国際協力の罪と罰：買わない日本人

会社でも学校でも結果を問われる時代になった。会社では賃金のうち年功序列的部分が縮小され、業績給部分の割合が増えている。大学生の成績も、以前より明確な基準を用いて、学生の間に明白な差をつけて採点することが要求されるようになってきている。これまでは努力を含めて「何をどれだけ投入したか」が基準として重視されていたのに対して、最近は「何をどれだけ実現したか」という成果が重視されるようになってきている。（以下略）

Transformation of the Financial Sector in Indonesia

Introduction : The source and deployment of finance are central issues in economic development. Since 1966, when the Soeharto Administration was inaugurated, Indonesian economic development has relied on funds in the form of aid from international organizations and foreign countries. After the 1990s, a further abundant inflow of capital sustained a rapid economic development. Foreign funding was the basis of Indonesian economic growth. This paper will describe the mechanism for allocating funds in the Indonesian economy. It will identify the problems this mechanism generated in the Indonesian experience, and it will attempt to explain why there was a collapse of the financial system in the wake of the Asian Currency Crisis of 1997. History of the Indonesian Financial system The year 1966 saw the emergence of commercial banks in Indonesia. It can be said that before 1966 a financial system hardly existed, a fact commonly attributed to economic disruptions like the consecutive runs of fiscal deficit and hyperinflation under the Soekarno Administration. After 1996, with the inauguration of Soeharto, a regulatory system of financial legislation, e.g. central banking law and banking regulation, was introduced and implemented, and the banking sector that is the basis of the current financial system in Indonesia was built up. 　　　The Indonesian financial structure was significantly altered at the first financial reform of 1983. Between 1966 and 1982, the banking sector consisted of Bank Indonesia (the Central Bank) and the state-owned banks. There was also a system for distributing the abundant public revenue derived from the soaring oil price of the 1970s. The public finance distribution function, incorporated in Indonesian financial system, changed after the successive financial reforms of 1983 and 1988, when there was a move away from the monopoly-market style dominated by state-owned banks (which was a system of public finance distribution that operated at the discretion of the government) towards a modern market mechanism. The five phases of development The Indonesian financial system developed in five phases between 1966 and the present time. The first period (1966-72) was its formative period, the second (1973-82) its policy based finance period under soaring oil prices, the third (1983-91) its financial-reform period, the fourth (1992-97) its period of expansion, and the fifth (1998-) its period of financial restructuring. The first section of this paper summarizes the financial policies operative during each of the periods identified above. In the second section changes to the financial sector in response to policies are examined, and an analysis of these changes shows that an important development of the financial sector occurred during the financial reform period. In the third section the focus of analysis shifts from the general financial sector to particular commercial banks’ performances. In the third section changes in commercial banks’ lending and fund-raising behaviour after the 1990s are analysed by comparing several banking groups in terms of their ownership and foundation time. The last section summarizes the foregoing analyses and examines the problems that remain in the Indonesian financial sector, which is still undergoing restructuring.

An integral model for natural regeneration of Pinus pinea L. in the Northern Plateau (Spain) = Modelo integral de regeneración natural para Pinus pinea L. en la Meseta Norte (España)

