Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
This is a special issue published in version 1.0 of Global Journal of Management and Business Research. All articles are open access articles distributed
under the Global Journal of Management and Business Research Reading License, which permits restricted use. Entire contents are copyright by of Global
Journal of Management and Business Research unless otherwise noted on specific articles. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without written
permission.
The opinions and statements made in this book are those of the authors concerned. Ultraculture has not verified and neither confirms nor denies any of the
foregoing and no warranty or fitness is implied.
Engage with the contents herein at your own risk.
Vivek Dubey(HON.)
MS (Industrial Engineering),
MS (Mechanical Engineering)
University of Wisconsin
FICCT
Editor-in-Chief, USA
editorusa@computerresearch.org
Sangita Dixit
M.Sc., FICCT
Dean and Publisher, India
deanind@computerresearch.org
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
Copyright Notice
Editorial Board Members
Chief Author and Dean
Table of Contents
From the Chief Editors Desk
Research and Review Papers
1. Venture Capital Financing In India: Path of Differential Diffusion Trajectory A
Comparison with the USA 2-10
2. Modelling Armed Robbery Crime Insurance Claims in Nigeria 11-20
3. Promoting an Emerging Tourism Destination 21-28
4. Are the Global Stock Markets Inter-linked? Evidence from the Literature 29-40
5. Critical Service Encounters: The Employees Viewpoint (A Study on Restaurant
Services in Dhaka City) 41-47
6. Reliability and Availability Based Hybrid Flow Shop Scheduling Using Fuzzy
Logic 48-55
7. Financial Liberalisation Policy for Fostering Credit to the Private Sector in
Nigeria for Economic Growth 56-65
8. Oil Politics and the Crisis of Development in the Niger Delta 66-73
9. Eccentric Turnover Behavior among the Working Students of Pakistan 74-80
10. Impact of Brand Placement in Films- A Viewers Perception 81-87
11. Regulating Bank Systemic Risk: New Principles in Macroprudential
Management 88-96
12.Clinical Trials: A Branding Opportunity? 97-103
13. Strategies to Increase E-Government Take-Up: Looking Beneath Statistics 104114
14. The Innovation Process under the View 115-122
15. Knowledge Management: Promises and Premises 123-131
16. The Role of Life Skills Training on Self-Efficacy, Self Esteem, Life Interest, and
Role Behavior for Unemployed Youth 132-139
17. Assessing of the SMEs Financial Competitiveness 140-147
18. A Study of the Integrity of Internet Financial Reporting: Empirical Evidence of
Emerging Economy 148-158
19. Brand Decisions and Brand Influence: A Comparison of Rural and Urban
Consumers 159-171
Auxiliary Memberships
Process of Submission of Research Paper
Preferred Author Guidelines
Index
Dr. R. K. Dixit
Chief Author
cheifauthor@globaljournals.org
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996 1997
1998 1999
SUMMARY
EPILOGUE
REFERENCES
INTRODUCTION
DATA DESCRIPTION
Statistic
Std. Error
234452.7129
39095.48785
157360.4680
311544.9577
5% Trimmed Mean
133450.6004
Median
43316.2500
Variance
307219891181.304
Std. Deviation
554274.20216
Minimum
106.72
Maximum
4583716
Range
4583609.40
Interquartile Range
139761.26
Skewness
4.368
.172
Kurtosis
23.803
.341
Q-Q and P-P plots of Figure 3.3 and 3.4 respectively, are
suggesting an appropriate choice of a right skewed and
heavy tailed probability models. With the coefficient of
kurtosis of 23.80, the versatile choice between with tail
weight intermediate between that of gamma and Pareto
distributions will be the lognormal or loglogistic
distributions. We consider in this study the 3-parameter
lognormal as the choice model.
Histogram
200
150
Frequency
100
50
0
0.00
1000000.00
2000000.00
3000000.00
4000000.00
5000000.00
robbery
194
Expected Normal
4000000.00
41
111
103
2000000.00
42
-1
14
145
-2
98
158
69
-3
-2,000,000
0.00
-1,000,000
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
Observed Value
robbery
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Figure 3.4: P-P Normal Probability Plot of Armed Robbery Insurance Claim Data
IV
METHODS
A. Lognormal Distribution
2 2
2 ( y )
Where, y , 0, 0
In addition, the likelihood function is expressed by
n
L( , , ) f ( y i , , , )
(2)
i 1
Y exp( X )
E (Y ) exp( 2 / 2)
(3)
ln y
F ( y )
, y 0
f ( y)
F ( y)
, y0
dy
y
Hence making substitutions, so that dx exp(z ) ,
so that we can easily obtain the moments
E (Y k ) y k f ( y )dy
1
ln y )
y k
dy
y
2
1
z k 2 k k
2
2
k 2
k
2
2
2
Variance V (Y ) e
i 1
( 0 )
(5)
1 n
log( yi )
n
i 1
( ) exp
e 2 , and the
These yield the MLE of the mean,
estimators and each having the favorable properties
of converging to their respective parameters and having
minimal asymptotic variance. However, in this case, the
threshold parameter is unknown and must be estimated
from the data with the two other location and scale
parameters. Since log( y ) obeys a normal distribution,
L( , , ) achieves its maximum at a point
( )
i 1
(e 1)
2
There is no need for the K-S tables in the work since the
software programs used gives both the K-S test and the
critical probability values.
D max F (Yi )
, F (Yi )
1i N
N N
ANALYSIS RESULTS
(7 )
Table 5.1: Summary of Parameters Estimates for the Best Three Fitted Distributions
Lognormal (3P)
Lognormal(P)
1.9128 10.703
Log-Logistic (3P)
Table 5.2: Summary of Kolmogov Sminov Goodness of Fit for the Best Three Distributions
Lognormal (3P)
0.02936
Lognormal (2P)
0.02941
Log-Logistic (3P)
0.03683
We can easily observe Tables 5.1 and 5.2 that, the threeparameter lognormal distribution is the best candidate for
the data. With Kolmogorov Siminov goodness of fit
coefficient of 0.02936, it ranks first and subsequently,
outperforming other competing distributions. Closely
following is as expected the two-parameter lognormal
distribution
and
the
three-parameter
log-logistic
distributions with goodness of fit coefficients of 0.02941and
0.036 respectively. These findings support the theoretical
choice of the model for the robbery claims data. In fact, by
closely examining the distribution and P-P Probability plots
in figures 5.1 and 5.2 the EDA results supports our
analytical choice of the model. On the other hand, a close
look at the Q-Q plot displays in Figure 5.3 demonstrated the
adequacy and suitability of the fitted model but also raised
a cautionary note on possible two possible outlying values
f(x)
0.56
0.48
0.4
0.32
0.24
0.16
0.08
0
0
2E+6
4E+6
x
Histogram
Lognormal (3P)
Figure 5.1: Distribution of Fitted 3-parameter Lognormal Model to the Armed Robbery Insurance Data
P-P Plot
1
0.9
0.8
P (Model)
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
P (Empirical)
Lognormal (3P)
Figure 5.2: P-P Plot 3-Parameter Lognormal Model to Armed Robbery Insurance Data
Q-Q Plot
4.4E+6
4E+6
Quantile (Model)
3.6E+6
3.2E+6
2.8E+6
2.4E+6
2E+6
1.6E+6
1.2E+6
800000
400000
0
0
2E+6
4E+6
x
Lognorm al (3P)
Figure 5.3: Q-Q Plot 3-Parameter Lognormal Model to Armed Robbery Insurance Data
276,651.4
5)
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
VIII APPENDIX
Appendix I Fitting Results
#
Distribution
Parameters
Beta
Cauchy
=33439.0 =27234.0
Chi-Squared
=2.3445E+5
Chi-Squared (2P)
=2.2474E+5 =98.183
Error Function
h=1.2757E-6
Exponential
=4.2653E-6
Exponential (2P)
=4.2672E-6 =106.72
Fatigue Life
=3.071 =40194.0
10
Frechet
=0.6352 =17808.0
11
Frechet (3P)
12
Gamma
=0.17892 =1.3104E+6
13
Gamma (3P)
14
15
Gen. Pareto
16
Gumbel Max
=4.3217E+5 =-15000.0
17
Gumbel Min
=4.3217E+5 =4.8391E+5
18
Inv. Gaussian
=41949.0 =2.3445E+5
19
20
Johnson SB
=2.3157 =0.50188
=5.9222E+6 =-20527.0
21
Laplace
=2.5515E-6 =2.3445E+5
22
Log-Logistic
=0.91777 =43489.0
23
Log-Logistic (3P)
24
Logistic
=3.0559E+5 =2.3445E+5
25
Lognormal
=1.9128 =10.703
26
Lognormal (3P)
27
Normal
=5.5427E+5 =2.3445E+5
28
Pareto
=0.16575 =106.72
29
Pert
30
Power Function
31
Rayleigh
=1.8707E+5
32
Rayleigh (2P)
=4.6280E+5 =-127.0
33
Student's t
=2
34
Triangular
35
Uniform
a=-7.2558E+5 b=1.1945E+6
36
Weibull
=0.6351 =1.0622E+5
37
Weibull (3P)
38
Erlang
No fit
39
Erlang (3P)
No fit
40
Johnson SU
No fit
Appendix II
Goodness of Fit Summary
#
Distribution
Kolmogorov Smirnov
Statistic
Rank
Beta
0.35471
21
2
3
Cauchy
Chi-Squared
0.28305
0.80099
16
36
4
5
Chi-Squared (2P)
Error Function
0.79602
0.50008
35
29
6
7
8
Exponential
Exponential (2P)
Fatigue Life
0.36437
0.36462
0.10061
24
25
8
9
10
11
0.12118
0.084
0.21106
9
5
15
12
13
Gamma
Gamma (3P)
0.30964
0.14627
18
11
14
0.14724
12
15
16
Gen. Pareto
Gumbel
0.15504
0.38074
13
27
17
Gumbel
0.40507
28
18
19
20
Inv. Gaussian
Inv. Gaussian (3P)
Johnson SB
0.19953
0.13214
0.30158
14
10
17
21
22
Laplace
Log-Logistic
0.36295
0.03965
23
4
23
Log-Logistic (3P)
0.03683
24
25
Logistic
Lognormal
0.34066
0.02941
20
2
26
Lognormal (3P)
0.02936
27
Normal
0.33622
19
28
29
Pareto
Pert
0.35501
0.61559
22
32
30
31
Power Function
Rayleigh
0.58063
0.548
31
30
32
Rayleigh
0.72301
34
33
Student's t
0.99996
37
34
35
Triangular
Uniform
0.71756
0.37795
33
26
36
37
Weibull
Weibull (3P)
0.08883
0.08703
7
6
INTRODUCTION
An emerging tourism destination is conceptualised as a geopolitical area where tourism has just been accepted as a
major socio-economic development tool and where the
community has expressed willingness to leverage the
tourism potentials to enhance their socio-economic wellbeing. Every destination has a cycle with unique stages and
characteristics. Examples of destinations that have entered
the maturity stage are United Kingdom (UK), United States
of America (USA), South Africa (SA), Kenya, etc. A good
example of an emerging tourism destination is Nigeria.
Nigeria has just begun taking tourism seriously. The past
nine years has witness a conscious effort by some of the
States (e.g. Cross River, Kebbi, Osun, etc.). Two common
models on destination life cycle are Butlers Destination
Area Cycle Model (Butler, 1980) and Doxey Irredex (
Doxey, 1975). Butlers model gives us an elaborate
understanding of what a destination goes through from the
time the community decides to take tourism as a serious
economic development tool. The Butlers model is linked to
the business/marketing concept of product life cycle. It is
theoretically underpinned on the product life cycle. The
product life cycle is a theory in which sales of a new product
are seen to slowly grow and then experience rapid growth,
before stabilizing and subsequently declining (Esu, 2005).
When applied to tourism destinations, it suggests that
destinations develop and change over time. Butler
Destination Area Cycle Model is made up of a number of
linked stages: exploration, involvement, development,
consolidation, stagnation, and decline (post-stagnation).
