|
COG
|
EFES Discussion |
|||||||||
| |
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: EFES: Answer to Shann Turnbull
Yes, and on this base CECOP could join 100% the excellent FEAS opinion (if you agree) -----Message d'origine----- De : David Erdal [mailto:david@erdal.net] Envoy : mardi 23 octobre 2001 11:06 : efes@cog.kent.edu Objet : RE: EFES: Answer to Shann Turnbull Marc and Rainer This is an important point. If employee share ownership is not to be a relatively short-lived phenomenon, then there has to be a sustainable internal market for employees' shares. If the employee holding is significant and all the shares are held individually, then the internal market cannot be kept liquid - it takes too much cash.This is what led to the collapse of employee shareholding at National Freight, for example. The solution lies in making a large part of the employee holding COLLECTIVE. In the UK this is achieved through a trust. The really successful very long-lived employee owned companies (John Lewis, Ove Arup, Scott Bader) are in fact owned 100% by trusts for their employees. The co-operative is another way of achieving the same effect: the ownership does not need to be re-financed. In Poptel, for example, the operating company is owned 51% by a co-operative of which all the employees are members. This has allowed them to sell 49% of the company to venture capitalists to enable them to develop and launch '.coop' as a top level domain name on the internet. So the measures in the EU need to include support for COLLECTIVE holdings, whether through a trust, or a co-operative, or other things - an institute, or a charity etc. yours David >Dear Marc, >I agree 100% with you on the positive link between financial >participation and participative management. We need to insist on >this aspect. Just one remark, are we sure that the concept employee >share ownership covers co-operative forms of ownership ? If not, >wouldn't it be better and broader to speak about employee ownership >in general? >Rainer Schlter > >-----Message d'origine----- >De : Marc Mathieu [mailto:marc.mathieu@pi.be] >Envoy : lundi 22 octobre 2001 17:18 > : efes@cog.kent.edu >Objet : Re: EFES: Answer to Shann Turnbull > >Dear Shann, > >Thank you very much for your contribution. I think that we agree >with you on "participation". > >We had a deep discussion in EFES in 1999: should we support just >"financial participation" or participation as a whole. We chose >"participation" as a whole. We are not an association for financial >participation but well for "employee ownership and participation". >If you look back to the preamble to our statutes, I think this is >deeply explained (see the page "mission" on the web site). > >Now in the draft opinion for the consultation organized by the >European Commission", we write. >Would you please read it again and let me know if something should be added: > > "EFES thinks that it is employee share ownership and participation > which should be the subject of a Community initiative, rather than >"financial participation". >The concept of financial participation is too general: many studies, >among which some supported by the Commission or the Dublin >Foundation, have shown that financial participation can have all its >social and economic benefits only if it is associated with a >participative management. It is thus necessary to speak, as EFES >suggests, of employee share ownership and participation, rather than >of financial participation. >This difference is very significant. Indeed, the concept of >"financial participation" had its originality and its relevance at >the end of the 80's. Since then however, practices and research >have shown that the concept of financial participation, covering >even contradictory multiple practices, is now largely obsolete. >Indeed, the concept of financial participation used by the >Commission covers three categories of practices: > profit-sharing; > employee share ownership; > stock options. >Research shows that employee share ownership and participation have >a positive impact on productivity, on economic and social dynamics >in general and on the volume of activity and employment: > When all-employees share ownership schemes are >connected to participative management, the impact is particularly >positive. > When share ownership does not include all >employees, but is targeted at certain categories only (as is often >the case in stock options schemes), the impact is positive but by >far lower than the preceding case. > Lastly, profit-sharing has little impact, or >even a negative one. >Consequently, the conclusion should be drawn: one cannot any more, >as at the end of the 80's, to include in the same plan these various >or contradictory practices. >It is indeed "employee share ownership and participation" which >should be the purpose of a specific support, rather than the former >obsolete concept of "financial participation". This difference was >already the subject of several deepened debates, in particular >within the framework of the European Workshop of April 1999. >In addition, the working paper of the Commission staff understates >the effects of employee share ownership, when it states that >"employee share ownership provides for employee participation in >enterprise results in an indirect way, i.e. on the basis of >participation in ownership, either by receiving dividends or