Natural regeneration is an ecological key-process that makes plant persistence possible and, consequently, it constitutes an essential element of sustainable forest management. In this respect, natural regeneration in even-aged stands of Pinus pinea L. located in the Spanish Northern Plateau has not always been successfully achieved despite over a century of pine nut-based management. As a result, natural regeneration has recently become a major concern for forest managers when we are living a moment of rationalization of investment in silviculture. The present dissertation is addressed to provide answers to forest managers on this topic through the development of an integral regeneration multistage model for P. pinea stands in the region. From this model, recommendations for natural regeneration-based silviculture can be derived under present and future climate scenarios. Also, the model structure makes it possible to detect the likely bottlenecks affecting the process. The integral model consists of five submodels corresponding to each of the subprocesses linking the stages involved in natural regeneration (seed production, seed dispersal, seed germination, seed predation and seedling survival). The outputs of the submodels represent the transitional probabilities between these stages as a function of climatic and stand variables, which in turn are representative of the ecological factors driving regeneration. At subprocess level, the findings of this dissertation should be interpreted as follows. The scheduling of the shelterwood system currently conducted over low density stands leads to situations of dispersal limitation since the initial stages of the regeneration period. Concerning predation, predator activity appears to be only limited by the occurrence of severe summer droughts and masting events, the summer resulting in a favourable period for seed survival. Out of this time interval, predators were found to almost totally deplete seed crops. Given that P. pinea dissemination occurs in summer (i.e. the safe period against predation), the likelihood of a seed to not be destroyed is conditional to germination occurrence prior to the intensification of predator activity. However, the optimal conditions for germination seldom take place, restraining emergence to few days during the fall. Thus, the window to reach the seedling stage is narrow. In addition, the seedling survival submodel predicts extremely high seedling mortality rates and therefore only some individuals from large cohorts will be able to persist. These facts, along with the strong climate-mediated masting habit exhibited by P. pinea, reveal that viii the overall probability of establishment is low. Given this background, current management –low final stand densities resulting from intense thinning and strict felling schedules– conditions the occurrence of enough favourable events to achieve natural regeneration during the current rotation time. Stochastic simulation and optimisation computed through the integral model confirm this circumstance, suggesting that more flexible and progressive regeneration fellings should be conducted. From an ecological standpoint, these results inform a reproductive strategy leading to uneven-aged stand structures, in full accordance with the medium shade-tolerant behaviour of the species. As a final remark, stochastic simulations performed under a climate-change scenario show that regeneration in the species will not be strongly hampered in the future. This resilient behaviour highlights the fundamental ecological role played by P. pinea in demanding areas where other tree species fail to persist.

Un modelo de relación entre los programas de innovación abierta y la creación de valor

