. In fact, manufacturers suffer from a decline in profitability upon the introduction of radical innovations in new product development.