Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
PL
Podejście behawioralne, w odróżnieniu od neoklasycznej teorii przedsiębiorstwa, zakłada brak pełnej racjonalności przedsiębiorcy, z którego wynika konieczność zachowań satysfakcjonujących, a nie optymalizujących funkcję celu. Przedsiębiorstwo w takim ujęciu jest traktowane jako koalicja różnych grup interesariuszy, prowadzących ze sobą negocjacje, w wyniku których dochodzi do wytyczenia celów, a następnie ich realizacji i ewentualnej korekty. W artykule porównano podejście behawioralne do neoklasycznego, przedstawiono jego słabe punkty (m.in. brak horyzontu długookresowego, niefalsyfikowalność, empirycyzm), wskazano też jego wartość dodaną (np. zwrócono uwagę na formowanie celów i rolę luzu organizacyjnego) i wkład w rozwój teorii neoklasycznej oraz nowych koncepcji ekonomicznych, takich jak teoria agencji czy teoria kontraktów.
EN
Unlike the mainstream neoclassical theory of the firm, the behavioural approach assumes lack of full rationality of entrepreneurs, which implies the necessity to satisfy rather than optimise the objective function. In this approach the firm is seen as a coalition of various groups of stakeholders, which conduct negotiations with one another to hammer out objectives, their implementation and possible remedial actions required. The article compares the behavioural approach to the neoclassical school, presents weaknesses of the behavioural approach (including the lack of a long-term horizon, non-falsifiability, and empiricism) as well as the benefits (attention to goal formation and the role of organisational slack) as well as its contribution to the development of both the neoclassical school and new concepts in economics, such as agency theory or the theory of contracts.
EN
The Open Method of Coordination (OMC), introduced to achieve the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy, is a soft law mechanism, supplementary to the legally binding and sanctions-oriented harmonisation of EU members’ policies. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the implementation of the OMC as a decentralised and voluntarily adopted method, assess its effectiveness and outline the prospects for its future. The method is based largely on mutual observation and the comparison of solutions applied in member states as well as the transfer of best practices. OMC was supposed to be an instrument free from the problems associated with hard law instruments – such as the crisis of legitimacy or the reluctance of member states to limit their own competence in economic and social policy – and to respect specific national solutions of EU countries. Despite advantages such as flexibility, openness, responsiveness to changes in the environment, transparency, and attenuated political resistance in the member countries, the method is not free from controversy. Its main drawback is the poor performance resulting primarily from the inability to enforce the developed provisions along with excessive orientation towards quantitative criteria and competition between countries (“economisation” accompanied by the neglect of social issues). Despite the failure of the Lisbon Strategy, the OMC will be applied to an even greater extent in the next strategy – Europe 2020. Its effectiveness will depend, however, on the correction of some of its mechanisms – for example, the introduction of financial incentives or increased participation of various stakeholder groups.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.