Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Appropriate Investment (appropriate + investment)
Selected AbstractsTurning the tide: Enabling sustainable development for Africa's mobile pastoralistsNATURAL RESOURCES FORUM, Issue 3 2008Jonathan Davies Abstract Sustainable development for Africa's mobile pastoralists is slowly becoming a reality. Success depends to a large extent on understanding the dynamics of drylands environments, accepting the logic of customary mobile livestock keeping, and enabling effective governance. Appropriate investment in pastoralism requires a clear understanding of the values that are attached to it and innovative approaches to marketing of the goods and services that emanate from the system. To make development truly sustainable it is imperative that the environmental services of pastoralism are recognised, rewarded and promoted. Constraints to sustainable pastoral development include low and misdirected public and private investment, weak security of resource rights, low human capital, weak pastoral voice and poor governance. Successful and sustainable development is observed in pastoral regions where customary governance has been legitimized, resource rights secured and economic development of the pastoral sector, as opposed to transformation of livestock keeping, has prevailed. This article presents state-of-the-art knowledge on sustainable pastoralism, gathered through the GEF/UNDP/IUCN World Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism (WISP), with data and case studies taken from three recently published WISP reports: "Global Economic Review of Pastoralism", "Pastoralism as Conservation in the Horn of Africa", and "Policy Impacts on Pastoral Environments". [source] Insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes patients failing oral agents: cost-effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 vs. insulin glargine in the US,DIABETES OBESITY & METABOLISM, Issue 1 2007J. A. Ray Objectives:, To project the long-term clinical and economic outcomes of treatment with biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 70/30, 30% soluble and 70% protaminated insulin aspart) vs. insulin glargine in insulin-naïve type 2 diabetes patients failing to achieve glycemic control with oral antidiabetic agents alone (OADs). Methods:, Baseline patient characteristics and treatment effect data from the recent ,INITIATE' clinical trial served as input to a peer-reviewed, validated Markov/Monte-Carlo simulation model. INITIATE demonstrated improvements in HbA1c favouring BIAsp 70/30 vs. glargine (,0.43%; p < 0.005) and greater efficacy in reaching glycaemic targets among patients poorly controlled on OAD therapy. Effects on life expectancy (LE), quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE), cumulative incidence of diabetes-related complications and direct medical costs (2004 USD) were projected over 35 years. Clinical outcomes and costs were discounted at a rate of 3.0% per annum. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Results:, Improvements in glycaemic control were projected to lead to gains in LE (0.19 ± 0.24 years) and QALE (0.19 ± 0.17 years) favouring BIAsp 70/30 vs. glargine. Treatment with BIAsp 70/30 was also associated with reductions in the cumulative incidences of diabetes-related complications, notably in renal and retinal conditions. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $46 533 per quality-adjusted life year gained with BIAsp 70/30 vs. glargine (for patients with baseline HbA1c , 8.5%, it was $34 916). Total lifetime costs were compared to efficacy rates in both arms as a ratio, which revealed that the lifetime cost per patient treated successfully to target HbA1c levels of <7.0% and , 6.5% were $80 523 and $93 242 lower with BIAsp 70/30 than with glargine, respectively. Conclusions:, Long-term treatment with BIAsp 70/30 was projected to be cost-effective for patients with type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled on OADs alone compared to glargine. Treatment with BIAsp 70/30 was estimated to represent an appropriate investment of healthcare dollars in the management of type 2 diabetes. [source] Holistic investment assessment: optimization, risk appraisal and decision makingMANAGERIAL AND DECISION ECONOMICS, Issue 6 2009Georgios Tziralis Abstract On deciding for the most appropriate investment when capital restrictions exist, investors define their alternatives and analyze each one of them. Traditionally, the definition, appraisal and analysis stages are treated separately. Herein, an innovative holistic method is proposed for bridging these stages. Within this method, investment attributes definition occurs by genetic algorithm optimization, while the analysis of the investment is realized through simulation. The method also proposes the NPV Expected Shortfall and the NPV Risk Preference Index as investment evaluation criteria. An illustrative case study of two mutually exclusive renewable energy investment scenarios is also used for demonstration purposes. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Allocation of quality improvement targets based on investments in learningNAVAL RESEARCH LOGISTICS: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, Issue 8 2001Herbert Moskowitz Abstract Purchased materials often account for more than 50% of a manufacturer's product nonconformance cost. A common strategy for reducing such costs is to allocate periodic quality improvement targets to suppliers of such materials. Improvement target allocations are often accomplished via ad hoc methods such as prescribing a fixed, across-the-board percentage improvement for all suppliers, which, however, may not be the most effective or efficient approach for allocating improvement targets. We propose a formal modeling and optimization approach for assessing quality improvement targets for suppliers, based on process variance reduction. In our models, a manufacturer has multiple product performance measures that are linear functions of a common set of design variables (factors), each of which is an output from an independent supplier's process. We assume that a manufacturer's quality improvement is a result of reductions in supplier process variances, obtained through learning and experience, which require appropriate investments by both the manufacturer and suppliers. Three learning investment (cost) models for achieving a given learning rate are used to determine the allocations that minimize expected costs for both the supplier and manufacturer and to assess the sensitivity of investment in learning on the allocation of quality improvement targets. Solutions for determining optimal learning rates, and concomitant quality improvement targets are derived for each learning investment function. We also account for the risk that a supplier may not achieve a targeted learning rate for quality improvements. An extensive computational study is conducted to investigate the differences between optimal variance allocations and a fixed percentage allocation. These differences are examined with respect to (i) variance improvement targets and (ii) total expected cost. For certain types of learning investment models, the results suggest that orders of magnitude differences in variance allocations and expected total costs occur between optimal allocations and those arrived at via the commonly used rule of fixed percentage allocations. However, for learning investments characterized by a quadratic function, there is surprisingly close agreement with an "across-the-board" allocation of 20% quality improvement targets. © John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Naval Research Logistics 48: 684,709, 2001 [source] Employers' Benefits from Workers' Health InsuranceTHE MILBANK QUARTERLY, Issue 1 2003Ellen O'Brien Most nonelderly americans receive their health insurance coverage through their workplace. Almost all large firms offer a health insurance plan, and even though they face greater barriers to providing coverage, so do the majority of very small firms. These employment-based plans cover two-thirds of nonelderly Americans and pay most of working families' expenses for health care and about one-quarter of national health spending. Despite employers' role in the health insurance market, however, very little attention has been paid to employers' motivations for providing health insurance to workers. Why do employers offer health insurance to workers? Is it because workers want it? Because their unions demand it? Or do employers offer health benefits to workers because their productivity and profitability depend on it? The standard economic theory of the availability of employer-provided health insurance focuses on worker demand (Cutler 1997; Pauly 1997; Summers 1989). Even though many employers believe that health insurance and health affect employees' productivity and firms' performance, health economists typically overlook and rarely measure firms' returns on health-related investments. Some research, however, suggests that firms may benefit economically by providing health insurance coverage for workers and their families. For example, health coverage may help employers recruit and retain high-quality workers. Health may contribute to productivity by reducing the costs of absenteeism and turnover and by increasing workers' productivity. This article reviews the evidence and proposes an agenda for future research. A better understanding of the benefits to employers of offering health coverage to workers may help clarify employers' behavior and help private employers and public officials make appropriate investments in health. [source] | ||||||||||