曝光臺 注意防騙 網(wǎng)曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

Questions:
1. What is Ricardo’s theory of Comparative Advantage (Note and Roberts reading)? What’s the difference
between absolute and comparative advantage? If free trade is as beneficial as Ricardo suggests, then
why is there so much resistance to it (Florida tomato article)?
2. Is there any difference between the German-Japanese and the Anglo-American models of economic
development that you were not previously aware of (Fallows)? Are there any costs to being a “German-
Japanese” model?
3. Which of the functions of a keiretsu’s main bank do you find most distinctive or unusual? What advantages
do firms appear to gain from cross-shareholdings? How do keiretsu act as barriers to foreign entry in
the Japanese model? Can you think of any disadvantages to keiretsu practices?
4. What are the main success drivers of Toys’ strategy in the US? What are the main obstacles to Toys’ entry in
Japan? Should Toys proceed with the planned expansion? How?
Further Readings (Recommended not required):
* Nieman & Schnietz, “Politics Matter: The 1997 Derailment of Fast-Track”. Business and Politics 1 (1999): 233.
* Joanne Oxley and Karen Schnietz, “Globalization Derailed? Multinational Investors’ Response to the 1997 Demise
of Fast-Track Trade Authority,” Journal of International Business Studies 32 (2002): 479.
* Wolfgang Stolper and Paul Samuelson, “Protection and Real Wages,” Review of Economic Studies, 9 (1941): 58.
 Jack Beatty, Colossus: How the Corporation Changed America (Random House, 2001).
 Alfred Chandler, The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (Belknap, 1977).
 Alexander Gerschenkron, Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective (Harvard University Press, 1940).
 William Lazonick, Business Organization and the Myth of the Market Economy (1991).
 Douglass North, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (Cambridge University Press, 1990).
18
Class 11, Strategy Implementation: Simulation I
Class Overview (Approximate)
Time Topic/Activity
8 – 8:20 Getting Computers and Rooms set-up (each team will have their own room)
 1st decision for Y3, Q1 due at 8:20 in whatever room Karen is in (to be announced);
results will be returned within approximately 10 minutes.
9:40 Decisions (entry) for Y3, Q2 due; results will be returned within approximately 10
minutes.
10:50 Decisions for Y3, Q3 due; results will be returned within 5-10 minutes.
Use these results to finalize your Simulation Strategic Plan, due on Friday, Nov. 11th at 9
am. In other words, the forecasts in the Sim Plan should be for the next 4 quarters, or
Y3, Q4 through Y4, Q3.
11:45 Decisions for Y3, Q4 due; results will be returned within 5-10 minutes.
Use these results to finalize your Simulation Strategic Plan, due on Wednesday, March
21st at 9 am. In other words, the forecasts in the Sim Plan should be for the next 4
quarters, or Y4, Q1 through Y4, Q4.
Class 12, Strategy Implementation: Simulation II
Class Overview (Approximate)
Time Topic/Activity
8 – 8:15 Getting Computers and Rooms set-up (each team will have their own room)
 8:15 decision for Y4, Q1 due to Karen
9:20 Y4, Q2 decision due
10:15 Y4, Q3 decision due
11:05 Y4, Q4 decision due
11:55 Y5, Q1 decision due
Class 13, Strategy Implementation: Simulation III
Class Overview (Approximate)
Time Topic/Activity
8 – 8:15 Getting Computers and Rooms set-up (each team will have their own room)
 8:15 decision for Y5, Q2 due to Karen
9:20 Y5, Q3 decision due
10:15 Y5, Q4 decision due
11 Y6, Q1 decision due
11:50 Y6, Q2 decision due
19
Class 14, Simulation Debrief Presentations and Discussion
Class Overview (Approximate)
Time Topic/Activity
6 – 10  Teams will present for 10-15 minutes in random order (will be determined that
evening)
 Debrief questions will be handed out with last results of Simulation
 Nothing fancy is required – spend time analyzing, not prepping Powerpoint
presentation
 First 1-2 teams to present will take the longest, as issues/topics/interventions are
discussed for the first time
20
Business Strategy, Karen Schnietz
Peer Evaluations of Individual Team Member Performance
Team members will evaluate each other's contribution (including their own) to the team
projects (Industry & Competitor Analysis and Simulation) at the end of each project. Each team
member's individual share of the points earned by the team on the assignment is computed by
multiplying the team score by the peer rating for individual performance. Individual performance is
　
中國航空網(wǎng) www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：航空資料22(26)