National Institute Gross Output Forecasts: A Comparison With US Performance

1979 ◽  
Vol 88 ◽  
pp. 40-49
Author(s):  
Denise R. Osborn
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Gross Domestic Product ◽  
Gross National Product ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Product ◽  
Domestic Product ◽  
Real Gross Domestic Product ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Forecasting Performance

This article aims to compare the National Institute's forecasting performance with that of United States forecasters. Because of the magnitude of this task, we restrict our attention to forecasts of the principal output measure in each country—real gross domestic product in the United Kingdom and real gross national product in the United States. Results for US forecasters are taken from the detailed study by McNees (1975), where there is also information on the methods employed by these forecasters.

Entrenching the Yoshida Defense Doctrine: Three Techniques for Institutionalization

1997 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 389-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sun-Ki Chai
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
South Korea ◽  
Gross Domestic Product ◽  
The United States ◽  
Domestic Product ◽  
Industrialized Countries ◽  
The Past ◽  
Defense Expenditure

Japan's level of defense expenditure relative to the size of its economy has long been uniquely low among the major industrialized countries. As of 1995, Japan's expenditures stood at 0.96 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Even adding to this the approximately 0.3 percent of GDP devoted to pensions for retired personnel, the level of spending is considerably less than that of major Western states such as the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Germany, as well as industrialized Asian states such as South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Singapore. Furthermore, these relative magnitudes have remained reasonably stable over the past few decades.

scholarly journals A Comparative Discussion of the Judicial Disqualification of Directors under the South African Companies Act

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Rehana Cassim
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
South African ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
The South ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Locus Standi

Abstract Section 162 of the South African Companies Act 71 of 2008 empowers courts to declare directors delinquent and hence to disqualify them from office. This article compares the judicial disqualification of directors under this section with the equivalent provisions in the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States of America, which have all influenced the South African act. The article compares the classes of persons who have locus standi to apply to court to disqualify a director from holding office, as well as the grounds for the judicial disqualification of a director, the duration of the disqualification, the application of a prescription period and the discretion conferred on courts to disqualify directors from office. It contends that, in empowering courts to disqualify directors from holding office, section 162 of the South African Companies Act goes too far in certain respects.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document