Marine management Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Marine administration - Essay Example Issues, for example, decreased efficiency and increased dangers to injury in the workplace would all be able to result from the previously mentioned issues, managing them and forestalling the commitment of representatives to them is basic. The rate at which organizations lose cash through innumerable medical advantages to upsetting and exhausted staff is disturbing. Sound workers need less medical advantages and are profitable. Administrators and heads of organizations the same need to make sense of how to check this hazard. Business related wounds are on the expansion and are constantly recorded high when most specialists stay at work longer than required and have less break to lessen the weariness or take part in exercises that can decrease the degrees of stress. My organization, as this paper talks about underneath, has just evolved countermeasures to the above issues. The progressions we have acknowledged can not exclusively be told through the satisfaction of all members in the organization yet in addition through the benefits we have accumulated in the ongoing past. There are a few reasons for both weariness and worry as recorded underneath. Exhaustion itself is brought about by broadened times of physical or even mental effort with less an ideal opportunity to recuperate through rest. Typically, a specific degree of weariness is ordinary, in any case, when the levels are excessively high, there must be a lot of burdens. These degrees of weariness can be because of the accompanying: Significant levels of weariness and stress ordinarily prompts diminished efficiency. This is commonly the most serious issue with the two. Likewise, since stress and weakness may weaken a person’s sense, including that of peril, representatives run dangers of mishaps and wounds in the workplace. Studies show that remaining alert for more than 17 hours has as much negative consequences for the general execution of an individual’s execution as having about 0.05% liquor content in blood. An additional four hours copies the liquor content figure to 0.1% (Williamson et al. 320). It is essential to bring up that the two workers and

Less Than Jake free essay sample

At the point when I put Borders and Boundaries in my CDplayer just because, I had no clue about that it would perpetually change my musiclife. Heart hustling, I squeezed the play button. What's in store from this ska/punkband from Gainesville, Florida? What I heard overwhelmed me. This music representsa more develop Less Than Jake, vocally, expressively and musically. DrummerVinnies verses hit the imprint once more, running the melodic range from senseless anthemsto genuine ditties. Is This Thing On is a genuine ditty with aninfectious punk edge. Pete Jackson is Getting Married is a funny,lighthearted melody about Less Than Jakes trombone player. Bordersand Boundaries was discharged on NOFX-possessed Fat Wreck Chords. The bandswitched from Capitol, and hasnt sold out or changed its style. In any event, for adie-hard LTJ fan, its difficult to monitor their discharges they have 76 (over130, including assemblages). They as of late completed an abroad visit and startedtouring the U. We will compose a custom exposition test on Not exactly Jake or on the other hand any comparative point explicitly for you Don't WasteYour Time Recruit WRITER Just 13.90/page S. with Zebrahead, New Found Glory, The Suicide Machines and TheAtaris. In the event that you dont have Borders and Boundaries as of now, Irecommend you get your shoes on and run as quick as possible to a record store. Thesongs are better than some other LTJ works. Disregard anything youve ever heard,this is a shiny new and improved Less Than Jake. Every melody on this CD isguaranteed to make you need to quit everything youre doing, get up and sing atthe top of your lungs.

Finance part of a Executive Memorandum Case Study

Fund some portion of an Executive Memorandum - Case Study Example With the expanded market specialty, more fans will go to the matches and more incomes will be figured it out. Consider the accompanying anticipated money related situation of the association in 2015 and 2016. This projection is planned for expanding the current incomes and benefits through promoting and expanding the market specialty by gaining by the foreseen ubiquity increment in tennis. In contrast to 2014, which recorded misfortunes, the above budgetary gauge for 2015-2018 can be accomplished if the misfortunes brought about are limited with the end goal that the sponsorship given by the WTT is put resources into different exercises. This will make the association monetarily solid in any event, for the intrigued financial specialists to get their cash the association. Additionally, the part of expanding the cost of tickets ought to be evaded rather different administration methodologies, for example, showcasing and fulfilling the requirements of the effectively recognized market fragment ought to be executed. Different impetuses, for example, beverages ought to be made moderate during the matches. This will expand the quantity of the fans along these lines empowering accomplishment of the set objectives and projections. The part of market division and promoting is key in these money related plans since it fills in as the main impetus to the acknowledgment of expand ed market specialty and subsequent expanded incomes. Since the association is â€Å"pass-through entity†, the total compensation acknowledged in the period 2014-108 as showed in the budgetary arrangement will be passed to the proprietors who will be charged at singular premise. The benefits proportions from 2015 through 2018 show theta the association is suitable for speculators. The edge scope of 0.55 or more is a decent sign of the organization’s positive advancement. In the event that the proprietors continue this pattern, at that point the overall revenue is relied upon to increment in coming years and this will guarantee the proprietors enormous benefits. For this situation, the association doesn't encounter a

Displacement Effect And Economic Growth In The Uk Finance Essay - Free Essay Example