En un mundo donde el cambio es constante y cada vez más vertiginoso, la innovación es el combustible que utilizan las empresas que permite su renovación constante y, como consecuencia, su supervivencia en el largo plazo. La innovación es sin dudas un elemento fundamental para determinar la capacidad de las empresas en crear valor a lo largo del tiempo, y por ello, las empresas suelen dedicar esfuerzos considerables y recursos de todo tipo para identificar nuevas alternativas de innovación que se adapten a su estrategia, cultura, objetivos y ambiciones corporativas. Una forma específica para llevar a cabo la innovación es la innovación abierta. Esta se entiende como la innovación que se realiza de manera conjunta con otras empresas o participantes del ecosistema. Cabe la aclaración que en este documento se toma la definición de ecosistema referida al conjunto de clientes, proveedores, competidores y otros participantes que interactúan en un mismo entorno donde existen posiciones de liderazgo que pueden cambiar a lo largo del tiempo (Moore 1996). El termino de innovación abierta fue acuñado por Henry Chesbrough hace algo mas de una década para referirse a esta forma particular de organizar la innovación corporativa. Como se observa en el presente trabajo la innovación abierta es un nuevo paradigma que ha capturado el interés académico y empresarial desde algo más de una década. Se verán varios casos de innovación abierta que se están llevando a cabo en diversos países y sectores de la economía. El objetivo principal de este trabajo de investigación es el de desarrollar y explicar un modelo de relación entre la innovación abierta y la creación de valor en las empresas. Para ello, y como objetivos secundarios, se ha investigado los elementos de un Programa de Innovación Abierta, los impulsores 1 de creación de valor, el proceso de creación de valor y, finalmente, la interacción entre estos tres elementos. Como producto final de la investigación se ha desarrollado un marco teórico general para establecer la conexión entre la innovación abierta y la creación de valor que facilita la explicación de la interacción entre ambos elementos. Se observa a partir de los casos de estudio que la innovación abierta puede abarcar todos los sectores de la economía, múltiples geografías y empresas de distintos tamaños (grandes empresas, pequeñas y medianas empresas, incluso empresas de reciente creación) cada una de ellas con distinta relevancia dentro del ecosistema en el que participan. Elementos de un Programa de Innovación Abierta La presente investigación comienza con la enumeración de los distintos elementos que se encuentran presentes en los Programas de Innovación Abierta. De esta manera, se describen los diversos elementos que se han identificado a través de la revisión de la literatura académica que se ha llevado a cabo. En función de una serie de características comunes, los distintos elementos se agrupan en cuatro niveles diferentes para lograr un mejor entendimiento de los Programas de Innovación Abierta. A continuación se detallan estos elementos § Organización del Programa. En primer lugar se menciona la existencia de una estructura organizativa capaz de cumplir una serie de objetivos establecidos previamente. Por su naturaleza de innovación abierta deberá existir cierto grado de interacción entre los distintos miembros que participen en el proceso de innovación. § Talento Interno. El talento interno asociado a los programas de innovación abierta juega un rol fundamental en la ejecución y éxito del programa. Bajo este nivel se asocian elementos como la cultura de innovación abierta y el liderazgo como mecanismo para entender uno de los elementos que explica el grado de adopción de innovación en una empresa. Estrechamente ligados al liderazgo se encuentran los comportamientos organizacionales como elementos diferenciadores para aumentar las posibilidades de creación de innovación abierta. § Infraestructura. En este nivel se agrupan los elementos relacionados con la infraestructura tecnológica necesaria para llevar a cabo el programa incluyendo los procesos productivos y las herramientas necesarias para la gestión cotidiana. § Instrumentos. Por último, se mencionan los instrumentos o vehículos que se utilizan en el entorno corporativo para implementar innovación abierta. Hay varios instrumentos disponibles como las incubadoras corporativas, los acuerdos de licenciamiento o las áreas de capital de riesgo corporativo. Para este último caso se hará una mención especial por el creciente y renovado interés que ha despertado tanto en el entorno académico como empresarial. Se ha identificado al capital de riesgo corporativo como un de los elementos diferenciales en el desarrollo de la estrategia de innovación abierta de las empresas ya que suele aportar credibilidad, capacidad y soporte tecnológico. Estos cuatro elementos, interactuando de manera conjunta y coordinada, tienen la capacidad de crear, potenciar e incluso desarrollar impulsores de creación de valor que impactan en la estrategia y organización de la empresa y partir de aquí en su desempeño financiero a lo largo del tiempo. Los Impulsores de Creación de Valor Luego de identificar, ordenar y describir los distintos elementos presentes en un Programa de Innovación Abierta se ha avanzado en la investigación con los impulsores de creación de valor. Estos pueden definirse como elementos que potencian o determinan la capacidad de crear valor dentro del entorno empresarial. Como se puede observar, se detallan estos impulsores como punto de interacción entre los elementos del programa y el proceso de creación de valor corporativo. A lo largo de la presente investigación se han identificado 6 impulsores de creación de valor presentes en un Programa de Innovación Abierta. § Nuevos Productos y Servicios. El impulsor de creación de valor más directo y evidente en un Programa de Innovación Abierta es la capacidad de crear nuevos productos y servicios dado que se relacionan directamente con el proceso de innovación de la empresa § Acceso a Mercados Adyacentes. El proceso de innovación también puede ser una fuente de valor al permitir que la empresa acceda a mercados cercanos a su negocio tradicional, es decir satisfaciendo nuevas necesidades de sus clientes existentes o de nuevos clientes en otro mercado. § Disponibilidad de Tecnologías. La disponibilidad de tecnologías es un impulsor en si mismo de la creación de valor. Estas pueden ser tanto complementarias como de apalancamiento de tecnologías ya existentes dentro de la empresa y que tengan la función de transformar parte de los componentes de la estrategia de la empresa. § Atracción del Talento Externo. La introducción de un Programa de Innovación Abierta en una empresa ofrece la oportunidad de interactuar con otras organizaciones del ecosistema y, por tanto, de atraer el talento externo. La movilidad del talento es una característica singular de la innovación abierta. § Participación en un Ecosistema Virtuoso. Se ha observado que las acciones realizadas en el entorno por cualquiera de los participantes también tendrán un claro impacto en la creación de valor para el resto de participantes por lo tanto la participación en un ecosistema virtuoso es un impulsor de creación de valor presente en la innovación abierta. § Tecnología “Dentro--‐Fuera”. Como último impulsor de valor es necesario comentar que la dirección que puede seguir la tecnología puede ser desde la empresa hacia el resto del ecosistema generando valor a partir de disponibilizar tecnologías que no son de utilidad interna para la empresa. Estos seis impulsores de creación de valor, presentes en los procesos de innovación corporativos, tienen la capacidad de influir en la estrategia y organización de la empresa aumentando su habilidad de crear valor. El Proceso de Creación de Valor en las Empresas Luego se ha investigado la práctica de la gestión basada en valor que sostiene la necesidad de alinear la estrategia corporativa y el diseño de la organización con el fin de obtener retornos financieros superiores al resto de los competidores de manera sostenida, y finalmente crear valor a lo largo del tiempo. Se describe como los impulsores de creación de valor influyen en la creación y fortalecimiento de las ventajas competitivas de la empresa impactando y alineando su estrategia y organización. Durante la investigación se ha identificado que las opciones reales pueden utilizarse como una herramienta para gestionar entornos de innovación abierta que, por definición, tienen altos niveles de incertidumbre. Las opciones reales aportan una capacidad para la toma de decisiones de forma modular y flexible que pueden aplicarse al entorno corporativo. Las opciones reales han sido particularmente diseñadas para entender, estructurar y gestionar entornos de múltiples incertidumbres y por ello tienen una amplia aplicación en los entornos de innovación. Se analizan los usos potenciales de las opciones reales como complemento a los distintos instrumentos identificados en los Programas de Innovación Abierta. La Interacción Entre los Programas de Innovación Abierta, los Impulsores de Creación de Valor y el Proceso de Creación de Valor A modo de conclusión del presente trabajo se puede mencionar que se ha desarrollado un marco general de creación de valor en el entorno de los Programas de Innovación Abierta. Este