Testing for Market Power in Multiple-Input, Multiple-Output Industries: The Australian Grains and Oilseeds Industries

Recent empirical studies have found significant evidence of departures from competition in the input side of the Australian bread, breakfast cereal and margarine end-product markets. For example, Griffith (2000) found that firms in some parts of the processing and marketing sector exerted market power when purchasing grains and oilseeds from farmers. As noted at the time, this result accorded well with the views of previous regulatory authorities (p.358). In the mid-1990s, the Prices Surveillence Authority (PSA 1994) determined that the markets for products contained in the Breakfast Cereals and Cooking Oils and Fats indexes were "not effectively competitive" (p.14). The PSA consequently maintained price surveillence on the major firms in this product group. The Griffith result is also consistent with the large number of legal judgements against firms in this sector over the past decade for price fixing or other types of non-competitive behaviour. For example, bread manufacturer George Weston was fined twice during 2000 for non-competitive conduct and the ACCC has also recently pursued and won cases against retailer Safeway in grains and oilseeds product lines.

International market selection: Developing a model from Australian case studies

This paper develops a theory that firms seek out new country markets on the basis of expected commercial returns. These expectations depend on judgements about the attractiveness of the market and the firm's competitive position in it, which in turn are influenced by informants. It is the number and strengths of these informants that will underlie the probability of a country being identified and assessed as a new market by any firm.

Granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)-primed allogeneic bone marrow: significantly less graft-versus-host disease and comparable engraftment to G-CSF-mobilized peripheral blood stem cells

Prospective studies have shown rapid engraftment using granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor-mobilized peripheral blood stem cells (G-PBSCs) for allogeneic transplantation, though the risks for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) may be increased. It was hypothesized that the use of G-CSF to prime bone marrow (GBM) would allow rapid engraftment without increased risk for GVHD compared with G-PBSC. Patients were randomized to receive G-BM or G-PBSCs for allogeneic stem cell transplantation. The study was designed (beta < .8) to detect a difference in the incidence of chronic GVHD of 33% ( < .05). The plan was to recruit 100 patients and to conduct an interim analysis when the 6-month follow-up point was reached for the first 50 patients. Fifty-seven consecutive patients were recruited (G-BM, n = 28; G-PBSC, n = 29). Patients in the G-PBSC group received 3-fold more CD34(+) and 9-fold more CD3(+) cells. Median times to neutrophil (G-BM, 16 days; G-PBSC, 14 days; P < .1) and platelet engraftment (G-BM, 14 days; G-PBSC, 12 days; P < .1) were similar. The use of G-PBSC was associated with steroid refractory acute GVHD (G-BM, 0%; G-PBSC, 32%; P < .001), chronic GVHD (G-BM, 22%; G-PBSC, 80%; P < .02), and prolonged requirement for immunosuppressive therapy (G-BM, 173 days; G-PBSC, 680 days; P < .009). Survival was similar for the 2 groups. Compared with G-PBSC the use of G-BM resulted in comparable engraftment, reduced severity of acute GVHD, and less subsequent chronic GVHD. (Blood. 2001;98:3186-3191) (C) 2001 by The American Society of Hematology.

Contingent attentional capture or delayed allocation of attention?

Under certain circumstances, external stimuli will elicit an involuntary shift of spatial attention, referred to as attentional capture. According to the contingent involuntary orienting account (Folk, Remington, & Johnston, 1992), capture is conditioned by top-down factors that set attention to respond involuntarily to stimulus properties relevant to one's behavioral goals. Evidence for this comes from spatial cuing studies showing that a spatial cuing effect is observed only when cues have goal-relevant properties. Here, we examine alternative, decision-level explanations of the spatial cuing effect that attribute evidence of capture to postpresentation delays in the voluntary allocation of attention, rather than to on-line involuntary shifts in direct response to the cue. In three spatial cuing experiments, delayed-allocation accounts were tested by examining whether items at the cued location were preferentially processed. The experiments provide evidence that costs and benefits in spatial cuing experiments do reflect the on-line capture of attention. The implications of these results for models of attentional control are discussed.