In this chapter of the research, will discuss the assumption made by both the Peacock and Wiseman (1961) displacement hypothesis to explain the increases in the proportion of time government expenditure to economic growth in the United Kingdom. They found that government expenditure in the United Kingdom did not follow a smooth trend, but instead, it seems to jump up in separate times. Peacock and Wiseman (1961) proposed the displacement effect hypothesis. It had related to the Wagners law even though there are a few differences between them. Thus, they contend that under normal conditions of peace and economic stability, changes in public expenditure are quite limited. The effect of the public expenditure on the time pattern of the general government expenditure is that public sector size will tend to be constant over time, rather than increasing, unless same major crisis periods occur, which require an increase in government intervention. The equivalent expansion of the public sector will not be just temporary, since the new levels of government expenditure and taxation will be accepted by the electors, and therefore public sector size will remain stable at an higher level until the next shock. The data used in this study is the time series Quarterly data for two periods of (1980q1 to 1990q2), and (1990q3 to 2007q4), have utilized to analyze the relationship between government expenditures and economic growth by measuring the gross domestic product in the Saudi economy. The rest of the chapter is organizing as following: section one, presents some empirical results of relevant theoretical and empirical literature on the relationship between government expenditure and economic growth. Section tow, presents the version of Peacock and Wiseman and their formula to explain the Displacement Effect. Section three, investigates the data and empirical results and analysis by using the methods. In addition, Section four, presents the results of analysis by using the time series techniques , such as the Ordinary Least Square (OLS), Augmented Dickey-Fuller for stationary Unit Root Tests, co-integration test , Causality Granger test , and Error Correction Model (ECM) , that for real GDP and Non-Oil GDP . While section five, concludes the chapters and presents. 9.2. The Displacement Effect Hypothesis 9.2.1. Structural Break Theory As we mentioned before in chapter three, wars are capable of displacing this notion of tolerable tax rates. In addition, expenditure may fall again, but not to their previous levels. Therefore, public expenditure grows in a discontinuous and stepwise fashion, the steps coming at times of major social upheavals (Safa, 1998). According to, Tussing and Henning (1991:397) the upward displacement effect by Peacock and Wiseman is an example, but obviously not the only one of such a structural change. Nelson and Plosser (1982) examined the relationship between the unable to reject the null of a unit root against trend stationary alternatives their data set. They found that impact on the way economic series have viewed and treated subsequently, which have further discussed by Perrons (1989). Zivot and Andrews (1992) pointed out the specification argued in favour of the need to view break points as endogenous and to develop procedures, which considered this endogenously. Diamond (1977) presented the displacement effect as a theory of structural break, which means that the usual ceteris paribus assumption of unchanged tastes, preferences and institutions after the upheaval has denied. He has used the Chow test comparing two periods separated by a social upheaval, and he found that, if this shows significant structural change and there has been displacement. 9.2.2. A Ratchet Effect As mentioned previously, the main argument of the ratchet effect is that if there a crisis and GNP decline, then the public expenditure decline but less than GNP. According to Bird (1972), he has explained the displacement effect and called it the ratchet effect. Moreover, Bird (1972) has argued that crises are likely to have short-term implications for (E / GNP) rather than crises lead to a permanent upward displacement for (E / GNP). Henrekson (1992) argued that the (E / GNP) is fall in the short run in times of unexpectedly rapid GNP growth. Other study for Peacock and Wiseman (1979) they argued that at the extreme, the ratchet effect interpretation of the displacement effect leads to the denial of its very existence. 9.3. Empirical Testing of Displacement Effect: Previous Studies Gupta (1967) was the first attempt to subject the displacement effect to empirical testing. He found significant displacement after the world wars in all cases except for Sweden after World War II. However, this result seems to be due to an estimation error, he also found significant displacement caused by the Great Depression in the case of the U.S. and Canada. According to, Henrekson (1990:246) Peacock and Wiseman (1961), adopt a clearly inductive approach to explaining the growth of government expenditure. When Peacock and Wiseman observed that expenditures over time appeared to outline a series of plateaus separated by peaks, and that these peaks coincided with periods of war and preparation for war they were led to expound the displacement effect hypothesis. Legrenzi (2003) argued that the displacement effect for Italy within a multivariate revenue-expenditure model of government growth. His result for long-run analysis shows an effect of GDP on the governments growth. Otherwise, the short-run analysis shows some evidence for the displacement effect, in terms of a lower resistance against tax financing of government expenditures in the war. The similar test of Guptas version in many ways is for Bonin, Finch and Waters (1969); they have tested displacement effect in the U.K. after the two world wars. In addition, Peacock and Wiseman investigated that both citizens and government hold divergent views about the desirable size of public expenditures and the possible level of government taxation. This divergence can adjust by social disturbances that destroy established conceptions and produce a displacement effect. People will accept, in a period of crisis, tax levels and methods of raising revenue that in quieter times would have though intolerable, and this acceptance remains when the disturbance itself has disappeared. As a result, the revenue and expenditure statistics of the government show a displacement after periods of social disturbance. Expenditures may fall when the disturbance is over, but they are less likely to return to the old level. The state may begin doing some of the things it might formerly have wanted to, but for which it had hitherto felt politically unable to raise the necessary revenues (Peacock and Wiseman 1961: 26). Other study for Henry and Olekalns (2000), investigated the Peacock and Wisemans displacement effect to explain the increases in the ratio of government expenditure to GDP in the United Kingdom. They used a data set extending back to 1836; they found instances where displacement may say to have occurred. 9.4. The formulating of the versions of Displacement Effect We tested the Displacement Effect by reversing the Peacock-Wiseman version of Wagners, which are with real GDP (9.1): Table 9.1: The original Version of Peacock-Wiseman with real GDP No Function Version Year 1 L(GE) = ÃÆ'Ã… ½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ ± + L(GDP) Peacock-Wiseman 1967 Moreover, we will use non-oil sector of Growth Domestic Product (GDP) table (9.2). Table 9.2: The Version of Peacock-Wiseman with real Non-Oil Sector of GDP No Function Version Year 1 L(GE) = ÃÆ'Ã… ½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ ± + L(Non-Oil GDP) + e Peacock-Wiseman 1967 9.5. The Econometric Methodology and Analysis 9.5.1. Ordinary least square test (OLS) The ordinary Least Square test (OLS), has used to estimate the coefficients in the equations. The Durbin-Watson statistic indicates the absence of the serial correlation among the residuals; the closer the DW statistic and better result are to (2). Test reflects the regression equations ability to determine the dependent variables performance. In