II
IMPORTANCE OF PROMOTION TO
DESTINATION MARKETING
Of
Destination
Communication
Advertising
v.
Publicity
Promotional
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
Through
Destination
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
INTRODUCTION
Levine and Zervos (1996) pointed out that the perfect capital
market integration needs the free flow of capital across
international borders to equate the price of risk. If there
exists any capital controls or other barriers impede the
movement of capital, the price of risk tends to be different
internationally.
The issue of financial integration has strong implications on
financial stability. On the one hand, financial integration
would benefit the region through more efficient allocation of
capital, a higher degree of risk diversification, a lower
probability of asymmetric shocks, and a more robust market
framework (Pauer (2005). These effects would help improve
the capacity of the economies to absorb shocks and foster
development. Moreover, financial integration may also
promote financial development and hence enhance
economic growth. The suppliers of capital institutional
investors and/or individual savers receive better returns on
their investments. Capital seekers around the world are
looking beyond their home country's borders for financial
resources. This results in increased integration between the
Stock markets throughout the world. On the other hand,
intensified financial linkages in a world of high capital
mobility may also lead to the financial instability in one
country being transmitted to neighbouring countries more
rapidly.
The main drivers of these stock market interdependencies
are the progressive deregulation of financial markets, the
technological improvements and the development of
investment institutions, such as insurance companies,
pension funds and so on.
Integration is generally opposed to segmentation depending
on whether or not barriers to investment exist between
countries. Barriers to investment are essential factors that
can prevent markets to integrate. Among these factors are
exchange rate risks, legal and tax differences, information
availability, foreign ownership restrictions, homes bias
(Stulz, 1981; Errunza and Losq, 1985).
In this way, the financial world is reshaping itself. New
market structures and practices are need of time due to
financial liberalization and elimination of traditional
regulatory barriers and advancement of technology. We are
marching towards a globally integrated financial world.
Emerging equity markets are attracting the attention of
global fund managers because these offer opportunity for
LITERATURE ON INTEGRATION OF
GLOBAL FINANCIAL MARKETS
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
VIII REFERENCES
15)
1) Adjout K, Danthine J (2003). European Financial
Integration and Equity Returns: A Theory-Based
Assessment. In: Gaspar V, Hartmann P, Slejpen O
(eds.): The transformation of the European
financial system. European Central Bank,
Frankfurt, pp. 185246.
2) Adler, Michel; and Bernard Dumas (1983).
International Portfolio Choice and Corporation
Finance: A Synthesi., Journal of Finance,
Volume38, Issue 3, pp. 925-984.
3) Aggarwal, R; B.M. Lucey and C. Muckley (2003).
Dynamics of Equity Market Integration in Europe.
IIIS Discussion Paper No. 19.
4) Aggarwal, Raj; and Young S Park (1994). The
relationship between daily U.S. and Japanese
equity prices: Evidence from spot versus futures
markets. Journal of Banking & Finance, Volume
18, Issue 4, pp. 757-773.
5) Arshanapalli, B., J. Doukas, and L. Lang, (1995).
Pre- and post-October 1987 stock market linkages
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
31)
32)
47)
48)
49)
50)
51)
52)
53)
54)
Author (s)
Year of
Study
Period
under Study
Tool(s) used
Results
Bertoneche
1979
1969-1976
1989
1980-1985
VAR model
Impulse responses
1990
1977-1985
Simple correlation
analysis
The degree of
correlation between US and Asian
equity returns depended upon the
period specification, whether daily,
weekly or monthly
1991
1972, 1980,
1987
Dynamic System of
Simultaneous
Equations
Kasa
1992
1974-1990
Cointegration Tests
1994
Richards
1995
1970-1994
Cointegration Tests
1995
1982-1991
Granger Causality
Arshanapalli, Doukas,
and Lang
1995
10
1995
1960-1990
International
Covariance,
Correlation Matrices,
Multivariate GARCH
Increase
in
the
international
correlation between markets over the
period under study. The correlation
rises in periods of high volatility
11
1996
1984-1991
Vector error
correction model
(VECM)
No conclusive evidence on
international stock market efficiency
12
Choudhry
1997
1989-1993
Cointegration Tests
13
1997
14
Peiro et al.
1998
USA, Japan
1990-1993
Janakiramanan
and Lamba
1998
16
1999
17
1999
18
Roca
19
1988-1996
VAR Models
Cointegration Tests
1988-1994
Cointegration Tests,
GARCH Model
1999
1974-1995
Cointegration Tests,
Granger Causality Test
2000
1992-1997
Cointegration Tests,
Granger Causality Test
20
2001
1992-1994
Cointegration Tests
Significant interdependencies
between the established OECD and
the Asian markets. The leadership of
the US and UK markets over the short
and long run
21
2001
1997-1998
22
2001
1990-2000
Europe
GARCH
23
Siklos and Ng
2001
Cointegration Tests
24
2002
1990-2000
VAR Technique,
Cointegration Tests,
Standard correlation
tests, Grangercausality test
25
2002
1980-1998
Multivariate
Cointegration Model
26
2002
1995-2000
Cointegration Tests,
Vector Auto
Regressions (VAR)
technique
27
2003
1994-2002
Bivariate and
multivariate cointegration analysis
28
2003
29
2003
30
Yonghyup
31
Error Correction
Model and Directed
Acyclic Graph
1985-2002
Dynamic Integration
Tests, Multilateral
Correlation Analysis,
Haldane-Hall Kalman
Filter Methodolgy
2003
1988-1995
Integration Tests
2003
1990-2000
Integration Tests
32
2004
Granger Causality
33
2004
1997-1998
34
Lamba
2005
1997-2003
Multivariate
Cointegration
Framework
35
Bose
2005
1999-2004
Cointegration Tests,
Stationary Tests,
Granger Causality
36
Kucukcolak
2008
2001-2005
Cointegration Tests
37
2008
2000-2006
Cointegration Tests
INTRODUCTION
A. Data Collection
The scope of the study is the frontline employees of
different restaurant service industries of Dhaka City. Data
were collected using the critical incident technique (CIT), a
systematic procedure for recording events and behavior that
are observed to lead to success or failure on a specific task
(Ronan and Latham 1974), in this case, satisfying the
customer. Using the CIT, data are collected through
structured, open-ended questions and the results are content
analyzed to examine employees perspective of critical
service encounters and to understand, in the context of the
restaurant service industries, the kinds of events and
behaviors that employees believe underlie customer
satisfaction. The research was conducted over 50 sample
units (employees of different restaurants) using the
convenience sampling technique. The restaurant employees
were interviewed and asked to recall critical service
encounters that caused satisfactions or dissatisfaction for
customers of their restaurant. The questions are as follows:
i. When did the incident happen?
ii. What specific circumstances led up to this
situation?
iii. Exactly what did you or your fellow employee say
or do?
iv. What resulted that made you feel the interaction
was satisfying (dissatisfying) from the customers
point of view?
v. What would you or your fellow employee have
said and done? (for dissatisfying incident only)
Percentage
Percentage
Verbal Abuse
42.1%
33.3%
28.9%
Complemented Verbal
25.0%
7.9%
Behaved Cooperatively
16.7%
Disturbing customers
5.3%
16.7%
Physical Abuse
5.3%
Complemented Physically
Uncooperative Behavior
5.3%
Breaking Rules
5.3%
8.3%
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
INTRODUCTION
PROBLEM DEFINITION
M
Jobs
In
11
21
31
12
22
32
Jobs
Out
13
Job stage 1
Available Raw
material
Processing Time
Profit over Time
Due Date
Cost over Time
USING FIS
NR j
MTTF
Machine
Priority
MTBS
Machine
Priority
FR
A. Grouping
Main principle of this grouping algorithm is to perform the
top priority job in the top priority machine. So at the first
step, the top priority job is assigned to the highest priority
machine until it satisfies the target utilization. The target
utilization of machine j at particular stage i is calculated
with the following equations:
(1)
Where, j = 1n
Target Utilization (for machine j at stage i),
T j NR j TPT
Where, Rj
TPT
MTTR
Rj
Rj
(2)
= Priority value of machine j at specific
stage i.
= Total processing time
B. Sequencing
Yes
Satisfy target
in machine 1?
No
Assign the jobs to the second highest
priority machine
Yes
Satisfy target
in machine 2?
No
Assign the jobs to the third highest
priority machine
No
Is it first
assignment?
Yes
%U1>%U2
Yes
No
Assign that job to the highest priority
machine
VI
M11
M31
Jobs In
M12
Jobs Out
M22
M32
M13
M23
Stage 1: 3 machines
Stage 2: 3
machines
Stage 3: 2
machines
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Profit
over time
A
B
C
D
10
7
13
15
15
14
8
13
12
18
14
9
10
15
20
25
Total Processing
time
45
50
53
Job
M21
Due date
Cost
over time
5
7
3
4
60
50
70
80
700
500
800
950
Stage
Machine
MTTR
(min)
MTTF
(min)
MTBS
(day)
FR
(times/day)
1
2
3
1
75
125
100
50
1250
1000
900
1300
20
30
40
10
1
0.5
1.5
0.75
2
3
80
110
800
1150
25
40
0.6
1.2
60
1400
15
0.7
90
1200
12
1.6
Priority values
Stage 2
Stage 1
0.569
Stage 3
0.411
0.5
B
0.469
0.43
C
0.575
0.609
D
0.546
0.596
Table 3. Priority values of different jobs at different stages
Priorities of machines are also determined based on the
reliability of the machines found from the fuzzy inference
system. The machine, which has the highest priority, has
ranked top priority machine at that stage, the machine,
which has second highest priority, has ranked the second top
Stage
1
0.38
0.547
0.626
Machine
Priority
Normalized Priority
Target Utilization
1
2
3
1
2
3
0.543
0.499
0.501
0.511
0.587
0.505
0.532
0.496
0.352
0.323
0.325
0.319
0.366
0.315
0.518
0.482
15.836
14.553
14.611
15.9388
18.3094
15.7517
27.4280
25.5720
1
2
Table 4. Priority values and target utilizations of different machines at different stages
Using the developed algorithm explained in Figure 5, the machine, sequencing of the concerned jobs is also obtained
following table provides the ultimate grouping of the jobs to using the same algorithm. Table 5 shows the schedule of
the machines. For multiple jobs grouped to a single
each job prioritized to be processed in each machine at each
stage.