the >appreciation of employee-owned capital after the selling of the >shares... ". >Here still, the practice differed from concepts of the late 80's. >Employee share ownership has been shown to be effective and >significant, not only as participation in the financial results, but >especially as a factor of commitment in ownership, motivation, >company decision and management. This is also why the connection >with participative forms of management has been shown to be a key >element. >Let us repeat, it is the combination of employee share ownership and >participation which has proved particularly beneficial. It is that >which the Community actions should encourage. >We observed on this point a great convergence between our >organizations of employee share ownership and the analysis made by >trade unions." >Best regards >Marc > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: <mailto:sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu>Shann Turnbull >To: <mailto:efes@cog.kent.edu>efes@cog.kent.edu >Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 3:10 PM >Subject: Re: EFES: EFES DRAFT OPINION ON EC CONSULTATION ON >FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION > >Marc > >Your report is to the point and hard hitting as other have commented >upon. However, I am concerned that it often uses the word >"participation" without explaining that this applies to management >and/or control and not just to finance or ownership. > >You clearly make the important distinction between financial >participation and employee ownership but do not consistently make >the equally important need to associate ownership with control >and/or management. > >This problem is shared by the COG mission statement which ignores >the need to spread control with ownership. > >Australia has a wider spread of share ownership than any other >country but control is getting more highly concentrate in management >through the use of share trusts and by pension funds being centrally >managed. So spreading ownership can be counter productive unless >control is also distributed. This is the subject of some of my >articles. The most relevant is Reforming capitalism with worker >owners ><http://cog.kent.edu/lib/Turnbull-ReformingCapitalismWithWorkerOwners.htm> >This points out that workers become second class citizens with >ownership is spread through share trusts like they are force to be >in the UK. > >Best regards > >Shann > > >At 06:04 AM 20/10/2001, you wrote: > >>Here our draft opinion on the European Commission staff >>consultation on employee financial participation: >> >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> >>DRAFT >>October 19, 2001 >> >> >>OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN FEDERATION OF EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP >>on the COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER >>on " Financial participation of employees in the European Union " >>(Document SEC(2001)1308 of the 26.7.2001) >> >> >> >>Synopsis: >>1. About EFES >>2. EFES⤁ opinion - synthesis >>3. Method and collected opinions >>4. Employee share ownership and participation, key elements of a >>European strategy for employment >>5. The concept of financial participation is obsolete; it is >>advisable to substitute for it employee share ownership and >>participation >>6. The program of the European Commission >>7. An adequate funding >>8. To set up a "permanent working party" and a European >>institute for employee share ownership and participation >>9. Conclusion >> >>1. ABOUT EFES >>EFES " the European Federation of Employee Share Ownership was >>constituted following the decision taken in May 1998 in Brussels, >>by a conference which brought together 250 participants from 28 >>countries. The Federation was quickly organized, under the statute >>of a not-for-profit international organization approved by the >>Belgian Government. >>EFES⤁ objective is to act as the umbrella organization of >>employee owners and all persons, companies, trade unions, experts, >>researchers, institutions looking to promote employee share >>ownership and participation in Europe. >>This ambition is being carried out. EFES counts members in the >>majority of the European countries, as well in the European Union >>as in the candidate countries. Among the members of EFES, there >>are individuals, companies, associations, trade unions, experts, >>researchers and national federations. The Board of Directors of >>EFES counts 22 representatives of 14 countries, and its Executive >>Office 7 people, who meet monthly. >>⤦/⤦ >> >> >>2. EFES⤁ OPINION - SYNTHESIS >>In substance, EFES⤁ opinion is as follows: >>Yes, the European Commission should plan for a Community initiative >>aiming on employee share ownership and participation. >>We speak well about "employee share ownership and participation", >>rather than of "financial participation". This distinction is >>significant. Indeed, the concept of "financial participation" had >>its originality and its relevance at the end of the years ' 80. >>Since then, the practices and research showed that it is now >>largely obsolete. Among the practices gathered under the concept >>of "financial participation", some appeared beneficial and the >>other negative ones. The practices of employee share ownership >>joined to participative management were characterized by their >>positive impact on economic