contrast, the coefficients of the logarithm model have an interpretation, as elasticises. The logarithm transformation is applicable only when all the observations in the data set are positive. In contrast, the parameters of the logarithm model have an interpretation as elasticises. The logarithm transformation is applicable only when all the observations in the data set are positive. According to, Gujarati (1995), the normal regression model by taking logs of both sides of the equation: Y = ÃÆ'Ã… ½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ ± + X + e (9.1) To be: Log Y = ÃÆ'Ã… ½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ ± + Log X + e (9.2) The slope is: Slope = (9.3) The elasticity is: Elasticity = = (9.4) For simplification, E can write as: = (9.5) The normal equation of Peacock and Wiseman version is: GE = f (GDP) f 0 f (9.6) Where: GE = Total Government Expenditure level in real terms. GDP= Gross Domestic Product in real terms. GE = ÃÆ'Ã… ½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ ± + GDP + e (9.7) The equation by using logarithm model: L (GE) = ÃÆ'Ã… ½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ ± + L (GDP) + e (9.8) E (Peacock Wiseman) = (9.9) 9.5.1.1. Structural Break Chow Test with Real GDP To find out whether there is a structural break between two periods we divide the observations, we need to calculate the chow test, which is like a F- test, the test statistic from the following formula (9.10): (9.10) The hypotheses tests are: Source RSSc RSS1 RSS2 df Model 9.33377 0.123032 4.65830 1 Residual 0.7410185 0.0067273 0.4136198 110 By using the formula above we can conclude, F-test (1, 110) = 83.914, and the critical value from the F-Table (5%) = 3.92. We have found that since the test F test (1, 110) = 83.914 is greater than the critical F- table = 3.92, we can reject the null hypothesis that there is no structural break and instead accept the alternative hypothesis that there is structural break, It means we have a structural break in the data. Thus, we need to divide the data into tow sup-samples. In the case of Saudi Arabia, we can analysis the Peacock-Wiseman version as: 9.5.1.1.1. Ordinary Least Square (OLS) with Real GDP Peacock-Wiseman (1980Q1 TO 1990Q2) The Peacock and Wiseman version would present as following: L(GE)= 6.43204+ 0.3737 L(GDP) (9.11) (14.44) (8.58) The numbers between parentheses are (t- statistics) for each estimated parameter and intercept. In the equation (9.11), we will get elasticity value directly as (E=0.3737) 0, that means an increase of (99.63%) unit in Government Expenditure (GE) generates a (99.63%) unit increase Gross Domestic Products (GDP). Moreover, the Government Expenditure (GE) explains (65%) change in Gross Domestic Products (GDP) (table (9.3). Table 9.3: Regression results for Peacock Wiseman Version for (OLS) test from (1980Q1) to (1990Q2) with Real GDP Versions D-Variable Constant In-Variable Coefficient R ² Peacock Wiseman L(GE) 6.43204 L (GDP) 0.3737203 0.6480 Peacock-Wiseman (1990Q2 TO 2007Q4) The Peacock and Wiseman version would present as following: L(GE)= 0.554041+ 0.94752 L(GDP) (9.12) (1.51) (27.67) The numbers between parentheses are (t- statistics) for each estimated parameter and intercept. In the equation (9.12), we will get elasticity value directly as (E = 0.94752) 0 , that means an increase of (99.05%) unit in Government Expenditure (GE) Gross Domestic Products (GDP) generates a (99.05%) unit increase Gross Domestic Products (Non-Oil GDP). Moreover, the Government Expenditure (GE) explains (91.8%) change in Gross Domestic Products (GDP) (table 9.4). Table 9.4: Regression results for Peacock Wiseman Version for (OLS) test from (1990Q3) to (2007Q4) with Real GDP Versions D-Variable Constant In-Variable Coefficient R ² Peacock Wiseman L(GE) 0.554041 L (GDP) 0.9475297 0.918 9.5.1.2. Structural Break Chow Test with Real Non-Oil-GDP To find out whether there is a structural break between two periods we divide the observations, we need to calculate the chow test, which is like a F- test, the test statistic from the following formula: The hypotheses tests are: Source RSSc RSS1 RSS2 df Model 8.62851 0.0943032 4.040055 1 Residual 1.44628 0.096802 1.0318692 110 By using the formula above we can conclude, F-test (1, 110) = 30.953, and the critical value from the F-Table (5%) = 3.92. We have found that since the test F test (1, 110) = 30.953 is greater than the critical F- table = 3.92, we can reject the null hypothesis that there is no structural break and instead accept the alternative hypothesis that there is structural break, It means we have a structural break in the data. Thus, we need to divide the data into tow sup-samples. 9.5.1.2.1. Ordinary Least Square (OLS) with Real NON-OIL-GDP Peacock-Wiseman (1980Q1 TO 1990Q2) The Peacock and Wiseman version would present as following: L(GE)=6.664974+0.3234 L(Non-Oil GDP) (9.13) (11.59) (6.24) The numbers between parentheses are (t- statistics) for each estimated parameter and intercept. In the equation (9.13), we will get elasticity value directly as (E=0.3234) 0, that means an increase of (99.68%) unit in Government Expenditure (GE) generates a (99.68%) unit increase Gross Domestic Products (GDP). Moreover, the Government Expenditure (GE) explains (65%) change in Gross Domestic Products (GDP) (table (9.5). Table 9.5: Regression results for Peacock Wiseman Version for (OLS) test from (1980Q1) to (1990Q2) with Real Non-Oil GDP Versions D-Variable Constant In-Variable Coefficient R ² Peacock Wiseman L(GE) 6.664974 L (Non-Oil GDP) 0.32340 0.6480 Peacock-Wiseman (1990Q3 TO 2007Q4) The Peacock and Wiseman version would present as following: L(GE)= -0.568392+ 0.9721244 L(Non-Oil GDP) (9.14) (-0.82) (16.32) The numbers between parentheses are (t- statistics) for each estimated parameter and intercept. In the equation (9.14), we will get elasticity value directly as (E = 0.9721244) 0 , that means an increase of (99.03%) unit in Government Expenditure (GE) Gross Domestic Products (Non-Oil GDP) generates a (99.03%) unit increase Gross Domestic Products (Non-Oil GDP). Moreover, the Government Expenditure (GE) explains (79.7%) change in Gross Domestic Products (Non-Oil GDP) (table 9.6). Table 9.6: Regression results for Peacock Wiseman Version for (OLS) test from (1990Q3) to (2007Q4) with Real Non-Oil GDP Versions D-Variable Constant In-Variable Coefficient R ² Peacock Wiseman L(GE) -0.568392 L (Non-Oil GDP) 0.9721244 0.797 9.5.2. Unit Roots Test Unit Root test aims to examine the properties of time series quarterly data for each of the Government Expenditures (LGE), Gross Domestic Product (LGDP), during the period from (1980q1-1990q2) to (1990q3-2007q4). To test the stationary time series model for the study variables, it requires the unit root test (Enders: 1995). Despite the multiplicity of the unit root tests, but we will use Augmented Dickey-Fuller for stationary Unit Root Tests, through the following equation:   (9.15) Where: = the first difference of the series. is the series under consideration (GDP, government expenditures, or government revenues), t = the time trend. k= the number of lag. is a t is a stationary random error (white noise residual). The hypotheses