Tax morale and tax evasion: Social preferences and bounded rationality

We study a family of models of tax evasion, where a flat-rate tax finances only the provision of public goods, neglecting audits and wage differences. We focus on the comparison of two modeling approaches. The first is based on optimizing agents, who are endowed with social preferences, their utility being the sum of private consumption and moral utility. The second approach involves agents acting according to simple heuristics. We find that while we encounter the traditionally shaped Laffer-curve in the optimizing model, the heuristics models exhibit (linearly) increasing Laffercurves. This difference is related to a peculiar type of behavior emerging within the heuristics based approach: a number of agents lurk in a moral state of limbo, alternating between altruism and selfishness.

Több szempontú részvételi döntések a fenntarthatósági értékelésekben. A legnépszerűbb módszerek összehasonlítása = Participatory multi-criteria decision analysis. A comparison of methodologies

A fenntarthatóság értékelése definíciószerűen többdimenziós probléma. A megfelelő alternatíva, forgatókönyv, eljárás stb. kiválasztásakor ugyanis a döntéshozóknak egyszerre kell figyelembe venniük környezetvédelmi, gazdasági és társadalmi szempontokat. Az ilyen döntéseket alátámaszthatják a több szempontú döntéshozatali modellek. A tanulmány a több szempontú döntési eljárások közül a legfontosabb hétnek az alkalmazhatóságát vizsgálja részvételi körülmények között. Az utóbbi évek e témában publikált esettanulmányainak áttekintésével megállapítható, hogy egyik módszer sem uralja a többit, azok különböző feltételek mellett eltérő sikerrel használhatók. Ennek ellenére a különböző módszerek kombinációjával végrehajthatunk olyan eljárásokat, amelyekkel az egyes módszerek előnyeit még jobban kiaknázhatjuk. ________ Measuring and comparing the sustainability of certain actions, scenarios, technologies, etc. is by definition a multidimensional problem. Decision-makers must consider environmental, economic and social aspects when choosing an alternative course of action. Such decisions can be aided by multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). This paper investigates seven different MCDA methodologies: MAU, the Analytic Hierarchic Process (AHP), the ELECTRE, PROMETHEE, REGIME, and NAIADE methods, and "Ideal and reference point" approaches). It is based on a series of reports in which over 30 real-world case studies focusing on participatory MCDA were reviewed. It is stressed, however, that there is no "best" choice in the list of MCDA techniques. Some methods fit certain decision problems better than others. Nonetheless, some complementary benefits of the different techniques can be exploited by combining these methodologies.

Efficacy and safety of infliximab-biosimilar compared to other biological drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: a mixed treatment comparison.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of infliximab-biosimilar and other available biologicals for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), namely abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab and tocilizumab. METHODS: A systematic literature review of MEDLINE database until August 2013 was carried out to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Bayesian mixed treatment comparison method was applied for the pairwise comparison of treatments. Improvement rates by the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20 and ACR50) at week 24 were used as efficacy endpoints, and the occurrence of serious adverse events was considered to assess the safety of the biologicals. RESULTS: Thirty-six RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. All the biological agents proved to be superior to placebo. For ACR20 response, certolizumab pegol showed the highest odds ratio (OR) compared to placebo, OR 7.69 [95 % CI 3.69-14.26], followed by abatacept OR 3.7 [95 % CI 2.17-6.06], tocilizumab OR 3.69 [95 % CI 1.87-6.62] and infliximab-biosimilar OR 3.47 [95 % CI 0.85-9.7]. For ACR50 response, certolizumab pegol showed the highest OR compared to placebo OR 8.46 [3.74-16.82], followed by tocilizumab OR 5.57 [95 % CI 2.77-10.09], and infliximab-biosimilar OR 4.06 [95 % CI 1.01-11.54]. Regarding the occurrence of serious adverse events, the results show no statistically significant difference between infliximab-biosimilar and placebo, OR 1.87 [95 % CI 0.74-3.84]. No significant difference regarding efficacy and safety was found between infliximab-biosimilar and the other biological treatments. CONCLUSION: This is the first indirect meta-analysis in RA that compares the efficacy and safety of biosimilar-infliximab to the other biologicals indicated in RA. We found no significant difference between infliximab-biosimilar and other biological agents in terms of clinical efficacy and safety.