3
Stage
Machine
Priority
Job
0.543
0.501
0.409
A, B
0.587
0.511
C, A
0.505
0.532
C, B
0.496
D, A
3
Table 5. Schedule of jobs in different machines at different stages
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
VIII
REFERENCES
15)
16)
17)
18)
INTRODUCTION
Income
Poverty Reduction
Economic Growth
Figure 1: Financial Liberalisation Policy, Private Sector Development, and Economic Growth
Figure 1 demonstrates that an improved financial
intermediation is expected to stimulate the level of credit to
the private sector and increase the level of investment and
income, on one hand, and enhance manufacturing capacity
utilisation, on the other hand. The ultimate effect is to
reduce poverty, increase per capita income, and by
extension leads to economic growth. Thus, the contribution
of the private sector to a countrys economic development
will be optimal, if the financial liberalisation policy is well
formulated and managed
IV
METHODOLOGY
HYPOTHESIS
Cant say
4%
Fairly satisfied
28%
Cant say
7%
Cant say
7%
Very satisfied
16%
Fairly satisfied
8%
Very dissatisfied
49%
Fairly dissatisfied
20%
Very
Fairly
dissatisfied
dissatisfied
1%
3%
Very satisfied
64%
GDP
CRP
MCU
MLR
SGD
DGD
1985
9.4
5.9
38.3
11.8
17.0
3.9
1986
3.2
26.7
38.8
12.0
19.0
10.4
1987
-0.6
46.7
40.4
19.2
17.0
5.3
1988
10.0
16.9
42.4
17.6
16.0
8.5
1989
7.3
3.9
43.8
24.6
11.0
7.9
1990
8.3
18.4
40.3
27.7
11.0
8.5
1991
4.7
23.7
42.0
20.8
12.0
11.0
1992
3.0
34.6
38.1
31.2
10.0
10.2
1993
2.3
51.6
37.2
18.3
12.0
15.4
1994
1.3
32.2
30.4
21.0
12.0
7.9
1995
2.2
49.4
29.3
20.8
5.0
0.1
1996
3.4
23.9
36.8
20.8
5.0
1.3
1997
3.2
23.9
37.2
20.9
6.0
1.1
1998
2.4
27.4
34.9
21.8
30.0
-4.8
1999
2.7
29.2
36.0
27.2
30.0
-8.8
2000
5.4
17.5
36.1
26.4
30.0
-1.8
2001
4.7
43.5
59.6
31.2
35.0
-3.1
2002
4.6
19.7
54.9
25.7
4.0
-3.8
2003
9.6
26.8
56.5
21.6
7.0
-2.0
2004
6.6
26.6
55.7
20.4
18.0
-1.5
2005
6.5
30.8
54.8
19.5
19.0
-1.1
2006
5.6
28.2
53.3
18.7
20.0
Source: Central Bank of Nigeria Statistical Bulleting and Annual Reports (Various issues)
-0.6
70
60
Percentage
50
40
30
20
10
0
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
-10
-20
Year
Figure 5: Performance of the Economy, 1985- 2006
Credit to private sector
Capacity Utilisation
Saving/GDP Ratio
Table 2: Ratio of Loans of Small Scale Enterprises to Commercial Banks Total Credit
Year
1992
20,400.0
41,810.0
48.8
1993
15,462.9
48,056.0
32.2
1994
20,552.5
92,624.0
22.2
1995
32,374.5
141,149.0
22.9
1996
42,302.1
169,242.0
25.0
1997
40,844.3
240,782.0
17.0
1998
42,260.7
272,895.5
15.5
1999
46,824.0
353,081.1
13.3
2000
44,542.3
508,302.2
9.7
2001
52,428.4
796,164.8
6.6
2002
82,368.4
954,628.8
8.6
2003
90,176.5
1,210,033.1
7.5
2004
54,981.2
1,519,242.7
3.6
2005
50,672.6
1,899,346.4
2.7
20
05
20
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
19
99
19
98
19
97
19
96
19
95
19
94
19
93
0
0. 0
00 0
,
0
0
.0
2,0 ,000 0
0
.0
0
1,8 0,000 0
0
.0
1,6 ,000 0
.0
00
1,4 0,000 0
0
.0
1,2 ,000 0
0
0
.0
1,0 ,000 0
0
0
8 000. 0
,
0
600 00. 0
0
,
0
400 000. 0
,
0
200 0.0
19
92
Amount(Naira)
Year
Series
GDP
CRP
DGD
MCU
MLR
SGD
Hypothesised
No of CE(s)
None *
At most 1 *
At most 2 *
At most 3
At most 4
At most 5
0.986697
0.900372
0.684002
0.521174
0.429320
0.076770
183.1068
96.71106
50.58480
27.54444
12.81608
1.597545
5 percent
Critical Value
94.15
68.52
47.21
29.68
15.41
3.76
Eigenvalue
Max-Eigen
Statistic
None *
0.986697
86.39579
At most 1*
0.900372
46.12626
At most 2
0.684002
23.04036
At most 3
0.521174
14.72836
At most 4
0.429320
11.21854
At most 5
0.076770
1.597545
* Max-Eigenvalue test indicates 2 cointegrating equations at the 5 per cent level
5 percent
Critical Value
39.37
33.46
27.07
20.97
14.07
3.76
The result of the trace statistics shows that there is the probability that at most two cointegrating vector cannot be rejected
and this is corroborated by the result of max-eigen statistic. From this, it means that there is long run equilibrium among the
variables. The error correction model was used to verify the long run linearity of the model (Table 6).
Table 6: Error Correction Results
Variable
Coefficient
t-statistic
C
-0.078358
-0.427077
DLOG(CRP)
-0.235768
-1.199898
DLOG(DGD)
0.133181
0.491906
DLOG(MCU)
2.169096
0.945819
DLOG(MLR)
-0.471960
-0.585291
DLOG(SGD)
-1.121171
-0.876187
ECM(-1)
-0.259899
-2.078814
From the error correction model result, it was found that this coefficient agrees with theory since it came up with negative
value (-0.259899) indicating that the equilibrium property of the model is ensured. The regression analysis in Table 7
showed the effect of credit to private sector, manufacturing capacity utilisation and other performance indicators on
economic growth, measured by the gross domestic product, during the periods of financial liberalisation in Nigeria.
Table 7: Regression Results of the Performance of the Economy, 1985 2006 Dependent Variable: GDP
Independent Variables
Coefficient
t-statistic
Sign. Level.
C
3.027247
0.973743
0.3447
CRP
-0.145549
-4.139093
0.0008*
MCU
0.151906
3.005900
0.0084*
MLR
-0.038164
-0.428762
0.6738
SGD
-0.001035
0.019842
0.9844
DGD
-0.0061918
0.781316
0.4460
R2
0.642438
Adj. R2
0.530700
F
5.749494
*Significant at 5 per cent level
45
40
Percentage
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Poor
Inf rasruct ure
Regulat ory
inconsist ency
High cost of
f unds
Corrupt ion
Constraints
VII
REFERENCES
INTRODUCTION
ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK
1981
40.00
1982
30.02
1991
18.60
1992
25.44
2001
25.85
2002
28.90
CONCLUSION
VII
REFERENCES
INTRODUCTION
LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Turnover Intentions
Morrell, Loan-Clarke and Wilkinson (2001) defines
turnover as a discontinuous variable characterized by
abrupt change, and a delay rule which reflects the idea that
employees try to stay in employment for as long as possible.
Once employees feel they can no longer stay, they abruptly
change from retention to termination (voluntary turnover).
Karatepe and Kilic (2007) find that workfamily conflict or
familywork conflict had a detrimental effect on job
performance, job satisfaction, affective organizational
commitment, and turnover intentions directly or indirectly.
Richer, Blanchard and Vallerand (2002) posit that work
satisfaction and emotional exhaustion, originating from
work motivation leads to turnover intentions. Batt and
Valcour (2003) adds to the determinants of turnover
previously identified, as their study finds that flexible
scheduling practices, supportive supervisors, job security
and high relative pay were all associated with lower
turnover intentions. West (2007) elucidates that conflict
with a supervisor or management leads to higher turnover
levels and by managing the conflict properly, organizations
may in fact be able to reduce the turnover level. Thaden
(2007) also advocates the need to curtail turnover practices
as per his view, organizational culture change is an
expensive endeavor; however high turnover and poor
performance is likely to cost organizations more over time,
especially as performance measures become harder to
meet. Tenures contribution to the equation emphasizes
IV
VARIABLES INCLUDED
(QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDED)
A. Turnover Intentions
FI GU RE 1 - S CHEMATIC REPRES EN TA TI ON
RES EA RCH MO DEL
Conflicting
Work Life
Policies
H
2
O F THE
H
3
Job
Satisfacti
on
Turnover
Intentions
H
1
III
PARTICIPANTS
C. Job Satisfaction
VI
TABLE 1 - DESCRI PTIVE S TATIS TICS
Me a n
AND
RESULTS
CORRELA TIONS
C onf lic t ing Wor k
L if e Polic ie s
S.D.
J ob
S a tisf a c tion
2.576
.728
Job Satisfaction
2.817
.756
-.687(**)
Turnover Intentions
3.292
.389
.388(**)
-.543(**)
FOR
H1
R square = .151
= .388
t = 4.195
FOR
H1
R square = .151
= .388
t = 4.195
FOR
R square = .295
= -.543
t = -6.438
H3
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
31)
32)
33)
34)
35)
36)
37)
38)
APPENDIX
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
A. The Study
The study is exploratory in nature and makes an effort to
understand the consumer responses to brand placements in
films with respect to male and female population. It aims to
understand the impact of Gender on the difference in
opinions.
B. The Sample
A total sample of 200 respondents was taken for the study
(100 Male & 100 Female). The sample has been drawn from
varied socio-economic groups representing a cross-section
of the population of Indore city. All the respondents were
keen towards the films and had their own views to every
aspect related to films.
C. Data Collection
Primary data has been collected through self- designed,
structured questionnaire, constituting of 26 statements on
non-disguised 5 point Likert Scale.
D. Data Analysis
Z-test has been applied for data analysis. Z values were
calculated to study whether males and females differ in their
perception regarding brands placed in films. The following
null hypothesis was developed.
i. There is no significant difference amongst the
female and male respondents perception
regarding easy identification of brands placed in
movies.
ii. There is no significant difference amongst the
female and male respondents perception of
purchasing the brands/products after watching
the movies.
iii. There is no significant difference amongst the
female and male respondents perception of
brand placement actually promotes the
band/product.
iv. There is no significant difference amongst the
female and male respondents perception of
promoting brand awareness through brand
placement.
v. There is no significant difference amongst the
female and male respondents perception
regarding the product placement in movies
receives a higher processing motivation on the
part of the viewers due to intentional exposure.
vi. There is no significant difference amongst the
female and male respondents perception
regarding the success/ failure of the movie
affects the brand.
i.
MALE RESPONDENTS
(n2=100)
HO
MEAN(X1)
S.D.( p1)
MEAN(X2)
S.D. (p2)
HO1
4.33
0.964574539
4.37
0.90626328
0.3025
HO2
3.24
1.111191916
3.66
1.20788654
2.565
HO3
3.66
1.207886542
2.91
1.17288387
4.46
HO4
3.49
1.150274451
3.26
1.16878595
1.404
HO5
3.46
1.122947061
3.56
0.99818016
0.667
HO6
2.91
1.172883867
3.49
1.15027445
3.582
HO7
3.26
1.168785954
3.46
1.12294706
1.236
HO8
3.34
1.065719276
3.29
1.02784466
0.338
HO9
3.29
1.027844661
3.57
1.0075974
1.9498
HO10
3.57
1.007597402
3.62
1.09894348
3.362
HO11
3.62
1.098943478
3.69
1.11640657
0.4481
HO12
3.41
1.215181742
3.36
1.14168049
0.2122
HO13
3.36
1.141680491
3.6
1.18065211
1.034
HO14
3.37
1.001564433
3.68
1.04330477
2.145
HO15
3.68
1.043304773
3.3
1.14150353
1.447
HO16
3.3
1.141503527
3.52
1.3444987
1.248
HO17
3.52
1.344498705
3.73
1.08110493
1.2195
REFERENCES
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
INTRODUCTION
SYSTEMIC RISK
The current debate on TBTF raises the issue that such banks
should be made smaller. The case for this is strong when
considering the Icelandic banks, which could not be rescued
by their government since they had outgrown their own
countrys GDP. In the last decade, these banks grew from
being domestic lenders to international lenders. During the
expansion, they acquired foreign assets of almost ten times
the countrys GDP (from two times GDP in 2003).