tests are: If we fail to reject the , then we have a unit root process. On the other hand , if the outcome indicates that the series are stationary after the first difference , in other words , the series integrated of order one I(1) , then we have to proceed to perform a co-integration test. Augmented Dickey-Fuller for stationary Unit Root Tests have used to test for unit roots. If the null hypothesis that the variable contains a unit root cannot be rejected, In this section we have to test the Unit Root Tests for Peacock and Wiseman version for real GDP and Non Oil GDP during two periods, firstly from (1980q1) to (1990q2) and from (1990q3) to (2007q4). Table (9.7) presents the calculated t-value from Augmented Dickey-Fuller for stationary Unit Root Tests on each variable. Table 9.7: Augmented Dickey-Fuller for stationary Unit Root Tests for Real GDP and Non Oil GDP from (1980Q1) to (1990Q2) Variables Augmented Dickey-Fuller for stationary Unit Root Test Statistics L(GDP) -2.725 L(GE) -3.514 L(Non-Oil GDP) -3.426 Critical Values 1% level -2.431 Critical Values 5% level -1.687 Critical Values 10% level -1.305 For the period during (1980Q1 to 1990Q2), according to the result in table (9.7), while all variables under examination are time-series variables, we needed first to test the properties of the series. In order to avoid the problem of spurious regression, each series has tested for stationary. To do so, we apply Augmented Dickey-Fuller for stationary Unit Root Tests, considering 5% level of significance, for the unit root test whether to accept or reject the null hypothesis. However, we found the results of each variable used in Peacock Wiseman version in Saudi Arabia indicate that the series are non-stationary in level but stationary after the first difference. The number of observation is 41 for Saudi Arabia and the following table (9.7) summarize the results of the unit root test for Saudi Arabia. Based on these test it can concluded that all variables tested (LGDP, LGE, LNON OIL GDP) are contained a unit root insignificant level of 5% for Augmented Dickey-Fuller for stationary Unit Root Tests. These results are consistent with the standard theory, which assumes that most macroeconomic variables are not static level, but become stationary in first difference (Enders: 1995).The next step would be to test for co-integration by testing the residual from the co-integrating regression. Table 9.8: Augmented Dickey-Fuller for stationary Unit Root Tests for Real GDP and Non Oil GDP from (1990Q3) to (2007Q4) Variables Augmented Dickey-Fuller for stationary Unit Root Test Statistics L(GDP) -4.199 L(GE) -7.332 L(Non-Oil GDP) -6.301 Critical Values 1% level -4.110 Critical Values 5% level -3.482 Critical Values 10% level -3.169 On the other hand, for the period during (1990Q3 to 2007Q4), according to the result in table (9.8), while all variables under examination are time-series variables, we needed first to test the properties of the series. In order to avoid the problem of spurious regression, each series has tested for stationary. To do so, we apply Augmented Dickey-Fuller for stationary Unit Root Tests, considering 5% level of significance, for the unit root test whether to accept or reject the null hypothesis. However, we found the results of each variable used in Peacock Wiseman version in Saudi Arabia indicate that the series are non-stationary in level but stationary after the first difference. The number of observation is 69 for Saudi Arabia and the following table (9.8) summarize the results of the unit root test for Saudi Arabia. Based on these test it can concluded that all variables tested (LGDP, LGE, LNON OIL GDP) are contained a unit root insignificant level of 5% for Augmented Dickey-Fuller for stationary Unit Root Tests. These results are consistent with the standard theory, which assumes that most macroeconomic variables are not static level, but become stationary in first difference (Enders: 1995).The next step would be to test for co-integration by testing the residual from the co-integrating regression. 9.5.3. Co-integration Test In this section we have to test the Co-integration Test for Peacock and Wiseman version for real GDP and Non Oil GDP during two periods, firstly from (1980q1) to (1990q2) and from (1990q3) to (2007q4). As mentioned previously, the concept of integration common that if the level variables of the form are non-stationary any package of first class, if possible, to generate a linear combination of these variables is characterized by a static zero-class integrated I (0). It is in this case, the  integrated real-time variables of the same rank co-integrated, and thus it can use the level variables in the regression, nor is the decline in this case a false spurious, (Rau, 1994). The null hypothesis is that the variables under investigation are not co-integrated. The rejection of the null hypothesis requires that the trace value of the co-integration test to be greater than at least one of the different critical values. Therefore, failing to reject the null hypothesis of no co-integration leads us to conclude that no relationship in the long-term equilibrium between government spending and national income. Co-integrating test in this study are conducted using the method developed by Johansen (1988), and Johansen and Juselius (1990). Many studies used the Engle Granger two-step, but there are those who used a Johansen and Juselius )1990) , for so many advantages, such as first, that tests for all of the variables and, secondly, all variables are treated as internal variables, so that the choice of the variable is not arbitrary. This procedure is the most reliable test for co-integration. To determine whether stochastic trends in series have related to each other or not, we will test for co-integration in Peacock Wiseman version. In addition, after determining the order of integration by Augmented Dickey-Fuller for stationary Unit Root Tests, we test whether the series are co-integrated or not, and if they are, we have to identify the co-integrating long-run equilibrium relationship (Brooks, 2008). In this section, we have to test the Co-integration Test with (Real GDP) and Co-integrati on Test with (Real Non-Oil GDP). 