Suchergebnisse

This article looks at various positive and negative measures which can be implemented to encourage the use of e-government. In particular, it focuses on incentive systems (primarily financial ones) as alternative measures to mandatory use requirements and includes consideration of the problematical issues of accessibility and the digital divide. The article also considers the possibility of levying special fees to offset the advantages of e-government to customers and the question of what incentives might exist for local and federal governments. Adapted from the source document. COPIES ARE AVAILABLE FROM: HAWORTH DOCUMENT DELIVERY CENTER, The Haworth Press, Inc., 10 Alice Street, Binghamton, NY 13904-1580

'Eine wesentliche Strategie zur Erhöhung der Rücksendequote bei postalischen Befragungen besteht in der Verabreichung von Incentives, also kleinerer Geschenke für die Befragten in Form von Geld oder geldwerter Gegenstände. Der Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit der Frage, wie man solche Incentives wirkungsvoll einsetzt.' (Autorenreferat)

Two major developments in the financial management of higher education have occurred more or less contemporaneously: incentive or performance funding on the part of government and incentive-based budgeting on the part of institutions. Both are based on fiscal incentives. Despite their several inherent and interconnected similarities, incentive funding and incentive-based budgeting have been viewed and appraised on parallel tracks. This study investigates their convergence. In doing so, it sharpens the definitions of both, identifies their respective track records, and discusses problems that are chronic to both. The study concludes that although incentive funding and incentive-based budgeting are sometimes at cross-purposes, they are functionally interconnected. The study uses Canada as an example because it is the jurisdiction that so far has seen the most extensive mutual deployment of performance funding and incentive-based budgeting. ; Deux changements importants sont survenus plus ou moins simultanément dans la gestion financière de l'enseignement supérieur: le financement incitatif ou basé sur le rendement, pour ce qui est du gouvernement, et le budget basé sur des mesures incitatives, pour ce qui sont des institutions. Tous deux sont basés sur des incitatifs fiscaux. Malgré plusieurs similitudes inhérentes et inter-reliées, le financement incitatif et le budget basé sur des mesures incitatives ont été considérés et évalués en parallèle. Cette étude se penche sur leur convergence. Ce faisant, elle en affine les définitions, identifie leurs résultats respectifs et traite des problèmes chroniques qui s'appliquent à tous les deux. L'étude conclut que, même si le financement incitatif et le budget basé sur des mesures incitatives travaillent parfois à contre-courant, ils sont inter-reliés dans leurs fonctions. L'étude utilise le Canada comme exemple parce que, jusqu'à présent, c'est la juridiction qui a connu le plus important déploiement mutuel en matière de financement basé sur le rendement et en matière de budget basé sur des mesures incitatives.

A massive wave of corporate fraud at the beginning of the twenty first century exposed the failure of corporate gatekeepers. The Sarbanes-Oxley legislation accordingly targeted gatekeepers, primarily auditors, by imposing strict regulation and enhanced independence guidelines. This legislative remedy is of disputable benefit while its costs have been huge. This paper maintains that a certain type of auditor incentive compensation could work better than regulation. Under such an alternative scheme, auditors would defer a portion of the payment they receive from the client firm, which would be used to purchase shares in the client after their tenure as auditor has ended. Instead of making them simply independent, this compensation structure would cause auditors to fend against inflated share prices. This type of auditor compensation could, therefore, serve to counterbalance recent trends in executive compensation that cause managers to overstate earnings. Modern accounting standards that augment management's scope of discretion make the suggested type of auditor compensation even more beneficial. Thus, the paper advocates calls for the Securities and Exchange Commission to promulgate a safe harbor that would facilitate such compensation schemes, which current independence guidelines do not allow.

In this paper I examine the incentives of regions to unite, to separate and to provide public goods. Separation allows for greater influence over the nature of political decision making while unification allows regions to exploit economies of scale in the provision of public goods. When public good provision is relatively inexpensive, separation occurs since individuals want to assert greater influence, while for intermediate costs of public good provision, separation can be explained by the desires for greater influence as well as for more public goods. Compared with the social optimum, there are excessive incentives for public good provision as well as excessive incentives for separation.

Incentives bezeichnen alle Formen der monetären oder nichtmonetären Anreizgabe an potentielle Befragte (Singer, 2002; Singer & Ye, 2013). Als nichtmonetäre Incentives werden Gutscheine, Lose, Spendengutscheine, Briefmarken und Sachgegenstände verwendet. Der Geldwert der Incentives, die in Studien verwendet werden, reicht von Kleinstbeträgen bis zu mehreren 100€ bei medizinischen Studien. Incentives unterscheiden sich darüber hinaus in der Art der Vergabe: Pre-paid incentives werden vorab unabhängig von der Teilnahme an das gesamte Stichprobenbrutto gegeben. Conditional incentives werden nach der Teilnahme an die Befragten gegeben, die am Interview teilgenommen haben. Das Papier gibt einen Überblick über den aktuellen Stand der Theorien und empirischen Befunde zur Wirkung von der Vergabe von Anreizen (Incentives) an Befragte auf Response-Raten, Retention-Raten und die Stichprobenqualität.

Incentives are all forms of monetary or non-monetary encouragement given to potential respondents (Singer, 2002; Singer & Ye, 2013). Non-monetary incentives include vouchers, lottery tickets, vouchers for contributions to charity, stamps, and objects. The monetary value of the incentives used in studies ranges from tiny amounts to several hundred euros in the case of medical studies. Moreover, incentives differ in terms of the way in which they are awarded: Pre-paid incentives are provided in advance, irrespective of whether the recipient participates in the overall gross sample. Conditional incentives are given to respondents after they have participated in the survey. This contribution provides an overview of the current state of theories and empirical findings on the impact on response rates, retention rates and sample quality of giving incentives to respondents.