marco general incluye tres elementos fundamentales. En primer lugar describe los elementos que se encuentran presentes en los Programas de Innovación Abierta, en segundo lugar como estos programas colaboran en la creación de los seis impulsores de creación de valor que se han identificado y finalmente en tercer lugar como estos impulsores impactan sobre la estrategia y la organización de la empresa para dar lugar a la creación de valor de forma sostenida. A través de un Programa de Innovación Abierta, se pueden desarrollar los impulsores de valor para fortalecer la posición estratégica de la empresa y su capacidad de crear de valor. Es lo que denominamos el marco de referencia para la creación de valor en un Programa de Innovación Abierta. Se presentará la idea que los impulsores de creación de valor pueden colaborar en generar una estrategia óptima que permita alcanzar un desempeño financiero superior y lograr creación de valor de la empresa. En resumen, se ha desarrollado un modelo de relación que describe el proceso de creación de valor en la empresa a partir de los Programas de Innovación Abierta. Para ello, se han identificado los impulsores de creación de valor y se ha descripto la interacción entre los distintos elementos del modelo. ABSTRACT In a world of constant, accelerating change innovation is fuel for business. Year after year, innovation allows firms to renew and, therefore, advance their long--‐term survival. Undoubtedly, innovation is a key element for the firms’ ability to create value over time. Companies often devote considerable effort and diverse resources to identify innovation alternatives that could fit into their strategy, culture, corporate goals and ambitions. Open innovation refers to a specific approach to innovate by collaborating with other firms operating within the same business ecosystem.2 The term open innovation was pioneered by Henry Chesbrough more than a decade ago to refer to this particular mode of driving corporate innovation. Open innovation is a new paradigm that has attracted academic and business interest for over a decade. Several cases of open innovation from different countries and from different economic sectors are included and reviewed in this document. The main objective of this study is to explain and develop a relationship model between open innovation and value creation. To this end, and as secondary objectives, we have explored the elements of an Open Innovation Program, the drivers of value creation, the process of value creation and, finally, the interaction between these three elements. As a final product of the research we have developed a general theoretical framework for establishing the connection between open innovation and value creation that facilitates the explanation of the interaction between the two. From the case studies we see that open innovation can encompass all sectors of the economy, multiple geographies and varying businesses – large companies, SMEs, including (even) start--‐ups – each with a different relevance within the ecosystem in which they participate. Elements of an Open Innovation Program We begin by listing and describing below the items that can be found in an Open Innovation Program. Many of such items have been identified through the review of relevant academic literature. Furthermore, in order to achieve a better understanding of Open Innovation, we have classified those aspects into four different categories according to the features they share. § Program Organization. An organizational structure must exist with a degree of interaction between the different members involved in the innovation process. This structure must be able to meet a number of previously established objectives. § Internal Talent. Internal talent plays a key role in the implementation and success of any Open Innovation program. An open innovation culture and leadership skills are essential for adopting either radical or incremental innovation. In fact, leadership is closely linked to organizational behavior and it is essential to promote open innovation. § Infrastructure. This category groups the elements related to the technological infrastructure required to carry out the program, including production processes and daily management tools. § Instruments. Finally, we list the instruments or vehicles used in the corporate environment to implement open innovation. Several instruments are available, such as corporate incubators, licensing agreements or venture capital. There has been a growing and renewed interest in the latter, both in academia and business circles. The use of corporate venture capital to sustain the development of the open innovation strategy brings ability, credibility, and technological support to the process. The combination of elements from these four categories, interacting in a coordinated way, makes it possible to create, enhance and develop value creation drivers that may impact the company’s strategy and organization and affect its financial performance over time. The Drivers of Value Creation After identifying describing and categorizing the different elements present in an Open Innovation Program our research examines the drivers of value creation. These can be defined as elements that enhance or determine the ability to create value in the business environment. As can be seen, these drivers can act as interacting points between the elements of the program and the process of value creation. The study identifies six drivers of value creation that might be found in an Open Innovation Program. § New Products and Services. The more direct and obvious driver of value creation in any Open Innovation Program is the ability to create new products and services. This is directly related to the company’s innovation process. § Access to Adjacent Markets. The innovation process can also serve as a source of value by granting access to adjacent markets through satisfying new needs for existing customers or attracting new customers from other markets. § Availability of Technologies. The availability of technology is in itself a driver for value creation. New technologies can either be complementary and/or can leverage existing technologies within the firm. They can partly transform certain elements of the company’s strategy. § External Talent Strategy. Incorporating an Open Innovation Program offers the opportunity to interact with other organizations operating in the same ecosystem and can therefore attract external skilled resources. Talent mobility is a unique feature of open innovation. § Becoming Part of a Virtuous Circle. The actions carried out in the environment by any of its members will also have a clear impact on value creation for the other participants. Participation in a virtuous ecosystem is thus a driver for value creation in an open innovation strategy. § Inside--‐out Technology. Value creation may also evolve by allowing other firms in the ecosystem to incorporate internally developed under--‐utilized technologies into their own innovation processes. These six drivers that are present in the innovation process can influence the strategy and the organization of the company, increasing its ability to create value. The Value Creation Process Value--‐based management is the management approach that requires aligning the corporate strategy and the organizational design to create value and obtain sustained financial returns (at least, higher returns than its competitors). We describe how the drivers of value creation can enhance corporate advantages by aligning its strategy and organization. During this study, we were able to determine that real options can be used as managing tools in open innovation environments which, by definition, have high uncertainty levels. Real options provide capability for flexible and modular decision--‐making in the business environment. In particular, real options have been designed for uncertainty management and, therefore, they may be widely applied in innovation environments. We analyze potential uses of real options to supplement the various instruments identified in the Open Innovation programs. The Interaction Between Open Innovation Programs, Value Creation drivers and Value Creation Process As a result of this study, we have developed a general framework for value creation in Open Innovation Programs. This framework includes three key elements. We first described the elements that are present in Open Innovation Programs. Next, we showed how these programs can boost six drivers of value creation that have been identified. Finally, we analyzed how the drivers impact on the strategy and organization of the company in order to lead to the creation of sustainable value. Through an Open Innovation Program, value drivers can be developed to strengthen a company’s strategic position and its ability to create value. That is what we call the framework for value creation in the Open Innovation Program. Value drivers can collaborate in generating an optimal strategy that helps foster a superior financial performance and a sustained value creation process. In sum, we have developed a relationship model that describes the process of creating value in a firm with an Open Innovation Program. We have identified the drivers of value creation and described how the different elements of the model interact with each other.