9.5.3.1. Co-integration Test with (Real GDP) In the case of Real GDP for the period during (1980q1 to 1990q2), table (9.9) shows that co-integration relationship were found and the test support the existence of one co-integration equation in the relationship between LGE and LGDP. By looking at the Trace Statistic value in table (9.9), we conclude that we must reject the null hypothesis of no co-integration in of Peacock Wiseman version with, because the Trace Statistic values are greater than the critical values at 5% levels. The existence of co-integration vector has pointed out by trace test since t-test value exceeds critical value in 5% level of significant. This means the co-integration tests are statistically significant at five percent level for determining the long-run relationship between LGE and LGDP. Otherwise, there is long run equilibrium relationship between Real GDP and Government Expenditures has found in Peacock Wiseman version that the trace tests indicates at 5%. At the Trace Statistic value in table (9.9), we can reject the null hypothesis of co-integration in Peacock Wiseman version with respect to real GDP, because the Trace Statistic values are greater than the critical values at 5% levels. Table 9.9: Johansen Co-integration Test results with (Real GDP) from (1980Q1) to (1990Q2) Versions Hypothesized No. of CE(s) Eigen value Trace Statistic (Long Run) Critical Value 5% Prob Peacock Wiseman None 0.51356   33.2534   15.41   0.0000 At most 1 0.08645   3.79   3.76   0.0000 On the other hand , In the case of Real GDP for the period during (1990q3 to 2007q4), table (9.10) shows that co-integration relationship were found and the test support the existence of one co-integration equation in the relationship between LGE and LGDP. By looking at the Trace Statistic value in table (9.9), we conclude that we must reject the null hypothesis of no co-integration in of Peacock Wiseman version with, because the Trace Statistic values are greater than the critical values at 5% levels. The existence of co-integration vector has pointed out by trace test since t-test value exceeds critical value in 5% level of significant. This means the co-integration tests are statistically significant at five percent level for determining the long-run relationship between LGE and LGDP. Otherwise, there is long run equilibrium relationship between Real GDP and Government Expenditures has found in Peacock Wiseman version that the trace tests indicates at 5%. At the Trace Statistic value in table (9.10), we can reject the null hypothesis of co-integration in Peacock Wiseman version with respect to real GDP, because the Trace Statistic values are greater than the critical values at 5% levels. Table 9.10: Johansen Co-integration Test results with (Real GDP) from (1990Q3) to (2007Q4) Versions Hypothesized No. of CE(s) Eigen value Trace Statistic (Long Run) Critical Value 5% Prob Peacock Wiseman None 0.75275   105.5668   15.41   0.0000 At most 1 0.12419 9.1496   3.76   0.0000 9.5.3.2. Co-integration Test with (Real Non-Oil GDP) In the case of Real Non-Oil GDP for the period during (1980q1 to 1990q2), table (9.11) shows that there is long run equilibrium relationship between Real GDP and Government Expenditures has found in Peacock Wiseman version with respect to real non-oil gross GDP at 5% levels . We can reject the null hypothesis of co-integration in Peacock Wiseman version with respect to real non-oil gross GDP table (9.11), because the Trace Statistic values are greater than the critical values at 5% levels. Table 9.11: Johansen Co-integration Test results with (Real Non-Oil GDP) from (1980Q1) to (1990Q2) Versions Hypothesized No. of CE(s) Eigen value Trace Statistic Critical Value 5% Prob Peacock Wiseman None   0.70444   79.2146   15.41   0.0000 At most 1   0.50992   29.2407   3.76   0.0000 On the other hand , In the case of Real Non-Oil GDP for the period during (1990q3 to 2007q4), table (9.12) shows that there is long run equilibrium relationship between Real GDP and Government Expenditures has found in Peacock Wiseman version with respect to real non-oil gross GDP at 5% levels . We can reject the null hypothesis of co-integration in Peacock Wiseman version with respect to real non-oil gross GDP table (9.12), because the Trace Statistic values are greater than the critical values at 5% levels. Table 9.12: Johansen Co-integration Test results with (Real Non-Oil GDP) from (1990Q3) to (2007Q4) Versions Hypothesized No. of CE(s) Eigen value Trace Statistic Critical Value 5% Prob Peacock Wiseman None   0.73329   158.7948   15.41   0.0000 At most 1   0.62460 67.6036   3.76   0.0000 9.5.4. Causality Test: After making sure of the time series model to study the variables that they are not stationary in the level and stationary in the difference, and then check it all-integrated joint, it is clear that there is a long-term equilibrium relationship. According to, Engle and Granger (1987), the variables that integrate common equilibrium reflects a long-term, it should be a representation of Error Correction Model (ECM), which has the potential to test and assess the relationship in the short and long term between the variables of the form, as it avoids  problems arising from the spurious correlation.   To apply the Error Correction Model (ECM) for Peacock Wiseman version in Saudi Arabia, we must employ Granger-causality as follows: In the context of error correction model (ECM) of the variables that are co-integrated. Standard Granger-Causal for the variables that do not co-integrated. 9.5.4.1. Granger Causality Test The Engle and Granger approach have two phases, the first: Assessing the relationship model equilibrium in the long term, called the decline of joint integration.  The second: an assessment error correction model to reflect the relationship in the short term or short-term volatility on the direction of the relationship in the long run, this model is estimated by the introduction of short-term residuum estimated long-term decline in the independent variable Decelerated for a single. In this section we have to test the Granger Causality for Peacock and Wiseman version for real GDP and Non Oil GDP during two periods, firstly from (1980q1) to (1990q2) and from (1990q3) to (2007q4). 9.5.4.1.1. Granger Causality Test from (1980q1) to (1990q2) with Real GDP Table (9.13) shows the probability values from Granger Causality Test for Peacock and Wiseman Version during periods from (1980q1) to (1990q2) with Real GDP. The reported F-statistics are standard test for the joint hypothesis that LGE does not Granger Cause LGDP. In the case of Saudi Arabia, the probability for accepting the Null-Hypothesis was only 0.1% while 99.9% rejecting this hypothesis, which means LGE, cause LGDP by around 99.9% all the time in Peacock and Wisemans Version. In table (9.13) the feedback of causality from LGDP to LGE has presented where the probability for accepting the Null-Hypothesis was, only 2.8% while 97.2% rejecting the hypothesis, which means LGDP cause LGE by about 97.2% all of them in the case of Saudi Arabia. Table 9.13: Granger Causality test for Peacock and Wiseman Version from (1980q1) to (1990q2) with Real GDP Null Hypothesis F-Statistic Prob. LGE does not Granger Cause LGDP 40.212 0.0010 LGDP does not Granger Cause LGE 7.1809 0.0280 The probability values from Granger Causality Test, table (9.14) present the causality test result from (1990q3) to (2007q4) with Real GDP. The reported F-statistics are standard test for the joint hypothesis that LGE does not Granger Cause LGDP. In the case of Saudi Arabia, the probability for accepting the Null-Hypothesis was only (1%) while 99% rejecting this hypothesis, which means LGE, cause LGDP by around 99% all the time in Peacock and Wisemans Version. In table (9.14) the feedback of causality from LGDP to LGE presented where the probability for accepting the Null-Hypothesis was, only 0.1% while 99.9% rejecting the hypothesis, which means LGDP cause LGE by about 99.9% all of them. Table 9.14: Granger Causality test for Peacock and Wiseman Version from (1990q3) to (2007q4) with Real GDP Null Hypothesis F-Statistic Prob. LGE does not Granger Cause LGDP 