and social dynamics. >>Actions should be taken in the European Union, and also in the >>candidate countries. >>It is necessary to lay down general principles at European level to >>encourage greater and more efficient recourse to employee share >>ownership and participation schemes. >>The general principles and the actions which the Commission should >>include in its next Communication and its Action Plan are those >>defined in the "European Action Programme" of the European >>Federation of Employee Share Ownership. >>This programme is based on the Resolution of the European >>Parliament of January 1998 and it was written in conclusion of a >>workshop which had joined together, within the European Parliament >>in Brussels, the whole European institutions, as well as the social >>partners and the organizations of employee share ownership. >>This action programme awaits the European Commission particularly: >>· to set up a permanent working party; >>· to implement a programme with an adequate funding; >>· to set up a European institute for employee share ownership >>and participation. >>This action programme is joined in its entirety to the present >>opinion, of which it forms integral part. >> >>3. METHOD AND COLLECTED OPINIONS >>To prepare its opinion, EFES met and consulted a broad range of >>people and organizations: representatives of governments, members >>of the European Parliament, trade-union representatives at European >>level, employers⤁ organizations, organizations promoting employee >>share ownership, etc. >>EFES also organized a web forum on the topic of the consultation >>organized by the Commission. Some characteristic collected >>opinions are reproduced in appendix. >>The reactions which we collected from a broad range of actors have >>the same general tonality: >>One can only be delighted by the will affirmed by the Commission >>staff "to relaunch the debate on financial participation at >>European level, associating all the players concerned". >>There are many positive aspects in the document, but one omission >>in the general principles and a glaring lack of proposals for >>action. >>The good points are: >>The Commission staff precisely affirms the preference for all >>employee schemes. >>The Commission staff highlight the fact that financial >>participation boosts productivity. This is the argument with the >>widest appeal, as productivity is associated with competitiveness, >>profitability and higher salaries and/or more leisure time. >>The Commission staff shows that financial participation is being >>recognized widely as important. >>The Commission staff also shows why it is necessary to take >>initiatives at the European level, not just the national level. >>This is important. >>The general principles stated by the Commission staff contain a >>major omission. Indeed, many studies show conclusively that >>financial participation only really works strongly when it is >>situated in a regime of participative management. The document >>emphasises clarity and transparency, which are aspects of >>communication by managers, but not involvement and consultation of >>employees in the management process of the business. >>However with this argument we can win over trade union support, >>which is generally lacking, and which is necessary if we are to >>make progress in Europe in this field. >>At side of the positive aspects, in a general way, the reactions >>and the comments express perplexity as for the intentions and the >>steps taken by the Commission, impression of an unexplainable >>timidity, disappointment, this one expressing itself sometimes even >>on a sharp tone (cf opinion reproduced in appendix: "consultation >>or funeral?⤝) >>Within the European Federation of Employee Share Ownership itself, >>the impression which prevails is that of a disappointment compared >>to the past action of the Commission and waiting of a firmer and >>stronger action in the future. >>Indeed, EFES observes that the Summit of Lisbon put the point at >>the European social agenda. EFES meets a listening and growing >>support from the governments. As regards the European Parliament >>also, the supports for employee share ownership and participation >>were strengthened. From the European Commission too, a better >>support is awaited. >>Among the questions and the reactions collected, let us note particularly: >>Why to have awaited the 1st of August to launch this consultation? >>A worse date would be difficult, on full holiday. Why such a short >>deadline for reply (until October 30). All that discourages rather >>the reactions and hinder a real consultation. Furthermore, you >>don⤁t see, in the document, which could have prevented from >>diffusing it 6 months or even a year before. >>Of the Resolution of the European Parliament of January 1998, the >>working paper of the Commission staff retains only a general >>sentence, observing that "⤦the Parliament... made a number of >>calls on the Commission... It requested the Commission in >>particular to promote the exchange of information and best practice >>at transnational level, to study the impact of financial >>participation schemes on employment and wage flexibility, and >>develop pilot projects for financial participation in public >>undertakings in the CEECs in connection with privatisation". >>However, the Parliament⤁s Resolution addressed to the Commission >>a whole