Furthermore, almost 80% of these assets were in foreign
currency, making them extremely vulnerable to foreign
exchange volatility. When the bubble burst the only course
of action available to prevent the collapse of the banking
system (and thereby the economy) was an IMF emergency
loan. However, these banks were not a major threat to the
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
1,157,248
12.82
8.70
1,198,942
11.09
8.50
1,351,520
11.44
8.70
1,562,147
12.19
8.40
2,175,052
14.48
10.90
1,110,432
12.37
8.20
1,291,803
11.94
8.25
1,459,737
11.77
8.64
1,715,746
11.55
6.87
1,817,943
12.54
9.15
1,484,101
13.4
8.74
1,494,037
13.56
8.79
1,884,318
14.68
8.59
2,187,480
17.53
7.12
1,938,470
22.37
11.92
588,122
18.26
7.00
776,827
19.68
7.60
871,432
21.78
7.50
1,840,829
29.08
7.30
2,401,652
37.91
10.00
1,279,974
14.46
8.90
1,501,970
15.63
9.00
1,860,758
16.75
9.40
2,354,266
17.82
9.30
2,527,465
22.01
8.30
427,849
11.27
8.41
481,741
11.63
8.26
481,996
11.23
8.95
575,442
11.41
7.59
1,309,639
16.4
7.84
187,281 192,993.20
25.05
24.18
7.59
7.60
912,915
17.46
7.71
1,049,632
17.4
9.10
531,379
20.02
No data
706,804
24.12
No data
838,201
26.21
No data
1,119,796
27.05
No data
884,547
22.88
15.60
1,002,503
29.49
7.50
1,258,079
30.95
7.60
1,440,343
31.46
7.40
1,694,454
34.03
7.30
2,075,551
42
7.80
538,181
30.44
7.60
924,357
43.93
6.90
996,787
51.61
7.70
1,227,361
51.62
7.80
2,052,980
54.76
8.60
1,121,192
31.83
No data
1,045,409
33.63
No data
658,812
27.56
17.90
1,021,835
19.19
6.55
1,045,612
18.35
6.66
102,215.20
108.7
6.03
898,523
28.68
No data
149,880 154,412.10
36.81
38.85
6.96
7.40
876,391
36.46
7.30
1,158,639
33.47
7.32
1,226,307
31.8
7.63
1,312,510
33.64
7.39
1,331,663
40.97
9.32
840,068
30.38
8.60
992,161
32.81
8.70
1,584,493
41.1
8.50
2,020,349
51.64
8.60
2,202,423
62.33
10.10
601,355
32.46
7.69
835,134
34.64
7.57
956,841
34.4
7.82
1,071,762
36.04
6.62
1,130,003
34.77
7.88
1,089,485
1,339,052
1,255,956
1,360,680
1,170,350
Bank
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
UBS
Total Assets 1,087,552 1,253,297 1,181,118 1,386,000 1,737,118 2,058,348
Financial Leverage
27.49
26.49
29.5
34.49
45.01
48.69
Tier 1 / Core
No data
11.60
11.30
11.80
11.90
12.80
Commerzbank
Total Assets
454,904
501,312
422,134
381,585
424,877
444,861
Financial Leverage
34.85
39.38
44.9
44.9
42.79
38.73
Tier 1 / Core
6.50
6.20
7.30
7.30
7.50
8.10
Fortis Bank
Total Assets 438,082.70 482,875.10
485,668 523,364.20 614,085.30 728,994.50
Financial Leverage
29.41
31.82
39.49
44.68
41.9
39.2
Tier 1 / Core
7.30
8.50
8.20
7.90
8.30
7.40
HBOS
Total Assets
N/A
312,071
355,030
408,413
448,165
540,873
Financial Leverage
N/A
N/A
27.42
26.99
26.91
28.92
Tier 1 / Core
No data
7.90
7.90
7.60
7.90
8.10
Dexia
Total Assets
257,726
351,250
350,692
349,463
388,787
508,761
Financial Leverage
42.6
41.28
40.82
38.42
33.46
32.98
Tier 1 / Core
9.30
9.30
9.30
9.90
10.00
10.30
Lloyds TSB Group
Total Assets
219,113
235,793
252,561
252,012
284,422
309,754
Financial Leverage
21.24
22.32
26.69
28.72
25.95
27.97
Tier 1 / Core
8.20
8.40
7.70
9.50
8.20
7.90
KBC Group
Total Assets
187,658 227,759.20 221,730.50 225,586.80
285,163
325,801
Financial Leverage
34.42
31.21
28.16
25.45
23.78
21.76
Tier 1 / Core
9.50
8.80
8.83
9.54
10.07
9.40
Allied Irish Bank
Total Assets
80,250
89,359
85,821
80,960
101,109
133,214
Financial Leverage
17.14
17.27
19.34
18.28
17.04
18.87
Tier 1 / Core
6.30
6.50
6.90
7.10
8.20
7.20
Anglo Irish Bank
Total Assets 11,047.30
15,776 19,417.80 25,520.10 34,339.80
48,413
Financial Leverage
32.27
32.75
29.29
27.73
21.32
20.56
Tier 1 / Core
32.27
32.75
29.29
27.73
21.32
20.56
Bank Of Ireland
Total Assets
68,017
78,875
87,298
89,303
106,431
127,780
Financial Leverage
20.09
20.79
20.84
21.56
23.58
27.41
Tier 1 / Core
7.40
7.80
7.60
8.00
7.20
7.90
Irish Nationwide Building Soc
Total Assets
No data
No data
5,574.75
5,953.20
8,554.10 10,994.50
Financial Leverage
No data
No data
12.29
11.01
10.97
11.60
Tier 1 / Core
No data
No data
11.00
11.59
10.07
13.71
GDP $ millions
US
14,264,600
Japan
4,923,761
Germany
3,667,513
France
2,865,737
UK
2,674,085
Italy
2,313,893
Spain
1,611,767
Netherlands
868,940
Belgium
506,392
Switzerland
492,595
Ireland
273,248
Source: IMF
A strong conclusion from this experience is that any
potential TBTF bank needs, in effect, either to be capped in
size or otherwise divested of some of its business lines.
There are practical difficulties with doing this. The first is
selecting the metric to use to determine whether a bank is
2006
2007
2008
2,396,511
47.54
11.90
2,274,891
53.97
9.10
2,014,815
61.81
11.00
608,278
39.09
6.70
616,474
41.7
7.00
625,196
36.11
10.10
775,229
38.01
7.10
871,179
30.66
No data
92,870
24.2
No data
591,813
29.94
8.10
666,947
29.87
7.70
689,917
40.08
6.00
566,743
37.15
9.80
604,564
40.29
9.10
651,006
67.66
10.60
343,598
30.6
8.20
353,346
29.92
8.10
436,033
36.66
8.00
325,400
19.86
8.70
355,597
19.81
7.40
355,317
22.53
7.20
158,526
19.74
8.20
177,862
19.29
7.50
182,143
20.26
7.40
73,290
25.29
25.29
96,652
25.23
25.23
101,321
24.21
24.21
162,212
30.67
7.50
188,813
29.47
8.20
197,434
29.24
8.10
14,629
11.61
No data
16,099.10
11.18
8.60
14,429.30
11.31
7.40
MACROPRUDENTIAL REGULATION
Ibid.
Lehman Brothers was capitalised at 11% at the time of its collapse, a
level that was acceptable to regulatory authorities while it was still in
operation.
6
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
INTRODUCTION
C. Pharmaceutical Branding
III
CONCLUSIONS
KeywordsE-government,
Technology-Readiness
I
Demand
and
Supply,
INTRODUCTION
The tables below refer to some of the numerous egovernment reports and rankings produced by global
consultancy firms eager for government-related work and
extract some pertinent statistics. These statistics, however,
have to be treated cautiously, due to the great variation in
methodology and purpose of such reports.
Table 1 below clearly shows that the rankings achieved by
different countries as regards e-government readiness is a
clear function of their respective investments in developing
Web-based Government, investment in Telecommunications
Infrastructure and the quality of their human resources. The
low rankings of China and India are understandable by
virtue of their being developing countries with much to
catch up in terms of Web development, investment in
Telecommunications and in their human resources. The
relatively backward position of Japan vis--vis other
developed countries, however, clearly explains the
hypothesis that these 3 ingredients (i.e. investment in Webbased government, telecommunications and human
resources) being essential for any substantive progress to be
achieved for e-government to really pick up. These 3
fundamental factors together may in fact have a mutually
supportive and multiplier effect on e-government take-up
both by government departments and their citizenscustomers.
Table 2. Taylor Nelson Sofres assessment by country of What is the level of government online use in 2002?
Government organizations are - to varying extents different from other types of organizations. While the
precise nature of such differences - and the extent to which
they have changed with public management reforms of the
last twenty years - might be debated - most commentators
would concur upon a general list which would include size;
the lack of a 'bottom line' in terms of threat of bankruptcy;
accountability; separation of policy and administration;
public visibility; and the monopoly of some functions. One
may expect that these characteristics could lead to
distinctive barriers to the 'supply' of e-government. In the
1950s and 1960s, in many countries, government
organizations led the field in information technology (IT)
provision but progressively slipped from that role and
have - in general - experienced more problems with largescale IT systems than other types of organization (Bellamy
and Taylor, 1998). This troubled history could shape their
approach to technology in general and to the development of
web-based technologies in particular. Apart from the
historical perspective, this section of the paper identifies a
number of 'supply-side' barriers to the development of egovernment that are particularly applicable to government
organizations. First, it identifies barriers deriving from
organizational cultures, second barriers derived from
7
i.
VI
Formality
Hierarchy
D. Solemnity of Government
Government Exclusion
Web
Sites
and
Ready
for Initial
Identification of barriers is one step towards e-government the second is, of course, to overcome them. Overcoming
barriers may have to involve tackling the barriers at the
heart of resistance to e-government. This section includes
some suggestions for ways round the obstacles outlined
above.
CONCLUSIONS
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
REFERENCES
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
31)
32)
33)
34)
35)
INTRODUCTION
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Stakeholders
Innovation Process
Sustainable Development
Agents
- Influences environments.
- Environmental changes
through the agents.
Strategies
Development
and
implementation of new ideas
from the stakeholders.
- Co-production:
Active
participation
innovation process
adapt
Manage
more
responsible
the production with the insertion of
Environmental Responsibility.
I - Insertion of in the products of
attributes that are not only economic.
- Growth/ incorporation of the - Turning the organizations Green.
- There is a need of a transformation
Change Process
environmental issue.
of the behavior of individuals,
groups,
organizations,
interorganizations and society based on
the double learning or inside the
learning.
Integrations and paradoxes: Stakeholders, Innovation Process and Sustainable Development.
Product
Management
in
- Environmental issues are integrated in the process of product development generating competitive advantages;
Not only economic and financial gains in every business
Accept economic-financial losses in the short term in order to have gains in the long term radical changes
The stakeholders demands impute to the organizations legal sanctions or forms of explicit or implicit manifestation of non-conformity
to their expectations;
- Increase of the continuous flow of information, knowledge and perception of interests regarding environmental problems as well as
options of solutions;
- Sustainable development as a change of the organizations strategical principals;
- Progress of the sustainable action involves collective problems and the identification of technologies and other necessary innovations;
- Organizations that seek or not an understanding with their stakeholders and incorporate the issues of sustainable development and
innovation process can be built and implemented although with radical changes. but with radical changes.
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
INTRODUCTION
II
Knowledge
Creation
Knowledge
Storage and
Retrieval
Knowledge
Distribution
Knowledge
Application
Knowledge Creation
Northern NGOs
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
CONCLUSION
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
V
REFERENCES
17.
1.
INTRODUCTION
LITERATURE REVIEW
Figure 1. Research Model of The Role of Life Skills Training on Self Efficacy, Self Esteem, Life Interest and Role
Behavior for Unemployed Youth
Hypothesis
Based on the research model, this study hypothesis that:
H1. There is difference of self-efficacy from unemployed
youth before and after training.
H2. There is difference of self-esteem from unemployed
youth before and after training.
H3. There is difference of life interest from unemployed
youth before and after training.
H4. There is difference of role behavior from unemployed
youth before and after training.
III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A. Sample Profile
In relation to sample profile, Table 1 shows that the majority
respondent characteristics were females (80,0%), ages
between 24 to 25 years old (70,6%) and drop out
diploma/university 56,2.
Table 2Comparison Group: Self Efficacy, Self Esteem, Life Interest and Role Behavior t test Pre and Postintervention
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
REFERENCES
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
11) Dharmmesta, B.S. (1992), Riset tentang Minat dan
Perilaku; Sebuah Catatan dan Tantangan bagi
27)
28)
29)
30)
31)
32)
33)
34)
35)
36)
37)
38)
39)
40)
INTRODUCTION
II
Net result
Owners' capital
the formula:
and quantifies the
remuneration of capital invested by shareholders, including
the net profit at the disposal of the enterprise for self
financing (Lumby, Jones, 2003).