115.16 0.010 LGDP does not Granger Cause LGE 48.24 0.001 9.5.4.1.2. Granger Causality Test with Real Non-Oil GDP from (1990q3) to (2007q4) The probability values from Granger Causality Test, table (9.15) present the causality test result from (1980q1) to (1990q2) with (Real Non-Oil GDP). The reported F-statistics are standard test for the joint hypothesis that LGE does not Granger Cause LNON_OIL_GDP. In the case of Saudi Arabia, the probability for accepting the Null-Hypothesis was only 41% while 59% rejecting this hypothesis, which means LGE, cause LNON_OIL_GDP by around 59% all the time in Peacock and Wisemans Version. In table (9.15) the feedback of causality from LNON_OIL_GDP to LGE presented where the probability for accepting the Null-Hypothesis was, only 0.1% while 99.9% rejecting the hypothesis, which means LNON_OIL_GDP cause LGE by about 99.9% all of them. Table 9.15: Granger Causality test for Peacock and Wiseman Version from (1980q1) to (1990q2) with (Real Non-Oil GDP) Null Hypothesis F-Statistic Prob. LGE does not Granger Cause LNON_OIL_GDP 1.7821 0.410 LNON_OIL_GDP does not Granger Cause LGE 32.534 0.001 The probability values from Granger Causality Test, table (9.16) present the causality test result from (1990q3) to (2007q4) with (Real Non-Oil GDP). The reported F-statistics are standard test for the joint hypothesis that LGE does not Granger Cause LNON_OIL_GDP. In the case of Saudi Arabia, the probability for accepting the Null-Hypothesis was only 0.9% while 99.1% rejecting this hypothesis, which means LGE, cause LNON_OIL_GDP by around 99.1% all the time in Peacock and Wisemans Version. In table (9.16) the feedback of causality from LNON_OIL_GDP to LGE presented where the probability for accepting the Null-Hypothesis was, only 0.2% while 99.8% rejecting the hypothesis, which means LNON_OIL_GDP cause LGE by about 99.8% all of them. Table 9.16: Granger Causality test for Peacock and Wiseman Version from (1990q3) to (2007q4) with (Real Non-Oil GDP) Null Hypothesis F-Statistic Prob. LGE does not Granger Cause LNON_OIL_GDP 9.5193 0.009 LNON_OIL_GDP does not Granger Cause LGE 40.708 0.002 9.5.4.2. Error Correction Model (ECM) The Error Correction Model (ECM) differs as discussed by Granger (1988) for the number of error correction terms. The concept of error correction is related to co-integration because the co-integration relationship describes the long run equilibrium. If a set of variables are co-integrated, then there exists an error correction model to describe the short run adjustment to equilibrium Engle and Granger (1987). The incidence of mutual co-integration between the variable indicates that the Granger must be Causal in one direction, at least, but the rules of engagement did not refer to the direction of causality between the variables. To verify the rules of engagement we are conducting tests of causation in the context of Error Correction Model (ECM). With regard to periods of lag length, and use the same lag length for Peacock Wiseman version, which we were when we tested for co-integration. In addition, the t-statistics on the coefficients of the lagged error correction term (ECTt-1 (indicate the significance of the long-run causality between the two variables. The statistical significance of the t-statistics is in our tests should be at most 5% level. These analyses regarded as usual analyses of the displacement hypothesis and the hypothesis that the part of national income constant to government expenditure increases with income (Gupta 1967, Diamond 1977, Nomura 1991, 1995). Moreover, Peacock and Wiseman agree with Wagners version of Wagners law. In this section we have to test The Error Correction Model (ECM) for Peacock and Wiseman version for real GDP and Non Oil GDP during two periods, firstly from (1980q1) to (1990q2) and from (1990q3) to (2007q4). 9.5.4.2.1. Error Correction Model (ECM) from (1980q1) to (1990q2) with (real GDP) In the table (9.17), the results from (1980q1) to (1990q2) indicate that there is long-run unidirectional causality that runs from GDP to GE (Peacock Wiseman Version). We draw this conclusion because the sign for GE is positive, and at the same time, the coefficient is statistically significant at the 5%level, Thus, Peacock Wiseman version has found to hold for GDP in the case of Saudi Arabia. Table 9.17: Causality with Error Correction Model (ECM) test from (1980q1) to (1990q2) with (Real GDP) Versions Variables ECTt-1 T-Stat Peacock Wiseman L(GE) 0.0094398 7.69 L(GDP) 0.1036134 1.56 In the table (9.18), the results from (1990q3) to (2007q4) indicate that there is long-run unidirectional causality that runs from GDP to GE (Peacock Wiseman Version). We draw this conclusion because the sign for GE, positive, and at the same time it coefficient is statistically significant at the 5%level, while the signs for GDP is either positive, and/or the coefficient is statistically insignificant at the 5% level. Thus, Peacock Wiseman version has found to hold for GDP in the case of Saudi Arabia. Table 9.18: Causality with Error Correction Model (ECM) test from (1990q3) to (2007q4) with (Real GDP) Versions Variables ECTt-1 T-Stat Peacock Wiseman L(GE) 0.0086968 9.99 LGDP 0.2657211 3.53 9.5.4.2.2. Error Correction Model (ECM) from (1990q3) to (2007q4) with (real Non-Oil GDP) In the table (9.19), the results from (1980q1) to (1990q2) indicate that there is long-run unidirectional causality that runs from Non-Oil-GDP to GE (Peacock Wiseman Version). We draw this conclusion because the sign for GE is positive, and at the same time, the coefficient is statistically significant at the 5%level, Thus, Peacock Wiseman version has found to hold for Non-Oil-GDP in the case of Saudi Arabia. Table 9.19: Causality with Error Correction Model (ECM) test from (1980q1) to (1990q2) with (Real Non-Oil GDP) Versions Variables ECTt-1 T-Stat Peacock Wiseman L(GE) 0.0101674 1.73 L(Non-Oil GDP) 2.316124 6.43 In the table (9.20), the results from (1990q3) to (2007q4) indicate that there is long-run unidirectional causality that runs from Non-Oil-GDP to GE (Peacock Wiseman Version). we draw this conclusion because the sign for GE, is incorrect, negative, and at the same time it coefficient is statistically significant at the 5%level, while the signs for Non-Oil-GDP is either positive, and/or the coefficient is statistically insignificant at the 5% level. Thus, Peacock Wiseman version has found to hold for Non-Oil-GDP in the case of Saudi Arabia. Table 9.20: Causality with Error Correction Model (ECM) test from (1990q3) to (2007q4) with (Real Non-Oil GDP) Versions Variables ECTt-1 T-Stat Peacock Wiseman L(GE) -0.0037897 -3.42 L(Non-Oil GDP) 0.8948453 6.33 9.6. Conclusion According to, (Gupta, 1967) and (Diamond 1977,) argued that the displacement effect led to the share of national income devoted to government expenditures increases with GDP. In this chapter, we examined the relationship between the expenditures and economic growth of Peacock Wiseman version for Saudi Arabia by using time series quarterly data for the periods during (1980Q1 to 1990Q2) and during (1990Q3 to 2007Q4) . It has applied three distinct time series techniques. We have examined the regressions for Peacock Wiseman