Suchergebnisse

Total factor productivity (TFP) was used for some years as a single indicator for measuring performance of government trading enterprises in Australia. More recently there has been a shift in emphasis towards financial criteria, with little or no mention of TFP. But it is well known that financial measures can be inappropriate for enterprises with market power.We show that it is important to monitor both TFP and financial performance. TFP performance alone can be misleading and be achieved at the expense of financial performance—this is illustrated for Australian National Railways during the 1980s. TFP and financial performance can be directly linked, and this provides a better framework for performance assessment over time. We explore the relationship between productivity, price performance, and various financial measures.

The use of social and economic indicators to evaluate and rank governments' performance is often found in literature. The Anglo-Commonwealth and Scandinavian countries rest on the surveillance of work in the various ministries. This performance accounting approach thus becomes crucial for any regime to perform superlatively to their predecessors and thus it provides the basis to suggest why it is important to inspect governance of a government. Government's efficacy also depends on the magnitude of the welfare that it is able to achieve. Debate on welfare is dated back to Adam Smith at-least. Now the question is what should be the welfare gauging indicators. We understand that, issues related to poverty, land utilisation, agriculture and industrial sectors, health services, education, growth rate of national income, per capita income, employment, etc. are important factors that can explain welfare status of a nation. Thus by developing an index based on performance in these areas, various political regimes can be evaluated and ranked. These evaluations and rankings set standards for future governments to improve. Thus these studies can be useful for developing and improving social welfare standards.

This research investigates the Comparative Analysis of Performance of Government sponsored Banks in Pakistan. Data were collected from Five year data sample of both banks (National Bank of Pakistan and Sindh Bank Limited) will be used in ratios and for evaluating the difference of bank of performance variables from 2011 to 2016. Secondary data will be used primarily in this study. Single factor ANOVA test will be applied in comparative analysis of bank variables (Return on Asset, Return on equity and Asset Turnover). Then p-values will show the significance of relationship.Pertinent information on variables collected using various secondary data sources including Bank's websites. It was revealed that the p-value=0.013612 ie ‹0.05 indicates rejecting null hypothesis. So, it can be inferred that significant difference in performance based on the asset turnover of Sindh Bank Limited and National Bank of Pakistan. Further, average asset turnover of National Bank of Pakistan AT=0.0.72 is lower than average asset turnover of Sindh bank AT= 0.092 as shown in ANOVA single factor test.

The key to achieving maximum performance from every government employee.