of concrete, precise, practical requests. Not only these >>requests were not met by the Commission since 1998, but the >>document of consultation of the Commission omits them. >>Lastly, it is strange that the document of consultation does not >>make mention anywhere of trade-unions. Difficult to understand such >>main omission. >> >> >>4. EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP AND PARTICIPATION, KEY ELEMENTS OF A >>EUROPEAN STRATEGY FOR EMPLOYMENT >>Employee share ownership and participation should be in good place >>in a European strategy for employment. It is still not the case. >>There is an awakening which yet did not gain the political decision >>makers. >>Indeed the development of employee share ownership and >>participation positively influences economic and social dynamics >>and employment. This is not negligible, since it is estimated at >>1% a year additional growth of the GDP. In terms of employment in >>Europe, that potentially represents million additional jobs after a >>few years. >>In the document of consultation of the Commission, this factor is >>precisely highlighted (pages 8 and 9). >>In the opinion of EFES, this is a key point of the question. >>Much remains to be made to carry the conviction of governments and >>European decision makers in this direction. The document of the >>Commission indicates rightly that the general principles set forth >>in the PEPPER Reports have not been adequately incorporated into >>national policies. >>However, during these last years, EFES developed its relations with >>many governments and those show more and more their interest for >>employee share ownership and participation. >>In Belgium, the Belgian section of EFES was, at the sides of the >>Belgian Government, an active craftsman of a step which appears >>exemplary to us. Indeed, under the terms of a dialogue which fully >>associated the social partners, a good new legislation was adopted, >>directly inspired by PEPPER principles. >>With the support of the Belgian Presidency of the European Union, >>EFES organizes an international conference on November 23 2001 in >>Brussels. The aim is to encourage the European Union and the >>European States to promote employee share ownership and >>participation. >>We hope well that the European Commission will join the >>organization and the holding of this event. >> >> >>5. THE CONCEPT OF FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION IS OBSOLETE; IT IS >>ADVISABLE TO SUBSTITUTE FOR IT EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP AND >>PARTICIPATION >>EFES thinks that it is employee share ownership and participation >>which should be the subject of a Community initiative, rather than >>"financial participation". >>The concept of financial participation is too general: many >>studies, among which some supported by the Commission or the Dublin >>Foundation, showed that financial participation can have all its >>social and economic benefits only if it is associated with a >>participative management. It is thus necessary to speak, as EFES >>suggests, of employee share ownership and participation, rather >>than of financial participation. >>This difference is very significant. Indeed, the concept of >>"financial participation" had its originality and its relevance at >>the end of the years '80. Since then however, the practices and >>research showed that the concept of financial participation, >>covering even contradictory multiple practices, is now largely >>obsolete. >>Indeed, the concept of financial participation used by the >>Commission covers three categories of practices: >>· profit-sharing; >>· employee share ownership; >>· stock options. >>Among the practices covered by the concept of "financial >>participation", some appeared beneficial and the other negative >>ones. The practices of employee share ownership joined to >>participative management were characterized by their positive >>impact on the productivity and economic and social dynamics. >>Research show that employee share ownership and participation have >>positive impact on productivity, on economic and social dynamics in >>general and on the volume of activity and employment: >>· When all employees share ownership schemes are >>connected to participative management, the impact is particularly >>positive. >>· When share ownership are not all employees >>schemes, but targeted at certain categories only (as it is often >>the case in stock options schemes), the impact is positive but by >>far lower than the preceding case. >>· Lastly, profit-sharing has little impact, or >>even a negative one. >>Consequently, the conclusion should be drawn: one cannot any more, >>as at the end of the years '80, to put on the same plan these >>various or contradictory practices. >>It is well "employee share ownership and participation" which >>should be the purpose of a specific support, rather than the former >>obsolete concept of "financial participation". This difference was >>already the subject of several deepened debates, in particular >>within the framework of the European Workshop of April 1999. >>In addition, the working paper of the Commission staff is, on the >>point of employee share ownership, exaggeratedly reducing, when it >>states that "employee share ownership provides for employee >>participation in enterprise results in an indirect way, i.e. on the >>basis of participation in