version by using Ordinary Least Square (OLS) for Real GDP and Non Oil GDP. The displacement literature surveys have shown that the earlier empirical tests of displacement suffer from several methodological compare between the studies has impaired by different choices of periods and data series. The next step is the Unit Root tests by using the Augmented Dickey-Fuller for stationary Unit Root Tests for Real GDP and Non Oil GDP, also we have used Co-integrating test for Real GDP and Non Oil GDP. Finally, Causality tests by using Granger causality tests and Error Correction Model (ECM). First, the regressions for Peacock Wiseman version by using Ordinary Least Square (OLS) for Real GDP and Non Oil GDP, to presents the probability of the equations and to analysis the R-square and DW, for Peacock Wiseman version. Second, The Unit Root tests by using the Augmented Dickey-Fuller for stationary Unit Root Tests for Real GDP and Non Oil GDP. In the case of the levels of the series, the null-hypothesis of non-stationary cannot reject for any of the series. Third, these results suggest that there is a co-integrating relationship between the share of government spending in national output and per capita income. In this situation, if co-integration exists between government expenditure and GDP, then Peacock Wiseman version holds. The equilibrium relationship indicates that the major determinant of government expenditure in Saudi Arabia, in the long run, is national income. Fourth, Granger causality tests have used to confirm the causality direction between the Variables. In the long run we found statistically significant evidence in favour of per capita GDP Granger-causing the share of government Expenditures in GDP, which is consistent with Peacock Wiseman version. The result of causality test indicate that the existence of strong feedback causality for Peacock Wiseman version in the long run. On the other hand, by using Error Correction Model (ECM), the concept of error correction, this has related to co-integration because the co-integration relationship describes the long run equilibrium. If a set of variables are co-integrated, then there exists an error correction model to describe the short run adjustment to equilibrium. Overall studies with the exception of Pryor (1968), the time dimension has completely suppressed, despite the fact that the Peacock and Wiseman hypothesis purports to explain the development of government expenditure over time.

Beowulf Comparison to Modern Day Hero - 2195 Words

From Beowulf to Superman, Why we need our Heroes Heroes, from Beowulf to Superman our cultures have always created heroes. We may always have political, social, economic and religious differences, but at the end of the day we all have one thing in common, heroes. They help define who we are and what we want to be. They give us hope and inspire us to head in the right direction. They show us that good will always triumph over evil and that anything is possible if you set your mind to it. Heroes give us the inspiration we need to overcome problems in our own lives and that is why we create them. Beowulf perfectly embodies the idea of a hero. He defeats the evil Grendel and his mother, slays the dragon and saves his people. He is†¦show more content†¦These are three of the bible’s seven deadly sins that are ingrained in our society. Sins that our heroes are still fighting today. Popular heroes like Superman, Iron Man and Batman, all seemingly fight villains who represent some moral turpitude. However, what is really interesting about these heroes is how closely they resemble a character a thousand years older than them, Beowulf. If heroes are supposed to represent what we as people want to be morally, then it would make sense that they would also represent what we want to be physically. Look at how Beowulf is depicted physically. He is a strong, statuesque man who seemingly towers over his peers. At the time, that is most likely what every man wanted to be. Now look at our heroes today. For example, Batman, who is a tall, handsome, millionaire bachelor who drives nice cars and dates beautiful women. The same can be said for heroes like Superman, Iron-man, Captain America and most other well-known heroes, but in order to fight crime, the heroes do not need these things. This point speaks to the fact that not only do our heroes reassure our moral standings they also embody the physical epitome of what we wish to be. While the phy sical nature of our heroes excites us, it is their actions that we gravitate towards. The premise of the first section of Beowulf is the hero bringing order and stability to a chaotic Heorot. This is similar to our heroes today, where Superman and BatmanShow MoreRelatedEssay about Beowulf and Modern Day Hero670 Words   |  3 Pagesessay is the comparison between Beowulf and the modern day hero. All soldiers that are fighting for my country certainly comes to mind first, when I think about a modern day hero. Both hero’s are fighting for a good cause, get rewarded for what they do, and get treated with much respect. Although a soldier might not withhold unworldly strength as one such as Beowulf, they both are putting their life at stake, which gives them both the title as being a hero. Both the U.S soldier and Beowulf portray characteristicsRead MoreModern Hero vs. Anglo Saxon Hero Essay814 Words   |  4 PagesTodays modern day hero has similarities and differences than the Anglo-Saxon hero. The two heroes each have different values they believe in. Also, they are motivated to fight for different reasons. An Anglo-Saxon hero also fights differently than a modern day hero. An example of this comparison is Bono from the band U2 and Beowulf. Both modern day heroes, like Bono and Anglo-Saxon heroes, like Beowulf, try to improve their societies, but do it in different ways and for different reasons. Anglo-SaxonRead MoreThe Four Characters Of Beowulf And Modern Day Heros738 Words   |  3 Pagesheroesheros. Some heroes Heros take the direct approach and overcome obstacles with raw power and strength, both physical and moral. Others use their intelligence along with trickery and ruthlessness. It is hard for a hero to take a more direct approach than Beowulf. For example, he rips Grendel’s arm right out of its socket! He also shows moral strength by being champion of the values of his society. There are also some other things that can differentiate two types heros. The first the type thatRead MoreEssay on Comparison of Modern Day Heroes and Beowulf744 Words   |  3 PagesComparison of Modern Day Heroes and Beowulf Most of us have heard of modern day heroes such as Spiderman, Superman, and the Hulk. Each is a hero to many children. Heroes are introduced to people early on in life usually as fictional characters, but as children grow older their perceptions of heroes alter. The characteristics of a hero are usually based around the ideas of a society or culture. In the epic Beowulf, the main character is thought of as a hero. Beowulf, a pagan warrior and the mainRead MoreHeroism : Beowulf And Cuchallain928 Words   |  4 Pagesdisagree on who might qualify to be a hero. While a few people could qualify to be called a hero, many people