Suchergebnisse

[Introduction] Since its establishment in 2004, the German Data Forum (RatSWD), which is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Science and Research (BMBF), has been advising the federal government and the governments of the federal states (Länder) on issues relating to the expansion and improvement of the research infrastructure for the empirical social, behavioral, and economic sciences (SBE). In late 2010, the RatSWD addressed the question of how the quality of survey instruments in the social and economic sciences, and especially in social and economic survey research, could be controlled and assured. At a meeting on November 9, 2012, the RatSWD therefore decided to set up a 'Quality Assurance of Survey Instruments Working Group' under the leadership of Professor Beatrice Rammstedt. The establishment of the working group was prompted in particular by the desire to define quality standards in order to assure and optimize the quality of survey instruments. Hence, the working group made the formulation of these standards its primary objective. They are presented in this paper.

We model the introduction of a minimum quality standard in a vertically differentiated duopoly. We extend the literature in determining the standard endogenously, showing that the maximisation of social welfare entails an increase in the surplus accruing to consumers served by the low quality firm and a decrease in the surplus of the remaining consumers. Then, we consider the effects of the standard on the stability of price collusion, proving that the standard makes it more difficult for firms to collude if consumers are sufficiently rich.

Intro -- REVISED SULFUR DIOXIDE AIR QUALITY STANDARD: COSTS AND BENEFITS -- REVISED SULFUR DIOXIDE AIR QUALITY STANDARD: COSTS AND BENEFITS -- CONTENTS -- PREFACE -- Chapter 1 FINAL REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS (RIA) FOR THE SO2 NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (NAAQS) -- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -- ES.1. Overview -- ES.2. Summary of Analytic Approach -- Overview of Baseline Emissions Forecast and Baseline SO2 Concentrations -- Analysis of Costs and Benefits -- Benefits -- Costs -- ES.3. Results of Analysis -- Air Quality -- Benefit and Cost Estimates -- ES.4. Caveats and Limitations -- Air Quality, Emissions, and Control Strategies -- Costs -- Benefits -- ES.5. References -- 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND -- Synopsis -- 1.1. Background -- 1.2. Role of the Regulatory Impact Analysis in the NAAQS Setting Process -- 1.2.1. Legislative Roles -- 1.2.2. Role of Statutory and Executive Orders -- 1.2.3. Market Failure or Other Social Purpose -- 1.2.4. Illustrative Nature of the Analysis -- 1.3. Overview and Design of the RIA -- 1.3.1. Baseline and Years of Analysis -- 1.3.2. Control Scenarios Considered in this RIA -- 1.3.3. Evaluating Costs and Benefits -- 1.4. SO2 Standard Alternatives Considered -- 1.5. References -- 2. SO2 EMISSIONS AND MONITORING DATA -- Synopsis -- 2.1. Sources of SO2 -- 2.2. Air Quality Monitoring Data -- 2.2.1. Background on SO2 monitoring network -- 2.2.2. Ambient concentrations of SO2 -- 3. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS -- Synopsis -- 3.1. 2005-2007 Design Values -- 3.2. Calculation of 2020 Projected Design Values -- 3.2.1. 2020 Design Value Calculation Methodology -- 3.2.2. Methodology Limitations -- 3.3. Results -- 3.3.1. Nonattainment results -- 3.3.2. Example monitors -- 3.3.2.1. Tazewell County -- 3.3.2.2. Montgomery County -- 3.4. Summary -- 3.5. References -- APPENDIX 3A. 2005-2007 AND 2020 DESIGN VALUES.

This paper studies the effect of non-compliance with a minimum quality standard on prices, quality, and welfare in a vertical differentiation model. Non-compliance with a minimum quality standard by a low-quality firm reduces quality levels of both firms, increases the price for the high-quality product, decreases the price for the low-quality product, and shifts demand from the low-quality to the high-quality firm. Under non-compliance, an increase in the standard increases the quality difference, increases the price difference, and shifts demand from the high-quality to the low-quality firm. Stricter government enforcement decreases the quality level of the low-quality firm, increases the price of the high-quality product and shifts demand from the low-quality firm to the high-quality firm. Non-compliance of the low quality firm increases profits for both firms, reduces consumer surplus and increases or decreases welfare depending on the market size, the effect of quality levels of the externality, the detection probability, and the minimum quality level.

Evaluation studies vary in methodological quality. It is essential to develop methodological quality standards for evaluation research that can be understood & easily used by scholars, practitioners, policy makers, the mass media, & systematic reviewers. This article proposes that such standards should be based on statistical conclusion validity, internal validity, construct validity, external validity, & descriptive validity. Methodological quality scales are reviewed, & it is argued that efforts should be made to improve them. Pawson & Tilley's challenge to the Campbell evaluation tradition is also assessed. It is concluded that this challenge does not have any implications for methodological quality standards, because the Campbell tradition already emphasizes the need to study moderators & mediators in evaluation research. 41 References. [Copyright 2003 Sage Publications, Inc.]

"A seminal work for the public sector, Quality Standards for Highly Effective Government (Second Edition) redefines what is expected and what is required for excellence in management. The practices presented here also benefit non-profit organizations, and indeed any organization in which services are not directly rewarded by a purchase transaction. The book introduces three new performance standards that frame the value add of management, for processes, systems, and aligned leadership objectives. Along with defining known best practices, these standards create an imperative for the use of Lean and continuous quality improvement as a foundation for good management, built onto that defined structure. These standards also create a means to recognize and reward those managers who build and regularly use this framework. Measurable quality standards are necessary for government, because there is no free market incentivizing government managers for efficiency, and there is no direct penalty for offices that provide poor service. The oversight of government is left to elected officials, who often only get generalized and high level feedback and then only on failure. Where there is failure, the usual response of leadership is to change leadership or to restructure offices. But these actions never get to the level of the workers on the ground, and cannot change whether they have or are currently using best practice modeling. Richard Mallory both defines and shows the logic behind the process management standard, the system management standard, and the aligned leadership objectives standard, and how these apply to front line managers, program and executive managers, and even to elected leaders. Because these standards are measurable and auditable, they can form the basis of an integrated scorecard for every government agency in the world, and a roadmap on how to obtain maximum value from each of them. The credibility of these standards is underwritten and proven through their adoption by the Government Division of the American Society for Quality, and international best practice standards for governments worldwide."--Provided by publisher.

Evaluation studies vary in methodological quality. It is essential to develop methodological quality standards for evaluation research that can be understood and easily used by scholars, practitioners, policy makers, the mass media, and systematic reviewers. This article proposes that such standards should be based on statistical conclusion validity, internal validity, construct validity, external validity, and descriptive validity. Methodological quality scales are reviewed, and it is argued that efforts should be made to improve them. Pawson and Tilley's challenge to the Campbell evaluation tradition is also assessed. It is concluded that this challenge does not have any implications for methodological quality standards, because the Campbell tradition already emphasizes the need to study moderators and mediators in evaluation research.