scholarly journals Edhi Foundation: A Struggle for Humanitarian Survival under the Global Welfare Vision

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (IV) ◽  
pp. 590-600
Author(s):  
Abid Iqbal
Keyword(s):  
2009 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 418-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shida Rastegari Henneberry ◽  
Joao E. Mutondo ◽  
B. Wade Brorsen

An equilibrium displacement model of the U.S. meat markets is used to measure the potential impacts of promotion investment, differentiating meats by types and by supply source, taking into account the U.S. participation in global meat markets, and considering imperfect competition in the meat industry. The increase in U.S. producer welfare resulting from a 10 percent increase in promotion ranges from -$1.29 million to $2.60 million for U.S. beef producers and from -$0.96 million to $1.67 million for U.S. pork producers, depending primarily on the advertising elasticity used.


2021 ◽  
Vol 69 ◽  
pp. 101688
Author(s):  
Haichao Fan ◽  
Xiang Gao ◽  
Lina Zhang
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Stéphan Marette

AbstractThis paper analyzes whether or not a standard reducing risks and influencing firms' entry is protectionist and can be interpreted as an illegitimate non-tariff measure (NTM). Domestic and foreign firms compete in selling products in the domestic market, in the presence of possible damages and endogenous sunk costs for reducing the risks of having these damages. A policymaker chooses a standard that is imposed on all firms, but may also impede their ability to enter the domestic market. Welfare can be improved with a legitimate NTM, particularly under relatively high levels of sunk costs and damages, justifying a reduction in the number of firms allowing a higher effort for curbing the expected damage. Protectionism related to an illegitimate NTM occurs when the standard maximizing domestic or foreign welfare is higher than the international standard, maximizing the world (or global) welfare inclusive of all profits and surpluses across countries. The characterization of protectionism is influenced by the domestic or foreign origin of firms, and by the nature of the expected damage incurred at either the production level or the consumption level. Configurations with expected damages related to consumption tend to exhibit more cases of protectionism compared to configurations with expected damages related to production.


1990 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 553-588 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henrik Schmiegelow ◽  
Michèle Schmiegelow

To cope with more than incremental change in the international system, the neorealist concept of structure and the neoliberal concept of process must be complemented by a third analytically distinguished element: the concept of action. All three concepts can be used on the systemic level of analysis of international relations theory. Their obvious differentiation is the degree of systemic consolidation, with structure at the highest, action at the lowest, and process at unstable intermediate degrees. Without analyzing prevailing models of action of important units of the international system, it is impossible to predict the possible range of outcomes of processes and structural changes in the international system.This article offers Japan's “strategic pragmatism” as a model of action. The model, representing a functional cut across contending economic doctrines, combines relative fiscal conservatism with “progressive” provision of credit, dynamic capitalism with public policy activism, and critical rationalism with philosophical pragmatism. Japan's strategic pragmatism has not only enabled its government and enterprises to cope with uncertainty and change in their domestic and international environment but has also increased global welfare and changed the balance of strategic components of power in the international system. The spread of this model of action both within and beyond Japan's control points to a paradigm change in economic and international relations theory—that is, to the most pervasive form of systemic consolidation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document