ownership, either by receiving dividends >>or the appreciation of employee-owned capital after the selling of >>the shares... ". >>Here still, the practice differed with concepts of the late years >>'80. Employee share ownership appeared effective and significant, >>not only as participation in the results, but especially as a >>factor of commitment in ownership, motivation, company decision and >>management. This is also why also, the connection with >>participative forms of management appeared to be a key element. >>Let us repeat it, it is the combination of employee share ownership >>and participation which proved particularly beneficial. It is that >>which the Community actions should encourage. >>We observed on this point a great convergence between our >>organizations of employee share ownership and the analysis made by >>trade unions. >> >> >>6. THE PROGRAM OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION >>In its Resolution of January 1998, the European Parliament >>requested from the Commission "an adequately financed programme". >>That the actions of the Commission answer a programme, appears >>indeed to us a significant condition of transparency and >>effectiveness. >>It also appears very significant to us that the results of the >>actions taken or supported by the Commission would be published and >>made available. >>The Commission precisely stresses through its various actions the >>importance of the exchanges of information in Europe. It would be >>desirable that the Commission itself takes fully part in these >>exchanges and supports the communication between the actors. The >>Commission herself has information which should be accessible to >>these actors, in particular on the studies, conferences and other >>initiatives that she finances or causes, including through the >>European Foundation for the improvement of the living and working >>conditions. >>The purpose of this communication and this information on behalf of >>the Commission on financed actions, will be in particular: >>· To support the exchanges and co-operation between >>actors, carrying projects. >>· To establish criteria and righter, equitable and >>transparent procedures of selection. >>· To support the complementarity of projects. >>In addition, in practice, the Commission finances currently only >>conferences, whereas the budgetary heading B3-4000 intended to >>finance actions aiming at the promotion of financial participation >>speaks " to support actions of promotion of good examples and >>networks as well as studies and measures of occupational >>qualification ". >>The means are not adequate, but also, the Commission did not >>propose a true program. This one should support: >>· Research, studies, surveys, analyses. >>· Training (this concept being much broader than that of >>"measures of occupational qualification"). >>· Conferences, seminars, meetings (as it is currently the case). >>· Actions of information and communication supplementing >>what precedes: publications, periodicals, web sites, reports and >>any action intended to disseminate the results of the studies and >>surveys and to make known by the public and the actors various >>aspects of employee share ownership and participation in Europe >>(stakes, obstacles, experiments and practices...) >>· Web portals, catalogues... allowing to have an overall >>picture of the state of research and current debates, not only in >>the EU, but also in other countries. Currently, it the web portal >>opened by EFES (www.efesonline.org ) which answers this function >>best, but with too limited means. >> >> >>7. AN ADEQUATE FUNDING >>It appears significant to us that a policy of promotion of employee >>share ownership and participation should have a well dedicated >>budgetary heading. >>It is in this direction that the European Parliament in its >>Resolution of January 1998 went, by requesting from the Commission >>an adequate financing. >>When EFES was constituted, the first PEPPER Report went already >>back to some 10 years and many participants were astonished to note >>that the Commission still did not have dedicated budgetary means. >>How indeed could we speak about policy or actions, if no means are >>implemented to? >>After the Resolution of the European Parliament of January 1998 and >>after the European Workshop organized by EFES at the European >>Parliament in April 1999 (workshop in which took part the >>Commission), one was still more astonished to see that no >>initiative seemed to be taken to assign means to the budget 1999. >>The astonishment was even larger, seeing the draft budget 2000, >>which did not provide for anything either. Fortunately, EFES could >>discuss with a number of Members of the Parliament, and the draft >>budget was amended, by dedicating a share from the B3-4000 line >>"social dialogue" to assign it to the promotion of financial >>participation (and the situation reproduced for budgets 2001 and >>2002, since again, no initiative came from the Commission). >>Force is to note that the assignment of a fraction of the B3-4000 >>line to financial participation is a lame solution, which still >>does not give the "adequate⤝ financing for a program aiming at >>the promotion of employee share ownership and participation. >>Indeed, to reduce the promotion of employee share ownership and >>participation in a simple facet of social dialogue is exaggeratedly >>reducing. >>Secondly, to put actions promoting employee share ownership out of >>balance with the promotion of social dialogue, it is to cause >>arbitrations which do not take place to be. >>Lastly, it is still not to recognize the promotion of employee >>share ownership and participation its specific value. >> >>8. TO SET UP A "PERMANENT WORKING PARTY" AND A EUROPEAN INSTITUTE >>FOR EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP AND PARTICIPATION >>The points exposed here are still in the wire of the Resolution of >>the European Parliament of January 1998 and the European Action >>Programme of EFES, namely: >>To develop indeed actions or a policy, one needs not only "an >>adequately financed programme", as the Parliament asked. It is >>also necessary to indicate bodies of execution and persons in >>charge. Without that, nothing organized will be done and, at best, >>things will remain in state. >>To take in hands the execution of a Community action or a policy, >>the European Parliament suggested the setting-up of a "permanent >>working party" associating all main interested parties: >>representatives of both sides of industry, of employee share >>ownership organizations, Members of the European Parliament and >>Commission experts. >>In the prolongation of this working party, what is wished is the >>installation of a European institute for the promotion of employee >>share ownership and participation. >>At the time of the European Workshop of April 1999, all interested >>parties decided for the creation of such a working party (except >>the notable exception of the Commission representatives, who gave a >>report on hesitations). >>In fact, the Parliament⤁s Resolution did not receive any >>continuation and the defect of body of execution explains certainly >>to a great extent, trampling observed these last years. >> >> >>9. CONCLUSION - EFES⤁ OPINION >>As a conclusion, EFES⤁ opinion is as follows: >>1. Yes, the European Commission should plan for a Community >>initiative aiming on employee share ownership and participation. >>We speak well about "employee share ownership and participation", >>rather than of "financial participation. Among the practices >>gathered under the concept of "financial participation", some >>appeared beneficial and the other negative ones. The practices of >>employee share ownership joined to participative management were >>characterized by their positive impact on economic and social >>dynamics. >>2. Yes, actions should be taken in the European Union, and also in >>the candidate countries. >>3. Yes, it is necessary to lay down general principles at European >>level to encourage greater and more efficient recourse to employee >>share ownership and participation schemes. >>4. The general principles and the actions which the Commission >>should include in its next Communication and its Action Plan are >>those defined in the "European Action Programme" of the European >>Federation of Employee Share Ownership. >>This programme is based on the Resolution of the European >>Parliament of January 1998 and it was written in conclusion of a >>workshop which had joined together, within the European Parliament >>in Brussels, the whole European institutions, as well as the social >>partners and the organizations of employee share ownership. >>5. This action programme awaits the European Commission particularly: >>· to set up a permanent working party; >>· to implement a programme with an adequate funding; >>· to set up a European institute for employee share ownership >>and participation. >>This action programme is joined in its entirety to the present >>opinion, of which it forms integral part. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>For EFES, >>Marc Mathieu >>Secretary General >> >> >> >> >> >>In appendix : >>Appendix 1: « European Action Programme » of EFES, adopted as the >>conclusion of the European Workshop of 30 April 1999 at the >>European Parliament in Brussels ; the programme gives an appendix >>reproducing the Resolution of the European Parliament of January >>1998 and other reference documents. >>Appendix 2: Some typical opinions collected through the forum on the web. >> >> >> >> >>Marc Mathieu >>Secretary General >>EFES - EUROPEAN FEDERATION OF EMPLOYEE SHAREOWNERSHIP >>FEAS - FEDERATION EUROPEENNE DE L'ACTIONNARIAT SALARIE >>Avenue Voltaire 135, B-1030 Brussels >>Tel/fax: +32 (0)2 242 64 30 >>E-mail: <mailto:marc.mathieu@ping.be>marc.mathieu@ping.be >>See our web site: <http://www.efesonline.org>http://www.efesonline.org >>EFES' objective is to act as the umbrella organization of employee >>owners and all persons, companies, trade unions, experts, >>researchers, institutions looking to promote employee ownership and >>participation in Europe. >> > >Shann Turnbull Ph.D. >P.O. Box 266 Woollahra, Sydney, Australia, 1350 >Ph: +612 9328 7466 office; +612 9327 8487 home; Fax: +612 9327 1497; >Life long E-mail: sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu >Alternate:sturnbull@optusnet.com.au >http://members.optusnet.com.au/~sturnbull/index.html >Papers at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=26239 >with other papers & book at http://cog.kent.edu/library.html -- Baxi Partnership Ltd West Court, Hepburn Gardens, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9LN tel 01334 479 101 mobile 07884 188 364 fax 01334 473 129 email david@erdal.net
|