have done some heroic things at some point in their life; Beowulf and Cuchallain demonstrated heroism through their actions. A hero in the medieval times is considered to be someone that is a noble character that fights for his honor or the honor of his kingdom or community and also someone that is willing to risk his or her life for the greater good. Beowulf was a brave man that volunteered toRead MoreBeowulf : A Modern Epic Hero1595 Words   |  7 Pages When someone typically hears something regarding a superhero it’s the fact that they are saving the day. What comes to my mind is a tall, muscled, and good-looking man. The abilities epic heroes hold are without a doubt unspeakable. In common heroes today, they hold the ability to be strong, courageous, and have superhuman features. For example, the Anglo-Saxon heroes were always prepared to put their own lives in jeopardy for the greater good. Heroes always have target goals they must achieveRead MoreCritique Analysis Of Beowulf753 Words   |  4 PagesCritique Paper – Beowulf In the epic Beowulf, the main character Beowulf possesses all the qualities of a hero during the Anglo Saxon Era. He demonstrates his courage, loyalty, wisdom, and strength but are these qualities enough to consider him a hero by the standards of today? Beowulf has qualities that strong heroes have but didnt struggle to get them because he was born with it. He has many adventures, like fighting Grendel and other monstrous creatures but was very sure of himself. He wasRead MoreBeowulf vs. Gilgamesh1212 Words   |  5 PagesBeowulf Vs. Gilgamesh The two cultures I chose to compare heroic values for are the ancient Mesopotamia and ancient Anglo-Saxon cultures. The texts I used in the comparison are Gilgamesh for Mesopotamia and Beowulf for Anglo-Saxon. Although they posses many similar heroic characteristics they also differ greatly. Beowulf is the earliest surviving epic poem written in a modern European language. It was written in Old English sometime before the tenth century A.D. The poem describes the adventuresRead MoreSimilarities Between Beowulf And Spiderman Bear1397 Words   |  6 Pagesâ€Å"Heros are made by the path they choose not the powers they are graced with† (Ashton, Brodi). Spiderman was not a hero because he had powers like a spider, but that he used those powers to help others. Beowulf was described as a strong person known by many who defeated many conflicts. Although he had this strength is didn’t necessarily make him a hero. What made him a hero was when he helped others with their problems, like the Danes with Grendel. Although Beowulf and Spiderman bear some minor similaritiesRead MoreAnalysis Of Beowulf And Modern Days 918 Words   |  4 PagesDaryn Viser Women’s Roles in Beowulf and Modern Days There exists between the Anglo-Saxons and modern days a stereotype about women and their lack of being treated as equals in comparison to men. It is assumed that while the male characters were out battling monsters in return for honor and glory, the women lay at home anxiously pacing back and forth for their husbands to return. Little worth was assumed about them in accordance to man. While nowadays, no one blinks twice when a woman is offered

Wonder Wom The Feminist Symbol Behind The Bracelets

Wonder Woman: The Feminist Symbol Behind The Bracelets Wonder Woman is seen as being American, but in reality she is a Greek demigod. The amazonian superhero battles formidable Greek deities with an arsenal of weapons that were magically enhanced by the gods of Olympus. Those weapons include classics such as a sword and shield, and also includes a lasso a. She possesses superhuman abilities that were blessed to her by the gods and they included Hermes, Aphrodite, Artemis, Hestia, and Demeter. Her amazonian origin creates powerful symbolism for women everywhere and she provides women with strength. To truly understand Wonder Woman you must know of her origin. Created out of clay by her mother Hippolyta--the queen of the Amazons-- Wonder Woman was given life from the the gods of ancient Greece. She is arguably immortal due to her home on the island of Themyscira. Themyscira is where she was born; the island has been separated from the evils of man for thousands of years. Hippolyta named her daughter Diana, after the Roman goddess of the moon and hunt. The Amazons original purpose was to protect man’s world, but they abandoned their original purpose and chose to live in seclusion for thousands of years. Diana disagreed with the Amazon’s decision to separate from mankind and believed that the Amazons should integrate back into man’s society, but Hippolyta believed that the Amazons have no place in man’s society. However, all that changed during World War II when a United States

Analysis Of the poem Limbo Essay Example For Students

Analysis Of the poem Limbo Essay The Poem Limbo is based upon slave trade. Men and women from Africa were captured and taken to America to become slaves. The term Limbo has three different meanings: a state of uncertainty, being on the borders of hell, and a traditional west Indies dance where the dancer has to bend over backwards to dance under a stick. All of these meaning are explored within the poem.  The limbo stick in line 1 represents the sticks used to beat and whip the slaves in punishment, pushing them down both physically and metaphorically by breaking the slaves down psychologically by humiliation and subjugation. The poem is written in free verse and structured to a drum beat, like a traditional limbo dance as well as representing the drum beat in which the slaves had to work to and beaten to. The chorus limbo, limbo like me is repeated throughout the poem representing the constant beatings and oppression which the slaves endured.  In line 7 the term long dark night represents the loneliness and despair of the slaves; they felt isolated and alone, in a state of darkness or uncertainty which is another meaning for the term limbo. The slaves were also socially isolated due to being unable to speak English (line 7) the silence in front of me. In line 16 alliteration is used to emphasise the slaves anger and frustration of subjugation and oppression and the loss of their identity. Images of violence appear in line 26 and 27 due to the beating monosyllables that give force to the words stick and knock as the victims of slavery are now forced to the ground and beaten inhumanely. Lines 31 and 32 give insight to the denomination which also included slaves being physically raped individually and the rape of the whole nation through their oppression, and mentally stripped of their dignity self worth and identity (lines 34, 35 and 36). In line 43 the phrase Dumb gods is used to express the silence of the churches that played ignorant to the inhumane practices of the slave traders and the small g in the word god shows the slaves bitterness towards them.  The poem is concluded with optimism, which is shared as a nation in line 41 as the single drummer has now become plural; therefore the people are coming together in their shared hopes. The burning ground (line 51) gives connotations of cleansing, revival and rebirth: implicating future hope of apartheid and freedom.