Explanation:
The long-running debate between the ‘rational design’ and ‘emergent process’ schools of strategy formation has involved caricatures of firms' strategic planning processes, but little empirical evidence of whether and how companies plan. Despite the presumption that environmental turbulence renders conventional strategic planning all but impossible, the evidence from the corporate sector suggests that reports of the demise of strategic planning are greatly exaggerated. The goal of this paper is to fill this empirical gap by describing the characteristics of the strategic planning systems of multinational, multibusiness companies faced with volatile, unpredictable business environments. In-depth case studies of the planning systems of eight of the world's largest oil companies identified fundamental changes in the nature and role of strategic planning since the end of the 1970s. The findings point to a possible reconciliation of ‘design’ and ‘process’ approaches to strategy formulation. The study pointed to a process of planned emergence in which strategic planning systems provided a mechanism for coordinating decentralized strategy formulation within a structure of demanding performance targets and clear corporate guidelines. The study shows that these planning systems fostered adaptation and responsiveness, but showed limited innovation and analytical sophistication
Answer: B. The firm hires 45 workers and earns a $1,200.00 Economic Profit
Explanation:
If the Market Equilibrium rate is $105 then the company should hire 45 workers as shown in the table.
If they did that, revenue would be $7,425
Expenses would be wages and fixed costs:
= Wages + fixed costs
= (45 workers * wage rate) + 1,500
= (45 * 105) + 1,500
= $6,225
Economic profit would be:
= 7,425 - 6,225
= $1,200
- It should be noted that the failure to vaccinate some children isn an external cost. [See the attached graph]
- The social cost curve is also indicated accordingly.
- From an efficiency perspective, subsidizing vaccines <em>does</em> make sense because, without the subsidy, the equilibrium quantity is <em>less</em> than the socially optimal quantity.
- The school nurse suggests publishing a list of which kids did not get a flu vaccine, in the hope that public shaming will lead people to vaccinate their children. The school nurse is hoping that social norms will act like a <em>punishment </em>and lead the market to a<em> socially efficient </em>
- The flaws that the school nurse's suggestion have are:
- People that feel passionate about not vaccinating are typically doing so for medical or religious reasons and will not sway to social norms or peer pressure. (Option B)
- The school would potentially face a lawsuit because sharing protected health information (PHI), like immunization records, without parents' consent could be a violation depending on the regulations of the state. (Option C)
<h3>What is social Cost?</h3>
In neoclassical economics, the social cost is the total of the transaction's private costs plus the costs imposed on consumers as a result of being exposed to the process for which they are not rewarded or taxed.
In other words, it is the total of internal and external expenses.
Learn more about social cost:
brainly.com/question/28116338
#SPJ1
I believe the correct answer from the choices listed above is the third option. Explicit costs are easily identified because a recent market transaction is available to provide an accurate measure of costs. It <span>is a direct payment made to others in the course of running a business, such as wage, rent and materials.</span>
Answer:
$544
Explanation:
LIFO means last in first out. It means it's the last purchased inventory that is the first to be sold.
The cost of the 250 units sold would be first deducted from the inventory purchased on the 25th
= 100 × 2.34 = $234
That leaves 250 - 100 = 150 units.
The cost of goods sold would be next allotted to the inventory purchased on the 9th
= 50 × 2.20 = $110
This leaves 150 - 50 = 100
The cost of the 100 would be alloted to the beginning inventory
100 × $2 = $200
Total cost of goods sold = $200 + $110 + $234 = $544
I hope my answer helps you