The reasons for which were chosen the return on equity as
first variable took into account the fact that, as the intention
was to design a parameter of financial performance, we
appreciate it as being the most relevant parameter of this
variable, ensuring the best predictions, a fact demonstrated
also by Zmijewski (1983) in a study performed on 75
enterprises filing for bankruptcy, and 3.573 non-bankrupt
enterprises; also, for the owner, this is the most expressive
parameter for measuring the result as it is superior (as
compared to owners concern) to economic profitableness,
to expenses or turnover. On the other hand, it is a parameter
widely used by Romanian banks when performing the
analysis of enterprise worthiness, for example Raiffeisen
Bank and the Commercial Bank.
General leverage ( Gig ) calculated as follows:
Gig
Total debts
Own assets
general
liquidity
( Rlg )
computed
as:
Table 1. Ranking of the enterprise after the financial performance in 2007 (a priori sample)
Enterprise
Appreciation
Interval P f
P f score
CONSTRUCII AVRAM IANCU SRL
ARCADA COMPANY SA
CONFORT SA
ARCADA SRL
SOREX SA
VEGA 93 SRL
CONSAL SRL
MOLDOVULCAN SA
CONSTRUCII I REPARAII SA
ICMRS SA
CONSTRUCII FEROVIARE SA
10.693
6.688
5.872
5.708
4.879
2.449
1.852
1.788
1.047
0.945
0.028
Pf
4,25
P
1,25 f <
2,75
Enterprise has a
financial performance
P
-0,25 f <
1,25
satisfactory
Table 2. Ranking of the enterprise after the financial performance in 2008 (a priori sample)
Enterprise
Appreciation
Interval P f
P f score
ARCADA SRL
CONSAL SRL
VEGA 93 SRL
ARCADA COMPANY SA
SOREX SA
9.555
6.565
6.131
5.934
5.021
Pf
3.865
2,75
Pf
< 4,25
MOLDOVULCAN SA
1.792
1,25
Pf
< 2,75
CONFORT SA
ICMRS SA
CONSTRUCII FEROVIARE SA
1.093
0.428
-0.332
-3.463
-0,25
Pf
< 1,25
CONSTRUCII I REPARAII SA
Pf
4,25
< -0,25
Enterprise
Table 3. Ranking of the enterprise after the financial performance in 2007 (a posteriori sample)
Appreciation
Interval P f
P f score
DRUMURI I PODURI SA
VIVA CONSTRUCT SRL
TRIPLEX SRL
COMTIEM SRL
KATY SRL
CIVICA SA
BAZA SRL
12.177
8.210
6.774
5.014
3.960
3.766
3.385
BRICO SRL
VLCEANA SA
UNICOM SA
Pf
4,25
2,75
Pf
< 4,25
1.667
1,25
Pf
< 2,75
-0.477
Pf
< -0,25
Table 4. Ranking of the enterprise after the financial performance in 2008 (a posteriori sample)
Enterprise
Appreciation
Interval P f
P f score
11.056
BAZA SRL
9.231
TRIPLEX SRL
7.345
COMTIEM SRL
5.225
CIVICA SA
4.346
KATY SRL
3.531
VLCEANA SA
1.598
BRICO SRL
DRUMURI I PODURI SA
UNICOM SA
P f 4,25
2,75 P f <
4,25
1.472
1,25 P f <
2,75
-2.191
P f < -0,25
CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
REFERENCES
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
INTRODUCTION
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Table 1: results related to financial statements archive exiting at the websites of corporations listed in TSE.
Name of
Total number of corporations
Total number of corporations having
industry
having basic financial statements
attached notes with financial statements
Coal
extraction
Metal
are
extraction
Mass
production of
properties
banks,
institutes and
other
organizations
automobile &
construction of
segments
Computer &
related
activities
other products
of nonmetal
other financial
mediators
Financial
investments
cement, lime,
chalk
Industrial
multifold
oil products,
coke nuclear
fuel
basic metals
sugar & cube
sugar
Tile
and
ceramic
Machinery &
equipment
Wooden
products
Chemical
products
Food
&
beverage
products
2001
and
before
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2001
and
before
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
1p
1p
1p
1p
1p
1p
1p
2p
1p
1p
1p
1p
1J
1P
1J
4P
1J
3P
1J
1J
1J
4P
1J
2P 1J
2P
2P
2P
2P
2P
2P
2P
2P
2P
2P
1J
1J
1P
1P
2P
2P
1W
2P
1W
2P
1W
2P
1W
2P
2P
2P
2P
2P
2P
2P
1P
2P
3P
2P
1P
1P
1P
2P
2P
1P
1P
2P
1P
1P
2P
2P
3P
1P
1P
1P
1P
1P
1H
1P
1H
1P
1H
3P
1H
1P
1H
1P
1P
1P
1P
1P
1P
1P
1P
1P
1P
1P
1P
1P
1P
1P
1P
1H
1H
1H
1H
1H
1P
1P
2P
1P
1P
1P
2P
1H
1H
1H
1P
1P
1P
2P
5P
3P
1P
1P
1P
2P
4P
3P
1J
1J
1H
1J
1P
1H
1P
1H
1J
1P
1J
1P 1J
1P
1P
1P
1P
1P
1P
1P
1P
2P
2P
3P
2P
1P
1P
1H
1H
2H
3H
16P
19P 33P
8P
25P
3H
6H
6H
11P
13P
24P
7P 1J
1J
6H
6P
6P
17P 1J
2J
2J
2J
1J
2J
1J
1W
1J
1W
1W
1W
Notes; p =Portable Document Format; H=Hypertext Markup Language; W= Word; and J=IPEG
-
All industries
Number
406
303
64
8
31
406
106
121
106
103
242
12
Per cent
252
62.10
42 p+11 H+3 j
10.30 P+2.70H+0.7 J
43 P+8 H+3 J
36 P+3 H+3 J
36 P+2 H
7 P+1 X
32 P+2 J
34
32 P+2 J
34
1
60
8.90 P+0.5 H
1.70 P+0.2 H
7.90 P+0.5 J
8.40
7.90 P+0.5 J
8.40
0.2
14.80
100.00
74.60
15.80
2.00
7.60
100.00
26.10
29.80
26.10
25.40
59.60
3.00
IV
Results Research
of this
study
Iran America
Percent Percent
of 84.20 100
Existence
website
site map
search box
News summaries
Links to news
summaries
Information
related
to
corporations
activities
Customer profile
employee profile
Introduction or
advertising
corporation
products
and
services
Balance sheet
Profit & loss
statements
Cash
flow
research of
Marston &
polie (2004)
England Canada
Percent percent
100
100
Australia American
percent
Percent
100
100
England
percent
96.67
Canada Australia
percent percent percent
100
100
100
research
(2005)
of
khadore
Malaysia Singapore
percent
percent
75
87
26.10
29.80
26.10
25.4
74
86
100
24
52
82
98
10
74
66
100
10
60
64
98
2
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
77
70
Un
Un
19
47
Un
60
82
38
Un
64
59.6
98
96
100
98
83.3
36.7
93.3
73.3
Un
84
87
3
2.5
62.1
4
2
Un
6
40
Un
4
4
Un
0
0
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
11
Un
Un
Un
71
Un
Un
46
13.7
13.3
98
98
98
98
100
100
100
100
70
70
46.7
46.7
76.7
83.3
20
23.3
98
98
63
60
80
80
10.3
92
96
100
100
70
46.7
73.3
16.7
98
59
67
9.4
1.9
90
92
96
10
100
98
100
10
70
Un
46.7
Un
73.3
Un
16.7
Un
98
95
57
25
80
21
84
8.4
8.4
96
Un
Un
98
Un
Un
100
Un
Un
98
Un
Un
60
Un
Un
43.3
Un
Un
56.7
Un
Un
13.3
Un
Un
98
Un
Un
48
Un
Un
69
Un
Un
0.2
68
56
62
60
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
14.8
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
5.7
90
90
74
66
Un
Un
Un
Un
93
Un
Un
18.2
98
98
100
98
Un
Un
Un
Un
84
63
80
18.9
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
6.4
98
94
96
96
70
56.7
70
33.3
48
67
5.2
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
28
33
Results of annual
general congress
3.4
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Prediction
of
analysts (include
buying / selling /
operations/EPS
/Budget
Determination of
last updating
Current
share
price
Weekly monthly
selling
of
operations
Financial
calendar
e-mail to contact
9.8
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
4.9
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
7.9
96
96
92
68
Un
Un
Un
Un
93
25
38
0.5
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
64.5
60
74
68
40
Un
Un
Un
Un
100
33
41
Fax &
number
phone
61.8
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
98
37
38
Post address of
corporation
62.1
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
80
35
38
English version
of the page
60.6
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
95
Un
Un
CONCLUSION
Research limitations
The limitations of the study as follows
1) Items of the checklist are limited in comparison
with basic researches like, research of (FASB).
2) The websites of 39 corporations were inaccessible
because websites of some corporations were in
reconstruction and because of problems related to
the disconnection of internet and servers this was
very different.
RECOMMENDATIONS
12)
13)
14)
15)
VII
REFERENCES
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
INTRODUCTION
METHODOLOGY ADOPTED
DATA ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDATIONS
REFERENCES
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
Variables
p (1 t)
p (1 t)
X1
X2
X4
X5
X3
U-R
p (2 t)
3.37
<0.0001
3.20
0.0023
0.16
0.1039
3.39
<0.0001
2.93
0.1677
0.45
<0.0001
2.93
0.1970
3.78
<0.0001
-0.85
<0.0001
4.02
<0.0001
3.86
<0.0001
0.16
0.0451
<0.0001
X6
0.6315
2.69
<0.0001 2.73
-0.05
Stickiness to a brand if find a
good one.
3.33
<0.0001 4.03
<0.0001 -0.71 <0.0001
U = Mean Urban, R = Mean Rural, p (1 t) = p value one tailed, and p (2 t) = p value two tailed.
Variables
X1
X2
X3
X4
X5
X6
F ratio
R/U
(df =1)
IG
(df =4)
R/U*IG
(df =4)
2.793
12.513*
0.232
0.485
1.694
1.340
43.490*
1.168
0.183
4.825*
0.589
1.131
0.249
0.391
1.331
30.968*
1.192
0.976
R/U = Rural-Urban, IG = Income Group, and R/U*IG= Two-way interaction between R/U and IG.
S. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Variables
X1
X2
X3
X4
X5
X6
Constant
S.
No.
Variables
X7
X8
X9
X 10
X 11
X 12
0.638
0.579
-0.358
-0.159
-0.129
0.038
U-R
p (2 t)
3.73
<0.0001
3.08
0.1281
0.65
<0.0001
3.89
<0.0001
3.14
0.0168
0.75
<0.0001
2.76
0.0024
3.87
<0.0001
-1.10
<0.0001
3.75
<0.0001
3.09
0.0978
0.66
<0.0001
3.70
<0.0001
4.22
<0.0001
-0.52
<0.0001
3.67
<0.0001
3.07
0.1968
0.60
<0.0001
U = Mean Urban, R = Mean Rural, p (1 t) = p value one tailed, and p (2 t) = p value two tailed.
S.
No.
X7
X8
X9
X 10
X 11
X 12
R/U*IG
(df =4)
1.793
42.021*
2.738*
1.078
75.561*
0.610
1.031
27.865*
1.401
1.093
25.578*
0.477
3.65*
18.089*
1.088
0.172
R/U = Rural-Urban, IG = Income Group, and R/U*IG= Two-way interaction between R/U and IG.
S. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Variables
X7
X8
X9
X 10
X 11
X 12
Constant
Standardized Canonical
Discriminant Function
Coefficients
-0.225
-0.354
0.708
-0.216
0.399
-0.192
Variables
X1
X2
X4
X5
X6
S.
No.
X1
X2
X3
X4
X5
X6
Structure Matrix
X9
X8
X 10
X7
X 11
X 12
S.
