			Home About us Contact

Very Different Conclusions (very + different_conclusion)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Humanities and Social Sciences	50%

Selected Abstracts

Centralizing Advisory Systems: Presidential Influence and the U.S. Foreign Policy Decision-Making Process

FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS, Issue 2 2005
David Mitchell
This study is motivated by a simple yet vitally important question for an understanding of U.S. foreign policy. Quite simply, how does a president's choice of management style influence the U.S. foreign policy decision-making process and decision outcomes? Presidents play a critical role in the formulation of U.S. foreign policy; however, the presidential studies literature and foreign policy analysis literature arrive at very different conclusions regarding how presidents influence the policy process and both are often inaccurate. This study develops an Advisory Systems Typology to address how presidents influence the decision-making process. In addressing this question, this study overcomes the deficiencies of both the presidential studies and foreign policy analysis literature. Four different types of decision-making processes are produced by a president's choice of advisory structure and level of centralization. In addition, the study identifies "unstructured solutions" that indicate how the presidential advisers and president choose to resolve policy disagreements, thereby providing an indication of the decision outcome. The identified decision-making processes and their associated decision outcomes are explored using four cases of decision making on security policy drawn from the Nixon (Vietnam War), Carter (Strategic Arms Limitation Talks II), Reagan (Strategic Arms Reduction Talks I), and Clinton (Bosnia conflict) administrations. The case studies are constructed using the method of structured,focused comparisons, whereby a set of theoretically based questions and anticipated observations to those questions are made in order to guide the research and allow for comparison of decision making within and between cases. [source]

Sometimes more equal than others: how health inequalities depend on the choice of welfare indicator

HEALTH ECONOMICS, Issue 3 2006
Magnus Lindelow
Abstract In recent years, a large body of empirical work has focused on measuring and explaining socio-economic inequalities in health outcomes and health service use. In any effort to address these questions, analysts must confront the issue of how to measure socioeconomic status. In developing countries, socioeconomic status has typically been measured by per capita consumption or an asset index. Currently, there is only limited information on how the choice of welfare indicators affect the analysis of health inequalities and the incidence of public spending. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the potential sensitivity of the analysis of health related inequalities to how socioeconomic status is measured. Using data from Mozambique, the paper focuses on five key health service indicators, and tests whether measured inequality (concentration index) in health service utilization differs depending on the choice of welfare indicator. The paper shows that, at least in some contexts, the choice of welfare indicator can have a large and significant impact on measured inequality in utilization of health services. In consequence, we can reach very different conclusions about the ,same' issue depending on how we define socioeconomic status. The paper also provides some tentative conclusions about why and in what contexts health inequalities can be sensitive to the choice of living standards measure. The results call for more clarity and care in the analysis of health related inequalities, and for explicit recognition of the potential sensitivity of findings to the choice of welfare measure. The results also point at the need for more careful research on how different dimensions of SES are related, and on the pathways by which the respective different dimensions impact on health related variables. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]

The intersection of scientific and indigenous ecological knowledge in coastal Melanesia: implications for contemporary marine resource management*

INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL, Issue 187 2006
Simon Foale
Fundamental differences in the worldviews of western marine scientists and coastal Melanesian fishers have resulted in very different conclusions being drawn from similar sets of observations. The same inductive logic may lead both scientists and indigenous fishers to conclude that, say, square-tail trout aggregate at a certain phase of the moon in a certain reef passage, but different assumptions derived from disparate worldviews may lead to very different conclusions about why the fish are there. In some cases these differences have significant implications for the way marine resources are (or are not) exploited and managed. Here I analyse examples of what I call empirical gaps in both scientific and indigenous knowledge concerning the biology and ecology of fished organisms that in some cases have led to the poor management of stocks of these species. I argue that scientific education can complement indigenous knowledge systems and thus lead to improved resource management, despite some claims that scientific and indigenous knowledge systems are incommensurable. [source]

Comparison of Economic Efficiency Estimation Methods: Parametric and Non,parametric Techniques

THE MANCHESTER SCHOOL, Issue 5 2002
Hsin Huang
We employ a wide range of parametric and non,parametric cost frontiers' efficiency estimation methods to estimate economic efficiency and economies of scale, using the same panel data of 22 Taiwanese commercial banks over the period 1982,97. According to our empirical implementation, the two methodologies yield similar average efficiency estimates, yet they come to very dissimilar results pertaining to the efficiency rankings, the stability of measured efficiency over time, the consistency between frontier efficiency and conventional performance measures, and the estimates of scale economies. Thus, the choice of an estimation approach can result in very different conclusions and policy implications regarding cost efficiencies and cost economies. These findings suggest that making policy decisions and evaluations relies on multiple techniques and specifications. [source]