Reengenharia de sistemas na recuperação e modernização de produtos: proposta de um modelo baseado em risco.

Produtos com um tempo considerável de utilização podem ser objeto de um processo de manutenção mais amplo e profundo, que visa prolongar a sua vida útil. O termo recuperação é aplicado a este tipo de manutenção, que visa à substituição de peças defeituosas, desgastadas, e/ou com a vida útil encerrada. O surgimento de novos paradigmas e de um novo conjunto de doutrinas operacionais pode mudar as expectativas e necessidades das partes interessadas de modo que o produto pode ser proposto para uma modernização. Assim, o produto pode ser reengenheirado durante a sua recuperação. Para realizar um projeto de recuperação e modernização, propõe-se uma abordagem em seis passos centrada numa decisão baseada no risco para classificar os componentes de acordo com a ação a ser realizada. A análise do produto é desenvolvida com base em técnicas de desmontagem e uma análise da fase operacional é realizada para as tomadas de decisões. Deste modo, um componente pode sofrer manutenção, ser modernizado, ser excluído, ser inserido ou permanecer fora do escopo dos trabalhos. O processo da gestão baseada em risco também inclui duas fases de monitoramento de risco continuado: durante a produção e na fase de operação. As decisões podem ser revistas pelo uso da análise bayesiana. Um estudo de caso é proposto para ilustrar o modelo num programa de recuperação e modernização de veículos blindados realizada numa unidade do Exército Brasileiro. A aplicação da metodologia permitiu a seleção de uma alternativa de modernização, considerando riscos e benefícios. O desdobramento das análises no projeto detalhado permitiu a definição final do escopo de recuperação e modernização, observando efeitos de propagação de alterações de engenharia. A principal contribuição deste trabalho é a formalização de um estudo da recuperação e modernização como projeto específico, descrevendo suas características de uma forma a permitir a aplicação de um modelo baseado em risco.