No.
X3
Unstandardized Canonical
Discriminant
Function
Coefficients
-0.214
-0.404
0.705
-0.222
0.469
-0.181
-0.681
U-R
p (2 t)
3.37
<0.0001
3.20
0.0023
0.16
0.1039
3.39
<0.0001
2.93
0.1677
0.45
<0.0001
2.89
0.0877
3.76
<0.0001
-0.87
<0.0001
4.02
<0.0001
4.00
<0.0001
0.02
0.8182
2.69
<0.0001
2.76
0.0004
-0.07 0.4779
Stickiness to a brand if find a
good one.
3.33
<0.0001
3.65
<0.0001 -0.32 0.0012
U = Mean Urban, R = Mean Rural, p (1 t) = p value one tailed, and p (2 t) = p value two tailed.
Table R 1.1 Brand Decisions (F ratio).
F ratio
R/U
IG
R/U*IG
(df =1)
(df =4)
(df =4)
More than one preferred brand.
2.793
-0.232
1.694
To change brand for the sake of variety and novelty.
12.513*
0.485
1.340
Your choice of brand was/will be largely based on price.
45.086*
1.070
0.152
Quality as a primary concern.
0.435
0.409
1.023
Buying what friends buy.
0.442
0.367
1.282
Stickiness to a brand if find a good one.
7.335*
0.658
0.218
R/U = Rural-Urban, IG = Income Group, and R/U*IG= Two-way interaction between R/U and IG.
Variables
S. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.640
-0.496
-0.397
-0.359
0.356
-0.328
Variables
X1
X2
X3
X4
X5
X6
Constant
Standardized Canonical
Discriminant Function
Coefficients
-0.265
-0.459
0.812
-0.117
0.247
0.242
Unstandardized Canonical
Discriminant
Function
Coefficients
-0.259
-0.451
0.756
-0.133
0.244
0.240
-1.205
Structure Matrix
X3
0.807
X2
-0.445
X6
0.319
X1
-0.161
X5
0.071
X4
-0.022
S.
No.
Variables
X7
X8
X9
X 10
X 11
X 12
S.
No.
X7
X8
X9
X 10
X 11
X 12
3.79
<0.0001
3.15
0.0205
U-R
p (2 t)
0.64
<0.0001
4.01
<0.0001
3.42
<0.0001
0.59
Most of the brands in this product class
are all alike quality wise
2.70
0.0003
3.93
<0.0001
-1.23
Buying of one of the most advertised
brands.
3.80
<0.0001
3.47
<0.0001
0.33
Importance of other features than
brand.
3.73
<0.0001
4.24
<0.0001
0.51
The brand makes a lot of difference to
you.
3.94
<0.0001
3.19
0.0077
0.75
U = Mean Urban, R = Mean Rural, p (1 t) = p value one tailed, and p (2 t) = p value two tailed.
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0005
<0.0001
<0.0001
S. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Variables
X7
X8
X9
X 10
X 11
X 12
Constant
Standardized Canonical
Discriminant Function
Coefficients
-0.333
-0.231
0.750
-0.057
0.400
-0.310
Variables
X1
X4
X5
X3
Structure Matrix
X9
X 12
X8
X7
X 11
X 10
S.
No.
X2
Unstandardized
Canonical Discriminant
Function Coefficients
-0.310
-0.242
0.716
-0.060
0.461
-0.293
-0.980
0.691
-0.416
-0.369
-0.351
0.348
-0.204
U-R
p (2 t)
3.43
<0.0001
3.17
0.0076
0.25
0.0121
3.43
<0.0001
2.82
0.0056
0.61
<0.0001
3.29
<0.0001
4.09
<0.0001
-0.79
<0.0001
4.07
<0.0001
3.96
<0.0001
0.11
0.1909
3.33
<0.0001
3.67
<0.0001
-0.34
0.0007
2.69
<0.0001
2.72
<0.0001
-0.03
0.7415
U = Mean Urban, R = Mean Rural, p (1 t) = p value one tailed, and p (2 t) = p value two tailed.
Table A 1.1 Brand Decisions (F ratio).
S.
No.
Variables
X1
X2
X3
X4
X5
X6
F ratio
R/U
(df =1)
7.957*
21.796*
3.841
4.461*
10.394*
0.166
IG
(df =4)
0.140
0.383
1.000
0.481
0.979
0.608
R/U*IG
(df =4)
2.117
0.821
0.078
2.371
0.473
1.877
R/U = Rural-Urban, IG = Income Group, and R/U*IG= Two-way interaction between R/U and IG.
S. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
S.
No.
X7
X8
X9
X 10
X 11
X 12
Variables
X1
X2
X3
X4
X5
X6
Constant
0.721
-0.405
-0.349
0.299
0.155
-0.040
S.
No.
Variables
X7
X8
X9
X 10
X 11
X 12
R/U*IG
(df =4)
p (2 t)
0.0880
0.0010
<0.0001
0.0029
0.5488
0.0001
S. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
S.
No.
Variables
X7
X8
X9
X 10
X 11
X 12
Constant
Variables
PC
(df =2)
R/U*
PC
(df =2)
X1
11.145*
0.029
0.254
X2
76.233*
0.172
0.751
66.410*
5.249*
0.051
X4
4.071*
1.011
0.748
X5
7.153*
81.885*
2.683
X6
38.600*
110.260*
11.643*
X7
65.669*
16.305*
6.669*
X8
111.169*
18.576*
6.765*
X9
273.069*
10.415*
5.864*
X 10
60.494*
9.254*
4.784*
X 11
52.943*
17.302*
9.608*
X 12
94.964*
22.778*
3.220*
X3
R/U = Rural-Urban, PC = Product Category, and R/U*PC= Two-way interaction between R/U and PC.
Keywords-
INTRODUCTION
[2]
[3]
[5]
Fig. 1 Table of criteria proposed for the substantiation of the modernization projects
Modern tendencies in the organization of these projects
require the definition, from the very project design stage, of
the responsibilities corresponding to each existing phase or
stage, as well as the definition of deadlines associated with
this phase/stage, aware of the fact that any delay may affect
the global result of the project. In the case of the
modernization projects, time is an extremely important
variable to which the project team must permanently relate.
Starting with the identification stage of the modernization
needs and until the project completion, time must be
carefully justified due to aspects such as:
i. If modernization implies the seizing of a market
opportunity, then the project identification, design,
implementation and completion time must perfectly
correlate with the existence of the respective
opportunity;
ii. If modernization implies a technological transfer,
namely the implementation of a new technological
solution, then the identification and implementation
of the optimum solution must be carried out as
soon as possible, since the optimum notion is
time-limited;
iii. The delays with respect to the time needed for the
completion of a modernization project can cause
changes in the projects substantiation conditions
taking into account that certain considered
premises may no longer be relevant.
In my opinion, special attention should be paid to the
quantification of all the modernization project's parameters,
as well as to the determination of the measuring units both
for the needed efforts and for the anticipated effects. If the
solution to the problems related to the economic and
financial elements can be easily found (the current
assessment systems include numerous quantification
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
INTRODUCTION
VI
ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUE
c x
j 1
Max E (Z) =
(1)
a x
Subject to:
i 1 j 1
T-Yr+-Yr - 0
ij
bi
(2)
(3)
PrY-r =
(4)
= (M
0);
X, Y > 0
Where E (Z)=expected returns of the plan or solution to the
plan in Cj; cj =expected returns of activity j; Xj = level of
c
n
Yr =
j 1
ij
c j x j
S 2
2
S
Std Deviation =
(5)
S 1 Crj CJ X j
Follows;
Dj =
(6)
1 n
Dj
n
j
1
D=
(7)
ZONE A
2.49
ZONE B
4.4687
ZONE C
3.6154
ZONE D
2.8I68
300.00
380.00
214.82
270.54
71,038.46
60,331.3
37907.69
41,442.1
145.908
118.944
92.484
144.569
32,416.22
27,767.78
36,795.80
43,576.1
NORMATIVE SITUATION
PLANS
RETURNS
YAM(Ha)
MZE(Ha)
GNC(Ha)
MZE/GNC(Ha)
RICE(Ha)
GNT(Ha)
CSV (Ha)
CWP (Ha)
MZE/CSV
PLAN
TOTAL
CROPPED AREA
CROPPED AREA
RISK LEVEL
RISK MINIMIZING
I
II
288,793.4
296,050
0.4828
0.4778
(29.44)
(29.13)
___
___
___
___
___
___
____
0.0632
(3.85)
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
0.4828
0.5410 (32.99)
(29.44)
1.64
1.64
33246
45000
III
311,489.9
0.4671
(28.48)
___
___
___
0.1912
(11.66)
___
___
___
___
0.6583
(40.14)
1.64
70000
IV
330,015.5
0.4541
(27.69)
___
___
___
0.3506
(21.38)
___
___
___
___
0.8047
(49.07)
1.64
100000
PROFIT MAXIMAZING
VI
370,257.4
0.4263
(25.99)
___
___
___
0.7095
(43.26)
___
___
___
___
1.1358
(69.26)
1.64
165167.06
V
360,891.4
0.4328
(26.39)
___
___
___
0.6280
(38.29)
___
___
___
___
1.0608
(64.68)
1.64
150000
600000
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Original Frontier
Frontier With Increased Capital
400000
Return
Value
500000
300000
200000
100000
29000
31000
33000
35000
37000
39000
41000
43000
45000
Risk Level
330,000.00
310,000.00
290,000.00
270,000.00
Return
Value
Original Frontier
Frontier With Increased Capital
250,000.00
230,000.00
210,000.00
190,000.00
170,000.00
150,000.00
25000
27000
29000
31000
33000
35000
37000
39000
41000
Risk Level
350000
300000
XII
Return
Value
250000
200000
Original Frontier
Frontier With Increased Capital
150000
100000
50000
0
26000
26500
27000
27500
28000
28500
29000
29500
Risk Level
250000
Return
Value
200000
Original Frontier
Frontier With Increased Capital
150000
100000
50000
20500
21000
21500
22000
22500
23000
23500
24000
24500
25000
Risk Level
REFERENCE
APPENDIX 1
Zone
Target level =
Risk level
16,314.31
17,000.00
20,000.00
26,520.00
30,520.00
36,542.50
20,000.00
20,300.00
21,000.00
22,000.00
27,767,80
33,689.60
14,628.90
14,800.00
15,500.00
16,500.00
17,500.00
18,149.3
20,000.00
20,721.10
21,041.40
22,800.00
24,000.00
24,334.50
N20,000
Return( N)
90,195.55
130,389.90
220,705.00
280,074.00
477,357.60
611,011.80
147,594.00
156,778.20
167,338.50
180,760.80
205,055.00
205,445.20
126,568.00
127,568.00
129,779.40
131,812.10
133,884.90
135,164.80
100,758.60
156,766.60
160,240.30
177,198.00
188,203.20
191,271.20
'FICMBR' title will be awarded to the person/institution after approval of Editorin-Chief and Editorial Board. The title 'FICMBR' can be added to name in the
following manner e.g. Dr. Andrew Knoll, Ph.D., FICMBR
FICMBR can submit two papers every year for publication without any charges.
The paper will be sent to two peer reviewers. The paper will be published after
the acceptance of peer reviewers and Editorial Board.
Free unlimited Web-space will be allotted to 'FICMBR 'along with subDomain to
contribute and partake in our activities.
A professional email address will be allotted free with unlimited email space.
FICMBR will be authorized to receive e-Journals-GJMBR for the Lifetime.
FICMBR
will
be
exempted
from
the
registration
fees
of
Seminar/Symposium/Conference/Workshop conducted internationally of GJMBR
(FREE of Charge).
FICMBR will be Honorable Guest of any gathering held.
AICMBR title will be awarded to the person/institution after approval of Editorin-Chef and Editorial Board. The title 'AICMBR' can be added to name in the
following manner: eg. Dr. Thomas Knoll, Ph.D., AICMBR
AICMBR can submit one paper every year for publication without any
charges. The paper will be sent to two peer reviewers. The paper will be
published after the acceptance of peer reviewers and Editorial Board.
