Answer: e. The pervasiveness of immoral and amoral businesspeople.
Explanation:
Managers are sometimes pressured into engaging in unethical behaviors due to intense competitive pressures that can determine whether they keep their jobs especially in a company culture that puts the profitability and good business performance as the paramount yardstick of success.
Heavy pressures placed on company managers to meet or beat earnings targets can also lead to unethical behavior and on a more person level, so can an overzealous pursuit of personal gain, wealth, and other self-interests.
The pervasiveness of immoral and amoral business-people is not a major driver of unethical managerial behavior.
Answer:
the estimated total cost for the coming year is $12,227.60
Explanation:
The computation of the estimated total cost is shown below:
y
= Constant coefficient + independent variable coefficient × number of horses
= $5,240.20 + $22.54 × 310 horses
= $5,240.20 + $6,987.40
= $12,227.60
This is the answer but not the same is to be given in the options
hence, the estimated total cost for the coming year is $12,227.60
1) Town of Bayport:
We have that the residents value the fireworks at
a total of 50+100+300=450$. That is the utility they gain. But they
would also have to pay 360$ for the fireworks. The total outcome is
450$+(-360$)=90$. Hence, the outcome is positive and the fireworks pass
the cost benefit analysis.
If the fireworks' cost is to be split
equally, we have that each of the 3 residents has to pay 360/3=120$. Let
us now do the cost-benefit analysis for everyone.
Jacques stands to gain 50$ from the fireworks but would have to pay 120$. He will vote against it.
Also, Kyoko will gain 100$ but would have to pay 120$. He will lose utility/money from this so he will vote against.
Musashi on the other hand, would gain 300$ and only pay 120$. He is largely benefitted by this measure. Only he would
We have that 2 out of the 3 would vote against the fireworks, so that the fireworks will not be bought. The vote does not yield the same answer as the benefit-cost analysis.
2) Town of River Heights:
We have that the total value of the fireworks to the community
is 20+140+160=320$. The total value of the fireworks is lower than
their cost so their cost benefit analysis yields that they should not be
bought.
However, let's see what each resident says. The cost to each resident is 360/3=120$. Rina is against the fireworks since she will only gain 20$. Sean and Yvette are for the fireworks since they gain 140$ and 160$ respectively, which are larger than the cost of the fireworks to each of them (120$). Hence, 2 will vote for the fireworks and one will vote against and fireworks will be bought.
Again, the vote clashes with the cost-benefit analysis.
3) The first choice is wrong. It is very difficult for a government to provide the exact types of public goods that everyone wants because that would be too costly; one cannot have a public good that everyone pays for so that only a couple of people enjoy it. In our example, we saw that in every case, a public good and its production would have sime supporters and some adversaries.
Majority rule is not always the most efficient way to decide public goods; as we have seen in the second case, the cost-benefit analysis yields that the fireworks are not worth it but they are approved by the majority nonetheless.
The final sentence is correct. The differing preferences of the people make a clearcut choice impossible and the government has to take into account various tradeoffs and compromises in order to determine which public goods to provide.