Online Personal Data Processing and EU Data Protection Reform. CEPS Task Force Report, April 2013

This report sheds light on the fundamental questions and underlying tensions between current policy objectives, compliance strategies and global trends in online personal data processing, assessing the existing and future framework in terms of effective regulation and public policy. Based on the discussions among the members of the CEPS Digital Forum and independent research carried out by the rapporteurs, policy conclusions are derived with the aim of making EU data protection policy more fit for purpose in today’s online technological context. This report constructively engages with the EU data protection framework, but does not provide a textual analysis of the EU data protection reform proposal as such.

An Assessment of the Penalties System for Infringements of EU Competition Law: Can Personal Sanctions be the Missing Piece of the Puzzle? IES WORKING PAPER 6/2013

Competition law seeks to protect competition on the market as a means of enhancing consumer welfare and of ensuring an efficient allocation of resources. In order to be successful, therefore, competition authorities should be adequately equipped and have at their disposal all necessary enforcement tools. However, at the EU level the current enforcement system of competition rules allows only for the imposition of administrative fines by the European Commission to liable undertakings. The main objectives, in turn, of an enforcement policy based on financial penalties are two fold: to impose sanctions on infringing undertakings which reflect the seriousness of the violation, and to ensure that the risk of penalties will deter both the infringing undertakings (often referred to as 'specific deterrence') and other undertakings that may be considering anti-competitive activities from engaging in them (often referred to as 'general deterrence'). In all circumstances, it is important to ensure that pecuniary sanctions imposed on infringing undertakings are proportionate and not excessive. Although pecuniary sanctions against infringing undertakings are a crucial part of the arsenal needed to deter competition law violations, they may not be sufficient. One alternative option in that regard is the strategic use of sanctions against the individuals involved in, or responsible for, the infringements. Sanctions against individuals are documented to focus the minds of directors and employees to comply with competition rules as they themselves, in addition to the undertakings in which they are employed, are at risk of infringements. Individual criminal penalties, including custodial sanctions, have been in fact adopted by almost half of the EU Member States. This is a powerful tool but is also limited in scope and hard to implement in practice mostly due to the high standards of proof required and the political consensus that needs first to be built. Administrative sanctions for individuals, on the other hand, promise to deliver up to a certain extent the same beneficial results as criminal sanctions whilst at the same time their adoption is not likely to meet strong opposition and their implementation in practice can be both efficient and effective. Directors’ disqualification, in particular, provides a strong individual incentive for each member, or prospective member, of the Board as well as other senior executives, to take compliance with competition law seriously. It is a flexible and promising tool that if added to the arsenal of the European Commission could bring balance to the current sanctioning system and that, in turn, would in all likelihood make the enforcement of EU competition rules more effective. Therefore, it is submitted that a competition law regime in order to be effective should be able to deliver policy objectives through a variety of tools, not simply by imposing significant pecuniary sanctions to infringing undertakings. It is also clear that individual sanctions, mostly of an administrative nature, are likely to play an increasingly important role as they focus the minds of those in business who might otherwise be inclined to regard infringing the law as a matter of corporate risk rather than of personal risk. At the EU level, in particular, the adoption of directors’ disqualification promises to deliver more effective compliance and greater overall economic impact.