Free 2GB Web-space will be allotted to 'FICMBR' along with subDomain to
contribute and participate in our activities.
A professional email address will be allotted with free 1GB email space.
AICMBR will be authorized to receive e-Journal GJMBR for lifetime.
ANNUAL MEMBER
Annual Member will be authorized to receive e-Journal GJMBR for one
year (subscription for one year).
The member will be allotted free 1 GB Web-space along with subDomain to
contribute and participate in our activities.
A professional email address will be allotted free 500 MB email space.
PAPER PUBLICATION
The members can publish paper once. The paper will be sent to two-peer
reviewer. The paper will be published after the acceptance of peer reviewers and
Editorial Board.
The Area or field of specialization may or may not be of any category as mentioned in
Scope of Journal menu of the GlobalJournals.org website. There are 37 Research
Journal categorized with Six parental Journals GJCST, GJMR, GJRE, GJMBR, GJSFR,
GJHSS. For Authors should prefer the mentioned categories. There are three widely
used systems UDC, DDC and LCC. The details are available as Knowledge Abstract at
Home page. The major advantage of this coding is that, the research work will be
exposed to and shared with all over the world as we are being abstracted and indexed
worldwide.
The paper should be in proper format. The format can be downloaded from first page of
Author Guideline Menu. The Author is expected to follow the general rules as
mentioned in this menu. The paper should be written in MS-Word Format
(*.DOC,*.DOCX).
The Author can submit the paper either online or offline. The authors should prefer
online submission.
Online Submission: There are three ways to submit your paper:
(A) (I) First, register yourself using top right corner of Home page then Login. If you
are already registered, then login using your username and password.
(II) Choose corresponding Journal.
(III) Click Submit Manuscript. Fill required information and Upload the paper.
(B) If you are using Internet Explorer, then Direct Submission through Homepage is
also available.
(C) If these two are not convenient, and then email the paper directly to
dean@Globaljournal.org.
Offline Submission: Author can send the typed form of paper by Post. However, online
submission should be preferred.
2. ETHICAL GUIDELINES
Authors should follow the ethical guidelines as mentioned below for publication of research paper and research activities.
Papers are accepted on strict understanding that the material in whole or in part has not been, nor is being, considered for publication
elsewhere. If the paper once accepted by Global Journals and Editorial Board, will become the copyright of the Global Journals.
Authorship: The authors and coauthors should have active contribution to conception design, analysis and interpretation of findings.
They should critically review the contents and drafting of the paper. All should approve the final version of the paper before
submission
The Global Journals follows the definition of authorship set up by the Global Academy of Research and Development. According to the
Global Academy of R&D authorship, criteria must be based on:
1) Substantial contributions to conception and acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of the findings.
2) Drafting the paper and revising it critically regarding important academic content.
3) Final approval of the version of the paper to be published.
All authors should have been credited according to their appropriate contribution in research activity and preparing paper. Contributors
who do not match the criteria as authors may be mentioned under Acknowledgement.
Acknowledgements: Contributors to the research other than authors credited should be mentioned under acknowledgement. The
specifications of the source of funding for the research if appropriate can be included. Suppliers of resources may be mentioned along
with address.
Appeal of Decision: The Editorial Boards decision on publication of the paper is final and cannot be appealed elsewhere.
Permissions: It is the author's responsibility to have prior permission if all or parts of earlier published illustrations are used in this
paper.
Please mention proper reference and appropriate acknowledgements wherever expected.
If all or parts of previously published illustrations are used, permission must be taken from the copyright holder concerned. It is the
author's responsibility to take these in writing.
Approval for reproduction/modification of any information (including figures and tables) published elsewhere must be obtained by the
authors/copyright holders before submission of the manuscript. Contributors (Authors) are responsible for any copyright fee involved.
3. SUBMISSION OF MANUSCRIPTS
Manuscripts should be uploaded via this online submission page. The online submission is most efficient method for submission of
papers, as it enables rapid distribution of manuscripts and consequently speeds up the review procedure. It also enables authors to
know the status of their own manuscripts by emailing us. Complete instructions for submitting a paper is available below.
Manuscript submission is a systematic procedure and little preparation is required beyond having all parts of your manuscript in a given
format and a computer with an Internet connection and a Web browser. Full help and instructions are provided on-screen. As an author,
you will be prompted for login and manuscript details as Field of Paper and then to upload your manuscript file(s) according to the
instructions.
To avoid postal delays, all transaction is preferred by e-mail. A finished manuscript submission is confirmed by e-mail immediately and
your paper enters the editorial process with no postal delays. When a conclusion is made about the publication of your paper by our
Editorial Board, revisions can be submitted online with the same procedure, with an occasion to view and respond to all comments.
Complete support for both authors and co-author is provided.
4. MANUSCRIPTS CATEGORY
Based on potential and nature, the manuscript can be categorized under the following heads:
Original research paper: Such papers are reports of high-level significant original research work.
Review papers: These are concise, significant but helpful and decisive topics for young researchers.
Research articles: These are handled with small investigation and applications
Research letters: The letters are small and concise comments on previously published matters.
5.STRUCTURE AND FORMAT OF MANUSCRIPT
The recommended size of original research paper is less than seven thousand words, review papers fewer than seven thousands words
also.Preparation of research paper or how to write research paper, are major hurdle, while writing manuscript. The research articles and
research letters should be fewer than three thousand words, the structure original research paper; sometime review paper should be as
follows:
Papers: These are reports of significant research (typically less than 7000 words equivalent, including tables, figures, references), and
comprise:
(a)Title should be relevant and commensurate with the theme of the paper.
(b) A brief Summary, Abstract (less than 150 words) containing the major results and conclusions.
(c) Up to ten keywords, that precisely identifies the paper's subject, purpose, and focus.
(d) An Introduction, giving necessary background excluding subheadings; objectives must be clearly declared.
(e) Resources and techniques with sufficient complete experimental details (wherever possible by reference) to permit repetition;
sources of information must be given and numerical methods must be specified by reference, unless non-standard.
(f) Results should be presented concisely, by well-designed tables and/or figures; the same data may not be used in both; suitable
statistical data should be given. All data must be obtained with attention to numerical detail in the planning stage. As reproduced design
has been recognized to be important to experiments for a considerable time, the Editor has decided that any paper that appears not to
have adequate numerical treatments of the data will be returned un-refereed;
(g) Discussion should cover the implications and consequences, not just recapitulating the results; conclusions should be summarizing.
(h) Brief Acknowledgements.
(i) References in the proper form.
Authors should very cautiously consider the preparation of papers to ensure that they communicate efficiently. Papers are much more
likely to be accepted, if they are cautiously designed and laid out, contain few or no errors, are summarizing, and be conventional to the
approach and instructions. They will in addition, be published with much less delays than those that require much technical and editorial
correction.
The Editorial Board reserves the right to make literary corrections and to make suggestions to improve briefness.
It is vital, that authors take care in submitting a manuscript that is written in simple language and adheres to published guidelines.
Format
Language: The language of publication is UK English. Authors, for whom English is a second language, must have their manuscript
efficiently edited by an English-speaking person before submission to make sure that, the English is of high excellence. It is preferable,
that manuscripts should be professionally edited.
Standard Usage, Abbreviations, and Units: Spelling and hyphenation should be conventional to The Concise Oxford English Dictionary.
Statistics and measurements should at all times be given in figures, e.g. 16 min, except for when the number begins a sentence. When
the number does not refer to a unit of measurement it should be spelt in full unless, it is 160 or greater.
Abbreviations supposed to be used carefully. The abbreviated name or expression is supposed to be cited in full at first usage, followed
by the conventional abbreviation in parentheses.
Metric SI units are supposed to generally be used excluding where they conflict with current practice or are confusing. For illustration,
1.4 l rather than 1.4 10-3 m3, or 4 mm somewhat than 4 10-3 m. Chemical formula and solutions must identify the form used, e.g.
anhydrous or hydrated, and the concentration must be in clearly defined units. Common species names should be followed by
underlines at the first mention. For following use the generic name should be constricted to a single letter, if it is clear.
Structure
All manuscripts submitted to Global Journals, ought to include:
Title: The title page must carry an instructive title that reflects the content, a running title (less than 45 characters together with spaces),
names of the authors and co-authors, and the place(s) wherever the work was carried out. The full postal address in addition with the email address of related author must be given. Up to eleven keywords or very brief phrases have to be given to help data retrieval, mining
and indexing.
Abstract, used in Original Papers and Reviews:
Optimizing Abstract for Search Engines
Many researchers searching for information online will use search engines such as Google, Yahoo or similar. By optimizing your paper for
search engines, you will amplify the chance of someone finding it. This in turn will make it more likely to be viewed and/or cited in a
further work. Global Journals have compiled these guidelines to facilitate you to maximize the web-friendliness of the most public part of
your paper.
Key Words
A major linchpin in research work for the writing research paper is the keyword search, which one will employ to find both library and
Internet resources.
One must be persistent and creative in using keywords. An effective keyword search requires a strategy and planning a list of possible
keywords and phrases to try.
Search engines for most searches, use Boolean searching, which is somewhat different from Internet searches. The Boolean search uses
"operators," words (and, or, not, and near) that enable you to expand or narrow your affords. Tips for research paper while preparing
research paper are very helpful guideline of research paper.
Choice of key words is first tool of tips to write research paper. Research paper writing is an art.A few tips for deciding as strategically as
possible about keyword search:
One should start brainstorming lists of possible keywords before even begin searching. Think about the most
important concepts related to research work. Ask, "What words would a source have to include to be truly
valuable in research paper?" Then consider synonyms for the important words.
It may take the discovery of only one relevant paper to let steer in the right keyword direction because in most
databases, the keywords under which a research paper is abstracted are listed with the paper.
One should avoid outdated words.
Keywords are the key that opens a door to research work sources. Keyword searching is an art in which researcher's skills are
bound to improve with experience and time.
Numerical Methods: Numerical methods used should be clear and, where appropriate, supported by references.
Acknowledgements: Please make these as concise as possible.
References
References follow the Harvard scheme of referencing. References in the text should cite the authors' names followed by the time of their
publication, unless there are three or more authors when simply the first author's name is quoted followed by et al. unpublished work
has to only be cited where necessary, and only in the text. Copies of references in press in other journals have to be supplied with
submitted typescripts. It is necessary that all citations and references be carefully checked before submission, as mistakes or omissions
will cause delays.
References to information on the World Wide Web can be given, but only if the information is available without charge to readers on an
official site. Wikipedia and Similar websites are not allowed where anyone can change the information. Authors will be asked to make
available electronic copies of the cited information for inclusion on the Global Journals homepage at the judgment of the Editorial Board.
The Editorial Board and Global Journals recommend that, citation of online-published papers and other material should be done via a
DOI (digital object identifier). If an author cites anything, which does not have a DOI, they run the risk of the cited material not being
noticeable.
The Editorial Board and Global Journals recommend the use of a tool such as Reference Manager for reference management and
formatting.
6. AFTER ACCEPTANCE
Upon approval of a paper for publication, the manuscript will be forwarded to the dean, who is responsible for the publication of the
Global Journals.
6.1 Proof Corrections
The corresponding author will receive an e-mail alert containing a link to a website or will be attached. A working e-mail address must
therefore be provided for the related author.
Acrobat Reader will be required in order to read this file. This software can be downloaded
(Free of charge) from the following website:
www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html. This will facilitate the file to be opened, read on screen, and printed out in order for
any corrections to be added. Further instructions will be sent with the proof.
Proofs must be returned to the dean at dean@globaljournals.org within three days of receipt.
As changes to proofs are costly, we inquire that you only correct typesetting errors. All illustrations are retained by the publisher. Please
note that the authors are responsible for all statements made in their work, including changes made by the copy editor.
