Allocation of authority in franchise chains

This article investigates the level of delegation in franchise chains, distinguishing the two most relevant franchising models: Business Format Franchising and Learning Network Franchising. The two models basically differ on the level of real authority (effective control over decisions) exercised by the franchisors. Differences in business features, such as the required standardization, monitoring costs and consumer sensitivity to variations in product attributes (consumer measurement costs), explain the adoption of the different models of franchising. These variables affect the trade-off between the risk of brand name loss and the gains in knowledge sharing and learning within the network. The higher the need for standardization, the higher is the risk of brand name loss, and, consequently, the more likely the franchisor will adopt an organizational design that confers more control over franchisees’ decisions, such as business format franchising. This paper presents two case studies with Brazilian food franchise chains that illustrate the main argument and suggest additional propositions. Moreover, an empirical analysis of 223 franchise chains provides additional support to the hypothesis of a negative the effect of required standardization on the level of delegation.

Reformas del esquema de gestión de la CEPAL: delegación de autoridad y rendición de cuentas = Reform of the ECLAC management scheme: delegation of authority and accountability = Réforme du mécanisme de gestion de la CEPALC: délégation de pouvoirs et justification de l'emploi des fonds

Incluye Bibliografía

Autoridad específica, endoso, apoyo y otras acciones solicitadas al CDCC en conexión con el programa de trabajo del Secretariado = Specific authority, endorsement, support and other action requested from CDCC in connection with the Secretariat's work programme

Sugiere algunos puntos para ser considerados en la implementacion del programa de trabajo del CDCC.

Ejecución del programa de trabajo del CDCC: prioridades, programa de trabajo del CDCC, autoridad específica, endoso, apoyo y otras acciones solicitadas al CDCC con respecto al programa de trabajo del Secretariado = Implementation of the work programme of the CDCC: priorities, work programme of the CDCC, specific authority, endorsement, support and other action requested from CDCC in connection with the Secretariat's work programme

Presenta las actividades de cooperacion tecnica entre los paises en desarrollo, realizadas por el CDCC en lo que se refiere al campo de la informacion y a los sectores agricola, social, educacion, transporte y comunicaciones, comercio internacional y finanzas, energia y recursos naturales.

Informe de la Reunión del Grupo de Expertos Asesor del Grupo Latinoamericano en la Comisión Preparatoria de la Autoridad Internacional de los Fondos Marinos y del Tribunal Internacional del Derecho del Mar = Report of the Meeting of the Ad-hoc Advisory Expert Group of the Latin American Group in the Preparatory Commission for the International Sea-Bed Authority and for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

Contiene la asistencia, organización de los trabajos y resumen de los debates de la reunión convocada con el propósito de analizar fórmulas para el fortalecimiento de la capacidad negociadora de los grupos latinoamericanos en foros internacionales relacionados con el desarrollo de los recursos marinos.

Caribbean Information System for Economic and Social Planning (CARISPLAN): Institution Authority File

Breve reseña del archivo de autoridad de autores institucionales del Sistema de Información para el Caribe en Materia de Planificación Económica y Social.

Institutional Authority File

Contiene la lista de autores institucionales del Centro de Documentación de CEPAL, Puerto España.

Bias na Representação de Assunto: Uma Discussão de Oposições Binárias nos Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD)

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Metadata Authority Description Schema (MADS): uma alternativa à utilização do formato MARC 21 para dados de autoridade

Introduction: Authority records interchange requires establishing and using metadata standards, such as MARC 21 Format for Authority Data, format used by several cataloging agencies, and Metadata Authority Description Schema (MADS), that has received little attention and it is a little widespread standard among agencies. Purpose: Presenting an introductory study about Metadata Authority Description Schema (MADS). Methodology: Descriptive and exploratory bibliographic research. Results: The paper address the MADS creation context, its goals and its structure and key issues related to conversion of records from MARC 21 to MADS. Conclusions: The study concludes that, despite its limitations, MADS might be used to create simple authority records in Web environment and beyond libraries context.

Literacy Research: Issues of Authority, Ownership, and Representation

With the “social turn” of language in the past decade within English studies, ethnographic and teacher research methods increasingly have acquired legitimacy as a means of studying student literacy. And with this legitimacy, graduate students specializing in literacy and composition studies increasingly are being encouraged to use ethnographic and teacher research methods to study student literacy within classrooms. Yet few of the narratives produced from these studies discuss the problems that frequently arise when participant observers enter the classroom. Recently, some researchers have begun to interrogate the extent to which ethnographic and teacher research methods are able to construct and disseminate knowledge in empowering ways (Anderson & Irvine, 1993; Bishop, 1993; Fine, 1994; Fleischer. 1994; McLaren, 1992). While ethnographic and teacher research methods have oftentimes been touted as being more democratic and nonhierarchical than quantitative methods—-which oftentimes erase individuals lived experiences with numbers and statistical formulas—-researchers are just beginning to probe the ways that ethnographic and teacher research models can also be silencing, unreflective, and oppressive. Those who have begun to question the ethics of conducting, writing about, and disseminating knowledge in education have coined the term “critical” research, a rather vague and loose term that proposes a position of reflexivity and self-critique for all research methods, not just ethnography or teacher research. Drawing upon theories of feminist consciousness-raising, liberatory praxis, and community-action research, theories of critical research aim to involve researchers and participants in a highly participatory framework for constructing knowledge, an inquiry that seeks to question, disrupt, or intervene in the conditions under study for some socially transformative end. While critical research methods are always contingent upon the context being studied, in general they are undergirded by principles of non-hierarchical relations, participatory collaboration, problem-posing, dialogic inquiry, and multiple and multi-voiced interpretations. In distinguishing between critical and traditional ethnographic processes, for instance, Peter McLaren says that critical ethnography asks questions such as “[u]nder what conditions and to what ends do we. as educational researchers, enter into relations of cooperation. mutuality, and reciprocity with those who we research?” (p. 78) and “what social effects do you want your evaluations and understandings to have?” (p. 83). In»the same vein, Michelle Fine suggests that critical researchers must move beyond notions of the etic/emic dichotomy of researcher positionality in order to “probe how we are in relation with the contexts we study and with our informants, understanding that we are all multiple in those relations” (p. 72). Researchers in composition and literacy stud¬ies who endorse critical research methods, then, aim to enact some sort of positive transformative change in keeping with the needs and interests of the participants with whom they work.