Suchergebnisse

We study a dynamic stochastic general equilibrium model where agents are concerned about model uncertainty regarding climate change. An externality from greenhouse gas emissions adversely affects the economy's capital stock. We assume that the mapping from climate change to damages is subject to uncertainty, and we adapt and use techniques from robust control theory in order to study efficiency and optimal policy. We obtain a sharp analytical solution for the implied environmental externality, and we characterize dynamic optimal taxation. A small increase in the concern about model uncertainty can cause a significant drop in optimal energy extraction. The optimal tax which restores the social optimal allocation is Pigouvian. Under more general assumptions, we develop a recursive method and solve the model computationally. We find that the introduction of uncertainty matters qualitatively and quantitatively. We study optimal output growth in the presence and in the absence of concerns about uncertainty and find that these can lead to substantially different conclusions.

Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to comment on Professor Ming-Jer Chen's recent publication titled "Competitive dynamics: Eastern roots, Western growth" and present an asymmetry reversing perspective on the competitive dynamics between two nonobvious, invisible or indirect competitors, namely, how emerging market resource-poor firms compete and outcompete advanced country resource-rich rivals.


Design/methodology/approach
The author first identifies an important neglect in Professor Chen's scholarship on competitive dynamics, i.e., the neglect of the ubiquity of the less visible competition between two actors who initially would not be considered as competitors. Then, the author proposes an asymmetry reversing theory (ART) of competitive dynamics to redress this neglect. The theory is presented in two parts. The first part describes the competitive dynamics between the two actors as a three-stage process of reversing the asymmetry in resource possession and market position between the resource-poor firm and its resource-rich rivals. The second part explains the key success factors for the resource-poor firm to go through each of the three stages.


Findings
The growth process of the resource-poor firm can be broadly divided into three stages: surviving, catching-up, and outcompeting. For ambitious yet pragmatic resource-poor firms, in the surviving stage, they often (have to) accept the asymmetry between themselves and their resource-rich rivals in terms of resource possession and market position, and try to avoid any direct competition with the strong incumbents. They often tactically appear to pursue different paths of development from those of the strong incumbents by focusing on particular product categories and market segments. Doing so allows the resource-poor firms to win times and spaces for non-interrupted growth. Once they have accumulated sufficient resources and market experiences, they start to reduce the asymmetry between themselves and their better-endowed rivals by entering the similar or same product categories and market segments. To effectively catch up and outcompete the incumbents, they often differentiate themselves from their rivals by offering cheaper products or services, adding new features to their products, providing extra services to their customers, inventing new business models, etc.


Research limitations/implications
One limitation of this paper is that the ART framework has so far been built on anecdotal evidences. It needs to be tested by empirical studies and refined further in the future. Another limitation is that the proposed theory is based on competitive dynamics between emerging market resource-poor firms and advanced country resource-rich firms. It needs to be tested whether this theory has applicability to any other firms.


Originality/value
This paper fills an important research gap in the competitive dynamics literature by proposing an asymmetry reversing theory of competitive dynamics between a weak latecomer and a strong incumbent in a competitive field.

Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to comment on Peter Ping Li's understanding of Zhong-Yong balancing, presented in his article titled "Global implications of the indigenous epistemological system from the East: How to apply Yin-Yang balancing to paradox management." Seeing his understanding of Zhong-Yong balancing being incorrect and incomplete, the author proposes an alternative perspective on Zhong-Yong as dynamic balancing between Yin-Yang opposites.


Design/methodology/approach
The author first explain why Peter P. Li's "asymmetry" and "superiority" arguments are flawed by referring to the original text of the classical book of Zhong-Yong (中庸) and a comparison between Zhong-Yong and Aristotle's doctrine of the mean. The author then propose an alternative approach to Zhong-Yong balancing that is embedded in the original text Zhong-Yong but somehow has been neglected by many Chinese scholars. The author concludes the commentary by unifying the two alternative approaches to Zhong-Yong balancing under the inclusion-selection-promotion-transition (ISPT) framework of Zhong-Yong balancing.


Findings
There are three main findings. First, as the original text of Zhong-Yong does not prescribe asymmetry, Peter P. Li's notion of "Yin-Yang balancing" is ironically unbalanced or anti-Zhong-Yong due to his emphasis on asymmetry to the exclusion of symmetry. Second, due to the equivalency between Zhong-Yong and Aristotle's doctrine of the mean, Peter P. Li's assertion that "Yin-Yang balancing" is superior as a solution to paradox management is flawed. Third, his "Yin-Yang balancing" solution is only (the less sophisticated) one of two alternative approaches to Zhong-Yong balancing, i.e., ratio-based combination of Yin-Yang opposites. What Peter P. Li and many other Chinese have neglected is another approach to Zhong-Yong that is embedded in the original text of Zhong-Yong, which I call "analysis plus synthesis."


Research limitations/implications
As it is a commentary there are no specific limitations except for what can be covered in the space available.


Practical implications
The "analysis plus synthesis" approach to Zhong-Yong can be adopted by practitioners who are demanded to balance between opposite forces in daily life and work.


Social implications
The rejection of the "Yin-Yang balancing being superior" assertion facilitates reduction of friction and non-cooperation between intellectual traditions.


Originality/value
This commentary contributes to the "West meets East" discourse by debunking Peter P. Li's assertion that Yin-Yang balancing is superior as a solution to paradox management and his prescription that balancing between Yin-Yang opposites must be asymmetric. It also contributes to the Chinese indigenous management research by identifying a largely neglected approach to Zhong-Yong balancing (i.e. "analysis plus synthesis") that is alternative to the commonly understood ratio-based combination approach (e.g. "Yin-Yang balancing"). In addition, it contributes to the management literature by proposing the ISPT framework of Zhong-Yong balancing.