6.2 Early View of Global Journals (Publication Prior to Print)
The Global Journals are enclosed by our publishing's Early View service. Early View articles are complete full-text articles sent in advance
of their publication. Early View articles are absolute and final. They have been completely reviewed, revised and edited for publication,
and the authors' final corrections have been incorporated. Because they are in final form, no changes can be made after sending them.
The nature of Early View articles means that they do not yet have volume, issue or page numbers, so Early View articles cannot be cited
in the conventional way.
6.3 Author Services
Online production tracking is available for your article through Author Services. Author Services enables authors to track their article once it has been accepted - through the production process to publication online and in print. Authors can check the status of their
articles online and choose to receive automated e-mails at key stages of production. The authors will receive an e-mail with a unique link
that enables them to register and have their article automatically added to the system. Please ensure that a complete e-mail address is
provided when submitting the manuscript.
6.4 Author Material Archive Policy
Please note that if not specifically requested, publisher will dispose off hardcopy & electronic information submitted, after the two
months of publication. If you require the return of any information submitted, please inform the Editorial Board or dean as soon as
possible.
6.5 Offprint and Extra Copies
A PDF offprint of the online-published article will be provided free of charge to the related author, and may be distributed according to
the Publisher's terms and conditions. Additional paper offprint may be ordered by emailing us at: editor@globaljournals.org .
Extras
life interest 132
A
Adedeji 67
Afonja and Pearce 67
Afrinvest 65
Agip 68, 70
AIDC 7
Alavi and Leidner 123
Allam 149, 150, 155, 157
Allam and Lymer 150
Amat 149, 157
Amro takeover 93
Analysis 17, 23, 24, 35, 36, 40, 45, 46, 47, 59, 62, 78, 79, 82,
87, 121, 135, 137, 146, 157, 161, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171,
176, 180, 181
Anderson 99, 102, 176, 177, 178, 181
Andreassi 75, 79
Anyadike, 68
Applications 55, 176, 181
arguably 129
Argyris and Schon 128
Armed Robbery Claims Data 11
Arshanapalli 33, 35, 38
artifacts 75
Asian-Pacific 31, 33, 36, 157
Assessing 78, 140, 147
asymmetric 29
attractions 21, 22, 23, 25
B
Baerns Barbara 85
Bahari Lamongan 132, 137
Bailesteanu 141
Balasubramanian 81, 82, 87
Bammeke 69, 72
bankruptcy 88, 95, 106, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147
barriers 29, 30, 81, 86, 100, 102, 104, 106, 109, 111, 112
Bashir and Ramay 75
Beijing Zhongguancun 105
Bernoullian 177
Berry and Zeithaml 42
billion Naira 69
Blimbing 132
Bormann & Birjulin 77
Box-and-Whisker 12, 13
Brand 26, 81, 85, 86, 87, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 159, 160,
163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171
Brand Decisions 159, 163, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
Brand Influence 159, 164, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171
Branding Opportunity 97
Brundtland 116, 117
bunkering 66, 71
Butler Destination 21
C
Capital Financing 2, 6, 7
capital market integration 29, 30, 32, 40
capital structure 140
chaotic 127
Chittagong 41, 150
Choudhry and Lin 33, 40
Click and Plummer 33
clinical trial and opinion leader 97
Clinical Trials 97, 100
cointegrating structure 33, 38
Collongues model 141
conflicting work life policies 74
Confort 144
Consequently 14, 43, 172, 178
constellation 11
Construcii 144
contradictions 66
Co-opettion in Peripheral Surroundings 27
Corporate Tax Holiday 7
Corruption 26, 72
Ct 75, 78
Couger 128
cronbach alpha 135
Cropanzano 77, 79
D
Danemark 109
Davenport and Prusak 128, 129
Debreceny 149, 157
decomposition analyses reveal 32
Deductible 11, 17
deep crisis 72
E
Economic Development 56, 65, 181
Economy 36, 56, 59, 60, 62, 63, 65, 66, 79, 113, 148, 165
EDA 12, 15, 17
Eden and Aviram 133
Edmister models 141
E-government 104, 105, 109, 110, 113
eigenvalue 62
Elf 70
emerging tourism destination 21, 22, 23, 24, 26
Emerging tourism destination 21
Emerging tourist 21
emphasises 126
empirical finance 17
empirical models 141
entrepreneurial 3, 6, 8, 21, 58
ethically-charged 82
Ettredge 149, 157
exhaustion 74
exigible 142
Expert Model Mining System 11
F
fairly predictable 43
federal 9, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72
Felmingham 34, 36, 40
festivals 21, 26
G
gasflaring 70
General Babangida 71
General Crime Insurance 11
generated 5, 43, 62, 97, 98, 128, 145, 146, 175
Glitnir 91
Government Policies 56
Gowthorpe 149, 157
Granger causality 34, 40
Gremler and Bitner 42
Griffeth & Gaertner 78
Gumbel 18, 20
Gyandoot 105, 113
H
Hardakier 176, 181
Hibah 132
Households 159
Hybrid flow shop 48, 55
Hypertext markup language 148
I
Implementation 47, 65, 172
inadequacies 106
inadequate 22, 68, 71, 112, 178
inappropriate 41, 44, 45, 46, 107
indigenes 71
infrastructural indicators 105
Innovation 9, 113, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 131, 137,
181
institutionalization 172
institutionalizing 70, 127
insurmountable 94
interaction 29, 30, 35, 44, 109, 115, 116, 124, 129, 161, 162,
163, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 177
Internet financial reporting 148
Macroprudential Management 88
Malarvizhi 150, 157
Manecuta 141
manipulation 70, 134, 148
marginalization 66, 69
marketing 7, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 42, 81, 85, 97, 98,
99, 101, 102, 103, 110, 148, 173, 176
Marketing Organisation 23
Marston 149, 150, 155, 157
Martennson 124, 129, 131
Matennson 123
Medical Device 4
Mendonca 78
Merchandising 25
mobilized 69, 72
Modelling 11, 140, 146
modernization 112, 172, 173, 174, 175
Modernization 172, 173
modernizations 172, 174
modesty 72
Moldovulcan 144
Morgan 75, 78
multinationals 69, 72, 116
multivariate Cointegration analysis 34
K
Kanungo 78
Karatepe and Kilic 74, 75
Kaupthing 91
Keeble 130
Kenexa Research Institute 74, 77, 79
khadaroo 155
Khadaroo 148, 150, 157
kidnapping and hostage 71
Killough model 141
Kliebenstein 177, 181
Knowledge Management 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 129, 130,
131
Kolmogorov-Smirnov 14, 15
Kompetitif 132
Konrad 75, 77, 79
Konrad and Mangel 75
Kreitner 137
K-S test 15
Kwara 178, 181
L
Lamongan 132, 135, 137
Landsbanki 91
laplace 177
Lately 71, 172
Lathan 133, 137
Laursen and Mahnke 115
legislation 33, 94, 119
Liebowitz and Beckman 128, 129
Life Interest 132, 134, 135, 137
life skills 132, 134, 135, 136, 138
Life Skills 132, 134, 138
listen and willingness 72
loglogistic distributions 13
log-Normal 12
Lognormal Model 11, 16
Looking Beneath Statistics 104
low visitor arrival 22
Lundstrom 98, 99, 100, 103
Lymer 148, 149, 150, 155, 157, 158
N
Naqvi 75, 77, 79
Nebenzahl 82
Niger Delta region 66, 68, 71
Nigeria 11, 12, 17, 21, 22, 56, 57, 58, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69,
70, 71, 72, 73, 176, 178, 181
Nigeria private sector 64
Nonaka 125, 128, 129, 131
Notwithstanding 71, 95
Nowicki and Smutnicki 48
O
Obasanjo and Mabogunje 66
Oesterreichische 36
Ohlson model 141
Oil Politics 66
Okilo 70
Okpara 75, 79
opportunities 7, 8, 25, 29, 30, 34, 38, 40, 67, 75, 86, 101, 102,
115, 117, 118, 130, 132, 148
Oyekanmi 72
P
Pakistan 34, 40, 74, 77, 78, 79
Panda 85, 87
parasitic state 72
Pasewark 148, 157
Patric and Julia 81
penalise 93
Penelitian Sesuai Prioritas Nasional 132
perception 4, 23, 25, 26, 69, 70, 81, 82, 83, 84, 89, 98, 100,
108, 118, 135, 137, 160
Perilaku 137
persistent 32, 124, 190
Petravick 149, 157
Petroni 48, 55
Petrovic and Duenas 49
Pharmaceutical 7, 48, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103
Phylaktis and Ravazzolo 33, 39
Pirchegger 149, 150, 157
polie 155
political patronage 72
postponing 107
Premises 123
prescribe 25, 69, 98, 99
prioritizing 49, 75
Private Sector 56, 58, 64, 65, 73, 107
Process 9, 79, 100, 113, 115, 116, 118, 123, 128, 131, 146,
172, 186
Product Progress 172
Projects 172, 177
PROLOGUE 2
Promises 123
promotional strategy 21, 23, 24, 25
Promotional strategy 23, 27
Prottas 75, 79
psychomotorics 136
Q
Quazi, 74, 79
R
Rahman 75, 77, 79
Raiffeisen 142
Rayleigh 18, 19, 20
recapitalisation 57
reduction 32, 39, 57, 65, 67, 74, 111, 133, 143, 172, 173, 178
retained profit ratio 140, 141
returns on equity 140
risk of bankruptcy 140, 141, 143, 144, 145
Risk Premium 17
risk programming 177, 179, 180
robustness 15, 107, 108
role behavior 132, 133, 134, 135, 136
Role Behavior 132, 134, 135
Rural 115, 159, 160, 161, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171
rural counterparts 161, 162, 163, 164
S
Sanda 67, 73
Scheduling 48
Schroff 99, 103
Search 190
SEBI regulations 8
Self Esteem 132, 134, 135, 137
self-efficacy 132, 133, 134, 135, 136
Self-Efficacy 132, 135, 137, 138
self-esteem 132, 133, 134, 135, 136
sensitivity 32, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181
Sensitivity 176, 177, 178, 180, 181
Sharma and Wongbangpo 33
Shell 68, 70
Shirata model 141
Sikap 137
Skewness 12
Small-land scale 176
Small-land Scale Agriculture 176
SME 7, 65, 140
social inequalities 66
sparingly 43
spillover 74, 75, 90
spontaneous 45
Stakeholders 115, 116, 118, 119, 120
Stochastic 35, 36, 37, 178
Strategies 28, 104, 122, 181
Sunan Drajat Grave 132
Surprisingly 64, 104
Sustainable Development 115, 116, 118, 119, 120, 121
Systems in Nigeria 176
T
Takeuchi 125, 131
Tapan K 85
Target utilization 48
Target-MOTAD model 176, 179
Tauer 177, 181
Tay & Kelly 74
Technical Environment 172
Technical-Economic Systems 172
Technological Environment 172
Technology-Readiness 104
Tetreault 42, 43
Thaden 74, 79
Thompson 75, 79
Tinggi 132
tourism business environment 21
Trajectory 2
Tremblay & Lalonde 76, 77, 80
triggers 81, 98
Turnover intentions 74, 76, 80
U
Uncertainty 176, 181
undercapitalisation 57
unidirectional 33, 34, 39, 40
unobtrusive 81, 82
unsubstantiated claims 72
urban 41, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 176
Urban 159, 160, 161, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171
Uriel Ezequiel 36
Utomi in Solanke 64
V
Valcour 74, 75, 78
vandalisation 71
VCF 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
VCF ENVIRONMENT 6
vector autoregression 32
Venture 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
venture capital 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 102, 198
VICE 24
W
Wagenhofer 149, 150, 157
Wainwright 123
Wallmart 93
WAPIC 12
Waterhouse Coopers 4
Wenner and Lawrence 86
Wensley 134, 137
willingness 4, 21, 45, 74, 108, 136, 160
Wisata 132, 137
witness unimaginable 66
Wongbangpo 33, 37
working students 74, 77, 78
X
xenophobia 11
Y
Yaqoob 74
Youth 72, 132, 134