To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Under the current practice of benefit-cost analysis, the direct economic benefits produced by a newly built transit facility are assessed based on how it affects travel time and various costs that are associated with transport needs and travel behavior. However, the time-saving-based benefit calculation approach has been questioned and criticized. Given the strong correlation between accessibility and land value, we propose the access-based land value benefit assessment as an alternative, and apply this assessment method to analyzing the Second Avenue Subway project in Manhattan, New York. The primary principle of the access-based method is that the economic value of a transport project’s intangible gains is largely capitalized by nearby properties’ value appreciation, which is directly caused by improved transport accessibility. We find that: (i) the actual travel time saving is lower than originally forecast; (ii) a strong positive correlation between residential property value and job accessibility by transit is observed; (iii) the appreciation in sold property value and rented property value both far exceed total project cost; and (iv) such results support the decision to approve and construct the Second Avenue Subway.
Voluntary sustainability standards (VSS) aim to encourage ethical behaviors of organizations, yet studies show that many VSS adopters do not live up to these promises. Existing literature typically attributes the reason for this ineffectiveness to either policy–practice decoupling, owing to a lack of adhering to VSS requirements, or means–ends decoupling, owing to a lack of adapting to the local context. However, little is known about how the contradictory needs of adherence and adaptation evolve throughout VSS implementation. Building on the knowledge transfer literature, we develop a dynamic conceptual framework that distinguishes two phases of VSS implementation. Specifically, we theorize how tensions emerge in the transition between phases since the first phase primarily calls for adherence, whereas the second calls for adaptation. Applying this framework, we develop propositions to illustrate how these tensions relate to different VSS characteristics: stringency, enforcement, and scope. The article concludes with implications and future research directions for VSS scholarship.
Law plays a key role in determining the level of entrepreneurial action in society. Legal rules seek to define property rights, facilitate private ordering, and impose liability for legal wrongs, thereby attempting to establish conditions under which individuals may act. These rules also channel the development of technology, regulate information flows, and determine parameters of competition. Depending on their structure and implementation, legal rules can also discourage individuals from acting. It is thus crucial to determine which legal rules and institutions best enable entrepreneurs, whose core function is to challenge incumbency. This volume assembles legal experts from diverse fields to examine the role of law in facilitating or impeding entrepreneurial action. Contributors explore issues arising in current policy debates, including the incentive effect of legal rules on startup activity; the role of law in promoting or foreclosing market entry; and the effect of entrepreneurial action on legal doctrine.
Crafting successful privatization programs depends on capable governments. Even in countries whose institutions are flawed or underdeveloped, we often see public units at subnational levels acting as pockets of good government capabilities. This chapter advances the argument that privatization depends on good governments that not only set performance standards in dimensions that may not be prioritized by private firms but also guarantee that the whole process is diligently crafted and monitored. In other words, private firms and capable governments are complementary. With improved government capabilities, plurality ensues: capable governments not only experiment with outright privatization but may also use multiple forms of delivery, including hybrid public–private collaborations and even improved state-owned operations.
This chapter offers a practical decision-making framework describing conditions that will favor the adoption of alternative ways to deliver key services: generally speaking, privately managed activities, public–private collaborations, and public (state-owned) organizations, in their multiple forms and varieties. The chapter compares these forms based on their relative ability to generate effectiveness and inclusion, as well as with respect to their perceived legitimacy.
This chapter explains the concepts of effectiveness and inclusion as key determinants of the successful performance of public services. Effectiveness is assessed in terms of social benefits (as a function of service “quality”) relative to costs, while the assessment of inclusion observes whether disadvantaged populations have access to quality services. Alternative methods to compare policy options are presented: utilitarianism (the creation of social value whereby benefits must surpass service costs) and social contractualism (when inclusion is taken as a priority), with critical implications for the choice of private versus public delivery.
Although it is often assumed that private firms will have the required skills to generate impact, in many contexts governments actively sponsor new private capabilities via targeted industrial policies. Government capabilities are again critical here, as poorly designed policies may end up wasting public resources with unproductive firms that might request continuous support even when their initiatives fail. This chapter applies the decision framework presented in Chapter 3 to explore whether governments should expand their boundaries to include development banks with a mandate to improve private capabilities. The chapter also presents additional applications such as how private capabilities can be developed to deal with pandemics, taking COVID-19 as an example, and to promote the supply of affordable, frugal products and services.
Although private actors are generally depicted as profit maximizers with little concern for social impact or inclusion, this chapter shows how this assumption can be relaxed with the emergence of private owners with socially oriented preferences. Yet the chapter also acknowledges that such owners may not accept the inherent financial trade-offs in activities with critical service attributes or that target highly vulnerable beneficiaries. Private investors may also misrepresent their social contributions, leading to what is known as the practice of greenwashing. The chapter concludes by reinforcing the importance of corporate owners as ultimate decision makers pursuing and supporting socially oriented strategies that reduce the potential hazards of private delivery.